1991-06-14

Hon. Perrin Beatty (for Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)) moved: that Bill C-10, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have a chance to speak on this important piece of legislation which will implement the budget measures which increase the excise taxes and duties on tobacco products.
All members of the House are aware of the vital link between deficit reduction and economic recovery, and there is no question that these changes in tobacco taxation will have a very beneficial effect on our efforts to get Canada's public finances under control. I want to stress the fact that the reason for making these changes was not essentially to raise taxes or to generate more revenues; it was because of the fact that each year some
35,000	Canadians die as a result of tobacco related illness.
This is an issue that should be of concern to every Canadian. The tax measures themselves will raise additional revenues of $1.4 billion in the 1991-92 fiscal year, declining progressively to $980 million by 1994-95. It is clear that in the language of dollars and cents this initiative makes good sense, but I believe the case for this bill is made in a far more eloquent way when we look at its likely effects on the health of Canadians.
One thing that became abundantly clear to me in my two years as Minister of National Health and Welfare is the inexorable link between tax policy and the reduction of tobacco use. The facts speak for themselves: we brought forward a significant increase in tobacco taxation in the 1989 budget. We combined this action with extensive health promotion programs, a law to end tobacco promotion and regulations requiring health messages on tobacco packages. It was a potent recipe for success.
The result was that in 1989 we saw an incredible 8 per cent drop in per capita tobacco consumption, the largest in history. It is a question of some pride for Canadians that over the last two years, successively, this country has led the world in reducing the use of tobacco. The effect of this is that it will help us to bring down our medical costs in Canada. More important, it will help us dramatically in terms of keeping alive thousands of Canadians who would otherwise have been lost to cruel diseases caused by tobacco.
In terms of taxation, the formula is very simple: when cigarettes are less affordable they are less attractive, especially to our children. Based on previous tobacco consumption trends and estimated deaths from tobacco use, it is likely that this bill will save up to 125,000 young people from becoming hooked on tobacco, meaning at least 35,000 fewer deaths among this age group alone.
If the numbers are hard to understand, imagine an airline passenger jet crashing every second day, or to put it another way, imagine the entire population of a city the size of Cornwall being wiped out each and every year. If these deaths were taking place in that way there would be headline news, not just around Canada but around the world. Because of the nature of the deaths caused by tobacco, it tends to be something that is private, not seen by everybody, personal and individual, the silent mortality that takes place year after year, the tragic waste of human lives, the immense human suffering, both for those who are afflicted by the disease itself and for the survivors who have to manage without their loved ones, often go unnoticed by the rest of us.

Government Orders
It is time that we as a people and as a society begin taking stock of the tremendous cost that tobacco use inflicts upon our population. It is particularly important to those of us who believe that the most important thing we can do for our children is to give them a society in which their health comes first. It is surely time for us today to take this measure to do what we can to reduce tobacco use and to help to save lives in Canada.
To return to the financial realm, consider that each year diseases caused by smoking, such as cancer and heart disease, cost our health care system untold billions of dollars, to say nothing of the lost productivity and the incredible heartache for the families involved.
Let us take a few minutes to look at the mechanics of the legislation. The bill provides for an increase in the excise tax on cigarettes by 3 cents a cigarette, or $6 a carton, as well as a proportionate increase in the excise levies on other tobacco products. This means that the excise tax on manufactured tobacco, which includes loose, fine cut tobacco, will increase by $4.08 per 200 gram container. The ad valorem excise tax on cigars will be raised from 40 to 65 per cent. These tax increases were effective on February 27, 1991.
The bill also addresses concerns about the unequal tax burden on loose tobacco for traditional roll-your-own cigarettes and preportioned tobacco sticks. Prior to the budget, tobacco sticks were taxed as a fine cut product on the basis of weight. However, because tobacco sticks generally weigh less than roll-your-own cigarettes, they were generally less heavily taxed on a per cigarette basis.
Tobacco sticks will now be taxed on a per unit basis, and the excise tax and duty will equalize those on other fine cut products at approximately two-thirds of the rate on fully manufactured cigarettes. Since the excise levies on tobacco products are imposed at the manufacturers' level, the higher tax rates announced in the budget would apply only to tobacco products sold by manufacturers after February 26.
To ensure that the tax increases are applied in a consistent manner at different trade levels, the excise tax increases proposed in the budget will apply to wholesalers' and retailers' inventories held at the time the new rates took effect. To simplify compliance for small and
medium sized retailers, the tax will not apply to the first
1,000	cartons of cigarettes or the equivalent volume of tobacco products held in inventory in retail outlets on budget day.
Consistent with the treatment of remittances of income taxes, this bill also imposes interest on any delay in payment of the increases in excise taxes and duties on tobacco products beyond the time within which existing levies are normally remitted, as well as on late or deficient instalments of the tax on tobacco inventories. Imposing interest on delayed payments will ensure that taxpayers voluntarily remit the tax increases announced in the budget, and that those who withhold payment until the tax increases are enacted are treated equally.
This bill is an important part of the government's plan to ensure that Canada's economy is soundly run, but as I mentioned, it is an even more important element of our strategy to reduce the consumption of tobacco in Canada. In both areas, we have a chance to do an enormous amount of good in ensuring the health and prosperity of our children.
By bringing our nation's finances under control, we can ensure that our children have access to the same programs and prosperity that most of us have enjoyed throughout our lives. By ensuring that our children are Canada's first smoke-free generation, we will bequeath them a far healthier society than the one which we inherited. In this latter field, I believe that we have made encouraging progress. It is clear, however, that much work remains to be done. This bill, with its measures to make tobacco less affordable for our children, is an important step in that direction.
Let me simply conclude by saying to the House that in whatever time any of us have to serve as members of Parliament in this institution, the most important contribution we can make to our country is to take measures which markedly improve the health and the longevity of our citizenry.
This is an opportunity for all members of Parliament to speak with one voice to help ensure that Canadians live healthier and longer lives. This is an opportunity that each of us has, on either side of this House, to do what we can to promote the health of our children. It is an opportunity to reduce human suffering.

I believe that if this House speaks unanimously and strongly today in support of this legislation, we will be making an important contribution not just for this generation but for generations yet to come in Canada.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, hon. colleagues and government members, thank you for the opportunity to rise today on debate of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Excise Thx Act and the Excise Act.
This bill promotes a tax which by some is called a "sin tax." Others label Bill C-10 a "tax grab." As the Liberal critic for national health and welfare, I see this bill from a different angle. For me it is a bill with the potential to become a health tax. More than that, it has the potential to be the bill to show that this government truly cares about Canadians.
Money from this bill should go to health promotion, education of the dangers of tobacco addiction, aid to tobacco farmers and workers in the tobacco industry and to medicare, to provide the best care possible for people struck down by smoking related illnesses.
If the government would allow this bill to become a health tax, as the minister who has just spoken would like it to be, then Bill C-10 would be a further sign of promise in the fight against disease due to smoking.
This year alone, because of higher tobacco taxes,
700,000	Canadians are expected to quit tobacco. That is over 200,000 people who will be saved from death. One-third of that 700,000 would have eventually died from diseases related to smoking addiction.
In the first quarter of this year, Statistics Canada reported an all-time low in tobacco sales with a drop of
12.2	per cent. These statisticians believe the figure may drop because of people who quit short term for only one or two weeks because of the increase in the price of cigarettes.
What happens to these people? Surely they are more than a statistic. They are people who want to be free of tobacco but cannot break the chains. Why? It is much more than a question of will-power. Addiction to tobacco is one of the strongest addictions known, comparable to alcohol and heroin addictions. We are all acquainted with someone who is trying to quit or who has quit. The ordeal is a painful, arduous journey back from the control of nicotine. Sometimes it takes many attempts before someone is finally able to free himself or herself from the grip of tobacco.
Smokers face three barriers. There is the nicotine
Government Orders
addiction, a physiological craving for it. There are habits and lifestyles such as smoking after a meal or with friends on coffee breaks. There is an emotional reaction which can be as strong as the grief for a lost loved one. We realize that.
Some people try to break the ties but they are unable. These people need more help. They need to learn the nature of the enemy, how to best combat the addiction. Acupuncture, laser therapy, cold turkey and hypnosis; are these the ways people are trying to deal with this addiction? This is a medical problem and it needs medical support and education resources.
Most of Canada's 6.4 million smokers hate the higher taxes, seeing themselves as targets in a make-money revenue scheme. Why? Be reminded that the government has raised taxes 32 times since it came to office in 1984. Others view tobacco taxes as an assault on their rights and freedoms. Nothing is ever that simple. Nonsmoking advocates are not lifestyle police, they are simply people who care for the health of themselves and others. They do not wish ill to the men and women who work in the tobacco industry, but there are some facts which cannot be denied about the nature of the tobacco companies.
They target children. They flaunt government laws and they have blatant disregard for the serious health risks posed by tobacco addiction.
I truly believe that if they were interested in the well-being of their workers they would put some of their money and profits toward retraining in other skills.
Interestingly enough, the president of the Tobacco Manufacturer's Council, a close personal friend of the Prime Minister, will never admit smoking causes disease. In a letter to the former finance minister he commented on the "alleged risks of smoking". I would like to underscore the word "alleged", the alleged risks of smoking. In Canada each year 35,000 smokers die. This is not some happenstance coincidence. This is not an alleged risk. This is a real risk. These people die from diseases caused by their addiction.

Government Orders
Death is never pretty, we all know, especially death due to smoking. The tar and chemicals of decades destroy lung tissue, leaving it blackened and cancerous. Emphysema chokes off the smoker's air, leaving him gasping for life's breath. Only heart disease sometimes strikes quickly. At other times it merely cripples, with the patient living in fear of that paralysing pain shooting through the left side of the chest.
Non-smokers are not immune to smoking diseases. Second hand smoke is also a killer, causing an estimated
53,000	deaths in the United States each year. In Canada, with a smaller population, it is roughly one-tenth the American figure; five thousand Canadians.
Smoking harms the innocent; family members and co-workers. Even the unborn cradled in the womb of the mother can be harmed as chemicals pass from her bloodstream to the developing child.
You must never forget the children. They could be your children or they could be mine, lured to tobacco because of the look, the feel and the cachet of a cigarette. Maybe they are drawn to tobacco because their parents smoke or because all their friends do. Perhaps they are the dupes of the tobacco industry's advertising campaigns, which display smoking as glamorous and cool, the adult thing to do.
Maybe these boys and girls never planned to become smokers with a pack a day demand on their lungs, but it happens. That is the nature of addiction. It pulls youth in and it takes their lives away from them.
In this country a half million children are addicted to tobacco. Because of higher taxes, this year alone 100,000 of these youths are expected to quit. Another 30,000 will never begin, dissuaded by the cost of tobacco.
Your kids and mine could be the smokers of tomorrow unless we move to stop them.
This bill is inherently flawed in its follow through. It is a deterrent to smoking but it offers no help for the people who are most affected by it.
I believe in higher taxes as a deterrent to smoking, as has been shown by a study by the Addiction Research Foundation of Toronto, the health promotion branch of the Ontario Ministry of Health and the tobacco products
section of Health and Welfare Canada entitled "Effects of Pricing On Cigarette Use among Teenagers and Adults in Canada, 1980-1989", released February 1991.
I do not believe in taxing people on the back of an addiction and then leaving them with nothing. This tax should not be another GST. The government calls this tax "part of a comprehensive strategy for reducing tobacco consumption in Canada".
Then why does the government not go the extra mile and put the tax money back into helping the people? Is this a tax grab disguised as health policy? I have here a description of the bill given to me by the office of the Minister of State for Finance. In the second last paragraph on the last line it says: "As well these taxation measures reinforce the government's comprehensive strategy for reducing tobacco consumption in Canada". This seems suspiciously like an afterthought.
Revenues from Bill C-10 should go toward four causes or programs if this government truly is sincere in helping smokers quit and not letting this be a tax grab. First, health promotion and education to give people the facts about smoking. A recent poll showed that the dangers of smoking have not yet registered with the majority of the smokers. The word must get out. People must be informed.
Second, support programs to help people quit. Tobacco addiction is one of the strongest known. To quit requires the help of many people, family and friends, plus health care professionals. Today the resources are simply not there.
Recently I received a report from the Canadian Nurses' Association, released in October 1990. Canadian nurses across the country tell us they need help. They need help with their programs to help nursing students and to help nurses quit smoking. We should support this.
Third, we should establish special funds for medicare. It is cruel for the government to take the tax money of a smoker and not offer him or her any help to break free from nicotine. It seems that the government wants these people to stay addicted, perhaps to line the coffers with tax revenues. Money should also be given back to the medicare system to provide the people and equipment to save as many smokers as possible.

Fourth, there is another group drastically affected by the decrease in smoking, the tobacco farmers. As demand for tobacco decreases, what will happen to these men and women? They need programs to find alternative crops. Diversification will be a necessity in the years to come.
It is my understanding that two programs were established to help tobacco farmers. The Tobacco Transition Adjustment Initiatives program or the TTAI was meant to ease farmers out of the tobacco market. It was meant to retire quota, buying it from farmers and writing it off the books, truly a worth-while initiative.
It was established in 1986, but funding did not start until 1987. In March of next year what is left of the program will die. Ontario, with over 1200 tobacco farmers, will lease the TTAI in March, while New Brunswick lost it in 1989. Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec, which together have fewer than 150 farmers, have had the program extended until March of next year.
This is a program which had a budget of $53.2 million. From C-10 alone the government will earn $1,400 million in one year. I would like to call to the attention of Canadians that this government must be called to task whether this is really a health tax and not a tax grab.
The other program, called the Alternative Enterprise Initiative program, was opened to tobacco farmers to help search for alternative crops. Tobacco grows on a light, sandy soil which few other crops can tolerate, I am told by one report from Agriculture Canada, but there is hope another commercially viable alternative can be found. That is where the research component of the AEI comes into play. Years of research brought canola to Canadian fields. More research might bring help to tobacco farmers.
How much is the government spending on this type of research, development and study? Only $15 million, of which, according to sources at Agriculture Canada, only $10 to $11 million has been allocated. Meanwhile, the government will make $4 billion this year in tobacco taxes alone.
There is one more thing we should know. The government is cancelling the AEI program at the end of this fiscal year.
Government Orders
What are the government plans for the future of this business? Can a "comprehensive strategy" include aid to tobacco farmers?
In March tobacco growers met with the former finance and agriculture ministers to ask for support. To renew TTAI and the tobacco component of the AEI would be one way the government could show its support and true genuine sincerity to the cause.
I have been told by the office of the Minister of State for Finance that together the changes in the excise levies on tobacco products and the new tax on tobacco inventories will raise an additional $1.4 billion in the 1991-92 fiscal year. In the following three years $1.14 billion, $1.03 billion and $980 million will be raised respectively. As I said, this year alone the government will realize $4 billion from taxes and tobacco.
Surely, some money from these billions can go toward helping those saddled with addiction, for education of everyone in every aspect of society, and tobacco farmers. The government must show sincerity and earmark this money for those in need. There is no doubt that taxes on tobacco bring in big money for the government-thousands of millions of dollars. It is also clear that, by the law of diminishing returns, as tobacco taxes increase more people will quit smoking until the revenues realized by these taxes will be diminished.
So what? An estimated $7 billion per year is spent to heal people suffering from diseases related to smoking. There is no possible way to measure the value of these lives to society and to their loved ones. These are real people, not cash cows ready to be milked because of an addiction. There are others already taking advantage of these people: the cigarette companies. These companies target children in their campaigns while arguing they are trying to convince people to change brands. That simply does not compute. Roughly 10,000 Canadians per month light a cigarette for the first time. Most of these people are under the age of 18.
If the companies did not attract kids to smoking they would have no customers, hence no industry. All the smokers will eventually quit. The tobacco industry needs new blood to fuel its business, but unfortunately its business is not what Canadians want at this time. We should help them search for other types of business.

Business of the House
Only then can we truly have a comprehensive strategy against smoking.
With C-10 the gap between the cost of tobacco sticks and loose tobacco is closing. This could break the market for tobacco sticks, indeed. I believe Canadians should have every right to protest taxes, but they must not use this protest in a way that would jeopardize the antismoking campaign to save the lives of our youth. The government should not put profits before people. The government, if it truly cared about Canadians, would take the opportunity of this debate to prove itself an ally of the people of Canada, all of them. There is no excuse.
I ask the government to take necessary action. I also urge the government to help the people of this country be free from tobacco. Educate everyone, warn everyone. Do not be confused by the industry's smoke-screen. Take revenues from C-10 and use them to break the cycle of addiction. Help farmers find alternative crops. Do not settle for half measures if you are truly interested in saving Canadians.
I will end by reading from a story in The Ottawa Citizen that appeared last week, entitled Heavy Smoker-My Father by Janice Kennedy, and I quote:
My father's last four months were spent inside the hospital. He was too weak to get out of bed. And besides, most of the time he was hooked up to some kind of apparatus. The final month he couldn't even speak, having undergone a tracheotomy that eased his painful breathing a little but silenced him.
His final days were marked by a strange, wild-eyed look. It came over him as the plastic breathing tube filled and he fought in desperate silence for air.
The bill before us, if it is truly to be a health tax, must be earmarked for people who would like to stop smoking, for people who are ill as a consequence of smoking. We should also help the industry to find alternative business. In this way we can all be true Canadians concerned for the health and livelihood of all.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Cooper:: Madam Speaker, there have been some discussions to approve the following motion.
That, not withstanding the Standing Orders and usual practices of the House, on Friday June 14, 1991:
In "Routine Proceedings" a government bill placed on notice on Thursday June 13, 1991 be introduced and read a first time and
deemed printed, such bill to be in respect to British Columbia grain handling operations; and
No later than 12.30 p.m., the Minister of Labour shall move second reading of the said bill; and
No later than 1.30 p.m., the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then underway and put forthwith and successively without further amendment or debate, all questions necessary to dispose of the said bill at all stages, provided that any request for recorded or deferred divisions on any of the said questions not be receivable; and
That the regular Friday order of business then be called; and
That if the normal hour of daily adjournment is reached and a message from the Senate has not yet been received respecting Royal Assent, the House will suspend to the call of the Chair until such message is to be received; and
That upon returning from such Royal Assent, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until 11 a.m. on Monday June 16, 1991.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, we have a problem with the very restrictive House Order that has been presented to the House, for a number of reasons.
First of all, the wording of the House Order as it is presently does not guarantee that any member of the New Democratic Party will have a chance to say anything or ask any questions of the minister. Therefore, before we can agree to this House Order we have to ensure that we have an opportunity to participate, that our positions are stated and that the questions we wish to ask of the minister are asked.
Second, and this is just as important to us, our labour critic has a number of questions that she wants answered by the minister before we can agree to a House order.
We want to ensure we know what we are entering into and what the minister's intentions are before we agree to something which in effect prevents any chance by the opposition to really delay the government's intentions.
We want to know exactly what the minister is up to, what he is going to guarantee to the workers and their families in this situation before we agree to any particular House order.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my colleague has indicated our concerns about this legislation. I have three questions that I would like to ask the minister for a clear response before we proceed with this motion.

The first question is will the minister assure the workers in the Grain Workers' Union and their families that he will not accept an arbitrated 12-hour award, which would be in contravention of other legislation, unless the two parties have agreed to the 12-hour award?
Second, will he, if the arbitrator suggests it, agree to an independent commission to look at the impact of the 12 hours on workers' health and safety and on their families? Would that commission be made up of something like a lawyer, a doctor and one other? In addition, would he agree to work with me to improve legislation in the federal jurisdiction in the future to try to avoid some of these kinds of situations?
Third, would he agree not to proclaim part two pre-emptively prior to there being a dispute in Prince Rupert?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, with regard to the three questions asked by the labour critic for the NDP concerning the continuous hours of work and the 12-hour shifts, the Canada Labour Code prohibits such a practice now unless both parties agree.
If they agreed, through a voluntary collective agreement, to such a system of work then most likely I would also agree. My interpretation would be this. If a 12-hour work shift, 12 continuous hours of work, was imposed by an arbitrator in a collective agreement, then to me that would not have been voluntary agreement by the workers. In that particular case, it would still be contrary to the Labour Code and in that case, of course, I would not breach the Labour Code.
The second point is that the hon. member asks whether I would be agreeable to an industrial inquiry if asked for by the mediator arbitrator. I would like to remind my hon. friend that I gave instructions to my top officials about this issue when they went to Vancouver earlier this week to meet with the parties. When Mr. McDermott met with the unions, this idea of an industrial inquiry was well received by the unions. It was not well received by management.
Business of the House
Of course, if asked by the mediator-arbitrator to proceed on that route, I would certainly be very agreeable to facilitate that.
With regard to her third question, whether I would agree to work with her with a view to improving industrial relations in the federal sector in Canada, I would certainly be willing to do that. At the same time, I would remind her that Labour Canada has definitely the best record of any provincial jurisdiction in its settlement of collective agreements as we do settle over 90 per cent of them without work stoppages. But that does not mean that there is not room for improvement. Of course, I would be very happy to work with her to study that matter and see how we can improve our industrial relations contracts in Canada.
With regard to her last question, how we would proclaim Part II of the proposed legislation, I can give my word to my hon. friend that there will be no proclamation of that, until and if, there was a work stoppage. Even then, there will be no proclamation until there was consultation with my friends from the opposition.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate there is a further question regarding an opportunity for the New Democratic Party to speak.
I want to indicate that we on this side are quite prepared to go with the 10-minute speech from the minister. It is my understanding that the Official Opposition is prepared to co-operate to the same degree. Certainly, what we want to signal to the New Democrats is that we are more than willing and will do everything in our power to make sure they have time to make some remarks and to ask the questions they feel are necessary during the Committee of the Whole stage of the bill.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the hon. minister for his forthright answers. I appreciate that he has put those answers on the record. I believe that he will live by those responses, and I thank him for that.
I would also like to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary, the equally as short person as I am, for his agreement to ensure that the New Democrats have an opportunity to put our views forward on the bill in terms of the questions in Committee of the Whole. On that basis we will agree.

