1991-09-27

Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before we proceed to Government Orders, I wish to share with hon. members the Chair's ruling on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead earlier this week.
Wednesday, September 25, 1991, the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead raised a question of privilege concerning the membership of the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada. He alleged that when the committee started sitting, it did so unlawfully because, first of all, the report of the House Management Committee listing the membership of the Special Joint Committee was filed with the Clerk of the House after the hour of adjournment on Tuesday, September 24, and an order adopted by the House on June 19, 1991, did not prescribe this procedure for a day when the House was sitting.
Second, he objected to the fact that the House Management Committee's report listed 22 names of members, while letting the Whip of the New Democratic Party select two members from a list of four names to fill two of the three seats to which the party was entitled on the Special Joint Committee.
The hon. members for Saint-Leonard, Cape Breton-East Richmond, Calgary North and Saint-Denis, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council intervened to clarify certain points for the Chair, and I appreciate their contribution.
Before responding to the specific points raised by the hon. member, I must inform him that the question he raised is not a question of privilege. However, there is
certainly some basis for raising a point of order, and the Chair's response will be along those lines.
Regarding the first point raised by the hon. member, I wish to point out that the wording of the special Order, adopted by the House on June 19,1991, and published in the Votes and Proceedings of that day at page 226, does not refer to adjournments of the House but simply to those times when the House is not sitting, which in the Chair's opinion may include extended periods of adjournment such as the summer recess, shorter periods of adjournment such as from one sitting day to the next, or the period comprised by the weekend.
Consequently, the Chair rules that the report filed by the House Management Committee with the Clerk at 7.28 p.m. on Tuesday, March 24, was filed in accordance with the Order of the House of June 19, 1991 and therefore does not present a problem.
I also wish to point out to the hon. member that said report was published in the Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, September 26 and was available on the Table of the House on September 25.
Let us consider the second point raised by the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead.

The report of the Standing Committee on House Management lists the initial membership of the special committee and goes on to note how the NDP Whip will fill two of the three places allotted to the party. It is important to note that under the terms of the special order, the Whip of each party is given full control of the membership for that party and the power to substitute at will.
Do the terms of the standing committee report reach back into the special order and put constraints on the NDP Whip by stating that in filling two of the three places allotted to the NDP, their Whip is limited to choosing from the pool of the four NDP members named in the report? The Chair's reading of the committee's report cannot conclude otherwise. And yet, does this not impose a restriction on one of the parties that

September 27, 1991
Speaker's Ruling
was never envisioned in the terms of the order of June 19, 1991?
Under ordinary circumstances the standing committee report would have been presented to the House and could have been scrutinized by the House before a motion for concurrence was entertained. There would have been ample opportunity for the House to seek clarification of questions raised by the unusual form of the report. However, the terms of the order of June 19 last have, in effect, denied the House and the Chair such an opportunity by deeming the report concurred in.
We are now faced with scrutinizing the terms of the report after the fact; indeed, after the special committee has held its organization meeting, elected its officers and begun its hearings. In departing from the strict terms of the order of June 19, 1991, which instructed that a 20-member committee be struck, and in deviating from the traditional form of reports for striking committee memberships, the Standing Committee on House Management has placed the Chair in a quandary. The procedural authorities warn against the consequences of such action. In Bourinot Parliamentary Procedure fourth edition, at pages 469 to 470, it states:
It is a clear principle of parliamentary law that a committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the order of reference. This principle is essential to the regular despatch of business; for, if it were admitted that what the House entertained, in one instance, and referred to a committee, was so far controllable by that committee, that it was at liberty to disobey the order of reference, all business would be at an end; and, as often as circumstances would afford a pretence, the proceedings of the House would be involved in confusion.
The interventions of hon. members Wednesday made clear that the report has, indeed, sown widespread confusion about the membership of this special committee. The difficulty lies in the designations member No. 19 and member No. 20, and in the explanatory note narrowing the terms of the order of June 19, 1991. This cannot be allowed to stand.