Government Orders


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I understand there is a disposition to proceed with this bill at this stage. In view of the assurances given by the minister and by the parliamentary secretary, we are prepared to give our co-operation by seeking an agreement where all three parties would each have a 10-minute speech, subject to questions that may be asked in Committee of the Whole, which I think is a separate issue.
I am happy to concur with the motion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion, as read by the parliamentary secretary. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-10, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, I rise to resume debate on Bill C-10.1 find myself in the strange position of being in full support of the government on this piece of legislation.
I think legislation that increases the tax on tobacco, if it is viewed properly as a health measure rather than as a revenue measure, is to be applauded. Of course, the bill will increase the tax by about $6 a carton, or 3 cents a cigarette. It will raise approximately $1.4 billion this year, reducing down to $980 million in three years. It will raise $1.4 billion in the first year.
It is interesting, of course, that the Minister of Communications and the former minister of health spoke on this bill. I think he should be congratulated because when he was the minister of health he brought forward a number of anti-smoking initiatives that have paid off for Canadians.
One of the things we have learned in relation to cigarette smoking is that there is a correlation between the tax rate and the number of people who smoke. An increase in cigarette taxes will immediately reduce consumption by 8 per cent to 12 per cent. It has been
estimated that if cigarette taxes are increased 20 per cent, it would reduce the total number of smokers by
800,000	if you added together those people who would quit smoking and those who would not start smoking.
Since the government has initiated a combination of accelerating tax increases and anti-smoking campaigns, including bans on advertising in 1984, there has been to the end of 1990 a decline of 40 per cent in Canada of smokers. This is one of the better records in the industrial world.
It is important that we put into perspective what the implications are for Canadian society of the use of tobacco. Tobacco-related illnesses now kill 38,000 people in Canada a year, 38,000 Canadians. It kills more Canadians than alcohol, drug abuse, car accidents, industrial accidents, fires, murder, suicide and AIDS combined. So it is by far one of the major causes of death in Canada.
In addition, it costs untold billions of dollars within our health care system to treat people who have smoke-related illnesses. At a time when our community is trying to grapple with the increase in our health care costs, and trying to develop efficiencies and ways of reducing expenditures, there is probably no more positive step that the government can take to reduce health expenditures, than to reduce the consumption rate of tobacco.
I do want to spend a little bit of time talking about the reactions from the tobacco companies. The tobacco companies, led by that friend of the government's Bill Neville, have started a mail-back campaign to try to convince the government that it should reduce the tax on tobacco products.
This mail-back campaign is in clear violation of the Tobacco Control Act. I still feel that the federal government should have immediately initiated court action seeking an injunction to prohibit this mail-back campaign pending the decision of the Quebec court as to the legality or the charter worthiness of that piece of legislation.
It is interesting that the tobacco companies had maintained that one of the reasons they were opposing the Tobacco Control Act is that they did not have the technical capability to put inserts in tobacco products with health warnings on. They did not have the ability to do that by the deadline of June 1, and therefore were delaying it.

At the same time, how hypocritical they were when they, all of a sudden, decided that they would have a mail-back campaign. They had the immediate technology to print and put inserts into tobacco packages to direct a message to the Prime Minister.
It is this kind of hypocrisy from the tobacco industry that is so characteristic of its approach. It is very important that Canadians fully realize what the tobacco companies have been doing in relation to promotion of their products.
Documents filed before the Quebec Superior Court indicate very clearly, I will use the words of the member for North York, insidious, pernicious and unethical tactics used by the tobacco industry advertisers to sell death to youths and to other healthy consumers.
The documents filed in that court very clearly spell out what the tobacco industry and the health community already know. To get people to smoke, one must get them early. Ninety per cent of all smokers start before they are 18. A study was done in the United Kingdom that clearly documented this. Ninety per cent of all smokers started before they were 19.
I guess I have something to relate to that. I started smoking when I was 13 or 14, and I smoked for far too many years, up to my early thirties, two or three packs a day. I know the kind of image that the tobacco industry portrayed. It was geared to young smokers, and that was one of the reasons I got involved in smoking. This is repeated time and time again.
The tobacco industry, from the confidential memos that were obtained in a court in Quebec, clearly indicated that they were targeting those as young as 12 years old. Some of the things that were revealed in the court case were that when numerous studies were linking smoking to death by cancer and heart attacks, tobacco companies were still conducting extensive research on young smokers.
It clearly showed that that industry is dominated by companies which respond most effectively to the needs of young smokers. What the tobacco companies found is that if they are going to survive, they have to cater to young smokers. Studies in England showed that they have to recruit 300 new smokers a day to replace the ones who are dying off at the other end. This is what the companies do. They realize that the youth is their major target group. Documents before that court stated very
Government Orders
clearly: "Young smokers represent the major opportunity group for the cigarette industry. We should therefore determine their attitudes to smoking and health and how this might change over time."
It goes on to say that they realize serious efforts to learn to smoke occur between the ages of 12 and 13 in most cases. It also says that they have been able to document among users that starters no longer believe the dangers of smoking and they universally assume that the risks do not apply to themselves.
This is one of the characteristics of young people. When one talks about all types of hazards, they have a tendency to assume a sense of bravado, of risk taking. They think that risks apply to somebody else, whether that is driving a car fast, taking risks in outdoor adventures or starting smoking. They like to take risks, so they simply say: "Those risks don't apply to us and we are willing to take that risk if it gains us something".
One of the things that the tobacco industry discovered in its research was that very young starting smokers choose Export A because it provides them with an instant badge of masculinity, appeals to their rebellious nature and establishes their position among their peers. In other words, the tobacco industry did research on the dynamics of teenagers and adolescents and then developed a product that would appeal to that rebellion, to their masculinity and to their acceptance among their peers, all of which are very, very important to teenagers.
The tobacco industry is certainly, at this point in time, desperately trying to protect its share of the market and its profits. It is initiating the mail-back campaign, not because of any concern about taxes in Canada, but because it is frightened that the government's efforts to reduce cigarette smoking are being successful. Those government efforts are based on a double-barrelled approach of raising taxes and prohibiting a type of advertising.
One of the things on which I think the government has not been aggressive enough is in the matter of tobacco advertising. It has brought in some legislation under the Tobacco Control Act, but it has not rigorously pursued the enforcement of that. It has not taken the initiative and proclaimed the regulations that were supposed to be in place on June 1. It has not stopped the tobacco mail-back campaign and it has not proceeded with other recommendations.

The health committee has looked at this issue and people have said repeatedly that there should be a total ban on all tobacco advertising, including a ban on promotion. One of the things that the companies like to do very much is say: "We are not advertising, we are promoting a sports event, or a cultural event". But, of course, their brand names, their company logos, all of the things, their colours that are identified with their brands and with cigarette smoking, are used to promote their product.
New Zealand did a major study of 33 countries, looking at the impact of the banning of tobacco advertising. They found conclusively that the banning of tobacco advertising does have a dramatic impact on the number of smokers and the recruitment of new smokers.
I want to turn my attention now to what I think the government should be doing in relation to the revenues which it has-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, the North American High School Organization network is a Jewish student movement with representation across Canada. The issue of Syrian Jewry is of great concern to them.
At present there is an urgent call for action against the Syrian government due to the torturous acts and oppressive conditions which Syria is inflicting upon the Jews living there. These Jews are not allowed to emigrate; they are often beaten, tormented, abducted and imprisoned. They are denied the basic human rights, according to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to which Syria is a signatory.
An example of this is the case of Elie and Selim Swed. They were imprisoned for three and a half years without
being charged and were constantly tortured. They were recently sentenced to six and a half more years in prison in a trial where they were not allowed a lawyer or to speak, and no charges were made public.
The Government of Canada has always supported the cause of oppressed Jewry and human rights. Along with all members of this House, I call upon the government of Syria to comply with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and allow those Syrian Jews who wish to emigrate to do so freely.


PARLIAMENT OF UNITED CANADAS
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, on this date in 1841, 150 years ago, the first Parliament of the United Canadas opened in Kingston, Ontario. The opening of Parliament marked the reunion of Upper and Lower Canada in one province and established the ground work for Confederation some 26 years later.
Though the new Parliament started slowly with newspapers of the day referring to it as the "do nothing but talk session", spumed on by the development plans of Governor General Sydenham, it eventually passed acts which provided for the purchase of and expansion of the Welland Canal, for improving navigation aids in the St. Lawrence River, and for building new roads. In addition, a new Board of Works was established to oversee ambitious new construction projects.
Madam Speaker, as Canadians debate the future of our country, let us remember the work of our ancestors 150 years ago. They knew then what we must remember today, that our future prosperity lies in a united Canada, not in a nation divided.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, having had an opportunity recently to visit the People's Republic of China, I rise today to encourage the Government of Canada to move toward normalization of trade relations with China.

Northern Telecom, Ingersoll-Rand Canada, Alcan and Lamko Tool & Mold are examples of recent successful joint ventures in China.
My recent visit demonstrated to me that more trade with China would in fact be helping the people of China raise their standard of living, not to mention that it would create jobs in Canada also.
The policy of reform and opening to the outside world should be encouraged as it is the road to lead China to economic and social prosperity.
Japan, Italy, Australia, Britain and the United States have taken steps to normalize relations with China. I encourage Canada to do the same.


HEALTH CARE
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I rise today to denounce one aspect of a recently issued report by a group of former politicians and industrialists who refer to themselves as Group 22. This group calls on the federal government to completely withdraw from the national health care system. The report states that the federal government should have no role to play in health care and that existing federal involvement, namely maintenance of national standards and banning of extra billing and user fees, should disappear.
We know that the Prime Minister was personally briefed by members of this group and it is reported that he was "genuinely interested" and "impressed" with the report. Canadians would like to know exactly which recommendations the Prime Minister is interested in and impressed with.
Madam Speaker, on March 29 this year the government voted against a Liberal motion stating "that this House reaffirms its commitment to medicare". The recent comments by the Prime Minister reinforce his government's lack of commitment not only to medicare but also to the well-being of all Canadians.
I urge the Prime Minister and his government to disregard this aspect of the report and maintain national health care standards under the Canada Health Act and more, restore adequate funding for Canada's medicare, the envy of the world.


S. O. 31 ERITREA
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the Eritrean People's Liberation Front in its call for a free, fair and open referendum on the future of Eritrea.
Forty years ago, the great powers forced an unhappy Eritrea to join with its traditional enemy, Ethiopia. The ensuing war caused between 250,000 and 350,000 deaths in Eritrea alone.
Now the war is apparently over, but long-term stability is far from guaranteed. Sectarian fighting continues, and millions of people are still dying of starvation and avoidable disease in the Horn of Africa. A secure lifeline of assistance to these people is possible only if Ethiopia's wasteful and destructive civil war comes to a permanent end.

More specifically, obtaining a permanent solution to the problems of this region will require a peaceful settlement of the status of Eritrea that respects the wishes of the majority of the Eritrean people.

I therefore urge the Canadian government to follow the example of Sweden, Denmark, Norway and other countries in upholding the right of the Eritrean people to define their own future.


REFORM PARTY
Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Madam Speaker, I was both amazed and disappointed when I heard the Reform Party's narrow-minded and outmoded views on multiculturalism.
The party's statements merely help spread misconceptions about our policy in this area. Multiculturalism is based on the concept that all Canadians have the same economic, political and social rights. It is a concept that favours equality and is opposed to racism and discrimination.
The Reform Party and its leader are urging Canadians to believe in myths that can only breed discord. At a time when Canadians are trying to strengthen their unity, multiculturalism remains one of the most powerful tools this country has ever had to achieve that goal.

I would like to repeat, for the benefit of members of the Reform Party, that this government is intent on using every means at its disposal to help create a Canadian identity that everyone of us can truly share.


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is about to impose another disastrous policy on Atlantic fishermen, user pay dockside monitoring.
The government had two alternatives. It could have retained the past system of hailing, log books and random checks. This would have meant a bit of work for fishery officers. It could have gone to a system which the industry wanted called the "paper chase" because of so much paperwork for the fishermen and the processors to keep accurate records for the Department of Fisheries, because it does not trust anyone.
What did the fishermen get? They got the weigh master system, an employment program sponsored by the Department of Fisheries which the department wanted and which will mean longer waits and much higher fees to the fishermen who have to foot the bill.
No one supports this new system, as has been seen in Newfoundland, and will be seen in Nova Scotia and other areas.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has once again ignored the fishermen and gone ahead with a policy that has no benefit for those involved.


THE PRESS
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Madam Speaker, after reading Marjorie Nichols column in the June 13 Citizen, I was gratified to think that there is at least one member of the media who is willing to take the time to research its articles and to print the true facts instead of distorted untruths.
Is it any wonder that we hear so much negativism from Canadians across this country when they are exposed to a steady diet of gloom and doom, distortions and misinformation.
The media must start taking its role in society seriously and start acting in a non-partisan, responsible way, giving Canadians the facts and nothing but the facts, and
letting them make up their own minds as to the effectiveness of this government's policies.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, the spirit of multiculturalism is ultimately the spirit of Canadian unity. Multiculturalism makes it possible for all Canadians to fully contribute to the building of a stronger and more united Canada.
The Canadian Multiculturalism Act unanimously adopted by the Parliament of Canada seeks to remove the barriers that divide us from one another, barriers such as racism and discrimination.
In its repeated attacks on multiculturalism the Reform Party and its leader shows it knows little or nothing of what this great countiy is all about.
On the other hand in the Globe/CBC poll in April 84 per cent of Canadians, 84 per cent said any new constitutional arrangement must reflect the multicultural nature of Canada. It is very easy to appeal to people's fears and uncertainties. It is very difficult to build a society of fairness and equality of opportunity for all. Mr. Manning has chosen the easy path. This government, which has done so much to bring a new vision to Canada, will not.


MONTREAL ECONOMY
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, I have raised the issue of Montreal and its dramatic economic situation in the House many times. We have had a debate in this House on the situation in Montreal, and the people of Montreal are becoming increasingly concerned. Recently, the Quebec Caucus, which I have the honour to chair, discussed the sad fact of a declining economy, increasing poverty and lack of employment in the Montreal region. I had the privilege of seconding the motion in which the leader of our party, Jean Chretien, took an active part. And now we have the minister responsible for Montreal, the hon. member for Anjou-Riviere-des-Prairies and Minister of Transport, again saying sorry, he is not responsible and the economy in general is to blame, this at a time when jobs at Air Canada and at the Bank of Canada's branch for foreign exchange services are being moved to Toronto. Once again, the minister has not been doing his job.
June 14, 1991


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, up to one third of Quebec's bookstores might have to close because the GST is causing such a drastic drop in sales. Across Canada, publishers report that revenues are down 20 to 30 per cent.
The Coalition against Taxes on Books claims that plunging book sales can be directly attributed to the GST. Canada's magazine industry despairs and publishers are reeling from a triple dose of gloom and doom: recession, impending postal rate increases and the hated GST.
Some time ago the Prime Minister mused publicly that his government would reconsider the wisdom of this tax on literacy, and in the recent Throne Speech the Prime Minister gave his commitment to develop a learning culture and enhance Canadian literacy.
I appeal to the Prime Minister to demonstrate this commitment in a tangible way by seizing this opportunity for action. Repeal the GST on books and magazines immediately and help breathe some life back into the Canadian publishing industry. Stop this unfair and punitive tax.


ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Madam Speaker, for a few moments yesterday I saw some common sense in politics. It involved the Liberals and the NDP in the Ontario legislature, no Conservatives. When Premier Rae announced that two new ministers had tendered their resignations as a result of each making a mistake, I was pleased and even proud to be a politician when the Liberal leader, Bob Nixon, stood in
his place and suggested that it might be appropriate for Mr. Rae to refuse these resignations. I thought this a common sense approach.
In no other reasonable human endeavour that I know of would someone be required to lose their position for one mistake. There is a difference between mistakes and the intent to do wrong and they should be treated differently.
I applaud Mr. Nixon's first position on this issue because it is the position that most Canadians would take in real life, but then again politics is not much like real life.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, often the role of our artists is overlooked. Recently, the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres eloquently expressed that role with which I concur and promote.
They said:
Artists are the imagination of a culture, of a country. Through their creative endeavours, artists keep a community in touch with where they have been, where they are and the possibilities for the future.
The government's cuts to Canada's cultural institutions are squeezing the life out of Canada's arts organizations and independent artists. And without artists, who will reflect the unique, diverse, rich experiences in all regions of this country?
As Canada faces the complex challenges of the next millennium, the country needs to further unleash the powers of the artistic imagination, not strangle it.
As theatre artists, we call upon the federal government to reinstate and increase funding to the Canada Council, the National Arts Centre, the CBC, the National Film Board, and Canadian museums. We call upon the government to pay more than lips service to developing a creative vision for Canada.
I add, as a word of warning to this government, in the interest of national unity and Canadian identity-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.

Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, the extraordinary challenge of the committee reviewing the free trade agreement panel decision in the pork industry case has sustained Canada's position.
Let me tell you the importance of this to Canada. It tells everyone in Canada that the free trade agreement will work, given a fair opportunity. Obviously we are pleased with the decision that the committee made. The result proves the value of the free trade biannual panel, in fact it sustains itself and will do so in other cases.
Good luck to Canadian pork producers. Their pork is going to now go across the line free of any encumbrances.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Two days ago the Minister of Employment and Immigration said the government had been counselled to lie in the Mashat affair. Yesterday, the same minister said that the government had only been counselled to mislead. There is no distinction between lie and mislead.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm to the House whether the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who stated in the press yesterday that the misleading advice was contained in so-called "House cards" advising ministers to respond, and I quote: "Mr. A1 Mashat met the requirements as a retiree, was processed under normal standards, and was not accorded preferential treatment".


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration responded to questions of that nature in the House yesterday, and I believe he responded outside the House. I have nothing further to add.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has told members of this House and has told the national media that the Government of Canada was counselled to give misleading information to Canadians.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister explain to members of this House exactly what information was the misleading information?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member would have to direct that question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who unfortunately is not in the House.


Mr. Tobin:: Which far away country did you send him to?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. minister is a member of Parliament and also a cabinet minister. He has important duties to discharge. I think my hon. friend from Newfoundland would understand that.
He did explain the position, and also his poor choice of words as he suggested he may have used, thereby resulting in a misinterpretation. I think that he has come forth in a manner that befits the integrity of the institution and befits his own integrity.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, as defined by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on May 30 states:
When an error is made of which the minister is unaware, the
minister acts to establish the facts, corrects the error and, in
addition, promises that the offenders will be disciplined and that
their mistakes corrected.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. When the government became aware that a minister had been counselled to mislead the people of Canada, what action did the Government of Canada take against those who counsel such misconduct? Can the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House of the action that was taken? Can he also inform the House what actions have been taken against the senior public servant in this country, Mr. Paul Tellier?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, that is precisely what was done. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated in this House that corrective measures were taken so that this kind of issue would not occur again.
The hon. member may have some deviation or some suggestion with respect to how ministerial responsibility should be performed within the context of our parliamentary democracy. I think it is quite clear that the McGrath commission brought down some explicit terms of reference and guidelines, which indeed are followed. If the hon. member has some suggestions to make or wants to pursue the whole issue of ministerial responsibility in the context of parliamentary reform, I suspect

Oral Questions
that that is a suggestion that could very well be put to the Mr. Nunziata: "Scurrying for cover". Will the minister appropriate committee. Perhaps we would be interested of external affairs- in knowing.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yu-Mr. Tobin: What committee? You would close it down. kon.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A procedural committee. There are many standing committees. We would be very interested in seeing what sort of deviation from existing principles of ministerial responsibility he would like to see changed.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is unclear in his answer. The official chronology, version B, suggests very strongly that it was Paul Tellier, the Clerk of the Privy Council, who counselled cabinet ministers to mislead Canadians.
I would like to put my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister of Immigration said that he was counselled by government officials to lie to Canadians. Was the minister of external affairs counselled to lie to Canadians, and if so, who was it that counselled her?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, all of this was made clear by the minister when he rose to speak in the House yesterday, that there was a House card prepared. That is clear in the chronology. That has been before the committee. The minister yesterday made his own statement in this regard and there is nothing further to add.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, is it any wonder that Canadians from one coast to the other do not believe what the government is saying on this particular matter. Is it any wonder that editorial opinion right across the country is condemning this government for its handling of the Al-Mashat matter?
Madam Speaker, referring to cabinet ministers of the government, the Montreal Gazette today says "They behaved more like cockroaches scurrying for cover when the lights-"


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will put his question now, please.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Statistics Canada confirmed again today that inflation is still at 6.2 per cent. What Canadians have known for a very long time is that it is getting tougher and tougher to make ends meet and to put food on the table. While inflation is at 6.2 per cent, wage increases are half of that.
Clearly the government has decided to attack the wrong problem in attacking wage levels. Rather than attacking the wrong problem, why does the minister not do something to get on the right track and bring in real policies, and change policies like the GST, lower the interest rates and get the Canadian dollar down so Canadian families can make ends meet again.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I think the decline in inflation is encouraging. It has dropped from
6.3	per cent to 6.2 per cent. It is a small decline, but at least it is going in the right direction. I think we should recognize that included in the inflationary figures are the direct and indirect impacts of the various budgets across the country. In this case, this reflects the budgets of Ontario, Quebec and others, which have to be worked through the system.
Yes, as a matter of fact it is the GST and that has been recognized at the very outset. My predecessor indicated and we have confirmed that the GST would indeed have a one-time effect upon inflationary pressures. However, it was important to have this institution put in place for the benefit of our manufacturing industry. I say to the hon. member, who is suggesting we need to have jobs and improve our competitiveness, the GST does just that for the manufacturing sector.

Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary, Madam Speaker. I would suggest to the minister that he should go to some of the border towns across this country and look at the bankruptcy statistics and see how much good his policies have really done for the Canadian economy.
I would address my supplementary to the minister responsible for trade. Since the Canada-U.S. trade deal, Canadian wages have been falling as well, and trade experts now say that the trade deal with Mexico will result in a further decrease in Canadian workers' wages.
I want to ask the Minister responsible for International Trade what assurances he can give Canadian workers that wages will not fall. If he cannot give those assurances, will he stop the negotiations until he can come up with those assurances for the workers of this country?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Madam Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member would draw that conclusion. Since the free trade agreement with the United States came in, Canadian wages have gone up faster than those in the United States. So clearly it does not have anything to do with trade negotiations or trade deals themselves.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, in Montreal, 200,000 people are out of work. One person out of four is either on unemployment insurance or welfare.
A few weeks ago in Montreal, I met employees in the garment industry. For these employees, free trade with the United States and Mexico will mean more jobs lost, but the government is going ahead regardless.
Will the minister have the decency to talk to these people whose jobs are being threatened, before continuing these talks? Look at the facts!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, it might be of interest to the hon. member if she realized that John Forsythe Canada Limited is looking at the possibility of opening a plant in Mexico. The purpose for that is to transfer jobs from
countries in the Far East into Mexico so they can serve the Canadian market better from Mexico than from places like Taiwan or Hong Kong.


NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Earlier this week, the Minister of Finance introduced legislation to create the debt reduction fund that was previously announced in the February budget. Will the minister confirm that this debt reduction will itself be in a deficit position of almost $27 billion by the end of the current fiscal year and that after five years, the debt reduction fund will have an accumulated deficit of almost $122 billion? If we reduce the debt at this rate, we could be in big trouble before long.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question because he simply demonstrates the magnitude of the problem that we have. Day after day after day, we have the Liberals and the NDP calling for the expenditure of more money. We have got to start putting a discipline on our expenditures.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, over 90 per cent of the increase in the debt that has occurred since we have been in office is as a result of the compound interest on the debt that we inherited, and Canadians had better not forget that.
In the days of the Liberals, the annualized increase in program spending was 14 per cent. Under the days of the Tories it was 3.7 per cent. We are exercising fiscal discipline, they did not.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, I know that 1984 seems like yesterday to the minister, but it is time he started to take account for what he has been doing over the last seven years.
Now that it is clear that the government is going to have to borrow money to finance the debt reduction fund, will the minister admit that this is simply an attempt to use the statement of Public Accounts of Canada as another press line to distract Canadians from the real issue of this government's mismanagement?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, with those kinds of calculations, it is no wonder that we saw the national debt triple between 1981 and 1984 under the Liberal regime.
The fact of the matter is that it is costing this year $43 billion to pay the cost of servicing the debt. What we are saying is we want to carve out the amount of money that is collected from the GST to apply to that and eventually to apply to the pay-down of the national debt. I hope we have the support of the hon. member opposite, particularly when we bring in legislating spending caps because that will provide further discipline and further integrity and credibility to our program of fiscal consolidation.


PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Last December, the President of the Treasury Board released Public Service 2000 as the government's policy for the renewal and revitalization of the Public Service. The lines of responsibility were clearly spelled out as: "Ministers are individually and collectively responsible for the activities of government, including the management and conduct of the Public Service."
Given that the government unanimously voted against the motion affirming its own policy, I ask the minister: If this statement of ministerial responsibility is not the government's policy, what is?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I think that the position of the government as expressed in the white paper of PS-2000 is absolutely clear.
We have indicated in that white paper the massive changes that we want to bring to the administration of this government, and we are going to do it with the Public Service. I can tell you that after having visited a large number of cities all across Canada, I am convinced that they are in this with us, participating fully.
I can report today that this is progressing, well even though we have a very difficult environment.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, the minister obviously has no explanation for the conflict between the government's policy and the government's vote on Wednesday.
PS-2000 also says: "Public servants will be empowered
Oral Questions
and encouraged to be innovative, to show greater initiative and greater flexibility. Risk taking will be encouraged and rewarded".
Will the minister admit that in the wake of the Al-Mashat affair, risk taking and innovation are the last things on the minds of Public Servants? Will he admit that PS-2000, to quote Dian Cohen, is "dead in the water"?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I will agree to no such thing, because the hon. member knows full well that this is not the case.
She referred to a vote that was taken in this House. She knows it was a vote of confidence. These are usual little tricks that are well understood by us. They may not be understood by everyone, but we know very well that we can read through that.
As for PS-2000,1 can again repeat what I have said. It is proceeding with the full assistance of, I do not know how many thousands of civil servants, I have met. We are working at improving the empowerment.
It is a difficult change to go from a control-oriented organization to a citizen service concerned organization, but we are doing it and it is going on veiy well.


IMMIGRATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that the lie to which the Minister of Immigration referred yesterday was based upon an external affairs house card. I have a copy of that house card, and nowhere is there any lie on that document.

Oral Questions
In view of the fact that the only lie that has been told was on the document which was prepared by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Paul Tellier, when he indicated that Al-Mashat got no preferential treatment, my question to the minister is this.
Was the minister also advised by officials to mislead or lie to Canadians and, if so, by which officials? What action has she taken to follow up on the statements made by her colleague?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, all of the things that relate to the house card were made clear in the chronology and were made clear in committee.
They have been available to the public for some time, and I am sure the committee will have its comments to make on them. I do not have anything to add to what my colleague said yesterday or to what I said in committee.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The minister's colleague yesterday said that he was briefed by external affairs officials to mislead Canadians. My supplementary is very straightforward.
Has she spoken with her colleague? Has she determined which officials briefed her colleague to mislead or lie to Canadians? Was she also briefed the same way?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, I find the questions a little difficult in this House, given that all of these issues have been dealt with in committee and it is clear in the chronology. I will be interested to hear what the committee has to say about this. My colleague and I have conferred on any number of aspects of this case, as the hon. member knows, and we have put procedures in place to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again. That is what we are here to do and that is what we are doing.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Later this day I will be tabling a petition of 50,000 or more signatures from Canadians across the country who are urging the government to remove the goods and services tax from feminine hygiene products.
Given the apparent discriminatory nature of this application of the GST, and since the petition is directed to the Minister of Finance, I will be giving it personally to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women in a few moments.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, will he remove the GST on feminine hygiene products?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. First of all, I don't believe that there is discrimination in the application of feminine hygiene products. As the hon. member knows, the purpose of the GST was to establish a broader base tax at the lowest possible rate. So the GST covers a broad range of goods and services.
It would be very difficult to consider a broad base of exemptions without affecting the actual rate of the GST. So the more exemptions that one would provide, the higher the rate would be. And, so, it would be very difficult to consider that at this particular time.
There are many basic necessities that bear the GST and, while I sympathize with the hon. member in this particular case, it would be very difficult to engage in a broader exemption than that already applied, which is essentially food and medical services.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, or perhaps to the Acting Prime Minister.
Approximately 2,500 Canadian men and women will receive their well-deserved volunteer service medals on June 22, a week from tomorrow. These medals are coming from the Canadian government for their contribution to the Persian Gulf war.
Will the minister advise the House why the government cannot at the same time either present or announce when the Canadian men and women who served in the Korean war will receive their well-deserved, distinctly Canadian, volunteer service medals for their contribution in the Korean war on behalf of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I can advise the hon. member that that issue is under very active consideration, that is the voluntary Korean service medal. I hope that we will be in a position to announce it in the not too distant future.
I appreciate the hon. member's support in this particular area. I have been personally involved in it and I can assure him that they will be duly recognized, as they should be.


Jim Jordan: In view of the Deputy Prime Minister's answer, would it be safe to assume that the government is going to look favourably and generously toward these Korean veterans very, very soon? If that is a fair assumption, will there be an announcement soon telling Canadians when the medals will be presented, where they will be presented, by whom, and will medals be presented posthumously to the families of Korean veterans who were killed in Korea or who are since deceased?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I am pleased to receive the representation from the hon. gentleman.
I can indicate to him that the whole issue is being studied very closely by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and by the Minister of National Defence. They will be making an announcement to the House as soon as possible and certainly will take on board any representations made by my hon. colleague.


RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question is to the Minister of Justice.
As the minister knows, the government co-sponsored and signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; yet in that convention it says that "any child that is deprived of liberty shall be held separate and apart from adults unless it is not in the interests of that child to do so".
Yet this government proceeds to house and jail children and young offenders with adult criminals. This is
Oral Questions
going to be made worse by the government's policies in Bill C-12, the amendments to the Young Offenders Act.
Why does the minister not just admit that the reason the government cannot ratify this convention is that it is prohibited from doing so by the government's own policies?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member's reference to the amendments to the Young Offenders Act is not in order for Question Period since it is before the House and he has the opportunity to make his representations there.
I think the hon. member will also recognize that it was his party which brought in the Young Offenders Act and that there are enormous difficulties presented to society in trying to draw distinctions between adult and young offenders and just create a system or regime that is fair and equitable.
I know my colleague, the Solicitor General, has considerable concern about the facilities for the incarceration of all people in Canada who come into violation of the law. I would say that we are very much committed to trying to have a system of justice that does justice to people of all ages in Canada. It is an ongoing preoccupation both with myself and my provincial colleagues to provide the appropriate facilities for young offenders.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, we finished the legislative hearings on Bill C-58, the predecessor legislation, in December and still we are waiting.
Also when this bill was passed by the former Liberal government it was the intention that young offenders be housed separate and apart from adult criminals.
It has been over a year since this convention was signed and co-sponsored by this government and yet it has not been ratified. I realize that the provinces have to agree, but the provinces also had to agree to housing young offenders separate and apart, which this government has just insisted on letting slide.
Why does the government not admit that it has no intention of fulfilling the mandate of the UN charter on the rights of the child? When, if it does have an intention of signing it, is this very important convention going to be ratified in this country?

Oral Questions


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister made the Minister of National Health and Welfare responsible for the children file. As my friend said before, the convention has been accepted and has been given to the provinces. We are still working with the provinces toward the ratification of the convention. It should be done normally this fall. It is going well.
I believe that the provinces give good collaboration, but I believe my friend will understand that if I work with the provinces we have to take the necessary time. The last summit was last September. We are looking forward to being able to satisfy my friend and all Canadians. Once again I believe that the question of convention will be ratified. It will be over, I believe, at the beginning of the fall.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question today is for the Minister for International Trade.
One of the very positive aspects of the free trade agreement is a dispute settling mechanism. As we all know, Canada and the U.S. have been embroiled in a battle over pork imports to the United States. I understand that the results of the tribunal have been released.
I was wondering if the minister could give us those results and how they affect Canada and the viability of the pork producers across Canada.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I think that this is an extremely important question. I might say that we on the government side are very pleased, as I am sure colleagues on the other side of the House are also very pleased, with the results of the extraordinary challenge result that we heard today. We expect that this will be the end of the matter. The extraordinary challenge committee ruling today was binding. The countervailing duty will be revoked. It was a 3-0 decision on the matter.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think the important thing is the result of this decision today, and I want to quote very briefly from the decision as follows: "The
request for an extraordinary challenge is dismissed for failure to meet the standards of an extraordinary challenge set forth under the free trade agreement".
I might say that the system has now been tested. It has been proved, and this confirms very clearly that the position the Government of Canada has taken all along in the court decision has been in the-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who suggested in an answer to my leader that in fact inflation had fallen his month.
After no change in prices in April, inflation was up by .5 per cent in this latest month of May. The increase over the past year, if we want to take those figures, was especially high in Quebec City at 8.4 per cent, Montreal at 8.1 per cent and St. John's at 7.7 per cent, all provinces where the GST was integrated with the provincial sales tax.
Will the government now concede that it is the GST which is pushing up the cost of living most, and will it act to cut the cost of living by cutting the level of the GST?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, just to make it very clear, the year-over-year increases in all items in the CPI was 6.2 per cent in May, down from 6.3 per cent in April and in March. It is a small modest decline, but it is a decline, and my hon. friend would agree with me that it is going in the right direction.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, let me quote the first line of the release this morning from the government's own statistical agency. It says: "The all items Consumer Price Index for Canada rose by .5 per cent between April and May after having shown no movement the month before". That is an increase, and the minister should recognize it.
In face of that increase and the possible consequences of that for increases in interest rates in this country, will the government commit itself to keep lowering interest rates so we get a lower dollar, more jobs, more export expansion, and help to end this recession?
June 14, 1991


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member, I am sure, would have noted that the Bank of Canada rate went down four basis points yesterday, which is again probably the 13th or 14th successive decline, and as inflationary pressures recede so will interest rates drop. I think that is the most encouraging note.
Inflationary pressures are receding and the actual inflationary statistics prove that out. It is encouraging to note that it could then follow that interest rates could be reduced further still. At least that is obviously our hope and expectation, but it must be accompanied and it can only happen if we attack the root causes of inflation, the inflationary pressures and the inflationary expectations.
I am sure my hon. friend would welcome the fact that interest rates have declined over the past year by more than 5 percentage points and that the spread between Canadian and U.S. interest rates on three-month commercial paper is about 2.5 per cent. That is a dramatic decline from the 5.6 per cent it was over a year ago.


PORT OF HALIFAX
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, once more I rise in this House to remind the government of the crisis in the port of Halifax.
It was more than a month ago that the Minister of Transport promised to do all in his power to assist the port of Halifax.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Why this government has done nothing? Why does the port of Halifax continue to decline? Why will the government not give assistance?
Oh, good. Nobody knows the answer again.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I think the question has been answered time and again by the minister.
I am sure the minister will be pleased to respond again when he returns on Monday.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I am almost, and I say almost, speechless but not quite.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
Oral Questions


Mary Catherine Clancy: Oh, it is funny, it is very funny to this government as the port of Halifax closes and 500 jobs are cut adrift. Well, you cannot build a nation by cutting a region adrift.
Atlantic Canadians and Halagonians know that only federal government action can save this great port. Why does this government, if it even knows anything about it, continue to refuse to act? Why will it not do the right thing? Why does somebody over there not have some idea of what is going on?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of State for Transport have been very actively involved in this issue. As the hon. member knows, it is not a situation that can be solved with one simple solution. It is a complexity of issues.
One of the factors is the fact that there is excess tonnage capacity on the high seas which is driving down ocean rates.
In addition, Minister of Transport has in fact been meeting with CN. They are working toward the development of double-stack container rail carriers which will improve productivity and efficiency.
I know that CN and the container companies are negotiating a new series of freight rates, which hopefully will be competitive and hopefully will be able to save that business for Halifax. I agree with the hon. member that it is very important, and this government takes it seriously* * *


JUSTICE
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Attorney General, in the absence of the Solicitor General, and it is about Kitty Nowdluk-Reynolds, an Inuit crime victim.
Ms. Nowdluk-Reynolds was improperly arrested last summer on a material witness warrant. She was then taken in handcuffs from Surrey, B.C. to Edmonton, to Yellowknife, back to Edmonton, to Ottawa and finally to Iqaluit over a nightmare week for a trial at which she was not even called to testify.


An hon. member:: In handcuffs?

Oral Questions


David Kilgour: In handcuffs. Will she tell us why no official, including herself or the Solicitor General, has until now, 10 months later, made an apology in this matter or done anything to ensure that it will not happen again?


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's question and I welcome him to this issue which I have been involved with actually for several months. It has been a matter of public record for some time and it is interesting that it has finally come to his attention.
I have before me my own letters to Ms. Nowdluk, written in March of this year. In fact I have done something.


Coline M. Campbell: Why have you not done something if it has been that long?


A. Kim Campbell: I wonder if the members of the opposition are interested in hearing the answer to this very serious question.
I have been in correspondence with Ms. Nowdluk-Re-ynolds and I have in fact written to the Solicitor General urging an inquiry by the RCMP into the activities which are complained of in her case.
I would agree that it is an extremely important issue. I have in fact taken it under advisement and acted on it. As I said, I welcome the hon. member's somewhat belated interest in this subject.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the minister's father is a Crown attorney and has been in British Columbia for many years. I wonder who brought it to her attention.
The only correspondence she has had up until now is a quote from a B.C. RCMP inspector who said: "No matter what you are arrested for, all prisoners are treated the same way".
Does the minister stand by that kind of guff from an inspector? What is-her policy? Is she prepared to have an independent inquiry done, again to repeat, to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I can assure the
hon. member that my father would be enchanted to be remembered by the hon. member so kindly.
I do not, regrettably, have jurisdiction over the RCMP as the Minister of Justice. So when the request was made of me to take an interest, I drew this to the attention of my colleague, the Solicitor General, who has taken it under advisement. I believe that an inquiry is being made in the RCMP into these activities. I am sure that my colleague will report to the House or to the appropriate authorities when there is a result of that inquiry.


LAND CLAIMS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Ontario government announced it will begin negotiations tomorrow on the land claims of the Algonquin Nation of Golden Lake.
The traditional lands of the Golden Lake Algonquins comprise 14,000 square miles of the Ottawa Valley and in fact Parliament Hill, upon which these proceedings are taking place, is a part of unceded Algonquin lands.
In spite of the Prime Minister's trumpeted, new native agenda on land claims and the government's clear interest in the assets of the national capital, the federal government will only be sending an observer to these negotiations without a full mandate to negotiate.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is: Why is the federal government refusing to participate fully in negotiations of the Algonquin claim when it could have such profound implications for the Ottawa Valley, for the national capital and for the national interest?


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. friend knows that this government is very committed to land claims. He knows that we have evolved a policy that has been quite successful over a period of time and that that policy continues to evolve. There is a number of things happening on an ongoing basis.
I know that the minister is as concerned and as interested in this as anybody, and I know he will respond to the member when he returns to the House next week.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, last summer we saw, within an hour's drive of the capital, the results of the federal government's delay and duplicity in dealing with Mohawk claims.
Aboriginal frustration ultimately resulted in the expenditure of millions of dollars, the loss of Canada's reputation internationally, and the death of a Quebec policeman.
Does the minister not think it important, given the federal government's interest in the national capital area and its jurisdiction over aboriginal affairs, that it should be a full participant in tripartite negotiations with the Algonquin people of Golden Lake?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, the events of last summer were a Canadian tragedy. The events of last summer have taught all Canadians that we have many lessons to learn. I do not think you will find, Madam Speaker, that this minister has any lessons to learn more than he has.
The government will take whatever action is essential to ensure that land claims right across this country are settled fairly and equitably and with as greatest dispatch as possible.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
In its February budget, the government announced it would release a document on Canada's economic prosperity in the spring. Summer starts next week, and we have yet to see this document.
We know that talking about prosperity is embarrassing for this government. Could the minister tell us whether the government still intends to publish this document, and if so, when?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Oral Questions
Madam Speaker, I thought the question was going to be a good one until he put in the pejorative words.
Our intention is to get this paper out as early as possible. It might not be possible to meet the objective of doing it before the end of the spring, but the paper is quite well advanced.
I would hope that we would be able to get launched on this with an opportunity of having broad debate and discussion across the country, including members of Parliament on all sides of the House.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, a newspaper reported last week that officials were scrambling to develop papers for a target deadline of June 19, but there is "intense disagreement inside the bureaucracy over whether the ideas have been developed enough to meet that deadline".
Will the minister admit that this disagreement within the bureaucracy reflects the confusion of its political masters, and that the government does not know what to do to ensure the prosperity of Canada and to provide jobs to Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member would look at the policies we have been following as a government, the hon. member would see that they have all been designed on the economics side to improve our competitiveness as a nation and, through that improved competitiveness, build on the prosperity that we all want to see. The range of policies, whether the broad policies of deficit control and inflation control, deregulation, tax reform or other policies related to the more specific areas of the impact on the economy, are all designed to improve the competitive position of the country.
This new document is designed to carry forward from that. There is no confusion whatsoever. There has been a very consistent theme, starting back in 1984 when we were first elected, and carrying us through to this dialogue now, which will set in place the policies that will carry us through to the end of this decade and into the next century.

Routine Proceedings FORESTRY


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade which also touches on his responsibilities as Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
My question pertains to the growing trade resistance to Canadian forest products in Europe as the result of the deliberate promotion of a boycott by certain misguided Canadian environmental interests. How is the Canadian forest industry and the Canadian government responding to this very serious trade problem with respect to our most important export resource?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, as my friend, who has taken a great interest in this particular issue and has a broad and very intense interest in the future of the forest industry, well knows we have been attacking this problem in a broad way.
Many members of Parliament met with representatives from the European Parliament during the course of a visit some weeks back. I believe the results of those discussions were instrumental in causing the European community to back away from the intentions they had prior to their arrival.
We are also taking this fight to the various capitals in Europe through our trade commissioners. The Prime Minister will be addressing this in his visit, if he has not already done so, in Germany this week. We reject the position taken by people who are in disagreement with the approach we have taken, and we will continue to fight that position as vigorously as we can.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask permission of the House to table the report of a parliamentary delegation. I had to go out to the lobby to get the documents.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the House will agree to revert to presentation of Interparliamentary Delegations.


Mr. Bird:: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of a parliamentary delegation to Brazil and Chile which occurred earlier this year, comprising two members of the government side, one member from the Official Opposition, and one member from the New Democratic Party.


BRITISH COLUMBIA GRAIN HANDLING OPERATIONS ACT
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, Mr. Danis, seconded by Mr. Andre, asks for leave to table a bill.


Marcel Danis: for leave to introduce Bill C-25, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuance of grain handling operations in the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert, British Columbia.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, could I ask that you please clarify something for me. It sounded like you said: "Ordering the workers back to work." This is an order to order the employers to resume operations. There is a lockout going on, not a strike.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The bill reads: "To provide for the resumption and continuance of grain handling operations". That is what it reads in English. I did read it in French and it could be difficult for our translators.

Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1) the motion is deemed adopted.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to disrupt but I want to be assured that in fact the French version of the bill is clearly not saying: "Ordering the workers back to work".


Madam Deputy Speaker:: No, it does mean the same thing in both languages. To my knowledge of both languages, it does.
Motion agreed, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time? Later this day pursuant to orders made earlier.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: for leave to introduce Bill C-234, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (appeal procedures).
He said: Madam Speaker, in 1988 the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Statutory Instruments or Regulations adopted a report which recommended changes in the regulations dealing with the way the Public Service Commission deals with appeals.
The report of the committee was apparently adopted in the House. A response was required. The response came in the dying days of the session before the election in 1988 and the commission, which reports to Parliament, decided not to proceed with any of those recommendations.
In view of the intransigence of the commission, this bill is introduced in order to make mandatory in the act those items recommended by the committee in its report to Parliament. I hope that the bill will commend itself to all hon. members.


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

Barbara Greene: for leave to introduce Bill C-235, an act to amend the Criminal Code (offences of sexual nature).
She said: Madam Speaker, the current justice system
Routine Proceedings
unfairly treats victims of sexual offences. The two measures outlined in this bill will address that inequity to a degree. The first measure will assure victims that their right to privacy is given consideration. The second will require that defence attorneys prove to a justice that their clients are not a hazard to their victims or other members of the public.


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

Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by citizens primarily from Edmonton and Toronto calling upon Parliament to recognize the democratically elected government of Lithuania and establish diplomatic relations with it.
As well, the petitioners are calling upon the Soviet Union to withdraw all its military forces from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They are asking that in all negotiations between the Soviet Union and Lithuania that international mediation be provided.
Finally, they are asking that all international aid to the Soviet Union in the form of credit and feed grains be conditional upon the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the Baltic states and resolution of the Baltic crisis.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 50,000 Canadians from coast to coast demanding that this government remove the goods and services tax on feminine hygiene products.

June 14, 1991
Routine Proceedings
The petition was launched by a group called Taboo. Jackie Burnett of Sarnia and Barbara Saunders of KitcheneOzr believe that feminine hygiene products are health related necessities.
There is no choice for 53 per cent of Canada's population when it comes to boycotting these products. When single servings of yoghurt, chip dip and donated male sperm can be GST exempt, 50,000 people and I feel that this is one case where an exemption should be made.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I submit to the House a petition on behalf of the First Nations of Canada regarding immunity from the GST.
The First Nations of Canada are immune from taxation by virtue of their aboriginal and treaty rights. These rights have been affirmed by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Constitution Act of 1982, section 35, and by recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Spiro case.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to present a duly authorized petition on behalf of residents of Saskatchewan, mostly from my constituency, the towns of Dundurn, Allan, Hanley, but also from Saskatoon and Moose Jaw.
The petitioners are condemning the attacks on the rural way of life by this government in so far as the cutbacks to VIA, the abandonment of rail lines, the neglect of the fisheries and forestry, but particularly the closure of rural post offices.
They call upon Parliament to reject the actions of this government in the closing of the rural post offices.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by approximately 100 Albertans concerning primarily the situation in Lithuania.
They call for the Canadian Parliament and Senate to immediately recognize the legitimate democratically elected Government of Lithuania and to establish diplomatic relations with it.
The petitioners demand that negotiations between the Soviet Union and Lithuania begin, and want it ensured that international mediation is provided during the negotiations.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I want to present a petition in the House today from a number of residents in the Williams Lake area in British Columbia.
These residents are very concerned about the application that is currently before the CRTC regarding the bid by Unitel Communications for entry into the long distance telephone market.
The petitioners are asking the Minister of Communications to oppose Unitel's bid to compete with Canada's telephone companies in the long distance market. They are asking and urging the Minister of Communications to hold public hearings throughout our communities before deciding the fate of Canada's telecommunication system.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 also have the privilege to present a petition signed by a large number of people in the lower mainland of British Columbia.
The petitioners again urge the federal government to become involved in the Unitel application before the CRTC. Particularly, they want to ensure that there will be public hearings throughout this country so that the community can be consulted before our phone industry is destroyed.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present petitions, first of all from the community of Simpson in my riding. One hundred and nineteen residents of that area who use the local post office are upset with the fact that Canada Post is unilaterally removing their post office. They are very concerned about the future of postal service in that riding and call upon this government to provide postal service as a service and not as a profit-making venture.
As well, I have a petition from a number of people from the community of Bramalea, also in my riding, who are also concerned about the post office. They have experienced the absence of a post office. They have not had a post office since 1990, when the retail postal outlet closed. There have been a number of problems with mail

service in Bramalea, including access to mail during the winter, confusion about parcel service, and it is causing very serious difficulties with the residents. They call upon this government to put in place a proper postal service for that community.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Finally, I rise to present a petition presented to me by a number of farmers in Saskatchewan. They call upon this government to give farmers in this country the opportunity to have oats under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and to protect them by amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act to give oats and barley the same protection as wheat.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents in rural parts of British Columbia. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Ministry of Communications to oppose Unitel's bid to compete with Canada's telephone companies in long distance service; urge the Minister of Communications to consult with all affected parties, specifically those citizens living outside of Canada's urban areas, who will be impacted severely by deregulation; and urge the Minister of Communications to hold hearings in our communities before deciding the fate of Canada's telecommunication systems.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of petitioners from the lower mainland and the interior of British Columbia, who are urging the Minister of Communications to oppose Uni-tel's bid to compete with Canada's telephone companies in long distance service.
These petitioners are most concerned about what the impact of the deregulation of the telephone system will be to those citizens who live outside the urban areas and who are really very much dependent on telephone communication for their livelihood.
Routine Proceedings


[Stage Direction]
(Question answered orally is indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, question No. 44 will be answered today.