The Order of the House of June 19, at page 226 of the Votes and Proceedings, provides in the second paragraph that the House Management Committee will simply "designate" 20 members of this House as members of
the Special Joint Committee. There is no reference to additional members or members designated by numbers marked with an asterisk, in connection with a list of substitutes.
In Canadian parliamentary practice, a striking committee has a very narrow mandate.
Unless the House specifically authorizes them to do so, such committees may only report names of members who are to sit on parliamentary committees.
By failing to observe the Order of the House of June 19, the House Management Committee went beyond its mandate. At first, the committee appointed only 18 members; subsequently, it proposed a substitution procedure for two numbered seats set aside for the NDP.
The Chair finds the second part of the House Management Committee's report clearly inadmissible, and in this respect, the objection raised by the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead is well founded.
That being said, should the Chair therefore reject out of hand the report of the House Management Committee, with all the serious consequences this might entail? I think it would not make sense to reject all the work done by the House Management Committee and the Special Joint Committee. The three Whips were acting in good faith in their concerned efforts to respond to a request by the New Democratic Party.
I therefore see no satisfactory reason for starting the selection process over again and thus forcing the Special Joint Committee to interrupt its work. Consequently, the Chair rules that the 18 members designated as members of the Committee were formally appointed by the House pursuant to the report of the House Management Committee and in accordance with the Order made on June 19; the Chair also rules that the remaining part of the House Management Committee's report is null and void. Finally, the Chair asks the Striking Committee to file a supplementary report, in addition to the report filed on September 24, designating two more members of the New Democratic Party, and when this report is tabled in the House or filed with the Clerk, pursuant to Order of June 19, said supplementary report shall also be deemed to have been adopted pursuant to Order of June 19, 1991.
September 27, 1991

In concluding, the House will understand that this ruling is an unusual one on the part of the Chair, but it is not unprecedented. On February 14, 1944, and April 23, 1975, the Chair intervened in matters concerning committee reports. Those instances were not entirely identical to the question before us today, but the intent of today's ruling reflects the intent of the rulings made by my predecessors, who in similar circumstances also refused to categorically bring the business of the House to a halt.
I wish to thank hon. members for their patience.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, September 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee F; and the motion of Mr. Vincent (p. 2536).
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I ask the House to be patient, but in the debate on Bill C-32 of Monday, September 23, 1991, I am misquoted in Hansard and I would simply like to make a correction, because what is there makes no sense. Madam Speaker, I said in French that one-parent families in my riding are headed by women 85 per cent of the time. In English, "mere" was mistranslated as "mere children". I also think that there is a mistake in the following sentence:

There are single parent families in Ottawa-Vanier, in my riding. Twenty per cent of all families are single parent families and 85 per cent of these are headed by mere children. It should be saying "with mothers without children."
Government Orders
Mr. Gauthier): I am sorry, that should be "mothers with children."


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for bringing to the attention of the Chair and hon. members this mistranslation or typographical error and I think that he can be assured that we will have the correction made before the final version is printed.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Chambly.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, in resuming debate on Bill C-32,1 think it is important that we go back to a general explanation of why this bill is as important as it is.
CAP, which is the Canada Assistance Plan, was first established by the Liberals in 1966. Very seldom do we ever give credit to other parties because of partisan debate in this House, but we in the NDP do realize that in 1966 this was a fine idea.
CAP gave constitutional responsibility for programs of income redistribution, including social assistance programs paying money to Canadians anywhere in Canada. It was a shared program and it was working-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I realize there is a very important conversation going on, but the two Whips should know better than to stand between the Speaker and whomever has the floor, please.


Mr. Dingwall:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am glad Your Honour brought that to our attention. I was going to do the same and bring to the attention of the House the two Whips meeting and talking on the floor of the House.
I think it is rather repugnant, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This is a Friday morning. I appreciate the hon. member's sense of humour.
I do apologize for having interrupted the hon. member. The member for Chambly has the floor.


Philip Edmonston: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Your concern was also my concern. I also appreciate the gentle humour that we seem to be engaged in. We are getting on the right foot for a Friday morning, and I think that is a good sign.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.