Mr. Gauthier: According to the most recent information available to the government, what is the percentage of employees covered by pension plans in the private sector who belong to (a) non-contributory plans in which contributions for plan benefits are provided entirely by employers (b) plans in which employers finance more than 50 per cent of required employer and employee contributions?


M. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry Science and Technology):: By the
honourable Micheal H. Wilson, minister responsible for Statistics Canada reports: At January 1,1989 there were 2,753,756 members of pension plans sponsored by employers in the private sector.
a)	Almost 54 per cent of these members belonged to plans to which contributions for plan benefits were provided entirely by the employer (non-contributoiy plans)
The remaining 46 per cent belonged to plans to which both the employee and the employer were required to contribute (contributory plans)
b)	The percentage of employees belonging to contributory plans in which the employers finance more than 50 per cent of the required contributions is not known. However, legislation now in effect in six provinces and for federally regulated plans stipulates that employees' contributions with interest cannot constitute more than 50 per cent of the commuted value of pension benefits accrued after a prescribed date.
Source: Pensions Plans in Canada database, Pensions Section, Statistics Canada.

June 14, 1991
Government Orders


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


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-10, an act to amend the Excise Ihx Act and the Excise Act be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are five minutes remaining in the speech by the hon. member for Surrey North.


David Charles Dingwall: Just a brief point of order, Madam Speaker. Of course, we will hear the hon. member who has the floor with regard to his remarks on C-10. I am wondering if, following that, we could hear the member from our party and then proceed to the motion with regards to the port of Vancouver, which may mean we may not see the clock exactly at 12.30 p.m., but extend it for a few moments afterwards. I am wondering if there might be a disposition in the House to proceed in that way.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, of course we would have no problems in doing that to co-operate with the New Democratic Party and to allow the Liberal speaker to complete his remarks on the firm understanding, of course, that what we would do is just simply shift the clock back the five or ten minutes that would be necessary. The full hour would still remain.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, as a result of the parliamentary secretary's explanation that we would in fact shift the whole hour, that we would still have a full hour's debate, we would have no difficulty co-operating with the Liberals to allow their speaker time.


An hon. member:: Agreed.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, I will wrap up my remarks fairly quickly. One of the things we should be looking at is what the action is of the government in relation to the resources it has to deal with the question of tobacco.
I think we have to put into perspective that this increase in taxes alone, not the total revenue from tobacco taxes, but the increase, will be $1.4 billion in the first year and it will drop down to just under $1 billion a year. Spending, in terms of dealing with this major health issue, should be balanced against that.
For example, this year, it is spending only $3.3 million on the national strategy to reduce tobacco use. That is a very, very small amount, particularly when it is compared with some other expenditures in the health area. It is spending $41 billion on the national drug strategy and $38 million on the AIDS program.
Both of those are worthy programs and I would certainly encourage the government to spend more in those areas. But when you look at the expenditures in the tobacco area of $3.3 million, compared to a $1.4 billion increase in revenue, one really begins to wonder what its priorities are.
Knowing it has this massive revenue to do it, I would like to see the federal government become far more aggressive in the following areas: the promotion of health in general and healthy lifestyles, which is something it could do positively, promote the reduction of the consumption of tobacco, particularly programs aimed at reducing the initial addiction of youth and, third, develop programs to assist those people who are addicted to tobacco to withdraw from tobacco consumption.
We spend many, many millions of dollars on drug treatment centres, drug counselling, but as a national government, we spend almost nothing to assist people who are addicted to cigarette smoking to withdraw.
It could spend money on health research. In the last two years the government has dramatically reduced its expenditures on health research at a time when we should be increasing expenditures. These are areas in which it could use this massive increase in revenue, $1.4 billion, to do something positive.

The last area should be pursued aggressively. It should be assisting farmers and workers in the tobacco area in positive adjustment programs by assisting the tobacco growers to develop alternative crops and markets for those crops and tobacco workers to develop adjustments and training programs so they can go into other types of employment. Let us remind ourselves, they have an increase in revenue of $1.4 billion so they can do it.
This type of approach has tremendous public support. Environics polled Canadians to find out what kind of support there was for using the increase in tobacco revenues in various areas. They found out that 84 per cent supported its use in research into disease. Another 84 per cent supported its use in preventing smoking among young people. Seventy-eight per cent supported its use in helping people quit smoking and the same number supported the use of that money to promote healthier lifestyles.
It is quite interesting that one of the things the public did not support the use of this money for was to reduce the debt.
In other words, the public sees this as a health tax not as a revenue tax. It does not want it used as revenue for the government to try to reduce its deficit or reduce the impact of its fiscal mismanagement on the economy. The public is quite prepared to support it as a health tax.
I guess, I and my New Democratic colleagues would also support it on this basis and that is why we support this government's legislation.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for the excellent presentation he made on this issue.
As you know, I have made a number of presentations before in this House in an attempt to reduce the amount of smoking this addictive substance that takes place in Canada, and I certainly strongly support the increase that is proposed for the excise tax on cigarettes and tobacco products.
But I believe, as my colleague believes, that this tax should not be called an excise tax because it leads people
Government Orders
to believe that this is simply something that goes into the national treasuiy and, like everything else that seems to go into the national treasury, disappears from view from the point of view of public programs.
Maybe there is an opportunity in committee stage to label this tax as a supplementary medicare premium, because, as my colleagues who have spoken on this issue have pointed out during the debate, smoking costs thousands of lives throughout Canada. It also damages the health of many tens of thousands of Canadians and, as a result of that loss of life and as a result of that damage to health, it incurs the expenditure of hundreds of millions of Canadian tax dollars on things like health and hospital care. Those have to be shouldered, not simply by smokers, but by all Canadians.
If we had a supplementary medical premium attached to cigarettes instead of calling it excise taxes then people would get a clear grasp as to what the problem is in this case.
I do hope, as well, that the government will carry on this philosophy into other areas. It should stop subsidizing the growing of tobacco and stop subsidizing tobacco advertising through the tax system. It should gradually phase out the import and the export of tobacco products from Canada. It should establish adjustment programs that will assist farmers who are currently involved in growing tobacco to shift to other crops. Also it should help workers who are involved in the tobacco industry at the current time so that they can leave that industry with retraining and other programs and not experience any loss of income or socioeconomic standing.
So I congratulate the speakers who have spoken today on the viewpoints they have presented and I certainly congratulate my colleague from Surrey North for the excellent information that he has given to this House.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, I must say that the member's very imaginative idea of having this tax designated as a health tax or a health premium would be in line with the feelings of the Canadian public because the surveys and polling on this clearly indicate that the public supports this when the money is directed towards the health of the public, including preventing young people

Government Orders
from smoking, helping people to quit smoking and promoting healthier lifestyles.
But, at the same time, the public does not support its use to reduce the deficit or to replace the advertising revenues for sports organizations that tobacco companies are now doing in promotions.
There is one other very interesting thing that I think relates to this. The public not only does not like this money being swallowed up into the government's revenues, it clearly said that it felt independent, non-government bodies should be responsible for the expenditure of these dollars. I think that is an indication of the lack of confidence that Canadians now have in the wisdom of the expenditures of this government.
So the public is saying that it supports the idea of a health tax, but it thinks the expenditures should be under the control of somebody we can reliably trust.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong objections to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and Excise Act.
Let us be clear about this bill. The government has attempted to cloud the issue and cover up the real intent of this bill. This is nothing more than a tax bill, a tax grab.
This bill proposes a 3 cent per cigarette increase in the federal excise tax and, by its own estimates, this increase will mean an additional $1.4 billion in the federal government's coffers.
The real intent of this bill is to increase the government's revenue, not to help the health of Canadians. Its aim is nothing more than to take money from the pockets of ordinary Canadians. It is a regressive tax. It is an unfair tax and it is an unnecessary tax.
I,	as the spokesperson for Haldimand-Norfolk, want to tell this government that the people of Haldimand- Norfolk oppose this tax. I am opposed because what it will not do is encourage people to stop smoking as much as it will encourage them to get their cigarettes elsewhere, to cross-border shop or to buy smuggled or stolen cigarettes.
I am opposed to this bill because coupled with this government's abandonment of transition programs, it leaves tobacco farmers high and dry.
This is not a health bill. The government certainly has a right and a responsibility to show its view on smoking and to alert Canadians to the potential health risks of smoking. That is not what is at issue here.
What is at issue here is the use of the tax system to impose an incredible burden on Canadians who supposedly considered these warnings and exercised their ultimate right to choose to smoke.
The government is concerned about the young starting to smoke. It should be implementing programs like the one in the United States in which starting in the first grade students enter a program educating them on the dangers of smoking and offering certificates for the completion of this program.
In a recent article, Herbert Laframboise, a former Deputy Minister of Health and Welfare says that this U.S. program will give students a "continuous bombardment as to the ills and dangers of smoking and would be the nucleus of a smoke-free society." According to Laframboise, one reason this deterrence program is not pursued by the government as an alternative to raising taxes is that "it costs money and it does not generate revenue".
I welcome any government's concern for the health of Canadians, but I think its concern should not be limited to those matters which will just fatten its own coffers.
It strikes me as a little bit ironic that this government on the one hand attempts to pass off major tax grabs as a health measure when it closes its eyes to other major health programs or other major health concerns facing Canadians.
I am thinking of the real concern posed by the additive MMT now being used in Canadian gas. The members opposite must surely be aware of the significant health danger posed by MMT. Its dangers have been brought to their attention numerous times by my colleague, the member for Lambton-Middlesex.
The U.S. banned MMT in unleaded gas in 1978. A subcommittee of the House energy commerce committee in the United States wrote last year a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency which said: "We are extremely concerned about the substantial serious health impacts from the introduction of MMT gasoline. Manganese is listed as an air toxic capable of serious neuro toxic effects".

This government knows this and yet it does nothing about it. I urge the government to address all the serious health concerns facing Canadians, including the use of MMT, and not to limit its health concerns only to those which will enable it to justify a $5 billion tax grab.
Tobacco consumption rates in Canada have declined. Cigarette consumption in Canada has fallen from $63 billion in 1983 to $47 billion in 1989. This decline is due to rising health concerns, government smoking regulations and taxes.
According to Mr. Laframboise:
Many of the people who have quit have been people whose attachment to smoking has not been strong.
A surprising number of former smokers smoked casually as a social habit, and for reasons yet to be explained, never became addicted to nicotine.
Mr. Laframboise then goes on to talk about the people who are not so lucky, those who are addicted to nicotine. He writes: "It is these hard cases who are most trapped and punished by high taxes on tobacco. They are smokers of relative long-standing. Burdening them with the present level of taxes can fairly be described as a cruel exploitation of a population addicted to a legal product".
Tobacco farmers have been equally exploited by this government. With this latest tax increase the government will be collecting over $4 billion a year in tobacco taxes; $4 billion a year from the sweat and labour of my tobacco farmers. What part of this $4 billion-plus has it given back to tobacco farmers this year to help them cope with what is for many of them a loss of livelihood? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Last March, this government stopped accepting applications for the REDUX program which helps farmers exit the tobacco industry. There are now over 600 tobacco farmers on the waiting list for the program, even though it ran out of money months ago. The government has yet to allocate any new money for this program. Tobacco farmers are hanging on to a financial shoestring and this government is content to leave them twisting in the wind.
The same sad story of this abandonment of tobacco farmers is told by the government's handling of the Alternative Enterprise Initiative. This program was designed to help farmers find alternative crops to tobacco. It ran out of money months ago and the government is giving no clue as to its future. A tobacco farmer with 18 acres produces about 45,000 pounds of dried production of which the farmer's gross revenue before cost is $66,000. Of that, this government makes a tax profit of
Government Orders
$4.5 million. That is 68 times what the farmer makes on his own product.
Per package, the farmer's revenue is 7.3 cents. The federal government's tax revenue is $2.31 and the provincial government Ontario's revenue for instance, is $2.04, $4.35 in Ontario alone.
Since 1984, 900 farmers have abandoned tobacco leaving about 1,200 attempting to hang on. The transition has been very large and very rapid. Nowhere has this rapid transition and displacement been felt more strongly than in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, which traditionally has been one of the largest tobacco growing regions in the country.
Many farmers have lost their farms. Some have struggled to start anew with a different crop, buying different tools and equipment, learning a new crop and usually taking a loss for the first few years. There are only so many farmers who can find a new crop without flooding the market and very few have actually succeeded.
Farmers are a vital part of the economy of Haldimand-Norfolk, and of Canada, and when they suffer the people of Haldimand-Norfolk suffer. The people of Canada suffer. The comer stores that used to supply farmers with their groceries suffer. The small businesses where the farmer used to buy his tools suffer. The students who worked in the fields and needed money to continue their education suffer. All Canadians suffer.
After collecting billions of dollars each year from the labours of these hard working farmers and Canadians, the government is now putting them in a situation in which they cannot leave the tobacco industry without losing their farms and retirement funds. Even when this government had in past years allocated money to these programs, the funding was woefully inadequate. For every $300 it collected from tobacco it gave less than $1 back to farmers who had produced it and had lost their livelihood. Now this government contents itself with stalling tactics and the continuation of these nickel and dime programs.
The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Marketing Board has worked long and hard to receive just treatment for the tobacco farmers from the federal government. They have asked the government countless times to end the ad hoc, piecemeal approach to tobacco compensation and, yet now, when the entire state of tobacco is uncertain, this government even refuses to give the board any indication what compensation farmers leaving the industry will receive this year.

Government Orders
Imagine the uncertainty and the stress this lack of government compassion is causing the stricken farmers this very minute. These farmers want nothing more than to be treated fairly.
This is the same government whose current Minister of Finance and former Minister of Agriculture said to tobacco farmers in my riding two and a half years ago, just before the election: I quote:
Ottawa wants to send a strong signal to the industry that we are
here to support tobacco producers in their time of need and
adjustment.
I ask this government and I ask the minister: What happened to this promise?
The people of Haldimand-Norfolk feel betrayed by this government.
As a last resort, some tobacco farmers have joined together in defiance and disillusionment. Some 950 farmers, 30 share growers and 20 small business owners have joined together to file a law suit against the federal and provincial governments. They call themselves FACT, Fair Compensation for Tobacco. Under the leadership of Fred Homeniuk, they are seeking justice in our courts where they have not received it from our governments.
Mr. Homeniuk says the law suit is, and I quote: "An attempt to regain our dignity".
They want to know whether the governments have a constitutional right to tax a legal product to the extent that its growers are deprived of their right to earn a livelihood and to gain just compensation.
How did our governments respond to their quest? They tried to have FACT'S lawsuit thrown out of court before it was even heard. Luckily, the government's attempt has failed and the lawsuit is proceeding.
Farmers are not the only ones fed up with this government's tax grabs. Canadians have responded to the current campaign against unfair tobacco taxes with an enthusiasm that could only be a result of a deep-felt anger and frustration.
The tax protest forms being mailed to the Prime Minister, which I understand are sitting a room in the
Langevin Block and not even being read by the Prime Minister, say:
I am of voting age. I want you to stop unfair taxation of tobacco
products in Canada. What are you going to do about it? I expect a
reply.
In the first two weeks of the campaign alone, 453,600 protest cards have been processed. Depending on the province a Canadian lives in, 70 to 80 per cent of the cost of a typical $6 package of cigarettes is tax. For a pack-a-day smoker in Ontario, taxes amount to $1,599 a year.
When taxation reaches excessive levels, black market activity flourishes and Canadian cigarettes are no exception.
Recent studies show that last year, an estimated 11 million cartons of stolen cigarettes were fenced in Canada. According to officials, cigarette theft has risen sharply since the latest tax hike which is the subject of the bill being implemented today and talked about today.
A recent article in the Western Report says: "Criminals, always responsive to the demands of the marketplace, are stealing cigarettes at an unprecedented rate". Calgary sees an average of six robberies a day involving cigarettes.
In February, 13 people were caught as they attempted to steal $3.6 million worth of cigarettes hijacked from two CP Rail trains.
In March, two thieves hit a wholesale warehouse, held a clerk at gunpoint and escaped with $25,000 worth of cigarettes. "Cigarettes are the hottest target around right now", says Calgary Police Superintendent Gerry Baxter.
The smuggling of cigarettes across the Canada-U.S. border has risen dramatically since this latest tax increase.
A recent study done by Peat Marwick Thome finds:
This additional tax burden effectively increases the demand for the
smuggled product to avoid the significant tax burden.
Ray Thibault, an intelligence and interdiction officer with Customs Canada says: There's been a definite increase in seizures in the last three months."

The Peat Marwick Thorne study quotes law enforcement estimates of a 10 per cent to 20 per cent increase in cigarette smuggling in the last few months. The study estimates the loss in tax revenue from increased smuggling caused by this tax increase will cost the federal government $30 million.
The differential between Canadian and U.S. tax rates has become so large that smuggling and cross-border shopping are causing real damage to the Canadian economy. On the British Columbia-Montana divide, each package of Canadian cigarettes has $3.06 more tax in its price than its U.S. counterpart. On the Ontario-Michigan border, the additional tax burden on cigarettes is $2.93 per package. In comparing New Brunswick and its border state, Maine, Canadian cigarettes have $3.59 more tax per package.
Our tax rates on cigarettes are inviting Canadians to head down to the U.S. to buy them. They stand to save $20 to $30 off the price of a carton of cigarettes alone. That would more than cover the gas used to get there for most Canadians.
Besides, while they are down there they can fill up their tank and they can save another bundle. And while they are down there, who knows what else they will buy which they might otherwise have bought in Canada, in fact, within my own riding, which is an hour's drive from the border.
There are winners and losers with any piece of government legislation. I oppose this bill because I have problems in it with who wins and who loses.
The winners with this bill are the federal government's coffers, U.S. cigarette retailers, tobacco smugglers and thieves. The losers are law-abiding Canadian taxpayers who smoke and law-abiding, hard-working Canadian tobacco farmers, manufacturers and workers.
It is because of the serious oversights and inadequacies of this bill that I intend to propose amendments in committee and at third reading stage.
I will seek to amend this bill so that tobacco farmers are no longer made the scapegoats of this government. I will propose that the $1.4 billion in additional revenue per year that this government collects from this latest tax hike be given back to the tobacco producers so that those who wish to leave can do so without losing their farms or without losing their pensions and those who wish to stay can have a sustainable industry in which to produce.
Government Orders
I will propose that this government, in conjunction with this tax hike, commit itself to informing tobacco farmers on a 10-year basis of its plans for tobacco tax increases so that they will no longer be the victims of ad hoc increases and will know what their future holds.
Madam Speaker, I see my time is up and I want to send one final message to this government. Canadians will not stand for these tax increases hedged in health legislation. As a matter of fact, Canadians are fed up with this government and their increased tax bills.


Lee Richardson: Madam Speaker, I want to take a couple of short minutes to respond to the member and address some of the concerns that he has raised.
First of all, I think it is very important to note that concerns about the serious health hazards of smoking and recognition of the significant contribution that taxation can make in addressing the problem were the key factors in the government's decision to increase tobacco taxes in this budget.
It is expected that the consumption of cigarettes and other tobacco products will decline by about 9 per cent in the next fiscal year as a result of the increases in tobacco taxes proposed in this legislation and other government initiatives to reduce tobacco use in Canada.
I think it is important to note that higher cigarette prices are particularly effective in discouraging young Canadians from starting to smoke. A 10 per cent increase in price will reduce consumption by young Canadians as much as 14 per cent.
Will Osier advises me that as a result of the tax increases announced in this budget, it is estimated that
100,000	fewer young Canadians will smoke.
I can appreciate the concerns of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk who just spoke. He represents a tobacco producing area. The government has also addressed that concern. As part of its comprehensive strategy to reduce tobacco consumption in Canada, the government established the Tobacco Assistance Program several years ago to assist tobacco producers to leave the industry and to encourage economic diversification of tobacco regions. As a result of federal and provincial assistance, nearly half of all the tobacco farmers in Canada have left the tobacco growing industry over the past five years.

Government Orders


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, I am the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, not Northumberland.
I am somewhat surprised, to tell you the truth, at his comments. Had he been able to talk to the two members on his side from tobacco growing areas, the member for Oxford and the member for Elgin, and had they been in the House to tell him, they might have told him that in fact, the money has run out for the specific programs which he just talked about.
The fact of the matter is that there is no money this year to help tobacco fanners exit tobacco. The fact of the matter is that there is no money this year to help the alternative enterprise initiative and to help farmers divert into other initiatives.
I want to say to the hon. member that before he gets up in the House and spiels off the government lines, he might want to talk to the members from Elgin and Oxford when they get back to this Chamber.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, I always find myself quite amazed when the Liberal Party can stand up and passionately debate both sides of the issue. But after two or three years in this House, I guess I should no longer be surprised because that is normally the Liberal stand.


An hon. member:: They are good at that.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: I would also like to say to the member that he forgot to mention the losers, the 35,000 Canadians who die every year. What about their families, their loved ones, their parents, their children? Those are the losers.
You pretend there is no connection between the increase in the price and the reduction of smoking and yet it has been clearly demonstrated that there has been. The only place I would agree with you is in your discussion about the negligence of the Conservative government concerning adjustment programs as they relate to farmers. They could take that $1.4 million and guarantee that there is no sustainable tobacco industry in
Canada. That should be our goal, that there will never be any sustainable tobacco industry in this country.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, I take exception to the member for Surrey North for challenging my right to stand up for my constituents in this House. I thank God I have a leader who allows me to stand and represent my constituents.
My constituents are concerned about this. They know that this is nothing more than a tax grab couched in health legislation. When that hon. member allows his leader, and when the Prime Minister allows his members to stand up in this House to speak out on behalf of their constituents, then maybe this House will be a better place for all Canadians.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, I should encourage my colleague not to be too surprised. The member for Surrey North often demonstrates that Marxist/Leninism is alive and well in the NDP. In any event, I share the concern that he has expressed.
I want to say first of all, though, that I support the approach to encouraging non-consumption of damaging substances through taxation. I think that has been proven, as has been said, to be a successful strategy.
What concerns me in this legislation is two things, one of which the member called to mind, the historic alliance that existed in Ontario between the temperance movement and the bootleggers, who had a mutual interest in trying to exclude alcohol. The concern we should have is that at a certain level, taxation as a deterrent stands to benefit others than those whose health is being affected by the consumption of tobacco.
The other thing that concerns me-I see it in the budget which I have in front of me-is that when you look through the budget, it is very hard to accept the premise that this is merely a health tax.
The budget highlights the desperate financial position that the Government of Canada is in. It says that one of the fundamental problems is the state of the public finances. It sets out the need to create the Debt Reduction Fund which is going to be in a deficit position itself of $122 billion within five years.
Then it reveals the tobacco tax which will generate over the course of four years, according to the budget, over $4.5 billion, none of which is going to any of the

programs either for encouragement of non-consumption or for adjustment for the tobacco farmers.
I would like the member for Haldimand-Norfolk to respond if he would do that. I find it surprising, since he is not the only member in this House from a tobacco producing area, that nobody else, particularly on the other side of the House seems to be raising the concerns of the farmers in this situation.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, it is funny where the morality in this House comes from sometimes.
I want to thank the hon. member for his comments. The Minister of Agriculture is sitting in the House now. I know he is new to his portfolio, so he might take some of my comments back to the people in his department and get them moving on this.
Frankly, if he is going to take the line on that side that he does not want tobacco in this country and he does not want smokers in this country, he might be well to help move some of these farmers out of tobacco. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture has discussed this with his officials.
I just want to say to my hon. friend that he is right. It is nothing more than a tax grab. If this government really wanted to stop smoking in Canada, particularly young people, why is it not outlawed? Why does it not do a number of other things that can stop people from smoking in Canada? This is nothing more than a tax grab. The government knows it.


Barbara Greene: Madam Speaker, I too am somewhat amazed at the defence of the tobacco industry. Certainly when we put in the program to help tobacco producers to change professions, that was their opportunity to get out of this business of selling death.
As far as I am concerned, I think the overwhelming evidence is that public costs for tobacco are outrageous. The government can simply look at the health care budget, but there are other budgets that have to be looked at as well. Indeed, when one looks at the public maintenance budgets around this place, when one looks at the floors, when one looks at any kind of public building, there are enormous costs. We see fires. There are many fires created through cigarette smokers and so on. I particularly find the health costs to be odious but those other costs are public costs as well.
Government Orders
If this was a drug that was being considered for introduction today, it would be banned. There is no question about that. There is tremendous public cost and no value at all. It does not help smokers relax. It does not help them to do anything. It is an addiction that even smokers do not want to have.
What I find particularly insidious is this campaign suggesting that smokers are being encouraged to send in protest documents. What tobacco producers and protest companies are doing is putting in another insidious campaign that is associating smoking with rebellion, particularly against government.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and comment has now expired.


Mr. McKnight:: Madam Speaker, I just feel that in light of openness, I should inform my colleagues that I as the newly appointed Minister of Agriculture suffer from a lethal addiction. It is called smoking.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and comments has elapsed. I am sure the House would allow the hon. member 30 seconds to comment, should he wish to, and then we will move on. If the House will give its consent?


An hon. member:: No.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I want to point out to you that the member for Don Valley, whatever, challenged me on a question and then refused unanimous consent to have me answer her. That speaks well for how things are done in the Conservative Party in this country.


Barbara Greene: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member had all kinds of time to answer and there is no answer.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Am I to understand that the hon. member is ready to allow the hon. member a few seconds to answer?


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, the point is that her party, her government, if it wanted to ban tobacco in Canada, it could. The point is that if she wants to put up arguments like that, she should be making arguments to the Minister of Agriculture, telling him that what he should be doing is taking the $4 billion a year he gets from taxation and giving it to Canadian tobacco farmers to help them out of the business.

Government Orders
Her point is ludicrous and the fact that she points out that her own two members, the member for Oshawa and the member for Elgin, are not here because they feel that it is in their best interest to stay away, I think is wrong, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I wish the hon. member had not made the point of noticing the absence of members in the House.
The time for question and comments has now expired. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Marcel Danis: that Bill C-25, an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of grain handling operations in the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert, British Columbia be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, in that the debate on the previous matter has taken a fair amount of time that was not allotted in the House Order, I would assume that all parties agree that the total time allowed for debate will be started as of this time.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I would agree wholeheartedly with my colleague from the New Democratic Party that we will have a full hour's debate, if need be, on the subject matter that the Minister of Labour will be raising.


Marcel Danis: I also agree, Madam Speaker, with the recommendation of my friend from Churchill and the House leader for the Official Opposition.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This is what the Chair understood as well following the point of order from the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam earlier.


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, nothing would have given me greater pleasure today than to be able to rise at this time and inform hon. members that a negotiated settlement had been reached in the grain handling dispute on Canada's west coast.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. I find that instead I must address the House in the context of introducing legislation to bring about a resumption of grain handling operations in the port of Vancouver.
The introduction of such legislation is necessary in order to ensure that economic hardships placed on Canada's agricultural producers as a result of the work stoppage be removed and the country's reputation as a reliable exporter of grain not be placed in jeopardy.
Most hon. members will be aware that the labour dispute in question involves the B.C. Terminal Elevator Operators' Association representing five grain elevator companies in the port of Vancouver and the Grain Workers' Union, Local 333, representing some 650 grain workers.
The previous collective agreement between the two parties expired on December 31, 1989 and the parties met in direct negotiations between February and November 1990 in an effort to arrive at a new contract. Despite these efforts, the two sides were unable to reach agreement and a conciliation officer from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of Labour Canada was appointed on December 4,1990 to assist the parties in resolving their differences.
Even with the provision of third party assistance the association and the union were unable to find a common ground to settle the dispute.
Following the receipt of the report of the conciliation officer, I notified the parties of my decision not to appoint a conciliation commissioner or establish a conciliation board.
As hon. members are aware, the collective bargaining process provided for under Part I of the Canada Labour Code places the onus on the bargaining parties to make the required compromises to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution to their differences.
In not actioning this particular dispute, I indicated to the two sides that I expected them to make their responsibilities seriously and to make the process work for them as opposed to relying on the government to get them off the hook.

Government Orders

In May 1991, the parties met in direct negotiations but failed to make any progress. On May 8, the Grain Workers' Union prohibited its members from working overtime. During the period from May 30 to June 4, the parties met before a mediator from the private sector, Mr. Vince Ready, who subsequently withdrew from the dispute, indicating that the positions of the two parties on the matter at issue were too far apart for the mediation process to proceed normally.
After the mediator left, work slowdowns occurred at a number of grain elevators, and on June 10, the B.C. Terminal Elevator Operators' Association locked out workers at all its facilities.

Given the serious consequences of such a work stoppage action I instructed two senior officials of the federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to travel to Vancouver and meet with the parties in order to fully assess the situation. Michael McDermott, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, and Warren Edmondson, Director General of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service met with the two sides in Vancouver on June 12 and conveyed to them my strongest possible concerns over their failure to resolve their contract dispute.
The parties were also made aware that the government was not prepared to sit back and watch grain exports from the west coast be paralysed by a lengthy work stoppage.
They were also aware that the government was not prepared to tolerate the economic cost to western Canadian farmers, to suffer the potential loss in grain sales and to allow Canada's international reputation as a reliable supplier to suffer.
Despite these urgings, the parties still were not prepared to make the necessary compromises to bring about a resolution of the differences impeding a settlement of a contract dispute. Following consultations with my officials, I have come to the conclusion that there is virtually no prospect of the two sides resolving this conflict in the foreseeable future.
As I have indicated, this government is not prepared to passively stand on the sidelines and witness the tremendous damage which a stoppage of this magnitude is capable of inflicting on the country's economy.
Therefore, I am confident that hon. members on both sides of the House will understand that, while regrettable, the introduction of the British Columbia Grain Handling Operations Act is an action being taken by this government on behalf of all Canadians.
The proposed legislation before the House makes reference to two grain handling disputes. As I have indicated, the dispute between the B.C. Terminal Elevator Operators Association and the Grain Workers Union, Local 333, is currently at the lock-out stage.
Hon. members will know that the other dispute referenced in the bill involves Prince Rupert Grain Limited and the Grain Workers Union, also Local 333, and is currently at the conciliation officer stage. This dispute, however, bears similarities to the terminal elevator operations dispute in that the issues for the most part are analogous. Part II of the legislation, if proclaimed, enforced by Order in Council, would provide for resolution of the dispute through the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator.
Of course, we would only seek proclamation of this part if the parties remain unable to settle their own differences and a work stoppage seriously affecting the movement of export grains were to ensue.
Part I of the proposed legislation provides for the immediate resumption of grain handling operations in the port of Vancouver and provides for the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator to deal with all matters remaining in dispute between the parties. The bill extends the term of the collective agreement to include the period beginning January 1, 1990 and extending to December 31, 1991.
Under the terms of the legislation, the mediator-arbitrator is given 90 days, or such longer period as the minister may allow, to endeavour to mediate all of the matters in dispute. In the event that the mediator-arbitrator appointed under the legislation is unable to bring about agreement on any such matter he or she is required to render an arbitral award on the issue.

June 14, 1991
Government Orders

Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House does not preclude agreement by the parties to amend any provision of the agreement, excepting the one setting the term of the agreement. The bill also contains provisions obliging both parties to comply with the legislation.

The British Columbia Grain Handling Operations Act, while bringing about an end to the current work stoppage, does provide the parties with an alternative to an imposed settlement. By providing for the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator the legislation presents the two sides of the grain handling dispute with a further opportunity to avail themselves of neutral third party assistance in arriving at an acceptable solution to their differences.
I urge the negotiators for the B.C. Terminal Elevator Operators Association and the Grain Workers Union to seize this occasion and make every effort to reach an accommodation on the outstanding issues in dispute.
For the information of hon. members the main issues in dispute during this round of negotiations involve wage parity with the west coast longshoremen, continuous operations and employer contributions to the pension plan. These issues are not new to the bargaining relationship between these parties.
While there has been no work stoppage at the Vancouver terminal elevators since 1974, labour peace has often been maintained by setting critical issues aside for further study. Such has been the case with the overtime hours of work issue that underlies the current employer demand for continuous operations. This issue has actually been discussed in one form or another since 1971. In both the 1982 and 1984 bargaining rounds conciliation commissioners recommended further examination and established procedures accordingly. However, the procedures were not followed up in any meaningful fashion and the issue has been left unresolved.
Hon. members may question why the proposed legislation does not contain a provision for a specific study of the continuous operations question, the key issue in the current dispute.
All of the outstanding issues in dispute are essentially of an economic nature and as such they cannot be separated from one another in the legislation. However, should the need for an in depth review of this issue become apparent during the course of the mediation arbitration proceedings, and if the mediator arbitrator asks, I will certainly be happy to give whatever assistance Labour Canada can offer.
As I indicated in my earlier remarks, it is not a pleasant task for me as Minister of Labour to introduce such legislation. However, the parties in this dispute have had ample opportunity, including extensive third party assistance, to resolve the issues in dispute and have failed to do so. They have imposed the consequences of their dispute on the western grain producers, while continuing to reject every opportunity for a settlement through accepted dispute resolution mechanisms.
This government has an obligation to act to protect not only the economic interests of the agricultural sector of this country, but also Canada's reputation as a reliable grain exporter. This legislation serves as evidence of the government's acceptance of that responsibility.
In closing, I would like to thank the members of the government's agricultural caucus for their support of this action today and particularly the hon. Minister of Agriculture and the hon. Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, there is no joy in the immediate task before us. There is no glory to be sought here. There is no joy for me in this bill and there is no joy for my party in this bill. There is no joy because we have far too much respect for collective bargaining, too much respect for workers and their rights and too much respect for grain farmers. There is no joy in stepping in where collective bargaining has failed. There is no joy in forced solutions.
We are called upon to carry out our duty and carry it out we will. Our duty, as we see it, is to restore grain handling services at the port of Vancouver. Our duty, as we see it, is to support the bill before us and secure the re-opening of grain handling facilities at Vancouver.
Allow me to offer a personal perspective. I have been a member of a union. I have had the honour of being a president of a union. I have a great respect for workers and their rights and I have great reluctance to interfere in the exercise of those rights. They have fought long and
June 14 , 1991

hard for what they have got and no one on this side of the House wants to see a diminution of those rights.
I also have a profound respect for farmers, my father was one. My family farmed. I spent my youth on a farm. I know, as we all do on this side of the House, the current precarious situation of farmers. We know how reliant they are on international markets. We know how important it is for them to get their grain through the port of Vancouver. Farmers are near the close of their current crop year. They are busy moving out the grain in preparation for yet another harvest.
I am tom, as I am sure we all are, but we cannot shirk our responsibilities. The Vancouver port must be reopened. I shant chronicle all the events leading up to the current stalemate. Suffice it to say that the grain handlers have worked without contract for about 18 months. Negotiations, along with conciliation, have gone on for months, yet the two sides are no closer on the thorny issues of wages and converting the grain handling facilities into a full blown, seven day operation. There is a deadlock. There is a stalemate. We are persuaded that the port must re-open now so that the grain can get moving again.
Our hope is that the government will name the mediator arbitrator, as provided for in this bill, and that the government will appoint that person very quickly so that he or she can begin the difficult job of finding a solution to this very difficult problem. The existing lock-out began last Monday and the effects of that lock-out have been dramatic. I would like to put it into perspective.
At the present time there are 21 vessels waiting to be loaded in the port of Vancouver, 35 are to arrive by June 30. Exports through the port of Vancouver for the month of April totalled 1.7 million metric tonnes, in May it was
1.6	million metric tonnes. The forecast for the month of June is 1.6 million metric tonnes, for July a little over 2 million metric tonnes, and in August 1.6 million metric tonnes.
There was a slowdown in work at the port before the lock-out occurred. The actual number of cars unloaded in the week ending May 11 was 2,908. The target for that
Government Orders
period was actually 3,550. In the week ending May 18 the actual unloading of cars was 3,191 while the target was 3,550. That story can be told all the way through the month of May and into the month of June.
Of course now with the lock-out there is nothing, nothing going through the port. That means that the port is losing about 54,000 metric tonnes a day-54,000 metric tonnes. To put it in dollar terms, that is about $7 million a day lost by the agricultural economy in western Canada. That is an enormous economic hardship.
We all know the significance of agriculture in the Canadian economy, particularly in western Canada. Farm cash receipts for 1991 were set at $21.7 billion. Farm exports have made up between 40 and 50 per cent of cash farm receipts and 8 per cent of Canada's total exports in 1990.
Approximately 70 to 80 per cent of wheat sales, 65 per cent of canola and 40 per cent of barley comprise a major part of total farm exports. At last count there were
459,000	jobs in the primary farm sector. In the food processing sector, the second largest in the country, there were at last count 225,000 jobs, worth about $43 billion to the economy. Of the 250,000 farms in Canada, cash crop farmers make up 52 per cent.
We all know the precarious situation of the farm economy. The realized net farm income in 1991 is forecast to drop by 22.5 per cent, compared to 1990. Saskatchewan will drop 145 per cent, Alberta 43 per cent, and Manitoba 35 per cent. This reduction in total net farm income is mainly the result of low international grain prices and a dramatic reduction in the federal support programs over the last two years.
A lot of Canadians do not realize that, despite the fact that the average income of farm families is a little over $37,000, 55 per cent of that income actually is derived from income made off the farm.
One more indicator which demonstrates the difficult times down on the farm these days is the number of bankruptcies. In Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta from January 1, 1990 to March 31, 1990 there were 113 bankruptcies. In the same period for 1991 that figure has soared to 140.

Government Orders
When all is said and done, we believe that the case for immediate resumption of grain shipments through the port of Vancouver is compelling. We believe that this bill is veiy, very necessary. I want to touch on a couple of other things. The bill includes a provision to include the terminal at Prince Rupert. As you know, there are labour difficulties there as well. It is possible the same thing may happen in Prince Rupert. The government is proposing that it applies this law to the terminal at Prince Rupert. We have some grave problems with that and we will pursue that in just a few moments when the bill moves on to report stage.
Another thing, this bill in effect asks parliamentarians to be the deciders. That causes concern for us because we really wonder if parliamentarians are the best deciders in a case like this. I would like to ask the government, particularly the hon. Minister of Labour to look at this situation, at possible legislation that will rid parliamentarians of this particular kind of responsibility. At least there should be some kind of probe or investigation to see if there is a better model or system to obviate the need for parliamentarians to be put into this kind of role.
In conclusion, I want to say that the grain must get moving to the port of Vancouver for the sake of farmers, the farm economy, and the whole Canadian economy. The port of Vancouver must be reopened. We support the bill and urge its immediate passage.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, the grain workers' union and the B.C. terminal elevator operators are faced with legislation after having been at the bargaining table for 18 months. I think it is important that in beginning this discussion we are very clear that the union did not strike, the employers did.
The union is aware of the needs of the farmers in this country and aware of the needs or the wants of the employer. But in this dispute there appear to be two solitudes. The farmers in Saskatchewan who are barely surviving for earning $2.50 a bushel for their wheat, which is likely to go down to $1.75 a bushel in the next couple of days, and who, in 1947, were earning $2 a bushel for their wheat.
The grain workers in 1947 worked 12-hour days and a 48-hour week. The employers at the elevators in Vancouver are demanding that the union return to the 12-hour day, 48-hour week.
Mr. Speaker, it might be of interest to you, the hon. minister, and other hon. members in this House to know that in 1948, the newly founded Grain Workers' Union struck for six months, without strike pay, to win the 8-hour day, the 40-hour week.
Six months is a long time for a family to survive without income, no income for six months to earn the 8-hour day, 40-hour week. Today the union is asked to turn its back on something for which tremendous sacrifices were made. Moms could not put food on the table. Children were going to school hungry. People were being evicted because they could not pay their rent. They were on strike without strike pay.
Some might ask why the farmers should care about that. It happened in 1947. In fact, the farmers today are fighting a terrible struggle just to survive on their farms. On the other hand the other solitude might ask why the grain workers should care about the farmers who are heavily subsidized anyway.
I believe that the grain workers and the farmers do both care about each other. Many grain workers come from farming backgrounds, and from the prairies.
Many, many, of the farmers whom we are talking about have relatives who are working at the terminals. I believe that both the workers and the farmers are the victims. They are victims of this government's inadequate grain marketing policies.
The price is down largely because of the dispute between the European Economic Community and the U.S. In particular, the Americans have been directly subsidizing grain sales into traditional Canadian markets. To retain markets, the Canadian Wheat Board has had to slash prices. The shipping delay caused by this dispute will cost farmers $9 million a week.
We need a government which will concern itself with promoting the viability of farm families and rural communities at the same time as it concerns itself with promoting good industrial relations in this country.
We also need an industrial relations climate which will ensure that for the grain workers, and other workers in federal jurisdiction, there is a reason to bargain. We have the proof of that need in this bill. If the union strikes, it will be legislated back to work. If the employer strikes, it will be legislated back to work. No one needs to bargain.

I think it is time that this Parliament says: "Parliament should not be the labour court or tribunal of Canada". It is time we look at the process and say that labour legislation must provide a forum for free, good faith collective bargaining in the federal jurisdiction.
The minister said that 90 per cent of negotiations are settled through the collective bargaining process in the federal jurisdiction. I think both sides can be justly proud of that. Among the 10 per cent that do not settle, that come to this forum, there are those who arrive here regularly before this House for legislated solutions because the system fails them.
I am not going to attack the employers in the grain industry here, because I think they, too, are caught with bad grain policies. But I am going to say to them that their need to provide a 12-hour day, 48-hour work week, to provide security for continuous operation, is an understandable one. However, I am also wondering why we are talking 12 hours a day, 48 hours a week.
I am pleased that the minister has assured us that he will not accept an arbitrated award because of the Canada Labour Code restrictions, and that both parties will have to negotiate that.
Recently a number of unions have negotiated 12-hour days and, because they freely negotiated it, that is fine if it is right for them. But, in fact, it is only now that the long-term effects of 12-hour days are being rediscovered. Fatigue, illness, stress, sleep disorders, digestive problems and workplace accidents. It is no accident that the mood in the workplace over the last 40 years has been to shorter, not longer hours. Why was it so important for us to hear the minister say that he is in favour, if proposed by the arbitrator, of an industrial inquiry commission into health and safety for the family life of this worker. It was important because we cannot afford unsafe work places, sick workers. We cannot afford that in this industrial society.
I know, just as the minister and the hon. member from the Liberal Party have said, that there is a tremendous cost to this dispute. But I also know that they used to ship through the port of Vancouver, 5 million tonnes a year, with thousands of workers. Today, they ship 17 million with 750 people. In fact, the union believes that it is possible to ship 20 million tonnes with the introduction of proper technological change.
What we need is good will. What we need is some
Government Orders
understanding that there is a long-term relationship between the settlements of the teamsters and the settlements of the grain workers. In fact, the grain workers had a three-year agreement with zero per cent in 1987, 2.1 per cent in 1988, and 2.8 per cent in 1989. The longshoremen at the same time got 7, 7, and 7. In this round of negotiations the employer has offered 4 per cent, when the longshoremen are already about 18 per cent ahead.
The same is true in Prince Rupert. The negotiations are not going well in Prince Rupert. For the government to undertake a pre-emptive strike before a dispute has taken place and to put legislation in place is merely the thin edge of the wedge. Maybe the minister is working toward having legislation in place: we can pass it all and the minute there is a dispute we can just impose it, we can proclaim it. That does not provide for free collective bargaining. We oppose the pre-emptive strike at Prince Rupert, Part II of the legislation.
In closing, I would like to say clearly that we are as opposed to legislating employers back to work as we are to legislating workers back to work. We are opposed to pre-emptive legislation, as shown in Part II of this legislation. We expect the minister to encourage the independent inquiry to look into the health and safety of family life of the worker it is facing in this legislation.
All the statistics in the world, all the legislation in the world, will not make a work place flourish. Only good will at both sides of the bargaining table will make that happen.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-25, an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of grain handling operations in the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert, British Columbia.

June 14, 1991
Government Orders
Clause 2 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 3 carry?
On Clause 3-Definitions


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, I have just a brief question for the minister on the definition of mediator-arbitrator. Would the minister just briefly and succinctly indicate what will be the intentions of the mediator-arbitrator in the days following the passage of this particular bill.


Marcel Danis: I would hope, sir, that the person who would be appointed would do everything in his or her power to get the parties to agree to a mediated settlement. I would think that would be the first phase of the operation. Only after that person found that there was no possibility of an agreed upon settlement would we possibly go into the arbitration phase.


David Charles Dingwall: I certainly do not wish to jeopardize anything that the minister might do in terms of the mediator-arbitrator. However, I am assuming that the mediator-arbitrator will move forward with some dispatch in terms of these issues.
I hope it is not going to be a long period of time one is going to attempt at mediation when, at the end of the day, it may not be there. Perhaps the minister will elaborate on that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 3 carry?


An hon. member:: The minister has not answered.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Chairman, the person whom we are referring to here is one person, the arbitrator.
In terms of time, I agree with my hon. friend, the House leader. I would hope that the person in question would act with dispatch with regard to the first phase. There is a delay of 90 days for this whole operation. It is possible for the person to ask the minister for more time.
I am sure that when the person is appointed, he or she would be aware that there is a 90-day delay.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On Clause 4-jResumption of grain handling operations


Joy Langan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. minister if, under clause 4, he would clarify just why this reference is to "employee". Could he clarify for us why it is worded in this way? I think he knows what I am concerned about.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Chairman, I understand that this is the clause that is put generally into this type of legislation because of the fact that it is an even-handed clause that applies to both parties equally whether it would have been a strike or whether it is a lockout like it is now.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On Clause 5-Obligations of employers


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, with regard to Clause 5(1):
5.(1) No employer or officer or representative of an employer shall
What are the sanctions if that is not complied with?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Chairman, the sanctions are listed in the enforcement section 11. This would constitute fines of not more than $50,000 for someone who contravenes any provision of this act and who is found guilty:
where the individual was acting in the capacity of an officer or representative of an employer or the union when the offence was committed; or
(b) of not more than $1,000 in any other case.
Plus there is the Enforcement section, section 11(2). Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
On Clause 8 -Appointment of mediator-arbitrator


Joy Langan: Mr. Chairman, under clause 8(4):
(4) Any amendment agreed to by the union and the employers' association pursuant to mediation under this section and any decision of the mediator-arbitrator in respect of a matter arbitrated by the mediator-arbitrator may be made applicable for part only of the term of the collective agreement.
Would the minister please clarify what that means? I think he understands what I mean there. It was my understanding that there would be retroactivity back to, certainly in our discussions, the expiry of the last collective agreement.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Chairman, the way the section is written does not prevent whatsoever the arbitrator going about it through the retroactive route, going back to when the collective agreement started or also during the course of the agreement. This would give more flexibility to the arbitrator but it does not bar what my hon. friend is suggesting.


Joy Langan: I am quite concerned about this in terms of the retroactivity. The workers are being put under arbitration with a clear time line at both ends, or, at least, yesterday there was a clear time line at both ends. Today we have a clear time line saying that only some of it may be retroactive. If it was not spelled out I would not be concerned. Maybe the minister can give us some specifics about how this will work.


Marcel Danis: This clause is a permissive clause only put in there for greater certainty. What I would suggest to my hon. friend would be if we could stand 8(4) with unanimous agreement, I would like to proceed with the rest. We will get back to 8(4) later on.


Rodney Edward Murphy: We would agree to standing this clause. It is our understanding that this clause was not there when there was a discussion over the legislation earlier. It creates one of the problems that we have when legislation is introduced into the House and the minister wants it passed in all stages at the same time. We would like to know why it was put in and why there was no warning it was coming.


Marcel Danis: I ask my colleagues to stand the clause and we will get back to it after we do the others.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Stand, Clause 8.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 11 carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Joy Langan: In view of the fact that three of us were in the House speaking on the legislation, it would be nice if we at least had the time to see which clause we are talking about. We have not even had an opportunity to read this bill.
I know the minister is in a great hurry to get this through, but it would be, I think, only considerate and courteous to allow us to at least know what each clause is before you pass on. I cannot even look at it and tell what it is before you say "carried". I would ask, with great
Government Orders
respect, that we could slow this process down a little bit.
I do not think we are in that big a hurry.


David Charles Dingwall: While my colleague is making reference to the particular section that is now before us, perhaps I might come back to the clause which was standing and I would make this observation.
In terms of my interpretation of that particular clause, which I know is standing at the present moment, each of section 4 may be made applicable for part only of the term of the collective agreement. It means that any changes thereto would be only in effect for the term of the collective agreement which is from point A to point B, whatever that might be, which means it can be retroactive.


Marcel Danis: I also understand we stood the clause, but when I use the word "retroactive" I meant whatever the arbitrator would decide from the time of the beginning of the collective agreement until the end. We agree on that point.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Now we will get back to the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam on Clause 11.
On Clause 11-Offence by individuals


Joy Langan: Mr. Chairman, on clause 11, under the enforcement I also note there has been a reduction in the penalty and I am not sure whether to be grateful or appalled at that.
What I wanted to say is that I find it very interesting that a corporation in this country can dump into lakes, rivers, et cetera, and get a $20,000 fine. A worker can refuse an order, or in this case an employer, and get a $100,000 fine. It seems to me that our priorities might be just a tiny bit interesting. I know that this dispute is costing a great deal, but I wonder if the minister could speak to that fact, that we would penalize a worker maybe five or six times more than we penalize a major corporate polluter.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not want to get into the environment debate. I can only tell my hon. friend that the numbers that she is looking at right now are maximum penalties. It would be wrong to say that when we look at an amount of $50,000 or $100,000, these are strictly maximum, that a worker would be fined $50,000 or $100,000 right off the bat. Maximums in this country, generally, as far as other laws are concerned, or criminal law, rarely occur.

Government Orders


Steve Eugene Paproski: Could the Chair carry on with clause 12? The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam.


Joy Langan: We are just going too fast, Mr. Chairman, we cannot keep up with names here.
I can appreciate the minister does not want to get into the environmental debate. I also appreciate that these are maximums. But I guess the difficulty I have with these kinds of fines and penalties is the difficulty of the whole attitude of this kind of legislation, and that is that the worker, or the employer in this case, are somehow the villains and need to be beaten up to make them comply. I find this particular situation goes a little bit beyond what is necessary to enforce the law.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The hon. Minister of Labour, any further comments?


Marcel Danis: Just to state, Mr. Chairman, that in the law, for the workers themselves, the maximum is $1,000. It is the corporate entities that have the maximum big fines.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall clause 12 cany?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
On Clause 14-Definitions


Steve Eugene Paproski: The hon. leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, my colleague and I-


Albert Glen Cooper: Quite concerned here.


David Charles Dingwall: -are quite concerned. We thought we would join together in voicing our opposition to this particular section, in this part, which includes clauses 14 through to the end of the bill, and the schedule thereto, clause 25.
I understand the minister's reasoning for wanting to pursue Part II, with the Prince Rupert grain handling operations, but in view of the fact that we respect the collective bargaining process, we thought that the process should run its course before any pre-emptive strike, and I use that term quite liberally, any strike that occurs either way, on the management side, or indeed on the labour side, that the minister ought not to proceed with
this particular part. However, we will listen to the responses that the minister gives in terms of the rationale for the Prince Rupert grain handling operations, but I wish to say to him, as I have said privately to the minister, we do not agree with the Prince Rupert grain handling operations provisions under Part II at this time.


Joy Langan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to also raise some concerns about clause 14 and the whole section, Part II, on Prince Rupert. It absolutely goes beyond the pale to suggest that workers who are not yet at a dispute are in fact having this legislation held over their head. I am pleased, and I am sure the minister will reiterate it here in this forum, that the minister has no intention of proclaiming this legislation prior to consultation with the opposition parties and prior to a dispute taking place in Prince Rupert.
To say, well, we have precedent, this has happened before, does not make it right.
Again, I get back to the argument and the concern that in fact the whole process of legislating collective bargaining instead of having collective bargaining take place in a free forum where neither party can rely on this government to intervene or any other government to intervene to settle its disputes for them is not enhanced by something like Part II. I wonder if the minister might like to comment.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would have preferred not to have a Part II to this bill. As a matter of fact, I would have preferred not to have a Part I either, but I think the government has no choice in the matter.
I can only refer to what I said in my speech a few minutes ago, that it is not the intention of the government to proclaim Part II. I told the House that the problems with respect to Part II in Prince Rupert were very similar to the ones in Vancouver. We think we are doing the correct and the right thing, and again, I assure my hon. friend from Mission-Coquitlam and the House leader and the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James, who has spoken on behalf of the Official Opposition that if there ever comes a time of a work stoppage where the government is considering the proclamation of Part 2, we would certainly not do so prior to consulting both opposition parties.

Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
On Clause 17-Extension of collective agreement


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, on clause 17. Here we are with the term of the collective agreement extended to include the period beginning on January 1, 1990, and ending on December 31, 1992. Under the Prince Rupert section, does this then mean that the collective agreement is in place and there is no need to negotiate at this time? Usually a negotiation does not start a year and a half prior to the conclusion of an agreement. I wonder if the minister could explain why this particular section is in this Part II.


Marcel Danis: The collective agreement in Prince Rupert expired on December 31, 1989. It is exactly the same as the Vancouver situation.


Joy Langan: I understand the collective agreement has expired in Prince Rupert, but in fact, they are still at the bargaining table. It is not like Vancouver where there has been a stoppage by the employer. So we still have these people at the bargaining table and now they have, in essence, a collective agreement imposed upon them until 1992 unless the mediator arbitrates.
What I am saying is at this point Part II interferes or imposes itself unless the collective bargaining fails. So what we have said is, here is a blueprint, you folks in Prince Rupert, here is a blueprint. You can just sit back now and it will all be taken care of for you.


Marcel Danis: The case in Prince Rupert is not as if they had not started to bargain. I understand that they are at a similar impasse as the people in Vancouver. That is what the difficulty is in Prince Rupert.


David Charles Dingwall: On that point, the Minister of Labour is correct. There are difficulties there. But the collective bargaining process has not come to a complete halt at this point in time. Therefore, it is somewhat pre-emptive, and we can couch our language in different terms, but in point of fact, it is pre-emptive and the collective bargaining process has not come to its complete end.


Marcel Danis: I am not sure I will be able to convince my friends on the other side on Part II, but when, my hon. friend, it is pre-emptive, I remind him that this will not be proclaimed if there is a work stoppage.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Government Orders
Clause 18 agreed to.
On Clause 19- Appointment of mediator-arbitrator


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of things under this section.
I would like to ask the minister if the mediator-arbitrator requests the commission, which we had talked about-and he has already said in the House that he would agree to the establishment of an inquiry commission looking at the hours of work, the health and the family life of these workers-will the minister give us some indication of how he would encourage it to take place? Would it be independent? Who would be on it? I am not asking him to prejudice but to at least give us some indication that if this were to take place it would be independent and the arbitrator would not be doing this inquiry.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for that question.
The question of an industrial inquiry commission was discussed by Mr. McDermott, who is with me now, with the parties earlier in the week. I thought at the time that if there was any way to settle this dispute this might have been it.
Mr. McDermott suggested the industrial inquiry commission to both parties. It was well received by the unions but it was not well received by management.
I still favour that course and I can assure my hon. friend that if the arbitrator asks or requests me, as Minister of Labour, to proceed by way of the Labour Code and appoint an industrial inquiry commission, I will do so.
I assure my hon. friend that the members appointed at that time would of course be independent.


Joy Langan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the hon. member for his response.
One of the only advantages to having the port of Prince Rupert included in this legislation is that we get a second kick at every clause as we go through clause by clause.

Government Orders
This is the equivalent of 8(4). Are we revisiting that now or can I revisit it at this time, Mr. Chairman? I have a concern that we are going to run out of time to deal with 8(4).


Steve Eugene Paproski: I would suggest that you get with it right now. There are only three minutes left before I have to put the questions. Use your own discretion.


Joy Langan: I will direct a question to the minister because we did get an undertaking that this would be revisited. This clause is very restrictive. It could in fact be used to limit retroactivity on wages and that is kind of a neat way to tidy up that whole area.
I would like the minister's assurance. It does not need to be there, it is redundant. The discretion for retroactivity already exists without this clause. I would hope the minister would consider actually removing this clause.


Marcel Danis: In the spirit of co-operation with the members on the opposite side I have no objections in withdrawing 8(4). If I could get unanimous consent I will move:
That Bill C-25 be amended by deleting clauses 8(4) and 19(4).


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 2.05 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith
every question necessary to dispose of all the stages of the bill now before the House.


Marcel Danis: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Marcel Danis: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Corbeil that Bill C-ll, an act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies), be read the third time and passed; and on the amendment of Mr. Dingwall (p.1498).
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. With regard to Bill C-ll there had been a motion, which was passed by this House, which said in effect that if the debate were to elapse it would continue thereafter on Friday afternoon with one speaker from each respective party.
I submit that motion is not in order and has no effect on our proceedings here today in terms of precluding members from speaking to the bill. The reason is that there are two parts to that particular motion. I am glad the parliamentary secretary has returned, because we have had some discussions about this particular bill. The most important thing is that the first part of the motion
June 14, 1991

was not arrived at. The debate did not elapse. In point of fact, the debate continued until ten o'clock. As has been indicated, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands had the floor, is here and is prepared to speak in the time he has remaining.
Mr. Speaker might be aware from information from the table that we have exhausted a number of speakers and we are on 10 minute speeches. The debate did not elapse.
I suggest that the second part of the motion cannot apply, in view of the fact that we have not achieved its first part, namely the debate being elapsed.
The parliamentary secretary will rise and say that the motion itself has contained two separate motions. It is not two separate motions because it was not put to the House as two separate motions. It was not unanimously agreed to as two separate motions. It was agreed to only as one particular motion.
Mr. Speaker, I know you have a very important role to play as the arbitrator of our deliberations. You are quite well aware of Beauchesne's in terms of trying to protect the minority and also in enhancing every opportunity for members to participate in debate which they believe to be germane.
I wish to inform the House and the Chair that my colleague from Kingston and the Islands, my colleague from South West Nova, my colleague from Halifax, my colleague from Cape Breton Highland-Canso and others are here this afternoon on Friday to participate in a very, very important debate with regard to Bill C-ll, respecting the At and East.
I would hope that you would give due consideration not only to those members here who wish to speak, but also to the procedural case that I have made, that this motion is not applicable in view of the fact that its most essential element was not complied with, namely that the debate on Tuesday evening did elapse prior to the adjournment hour normally set at ten o'clock, and my colleague for Kingston and the Islands still has the floor.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Table for the exact page that motion is on?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Tuesday, June 11.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do want to make a couple of comments on this motion if I can find it. The first one I want to make is that there had been discussions among all three parties.
Government Orders
We had come to an agreement that the debate would continue June 11 and at the end of that debate, whether it was early or late, we would adjourn the debate. We would then pick it up today with one speaker from each party and a limit of 10 minutes.
The first argument I want to make is that the House was working under an agreement reached by representatives of the three parties.
The second argument I want to make is that this is designed to be two motions. If you look very carefully at it, and I am going by memory because I do not have the motion in front of me, you will find that those two paragraphs are separated by a semicolon and the word "and" appears; in other words, two distinct clauses.
My argument is that the design of the motion set up to allow the House on Tuesday to adjourn the debate, should it come before ten o'clock, without forcing the debate to continue, was done to protect members and to protect members' opportunity to speak this afternoon.
For my friend from the Liberal Party to turn around now and try to change that agreement and to argue that because one part of the motion did not finish exactly the way it was anticipated and therefore the second part is inoperative, is very clearly out of order. If you read the particular wording of that motion, it says "when no member rises to speak on debate on Tbesday, June 11, 1991".
What is very important about that particular wording is that perhaps the Speaker should not have seen the clock at ten o'clock and we should have continued to sit and to follow that part through to make it operative and then end up with the situation which is what we had previously agreed to.
I argue that we are dealing with two separate motions, that there was an agreement between the three parties, and that I think the House ought to honour that agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. House leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member deserves his title, as the hon. member for Peace River and as the hon. member who is representing the government House leader. I do not wish to unduly reflect on what was said among House leaders and representatives of the respective parties pertaining to this particular bill. I cannot recall whether the hon. member was in the room or whether he was absent during those deliberations.

Government Orders
Let us assume that he was in the room. The hon. member knows that with regard to the motion, the one which was subsequently introduced I believe on June 10 or thereabouts, it was supposed to be introduced after the debate had elapsed. The hon. member introduced the motion prior to the debate having elapsed, and I think if one were to check Hansard, one would find that I stood on a point of order and made that particular point in the presence of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. That is point number one.
Point number two is that if the hon. member is now saying that we can place five different motions in five different paragraphs on one piece of paper, and that all it takes is for us to agree that all of those motions will pass without being read individually, without the Chair seeking unanimous consent individually for each of them, I think he is breaking a practice of parliamentary procedure.
The hon. member put forward a motion. The first part of the motion said that the debate must lapse. It did not do that. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands had the floor.
There was no agreement as suggested by the parliamentary secretary. Only in agreement if the debate had elapsed would the motion then be triggered. If the hon. member was not certain of that, he should have sought unanimous consent for another motion.
My colleagues from Cape Breton-Highlands-Can-so, Cape Breton-The Sydneys, Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member from Halifax, in the time remaining, I believe ought to be given the opportunity to participate, as I am sure my colleagues in the New Democratic Party would want, in a debate which is very, very important for those of us in Atlantic Canada.
May I further add the unnecessary unfairness and bullish tactics of the government opposite, particularly when you view this subsidy at $32 million and subsidies that we give to the western farmers of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I want to thank both hon. members but before I make a ruling I think I will let debate continue, then I will rule on it. If I may have a few minutes to rule on this, please, and I will let
the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands have the floor.
Point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Lee Richardson: We should be clear here as hon. members who despite the fact that the opposition House leader may have felt he found a loophole in an agreement made in good faith on Ibesday, I would simply refer to the dialogue that continued after that motion in which the House leader of the opposition agreed here to the intent:
Once again to demonstrate our co-operation to the parliamentary
secretary to the government House leader, we would concur with the
intent of this particular motion.
The intent of the motion, as clearly agreed to by all members in the House, was that we would end the debate and come back today and have three speakers. That was the intent. If there is a minor technical problem with the wording the fact is that we all agreed on the intent, and it would only be going against their word to go against that now.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: A point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Well, if we continue points of order, the hon. member could get his 10 minutes in. I hope it will give me an opportunity to review before I make a decision on this. Is that sufficient?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will follow your directions and give the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands an opportunity to complete his speech. However,
I hope that before you make your ruling that you would give us additional time on this side to make our points of order with regard to a particular provision.
The hon. member who has just spoken-and I will leave it to your interpretation-has impugned the motives of myself with regard to the remarks I had made, and made reference to discussions at a House leader's meeting, at which the hon. member was not in attendance, when there was no consummation of any agreement whatsoever, other than the fact that once the debate elapsed the motion would trigger. That was the intent.

I would like to have an opportunity, perhaps later in the day, to provide additional information and points on this point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If they are going to be brief, I will listen to the arguments right now before I make my decision.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I took the motion to mean that anyone who wanted to speak would have a chance to speak. I am sure that the others who were here when last this debate was going on all thought we would have an opportunity. The debate did not lapse that night. My colleague from Kingston and the Islands was here debating and the time ran out. It was not that the debate lapsed.
I would hope that you will take into consideration that there are other people here who wish to speak on this important piece of information, and on how it affects the east in particular.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I want to turn your attention to the words of the motion. The opening words are: "When no member rises to speak in debate on Tuesday, June 11, 1991". That is what it says. Those are the words. Members rose to debate until 10 o'clock. I was on my feet and had the floor at 10 o'clock on Tuesday, June 11. It follows as night the day, that if members were rising to speak at 10 the motion is inoperative. It is a dead letter, it is null and void. I think it is perfectly clear and I am not going to get into any kind of partisan argument about what the intent of the motion was. The words are there. Your Honour is not privy to any discussions that may take place back and forth between members in this House. The words are brought forward. The words are agreed upon. The words are there and the words are very clear. Members rose to speak until 10 o'clock. The motion is therefore, inoperative, null and void. I ask you to so rule.


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All right, I am prepared to rule. On Tuesday, June 11, 1991, a motion was agreed to by unanimous consent which stated that when no member rises to speak in debate on Thesday June 11, on the motion for third reading of Bill C-ll, the Speaker shall adjourn the debate and certain other events would then ensue on both Friday, June 14 and Tuesday, June 18.
Members will recall that the expectation on Thesday
Government Orders
last was that debate on C-ll would collapse some time before the adjournment hour of 10 p.m., and the provisions of this special order would then take effect. However, the House reached 10 p.m. Thesday last and debate on C-ll was still in progress. The House will recall that at 10 p.m. the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands still had the floor and when I interrupted him in order to adjourn the House, pursuant to standing orders, I asked whether or not he had concluded his remarks. He replied he had not.
No point of order was raised at that time to suggest that the special order should still apply. The question I am now being asked to decide is: If the first part of the special order did not take place Thesday last, does the rest of the order still have effect.
My opinion is that it does not. The order is one sentence. It begins by saying: "When something occurs, then two subsequent events shall follow". It is my view that if the first event did not occur the subsequent events logically cannot follow pursuant to this order, and another order shall be required. Therefore the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has the floor.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to continue my remarks from the other night that were interrupted by the adjournment of the House. I had the pleasure at that time of the presence of the Minister of Supply and Services, who was heckling me in a most entertaining way, suggesting somehow that I should be discussing the merits of this legislation instead of the procedural aspects of it, which have caused grave concern on this side of the House.
As hon. members will recall, this is one of the bills that was subject to the notorious reinstatement motion that this government brought forward.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Shame.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It is a shame, as the hon. member for Halifax says.


Mr. Mifflin:: It's a disgrace.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: A disgrace, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception says, because the government brought forward this motion to reinstate certain bills after prorogation, to reinstate those bills on our Order Paper at the stage they were at at the time of prorogation of the House on May 12 of this year.

Government Orders
This particular bill was reinstated at third reading stage, in other words as though it had been reported to the House and all amendments and debates at report stage were concluded. Of course that was not the expectation of members on this side of the House.
We wanted to discuss this bill from its inception at first reading again because it is a particularly pernicious bill. It deprives Atlantic Canadians of their livelihood. That is what it comes down to.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Indeed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member for Halifax agrees, and I know they have had particular difficulties in Halifax of late which would be ameliorated considerably if the provisions in existing legislation were applied and the subsidies that were available and that still are available were made available to Canadians.
This tight-fisted bunch on the other side have it in their power to dole out money to assist in rail transportation, transportation generally, of grains from western Canada to eastern Canada.
Indeed the provision is in the law today that those funds are available to be spent for this purpose. However, for over two and a half years that tight-fisted Minister of Finance and his cronies, the tight-fisted Minister of Transport and his cronies, the minister for Atlantic Canada who is part and parcel of this whole group-the Minister of Public Works now has that responsibility-and the minister of fisheries-all who supposedly represent the interests of Atlantic Canadians in the cabinet and are supposed to be doing something for this country from the geographical perspective, if nothing else-have been sleeping on their hands doing absolutely nothing to represent their constituents either in the cabinet or in this House.
The member for Cumberland-Colchester is a prime example of someone who has dithered. On Tuesday night when we debated this bill he sat here and said nothing. By his silence he consents to this pillaging and rape of the people in Atlantic Canada who are being deprived of their livelihood by this government's tight-fisted greed. What it has done to his own livestock farmers, he should be ashamed of himself. I see him smiling and smirking on the other side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I cannot really hear the hon. member's speech. I know it is a great speech, but there is so much going on here in this Chamber on a Friday afternoon I just cannot believe this.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble hearing myself think, but I do not mind saying to Your Honour that part of the problem seems to be that this is a very emotional issue. Certainly this bill has caused a great deal of heartache across the country, but particularly in Atlantic Canada. I see that a lot of the members from Atlantic Canada are here and naturally they feel very strongly about it, at least on this side of the House. The surprise to us is that no one on the other side is rising to defend the government's dreadful policies.


Mary Catherine Clancy: It's a scandal.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: As the hon. member for Halifax says, it is a scandal, and it is a scandal. I think part of the reason they are not rising to defend it is because they do not want to defend the indefensible. This bill makes legal what the government has been doing for two and a half years. In other words it is an ex post facto legalizing a bill.


Mary Catherine Clancy: The worst kind.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The worst kind, as the hon. member for Halifax says. She is knowledgeable in these matters; she is a lawyer. I know she studied at Dalhousie University Law School. She knows what the worst kind of bill is. They teach that in law school. Some members opposite might well have gone on in law school and learned something about it and maybe they would not introduce this kind of bill.
The fact is, as the hon. member for Halifax says, this bill is of the worst kind because it legalizes the actions of this government for the last two and a half years in not making payments out of funds which this Parliament authorized it to make.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Exactly.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Parliament said you can pay these people this money as a subsidy. Then the government said it was not going to and now we are going to pass a law to make it illegal for us to do so. That is the thrust of Bill C-ll.

In fact it is so disastrous for Atlantic Canada for it takes $35 million out of the pockets of people who might have received these subsidies. To think that government members elected from Atlantic Canada-admittedly there are not many-would sit here in silence and allow this legislation to go through without a whimper of protest-


Mary Catherine Clancy: And it hurts their ridings.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Hurts their ridings? It shakes the entire region.
To think that the members would sit here in silence, saying nothing, speaks something about the quality of the representation the people of Atlantic Canada get from their Conservative members of Parliament.


Mary Catherine Clancy: It's sad.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They should be ashamed of themselves. They should be up on their hind legs braying about the evils of this legislation-that is what they should be doing-and saying how dreadful their cabinet is for even considering introducing such a bill as this.
Instead of that we have mute-


Mary Catherine Clancy: Sheep.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: -silence, sheep. Sheep led to the slaughter. The hon. member is grinning over there. The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception knows better than that.
The loss of employees in this case has been amply evidenced by previous speakers and I want to reflect on it. The economic impact on the Halifax elevator has been the loss of 27 employees- all as a direct result of the government cutback in this particular area exemplified by this bill.
The direct result of the cuts in this bill and the government's predated policy is $14.4 million to the Halifax economy alone. The closing of the Halifax elevator which will follow the passage of this legislation will mean another $13.2 million loss. This is not peanuts. If this happened in my community of Kingston and the Islands we would have the city hall draped in black.
Halifax happens to be a much larger community. Maybe it can absorb this a little bit more easily, but not much. Instead of some objection from hon. members opposite all we get is stony silence and indifference.
Government Orders
Indeed, there is no evidence that in the course of meetings of the Conservative caucus or the cabinet there is any rebellion, any objection. Usually we have someone like the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth who gets up and presents a petition decrying the legislation and urging the government to change its mind, but on this bill we have had nothing-


Mary Catherine Clancy: Nothing, not a word.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: -dead silence, zero. The only objections raised have been from the gallant members on this side of the House who have the courage to stand in their place day after day and condemn the government for its atrocious attitude to this House.
I want to go back to the atrocious attitude of this government to this House exemplified by this bill because here we have a case that would never happen in any other Commonwealth Parliament.
In fact, it has not happened in any other Commonwealth Parliament where a government, over the objections of the opposition-and I note it was the opposition that objected for once again this is a case where there was not a single objection from a member of the government -who introduced a resolution to reinstate this bill and four others and passed it with closure in this House. There was not a peep, not a peep, of objection from the other side of the House.


Mr. Weiner:: Not you.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Et tu, Brute! Et tu, Brute I say to the minister. He knows that he was part of that. He helped stab Parliament in the back on that occasion. He supported that resolution. He supported the use of closure on that resolution. It was an outrage and the minister knows it. Now he is grinning and laughing about the outrage as well.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is time that the government sobered up. It is time they stopped playing fast and loose with the rights of Canadians, with the rights of parliamentarians, and abandon this bill. I call on the minister now who is the only person here who can take this step to stand up and withdraw this bill. Reinstate the payments in this case. Stop being greedy and hamfisted with the people of Atlantic Canada and give them what this Parliament has voted to them in terms of subsidy and allow the moneys to go out.

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to this bill for, I suppose, the final time. One thing I find simply amazing, and I am very glad, is that the Liberal Party has actually discovered that the At and East bill actually exists. '


Mary Catherine Clancy: Get out of here, get out of here.


Rodney Edward Laporte: This is a party which for two years said virtually nothing on that legislation. I am glad it is speaking on it, but this is a party which represents that region of the country and has paid virtually no attention until the last few weeks. I am glad it is finally doing it. The reason it is doing it is because the New Democratic Party has been the party that has-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Halifax on a point of order or point of privilege.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I feel that the comments made by the hon. member are a direct attack on the members from Atlantic Canada, and in particular on the member for Halifax, myself. Having sat on the legislative committee when this bill was C-26, its previous incarnation, I think the hon. member goes too far and I am particularly upset. I ask for an apology.


An hon. member:: That is not a question of privilege.


An hon. member:: It is a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is quite a debate. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre has the floor.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to sit down and look at the debates in Hansard, look at the debates in the transportation committee, look at the debates in the agriculture committee and look at the debates in the legislative committee and see how many times this member has spoken, or any other member of the Liberal Party. It has twice the members that we have in this country. We have no members in Atlantic Canada, but we have spoken many more times on this issue. We are the party that raised this issue and I am glad that the Liberal Party has finally discovered it. I commend the
member from Halifax for finally taking some interest in her own riding.
This is a piece of legislation which this government should have no pride in. This is a piece of legislation that should send shock waves across the country in the way it has handled itself with respect to this legislation. This is a very important bill for the maritimes. The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission came to this government and said: "You are wasting money. You should be doing this in a different fashion. We can show you how to cut this program by up to 60 per cent and still provide that program to the maritimes". The government ignored it. Finally in 1989 when it did bring it in during the budget, there was actually no recognition of the work done by these good folks in the maritimes. When the matter was raised in the House and raised in committee, it had no idea that these studies had taken place.
This program was announced with obviously very little consideration, if any, to the various effects it was going to have on the region.
I know that the member from Halifax is upset with a few facts. She has a very good voice. If she wants to speak, I am sure she will have a chance later.
This has had a tremendous impact on the port of Halifax and on the port of Saint John. Enumerated many times by members of this party have been the cost in jobs, the cost in dollars and the potential future impact on that region of the country from the long-term closure of the grain elevators in Halifax and Saint John. It will potentially have a devastating effect on the livestock industry and on the dock workers in the maritimes. This is a bill with many tentacles. The loss of that program is going to wreak some real destruction in that region of the country unless there are some alternatives put in place.
When you look at western Canada, in my home province of Saskatchewan and throughout the west, it causes a lot of concern as well. We have in this country today a very great problem with the marketing of grain. There is a whole host of issues, a lot of it dealing with the European and the American trade war which has been going on for a while.

One of the important factors that has allowed us to maintain our market share is the Canadian Wheat Board. It has been working very hard to maintain the market share for western grain producers.
As the Canadian Wheat Board said when it was in front of our committee, the loss at the ports of Halifax and Saint John hurt the export grain industry. It hurt Canada's chances for grain export because those are the only two ice-free ports in Atlantic Canada.
As the Canadian Wheat Board told the legislative committee, all things being equal, a country with warm water ports would very likely not want to go to Montreal because it would have to deal with the ice in the wintertime and it may well cause the Canadian Wheat Board to lose sales.
The Canadian Wheat Board is doing what it can to ship grain to the Halifax elevator each year. It cannot afford to ship grain by rail during the wintertime and in the long run this could cost and will cost sales.
The other aspect is the long-term future of the Halifax elevator itself. Unless there is more grain going through that elevator, it will be closed. It was only through embarrassment of the government that it decided to call for a study on the future of the grain elevators in Atlantic Canada.
Saint John has already closed, and the study concluded that the long-term viability of Halifax, unless there is more revenue through that facility, will be threatened and it will ultimately be closed. That would simply be a tragedy not only to Atlantic Canada but to all Canadians.
It has been very frustrating dealing with this bill and it is not because there were no alternatives. There was a very viable alternative. There were some very serious issues. These were raised in the House and they were raised in committee, but the government chose to ignore them. It has ignored them at the peril of Canadians.
What it says to me and to many Canadians is that this government really does not give a damn for most regions of this country. It is a callous, mean-spirited government which is going to put through whatever it wants, period. It is a government with a second majority mandate mentality which is not good for Canada. It is not good for the regions of this country.
I would think that a good government is one that takes into account all relevant factors and then takes the course that will benefit the most people while inflicting the least harm on others. This is something that this government simply fails to do time and time again.
Government Orders
There is a real concern about unity in this country today. The Constitution is an extremely important document and issue. It is something that demands our attention, but there are some other areas in national unity that are also important. I would suggest to many Canadians, just as important.
This government, in many ways, has done as much to destroy national unity as it has ever done to promote it. There are concerns with communication and transportation, but there is a lack of concern for the regions of this country.
There was a time when Parliament concerned itself with the regions of this country. In many respects the national dream of John A. Macdonald was a regional development policy which encouraged the growth of western Canada.
It is only when governments stop paying attention to the regions of this country that this country is in real trouble. People in the maritimes are asking me: "What have you done to this area of the country?" Through the loss of the At and East, there has been a lot of movement of grain on the CN line to Halifax. VIA Rail has been cut. That cost money.
With the free trade agreement in place now, the CPR which has now purchased track all way through the United States to the eastern seaboard is promoting movement of goods from Montreal to New York. It is half the distance from Montreal to New York than from Montreal to Halifax. If that line loses any more goods being hauled on it, it will be the subject of an application for an abandonment by CN rail.
What we have is a situation in which this free trade agreement, this so-called right wing mentality, is destroying national unity and many maritimers are saying: "Why should I be part of Canada when I am paying huge taxes, GST, et cetera. I could buy my grain from Europe for $60 a tonne. I could haul com in from the U.S. and it would be better for us."
I see my time is up. I would like to take just a few more seconds to wind up by saying this. There is another debate coming up on the transportation of grain. It is coming up in western Canada with respect to the Western Grain Transportation Act. I really hope that this government pays a little more attention to that region of the country than it has to the maritimes. In committee, the member for Halifax told the government if that it is going to remove the At and East, it should remove the Crow benefit. That is the wrong attitude. I hope the member changes her mind.

Government Orders


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I thought I would participate for a couple of moments in debate.
I want to indicate that this particular bill was around prior to prorogation. It had hours of debate, hours of time in committee and a great deal of time spent on it in this House. We had to then turn around and pass a special order of the House by motion to allow this bill to be picked up so that we would not end up having to waste the time of the House by repeating stage after stage after stage of this particular bill.
I would like to indicate to the people who watch this House, to the people who are concerned about this issue, that what has happened is that we have given lots of time for debate on this. From the arguments we heard before today, there was clearly from our perspective and from my perspective an understanding of an agreement which we felt we had lived up to. I understand the hon. members have been demonstrating by their actions their great interest in this bill and how much they want to debate it.
I want to give them that opportunity. Earlier today we passed a House order and I want to make sure it is clear that no matter what happens in the next little while, the motion passed earlier, the House order regarding Royal Assent continues to be in effect. I want to at this time under Standing Order, I think it is 26.(1), move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of the third reading stage of government Bill C-ll, an act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies) and all amendments relating thereto.
Some hon. members cry "shame" while I move that. I do not understand when members who have sat here and lectured the rest of the House on how much they want to debate this bill object because we on this side are prepared to give them more time to do just that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And fewer than 15 members have risen


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 26.(2), the motion is adopted.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth or fifth time I have risen to speak on this bill
either in its present incarnation as C-ll or in its previous incarnation as C-26.
I want to pay particular tribute to the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands for his eloquent remarks made earlier, and for his defence of the institution of Parliament and connected to that defence, his defence of the people of Atlantic Canada.
I would just like to set straight the hon. member to my extreme left over here with regard to the number of speakers who have spoken on this bill over the past year and a half. On second reading of C-26, which took place on February 12, 1990, February 20, 1990 and April 30, 1990, there were in total 24 speakers. Of the 24 speakers, 15, lo and behold, were members of the Liberal Party. Modesty forbids that I tell you how many of those came from Atlantic Canada, but I can assure you-


An hon. member:: He just left.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Well he did not like to stay and hear the truth so he fled, he fled in the face of the facts.
Fifteen of the 24 were Liberals, six of the 24 were New Democrats. In two of the three days of debate the debate was ended by three Liberals on the first day and two Liberals on the second day. This means there were obviously no New Democrats in the House to take up the cudgels. They fled as well.
At report stage there were 13 speakers, seven of whom were Liberal, four of whom were NDP.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They were the ones who carried this, they said.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Indeed, they carried it. Poor things, I guess they did not realize where the rest of the package was.
Bill C-ll, as it is now known-but under whatever title it is known it is a bill that strikes at the very heart of the survival of Halifax, the port of Halifax and indeed many spin-offs throughout Atlantic Canada. Export grain shipments to Halifax and to Saint John, New Brunswick have stopped. As a direct result of this-and I hope the ministers are listening-the grain elevator in Saint John, New Brunswick has closed. It is closed, gone, finished. There are 55 jobs gone, 55 people out of work.
Last night, when I spoke on the estimates, I asked questions in my speech and I said: "Do they care?"


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: And what did they say?


Mary Catherine Clancy: They did not answer me. I put the question again, 55 jobs gone in hard-pressed Saint John, and do they care?


Some hon. members:: No.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I do not think so either.
In Halifax the economic impact upon the Halifax elevator has been devastating. Thus far there is a direct loss of 27 employees and $14.4 million to the economy of my city. Now there is no question, and my colleagues from Cape Breton-The Sydneys and Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, will agree that the city of Halifax has been and remains the most prosperous area of our beleaguered region. The most prosperous, yes, but as a nephew of mine said when he was small: "A boss over nothing is not boss over very much". We may be better off than the rest of our region. However, it appears to me that with bills like C-ll this government is doing everything it can to remove any possible sense of financial security the Haligonians might feel they could depend on. It has certainly done it to Saint John, and Halifax appears to be next.
When this elevator closes, and close it will if this government does not do something and do something quickly to alleviate the situation and to increase grain shipments to the Atlantic port, there will be another $13.2 million loss to the economy of Halifax.
In the space of a year and a half that is $27.6 million out of the economy of a city which, with the most generous estimate, has a population of 250,000 for the whole metropolitan area. That is a lot of money. That is a lot of economic loss. It is not something that Haligonians can take without some sort of reaction.
It is more than just this direct and concerted attack on the eastern ports, and in particular the port of Halifax, because I, my colleague from Dartmouth and a number of others in this House have been calling upon this government for two and a half years to do something for the beleaguered ports in the east.
Government Orders
The sense of fairness is something we talk about a great deal. For Atlantic Canadians any belief that this government could generate about being fair toward residents of Atlantic Canada is now gone. It is gone, destroyed. Any confidence, any trust is gone. Too much has happened. It is over.
There is not even any sense of history or sense of the country or sense of where we come from or even common sense.
Halifax is the closest port to Europe. Halifax is the most historic port on the east coast of Canada. Halifax is the largest ice-free harbour in the world. Not just in Canada, not just in North America, but in the world. The navies, the largest navies in the world can ride at anchor in Bedford Basin behind Halifax harbour. Ships can sail in and out of that harbour. They can be dealt with. They can be sent on their way again, having been serviced and taken care of in the port of Halifax, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. There is no ice in our harbour. The harbour is ready and open and able to work at all times.
The people of Halifax and Dartmouth are a port people. They depend upon that port, not just for the basis of their livelihood, not just for economic prosperity, but a great deal as well for their pride in the city, for their sense of place in Canada and for their sense of worth.
I see my colleague from Newfoundland has just come into the House. He too knows a great deal about the pride of place in the city of Halifax, having served there with the Royal Canadian Navy. He knows what the navy means to Halifax and vice versa. He knows what the port means and what it should mean, both in its commercial and its historical context, to this country.
It should mean something to this government, a little something now and again. However, for weeks now I have been standing in this House pleading with the government. It is not easy for Atlantic Canadians to plead. We are pretty proud. We do not like to have to plead, especially not with the likes of this government.

Private Members' Business
I and my colleagues have been pleading for assistance to the port of Halifax. What has been forthcoming? Nothing. Empty promises, empty words.
Four weeks ago today the Minister of Transport said to me here in this Chamber that he would do everything in his power to assist the port of Halifax. Well, all I can say is, I guess we have seen the power of the Minister of Transport. Four weeks have passed and nothing has happened.
Today, in response to a question, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada got up and clearly the government did not have a clue. There was nobody in the House who had any clue about what was happening in the port of Halifax. Nothing, absolutely.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Shame, shame.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Thank you, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
The government had no clue. The Deputy Prime Minister got to his feet and said: "Well, we are working on something about freight rates". Freight rates between Atlantic Canada and the centre of the country have been a national disgrace and they are getting worse and the port is in danger of closing altogether. We could lose it all, everything.
I appeal to the members on the other side, wherever you are from, whether you are from Ontario, Quebec, Alberta or wherever. Canada with no port of Halifax?


An hon. member:: One of the best ports in the world.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Absolutely.


Mrs. Sparrow:: Oh, oh.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Do you have a port in Alberta, Bobby? You could not even find a wharf. You would not know a fish if it came up and hit you in the mouth.
The Port of Halifax is absolutely intrinsic to the fabric of this country. It is something that every one of us, not just me as the member for Halifax, but every one of us has a vested interest in.
To pass this bill, to pass this piece of legislation, which has been rammed through to this point in the House, is not only unacceptable, it goes beyond that. To pass this bill is un-Canadian.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being three o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PROGRESS RESPECTING ELIMINATION
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should set specific markers to gauge the progress of the fight against child poverty in Canada so that it can be successfully eliminated by the year 2000.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take this opportunity to try to set the government's course for responding to the all party commitment that was made just a short time ago to end child poverty by the year 2000.
We all know that unless we set some agenda, some targets, some markers, it is very unlikely that we will know exactly where we are heading in the fight to eliminate child poverty.
I would like to take this opportunity to tell the House about Jessica, one of the 913,000 children in Canada living below the poverty line, one of the 560,000 who rely on food banks to provide their basic nutrition.
It is children like Jessica who form Canada's single largest group of poor people and the single largest group of food bank users. I will use Jessica as an example in order to put a face on poverty. This face is neither a "she" of statistics nor figures, which I will get into later, no, this face is of a four-year-old little girl, this face of poverty wears a small, sweet smile with baby teeth and big brown eyes looking to us for help. Jessica needs our help, as do the other 913,000 children living in poverty in Canada.
Her mother had to quit her $28,000-a-year job because she could not afford to pay $800 out of her $l,800-a-month pay cheque for child care. Her mother now receives welfare benefits to support the family but it is clearly not enough. Studies have shown that children from families who receive welfare benefits have one and a half times the rate of chronic health problems faced by other children, and 31 per cent of the children on welfare between the ages of six and 16 suffer from some psychiatric disorder. Children in the lowest income category are twice as likely to die before their 14th birthdays as children of wealthy families.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The problems do not stop there. Jessica will be four times as likely to do poorly in school, twice as likely to drop out before completing high school, and will have a high probability of underemployment or unemployment. She will also be more likely to turn to criminality or alcoholism when she grows up.
Surely, for none of us in Canada is this acceptable.
I am not only speaking about the plight of Jessica, but also the plight of one out of every six children in this country. We know the statistics and the consequences of these statistics, and we must do something other than lament about the problem in this House. This is a whole generation of children who need our help, and things are not getting any better. Current trends indicate that families' income status is deteriorating in Canada. Despite the government's enthusiasm for increased employment figures, the great majority of new jobs have been in the low-paying, part-time sector.
Let us look at what the government has done. The Prime Minister, as we all know, during the 1988 election campaign, said: "We will implement and build on our national child care program, the most innovative social advance in Canada since the Canada Pension Plan a quarter century ago".
Well, in November, 1989, the former leader of my party, Ed Broadbent, introduced a proposal to end child poverty by the year 2000, and the House unanimously adopted that motion. Following this with a speech to the United Nations Children's Summit last September, the Prime Minister spoke of the need for political will in meeting children's needs and challenged our children to listen carefully to what we say in the coming years to hold us to our commitments. And he said: "I hope we find that none of us will be wanting".
Actions taken by the government over the past year have not only not improved the situation, as promised, but in fact worsened it. We are now looking forward to challenge the Prime Minister and the government to own up to their promises and commitments and prove to Canada that these words were more than just a public relations ploy.
The children of this country need a lot more than just words to get them through each day.
Private Members' Business
The government established a children's bureau last year and the minister has been designated as the minister responsible for children, but we have not seen results from this bureau nor have we seen from it strategy to eliminate child poverty.
If such a plan exists, I hope we will see it, but we have no sign of that plan yet. I certainly hope that the bureau would not be advocating the policies of this government which are clearly throwing more children into poverty day by day.
In order to end child poverty by the year 2000 as the government has promised, as all the members on the government side and the opposition side have promised, something must be done now.
Just look at some of the facts. According to data recently released by Statistics Canada, the government's own statistical collection organization, in the first week of December 3.5 million Canadians or 13.6 per cent were living below the poverty line. There were 934,000, almost a million children under the age of 18, or 1 in 6 living below the poverty line.
Native babies in this country have about as much chance of living beyond their first birthdays as those in Jamaica and Costa Rica and at a higher risk than babies bom in Cuba and Singapore.
The same sorts of figures apply to poor, urban children in Canada too. In other words, our infant mortality rate does not compare very favourably with those of developing countries.
These figures clearly indicate a crisis situation. The only way to address the issue of child poverty is to examine the root causes of poverty.
The House subcommittee on poverty was told that children living in poverty are the sons and daughters of parents living in poverty, as one might expect. They were told that the economic status of children cannot be separated from the economic status of their parents. Any policy or program designed to eliminate child poverty, if it is to have a chance to succeed, must, of necessity, address the underlying reasons for poverty and its effects.
[Stage Direction]
Private Members' Business
Far from doing this, through a series of legislative measures, the present Conservative government has made a lot of poor children poorer. To begin with, there is Bill C-69 which cuts funding, as we know, for health and post-secondary education in all provinces and caps the Canada Assistance Plan for British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.
Over half of all welfare recipients, of all poor Canadians, live in these three provinces. Canada's child poverty rate does not fare well at all by international standards. Among industrial nations, only the United States has worse levels of family poverty than Canada. Our rates are three times those of Scandinavian countries for all families living in poverty and five times the rate for lone parent families.
Even Britain, having suffered under a decade of Thatcherism, has a poverty rate which is only half of that in Canada.
There has also been an attack on children by this government through inaction and omission. I am referring specifically to the lack of a national child care strategy. This must be a priority if we are to have any hope at all of ending child poverty in Canada by the year 2000 as the government has promised.
We have lived through decades under successive Liberal and Conservative governments who have followed policies which serve the corporate agenda rather than serve Canadians, especially those least affluent Canadians.
How much longer do we need to wait to see that these policies are not effective and are harmful to those who are most in need of help?
There are as many children living in poverty today as there were in 1980 and the acuteness of poverty felt by children and families is increasing. What is particularly alarming is the increase in the depth of poverty. The number of people who live at 50 per cent and 60 per cent of the poverty line has increased.
We are now faced with a recession. We have been in a recession and the number of children living in poverty is on the rise again. Over a decade of Liberal and Tory governments and there has been no real change to this situation.
Poverty can be defined as insufficient access to basic goods, services and opportunities which are commonly
available to non-poor Canadians and which are accepted as necessary to maintain a decent standard of living.
However, the implications of poverty go much further than this. Children growing up in poverty tend to have behavioural problems, low self-esteem, less motivation to learn, delayed cognitive development and lower achievement in school. They are at an increased rate of dropping out of high school and have a rate of poor health that is 150 per cent higher than the national average.
In December, 1990, the Canadian Association of Food Banks released preliminary figures from its 1990 hunger camp showing that half a million Canadians rely on food banks each month, a figure which is up 30 per cent from last year and between 40 and 50 per cent of the users are children. When asked what she wanted for her children, Jessica's mother said just that life be normal. Not that they have everything they want, but just what other kids have: warm clothes for the winter, good snow boots, nutritious food and a decent life. The sun and moon would be nice but let us be reasonable, just the basic necessities.
What Jessica's mother is asking for is not very much, I think, but it is more than she has now. In fact, the basic necessities are not things anyone should have to ask for. They should be taken for granted, especially in a country as wealthy as ours.
Article 27 of the recently adopted International Convention on the Rights of the Child states that every child has a right to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual and social development, and that it is a duty of countries within their means to see that this right is fulfilled, including the provision of material assistance and support programs particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.
Since the government has committed itself to ratifying the convention, I and Canada's children wait to see the actions and results. I ask the government to prove it is not just interested in talking about caring for children, but that it will also take an active role in caring for them. How else does the government propose to end child poverty by the year 2000? As we have seen it certainly is not going to go away on its own. Ignoring the problem will only make it worse.
[Stage Direction]
Headstart type programs such as nutritional supplements for pregnant mothers and pre-schools for disadvantaged children are an approach apparently serving to lessen the burden on the poor in the United States. Better education, higher employment rates, and improved health are benefits of programs like this.
While this may be a quick fix for the program, longer term solutions are needed. Needs of children must come first on the political agenda. Problems like workplace, day care, flexible time, and extended parental leave are needed to assist parents when their children need not only material comfort but parental care also.
Children who are already living in poverty will need special assistance programs, not so much to give them a headstart but to let them catch up to their wealthier counterparts. A comprehensive strategy for addressing child poverty will require a concerted effort by government, industry and the Canadian public at large.
I would like to take this opportunity to make some suggestions to help eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. That is only eight and a half years away and there is a great deal left to do. There is no question that many working Canadians are now at a greater risk of poverty than ever. Although there are no quick fixes to the problems of the working poor, the major focus should be on education and job training.
Since the risk of poverty and unemployment is greater for those with less schooling this means a direct reversal of present government policy and it most definitely means the scrapping of Bill C-69 and Bill C-21.
Over the past few years there has been an erosion of support for families under the Conservative government. It has seen fit to take away from some the family allowance, a long-time accepted universal recognition of the importance of roles that parents play in our society.
We in the New Democratic Party believe that universal family allowance is a right that should not be taken away from parents. To take it away from so-called privileged families would be to turn it into another form of social assistance, something that would be available only to the downtrodden in society and yet another means of stigmatizing the poor. The family allowance has always been
Private Members' Business
accepted by Canadian taxpayers as a legitimate social program because everyone receives it, rich or poor. The moment this is taken away from some and given to a few is the moment that it is seen as a charity, not as a right.
In the short term the clawback of family allowance should be reversed and the allowance should remain fully indexed to inflation. There are advantages to this beyond just putting money in the hands of those who need it; family allowance payments provide a recognition of the important role of parents in our society in addition to putting money in the hands of consumers who will spend it and thus generate activity in the economy.
In the long term the government should focus its energies on a full employment policy. Those who would say that full employment policies have been attempted and have never worked are simply not aware of the facts. In truth, no Liberal or Conservative federal government today has paid anything more than lip service to the notion of full employment. Think about the philosophy of it; it clearly makes sense and it is clearly possible according to the most recent studies that I have read.
While it is true that many who are employed live in poverty is it still logical to assume that reducing the level of unemployment is a good strategy to reducing the level of poverty? The wage is the most stable source of income available to Canadians and providing all Canadians with a wage is the best way to ensure that all Canadians are provided for. Canada's economy must be made to work for Canadians. For governments such as this to consider 10 per cent unemployment normal while exporting jobs all around the world is remarkable and cruel. Full employment does not consider jobs created at minimum wage or part time to be particularly useful. Approximately half of Canadians living in poverty are employed and surely this would indicate some major problems.
Clearly if minimum wage jobs were to be offered as a viable employment alternative then the minimum wage must be raised substantially.
The concept of full employment does not end with providing jobs. It involves a commitment to providing sufficient social support systems to those who are unfortunate enough not to have jobs for a long or shorter period time.
[Stage Direction]

June 14, 1991
Private Members' Business
A sustainable economy needs affordable, high quality, non-profit child care in sufficient numbers to meet the demands. It needs employment equity and decent wages, pensions and working conditions.
We should be instituting non-profit day care and universally accessible facilities and setting a time line for their installation. Full employment policy also requires a commitment to education, training and retraining.
Another tragic legacy of previous Liberal and Conservative governments is the rise of food banks in Canada. They started in the early eighties to help people through that recession. It has been almost a decade, and that recession has come and gone. We have had other recessions, and the demand for food banks is still rising.
Unfortunately, it is easy to see why food banks are needed. Social assistance rates across the country on average bring people up to half the poverty line. If a single mother is living in Prince Edward Island, she can receive 70 per cent of the poverty line on social assistance. But if she lives in Manitoba she will receive only 50 per cent of the poverty line.
The group of people in need of social assistance, thanks to the recession, high unemployment, aggressive changes to legislation, has grown. In Ontario, municipalities are finding welfare rolls are increasing at an alarming rate as more people move into the province hoping to find work.
A large number of children are included in these welfare figures, and as I said, children comprise the single largest group of welfare recipients across the country.
What is the government's response? The government says it is concerned about child poverty, and yet it chose to slap a limit on transfer payments to Ontario, Alberta and B.C. where half the poor in Canada live.
The government is probably hoping to pass the buck by expecting the provinces to pick up the pieces. Yet, these provinces are no better off financially than the federal government. They are finding it increasingly difficult to keep the social assistance system from collapsing. The end result is that children suffer and children remain in poverty.
How can this government say: "We are going to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000," when it is busy
putting even more people in the poorhouse. I am always happy to hear words of support for children, but in light of this present government's record, I say that children should not be holding their breath and waiting for action.
Instead of the backward steps that this government has taken, what are some of the forward steps we can take? How can we measure our progress? A number one priority as mentioned must be a full employment policy. Getting Canadians back to work is a sure way to see poverty among children decrease.
A national child care strategy with universal availability is needed. The development of low income housing must become a priority. Social assistance rates must be raised, and the government can encourage the provinces to do this by returning the 50-50 transfer payments to the provinces that the Canada Assistance Plan mandates.
The level of the federal minimum wage should increase substantially. Family benefits should return to full indexation and the clawback of family allowance must be revoked. The most obvious way to measure success in these areas is to monitor the number of children living in poverty.
Surely we can say that by the year 1995, which is half way to the end of the century, we should have reduced child poverty by half. We will not have achieved success if the numbers go down when the economy is good and up when it is not as has happened in the 1980s.
We should also set specific targets for percentages of needed child care spaces. By 1995, we might for example argue that half of these needs should be met. Similarly, availability of low income housing could be measured in the same way.
There is no question that any effective strategy to deal with child poverty will cost money. A government that has the courage and foresight to spend this money now as an investment in the future is a government that will receive the support of Canadian children and Canadian families.
Spending this money is critical as a necessary investment in Canada's future and will in the end provide Canada with a healthier economy and Canadians with a brighter future. The alternative is to live with child poverty and to sacrifice generations of Canadian children.
[Stage Direction]

What I hope we can do in the context of this issue, one which has received non-partisan support across the House for all parties support eliminating child poverty by the year 2000, is to find some understanding of the need to set standards and targets so that we can eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.
Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak today on the important social issue of poverty among children in Canada that was raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.
His speech was very moving and there was a lot of well thought out information. I think all of us listened very carefully because we know that poverty and its effect on children and on families is a major concern for everyone.
For me, it is really a single issue which stands out as needing more time, more effort and more attention from all Canadians so we can put together a proper program. In fact, one of the major objectives of this government is to invest in our children and see them better educated, better protected and better nurtured so that they too can make their own contribution to our future here in this country.
In 1990 we watched children take on a new importance in world politics at the World Summit for Children, which was co-chaired by our Prime Minister. Leaders of 70 nations adopted the declaration on survival, protection and development of children and the action plan.
By signing this declaration Canada was urged to develop a plan of action and that is presently what we are doing.
Following this summit the Prime Minister asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare to undertake the task of presenting to the cabinet recommendations on these documents. One of the minister's priorities is to ensure better co-ordination and better consistency in areas addressing children's issues.
Private Members' Business
To this end, a children's bureau was recently established within the Department of National Health and Welfare.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-25, an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of grain handling operations in the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert, British Columbia without amendment.

*



ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
June 14, 1991


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Peter de C. Cory, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 14th day of June at 3.20 p.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to a bill.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque,
Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of his honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bill:
Bill C-25, an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of grain handling operations in the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert, British Columbia-Chapter 25.

Private Members' Business



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) (p. 1778).
Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I was just mentioning the establishment within the Department of National Health and Welfare of the children's bureau.
Since 1984 the federal government has embarked on a series of initiatives to improve the situation of Canadian families and protect the future of their children.
In the first instance, this government's approach has been to support self-sufficiency among Canadians through economic and social policies which have helped to create a climate in which job creation can prosper. In this regard, central to the recent federal budget is a plan for economic recovery that will put the recession behind us and will lead us forward to growth and prosperity.
This plan outlines strong actions and measures that will be taken to ensure fiscal responsibility in the government and legislated limits to government spending. We all know that the deficit and the debt are serious problems which must be solved. Each year we spend $1,650 for every Canadian man, woman and child on just servicing the debt.
We simply cannot go on living on borrowed money, money our children will have to repay.
Even in a time of necessary fiscal restraint, however, the government has acted to better support lower income families with children. This government has increased by more than 50 per cent the maximum value of the child tax credit since 1984 and has introduced a new child tax credit supplement for pre-school children. We have also eased the economic effect of marital breakdown on lone parents by offering services to help locate defaulting spouses and garnished federal moneys.
We have introduced the goods and services tax credit which ensures that families with incomes of less than $30,000 are better off after tax reform.
In addition, the federal government recently announced a four year, $136 million program to continue the effort at reducing the level of family violence in
Canada. The new initiative addresses violence against women, children, seniors and the disabled, and within the Indian and Inuit communities.
Social assistance and social services are matters of provincial jurisdiction. Provinces determine policies with respect to the services. Nonetheless the federal government does cost share in eligible provincial expenditures under the Canada Assistance Plan. Federal expenditures under the plan were about $6 billion in 1990-91.
Moreover, the federal government in co-operation with provincial governments is working to address the housing needs of disadvantaged Canadians. In 1990 through construction or renovation, over 42,000 new households were funded through federal social housing programs, and most of these programs were cost shared with the provinces andor the territories to address their shelter needs.
Over 640,000 households are now being assisted on an annual basis. Canadian children and their parents have also benefited from a series of new programs which will better prepare parents for participation in the labour force. These programs include employment ability in agreements with the provincial governments which help those people on social assistance with a transition from, say, welfare into the workforce; enhanced maternity and parental benefits to ease the transition back and forth from childbirth to the workplace for thousands of parents; and, the stay in school initiative which will combat the dropping out of school and will therefore better prepare the new labour force entrants for employment in the future.
As a result of these and other policies, there are some
956,000	fewer lower income people in Canada than there were when we took office in 1984, 300,000 of whom are children. Moreover, we are committed to a Canadian action plan for children which will address a broad range of issues which affect children, including child care.
We are also now actively working with the provinces toward the ratification, which is anticipated in 1991, of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The convention is an important milestone in the expression of human rights for children. I can assure Canadians that a fundamental objective for this government is to protect the needy and enhance the well being of children in this country. This objective will be fully reflected in the plan of action in which we will spell out how Canada intends to implement the ten points of the world declaration signed by our Prime Minister at the World Summit for Children last September.

We are committed to prepare this plan by the end of
1991.	We are looking ahead to the end of the century and that is what our plan will involve.
We all have to recognize our duty to find innovative and effective solutions to break the devastating cycle of poverty.
,
I believe Canadians also recognize that the federal government alone cannot solve this problem. We cannot solve all the problems facing Canadian families and their children. We need teamwork between the Canadian families and the federal and provincial governments. We need the private sector and we need voluntary agencies. We all must work together. We will continue to do this to improve the well being of all Canadians.
In summary, I have to say to my colleague from the NDP Party that he has raised some very interesting and well constructed points. He said there is a need to set goals and targets, which is true. I look forward to the plan which will be put to the House at the end of 1991. We have taken steps to improve the economic well being of children and their families and the government is committed to continue its effort in this direction.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on behalf of my party on this very important subject of child poverty. I want to begin by complimenting the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing for having introduced this motion and for his very well crafted and sincere words on a very, very important and disturbing subject for all Canadians; child poverty. I also want to commend him for the way in which he has crafted his motion, which speaks to the solution of the child poverty problem as opposed to simply describing the problem in more detail without having a thought of a forward plan.
The magnitude of child poverty in Canada is devastating and it ought to be at the top of the public policy priority list for all governments, in particular for the federal government, given the size of the problem. I just want to recite a few more statistics to give the House an
Private Members' Business
idea of what the magnitude of the problem is. 3.5 million Canadians are living below the poverty line, 1 million of whom are children. That is a ten-fold increase of children living in poverty since 1980 and a higher proportion of Canadian children living in poverty than in four other western nations, including the United States. Canada has the second highest rate of children living in severe poverty, which is defined as a family whose income is 75 per cent of the poverty line. Sixty-four per cent of poor Canadian children are rated as severely poor, with only the U.S. scoring higher at 57 per cent.
Clearly, these are devastating and stark statistics in a country which is as prosperous and as wealthy and has the abundance of natural resources that Canada has at the end of the 20th century. It clearly must be intolerable for us as Canadians to endure and to continue to accept this reality facing so many of our children, particularly in view of the fact that so many other things are correlated with child poverty: crime; the fact that poor children become poor adults; illiteracy; and the fact that so many of our poor children are native children. The consequences of poverty on our reserves are a national disaster and a national affliction.
One would have thought that the elimination of child poverty would be at the top of the government's priority list. I was looking for some statement to that effect and for some indication in the Speech from the Throne that the government was actually committed to a plan to eradicate child poverty by the end of the decade, particularly given the fact that the government has started to become specific with indicating performance targets and measures of performance for other aspects of its policies.
For example, in the last budget it was quite specific about its plan to reduce and eliminate federal deficits. Notwithstanding the fact that the plans of the previous finance minister, over the last seven years, have been completely and utterly off the mark the government did, in its last budget, produce very detailed, short and mid-term plans for reducing and eliminating the deficit. It apparently is soon to come forward with legislation which will set spending limits for itself.


Private Members' Business
In addition, it has talked about job creation by the end of the century. It has put a target on job creation and a target on education and the attainment of certain specific goals relating to illiteracy, to the number of Canadians with high school diplomas, and the number of Canadians with post-graduate degrees in mathematics, sciences and engineering. These goals are to make Canada more competitive internationally. We cannot fault the government for setting those kinds of targets. We may want to dispute the nature of the targets, but clearly that is something that should be in the Speech from the Throne.
Unfortunately, although the Prime Minister chaired the children's summit in New York last summer and the government had made specific commitments as a result of that summit, there is very little in the Speech from the Throne committing the government to really tackle the problem of eliminating child poverty in a very concrete way.
poverty in this country. It is part of many other taxes which have been directed specifically at the poor in Canada and at individuals who are caught in circumstances out of which they cannot extract themselves.
We had a debate earlier today in the course of Bill C-10, which is a bill to increase taxes on cigarette smoking. I agree that we must do all we can to eliminate cigarette smoking in this country and taxes are one way of achieving that objective. They are not the only way, by a long shot.
One reality which one has to confront oneself with, as my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk raised, is that those people who are caught in that trap, who happen to smoke, will be constrained even more in their incomes. The burden falls back on the children.
Instead, there are some very vague references to the need to move toward implementing these commitments and ensuring that Canadians are better educated, which is part of eliminating the problem of child poverty, but it did not really commit the government to address that fundamental problem head-on. That is really what is needed and is what the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing addresses in his motion.
Those kinds of regressive measures in their application which, if they are not counteracted by other measures that put money into the pockets of the poor, allow them to have income opportunities, to have jobs, and to give real, concrete opportunities to their children to reach beyond high school to attain-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has more than expired.
If this government is serious about confronting this plight of child poverty, it has to place it at the top of its polity agenda. It has to ensure that the debate on child poverty has the highest priority. It has to ensure it is right up there with eliminating the federal deficit, which I acknowledge is important. This issue has to guide the policies of the government.
If it does not guide the policies of the government there will be policies introduced which will be in opposition to the target of eliminating child poverty and in fact will make the child poverty problem worse, as many of the policies of this government have done.
My colleague from across the way, the member for Calgary Southwest, mentioned the goods and services tax. She referred to the credit as an initiative to eliminate child poverty. I must say I am quite baffled by that because the tax itself is a tax which will increase child


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member was unable to finish his speech, but I also have some very important things to say, because eliminating child poverty by the year 2000 is very important, and I am sure we would all like to see that happen.
A country's children are the foundation and the future of that country. That is why during the past 150 years, governments throughout the world have taken steps to provide support for families and their children. The most recent manifestation of this philosophy was the Convention on the Rights of the Child, established by the United Nations. Canada has taken a systematic approach to family support. One of the key elements of the Canadian support system is the sharing of responsibilities by the federal govemement and the provincial governments.
x - i

Constitutionally, the provinces are responsible for ensuring the well-being of children through their social services and welfare programs. The federal government helps the provinces in this area by transferring funds through the Canada Assistance Plan and Established Programs Financing, for instance.
The federal concept of family benefits for children goes back to 1918, when amendments to the War Income Tax Act introduced the tax exemption for children. Later, in 1945, the family allowance program came into effect, thus proving that Canada recognized its obligation to educate its children. This program was intended as a mechanism for the government to supplement family income by relieving families of part of their expenses for the care and education of their children.
Since the introduction of family allowance, a number of changes have been made to adjust them to the requirements of families in need. Today, the federal government pays nearly $2.8 billion in family allowance to more than 3,500,000 families, for 6,500,000 children. The benefits are paid every month, usually to the mother, In 1991, the monthly benefit was about $34 per child.
Federal support for families goes beyond family allowance, however. There are a number of benefits for children, most of them provided in the form of tax credits. The Child Tax Credit Program aimed at low-income families is another major source of support for these families.
Since it came to power in 1984, the government substantially raised the ceiling of the credit by increasing it by more than 50 per cent-more remains to be done, but this is at least a good start-so that the actual benefit rose from $367 per child in 1984 to $585 in 1991. In 1988, the federal government introduced a supplement to the child tax credit for children up to six years of age. The supplement is $207 per child.
The government has also taken other steps to support the incomes of families with children. For instance, the implementation of a series of measures concerning goods and services will on the whole improve the financial situation of families with incomes below $30,000. These measures include an improved tax credit which is paid quarterly. The maximum value of the credit is $190 per adult and $100 per child.
Private Members' Business
We are also helping parents to use types of non-parental care that are not too costly. When they file their income tax returns, families can deduct up to $4,000 for child care expenses-work-related, of course-for children of pre-school age and up to $2,000 for children who are going to school.
Mr. Speaker, under the Canada Assistance Plan, which provides for cost-sharing with the provinces, the federal government helps fund eligible provincial expenditures for welfare and social services. In 1991-92, these expenditures will total $6.3 billion. Through this program, the government estimates it will pay about $250 million for child care.
The federal government intends to increase its support for child care through its National Strategy, which will deal with a number of issues that have an impact on children.
Families with new born infants will receive additional support, following amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. These amendments provide for a system of maternity, parental and health benefits. More specifically, fifteen weeks of maternity benefits during the period before and after the birth of the child; 10 weeks of parental benefits for natural or adopting parents-this is a new measure introduced by our government-for either the mother or the father; and 15 weeks of health benefits.
Under the new unemployment insurance system, the claimant will be able to receive benefits-up to the maximum amount for each type of benefit-as long as the cumulative period of special benefits does not exceed 30 weeks.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of outside pressures or constraints, a family may cease to function normally.
Since families are the basic unit of Canadian society, the federal government is concerned about these problems and wants to find ways to help families keep functioning effectively. It also knows that the public sector is in a position to provide substantial help, either directly or indirectly, to families experiencing a crisis. A number of federal initiatives designed to provide this type of support were launched recently.

Government Orders
One of our priority concerns is the issue of child sexual abuse and family violence in general, and we are tiying to provide assistance in this area.
Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that a society as advanced as ours, a society that is pluralistic and democratic, still tolerates violence against women and children. Yesterday we saw on television how a man who was obviously very distressed was holding his ex-spouse hostage. The same man had kidnapped his young child a few weeks before. It was done in desperation, I agree, but it is intolerable just the same.
Mr. Speaker, why, despite the measures I just mentioned, are there still so many poor families who are unable to get out of the poverty cycle? How can their needs be met? Should there be a guaranteed minimum income? Someone in my riding told me the other day that if instead of giving them a tax credit or a cheque in the mail, we gave parents food stamps, maybe then children would no longer go to school hungry.
Mr. Speaker, there is so much more to say, but I agree with hon. members that child poverty and child sexual abuse must stop now.
[English ]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Corbeil that Bill C-ll, an act to amend the Railway
Act (grain and flour subsidies), be read a third time and passed; and the amendment of Mr. Dingwall (p. 1768).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded division on the amendment stands deferred until she o'clock, Monday, June 17, 1991.
It being four o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.01 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 17,1991