September 27, 1991
Government Orders
As I was saying, the Canada Assistance Program is very important. It was started by the Liberals in 1966. Even the Nielsen report, which was commissioned by the Conservative government as to finding ways that we could streamline government, make it less expensive and more efficient, said that CAP or the Canada Assistance Program was a very good program. It lauded the way that the program had made for more harmonious relations between provinces and Ottawa, although it did concern itself with the cost, particularly the open-ended portion of the Canada Assistance Program.
Because the Nielsen report concerned itself with the cost and the open-endedness, this fifty-fifty cost sharing program, the government many years later, about actually a year ago, gave clear signs that it intended to cap CAP. Once again I say that the program gives constitutional responsibility for income redistribution including social assistance programs to Canadians anywhere in Canada. In every province one would have an equal chance of obtaining an equal amount of money.
This concerned a great deal the Conservative side of this House mainly because of the expense. Of course it is a fifty-fifty cost sharing deal. Whenever the provinces had increased costs, they can rely upon the federal government to pay 50 per cent of those increased costs. That was the seed of discord or discontent on the government side because the federal government was seeing the provinces increasing their costs and it did not have much of a say except to pay the increased costs itself.
So a bill came down. It was Bill C-69 and it imposed a two-year freeze on the CAP for British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. It is interesting that Bill C-69 considered British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario as rich provinces. If we take a look at Ontario right now with the unemployment, the deficit, the recession, and the problems that free trade caused in Ontario and for a lot of other people, we see that Ontario is far from being a rich province.


An hon. member:: British Columbia too.


Philip Edmonston: British Columbia, my hon. member tells me as well. What we have here is a definition of provinces as being rich when they are not. With Bill C-69 and imposing a two-year freeze I believe we have the
government trying, to the best of its ability perhaps, to cut expenses and at the same time doing it on the backs of people who are least able to afford these cuts.
Bill C-69 was challenged. It went to the Supreme Court of Canada, after winning in the lower courts, the courts of first instance. The provinces challenged the bill saying: "The government made an agreement with us that it was going to pay for these programs". When a government makes a political agreement, and with this government where political agreements we thought were sacred, we find that that is not the case. If you shake hands-


An hon. member:: A sacred trust.


Philip Edmonston: "A sacred trust", the member from the government side says. We have heard that before.
The Supreme Court decision essentially said no, that Parliament is supreme, that Parliament can shake hands with you at one moment and then stab you in the back at the next, and that when Parliament is in session, if you accept the supremacy of Parliament, no one's purse or life is safe.
We saw that very clearly with Bill C-69. Now we are looking at, as a result of the Supreme Court making it very clear that Parliament has this power, the government coming back again with Bill C-32, which extends the freeze for three more years.
Our party is very much concerned about this. We have to look behind the freeze and see who does this affect mostly. We have to look at the people who are mostly concerned with the Canadian Assistance Program. I will just give a very quick rundown of who these people are: abused and neglected children in need of protection obviously, mentally and physically disabled persons, one parent families, seniors, the unemployed and the working poor, battered women, families and individuals in crisis.
Because of the capping of CAP there has been a movement on the part of a number of provinces. I can tell you in particular about the movement in Ontario and by our party here in Ottawa. We wanted to put into the Constitution a social contract, provisions whereby the people I have just named would be protected. There would not be a constitutional right for the government to make an agreement and then go back on its word.
September 27, 1991

People ask: "How will this social contract immediately affect myself or Canadians?" It would not allow the government to do what it did under Bill C-69 and what it is trying to continue to do under Bill C-32. It is extremely important when we talk about a social contract that our fellow Canadians understand that what we are trying to do partially is to repair the abuse-and I would say the abuse of process, even, although it was legitimate according to the Supreme Court decision-that we saw the government do in its initial legislation, Bill C-69, and is continuing to do in this legislation, Bill C-32.
Therefore it is obvious that our party is against this piece of legislation. We were against the practice. We did not think it was fair in these constitutional times, I can tell you.

-Madam Speaker, that we Quebecers are looking more and more for reasons to remain in Canada. We are looking more and more for reasons to trust the federal government. We see legislation like Bill C-69 and Bill C-32 as a provocation. It is an example of a government that wants to withdraw from its responsibilities. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that in Quebec, we are having a big debate on the relevance of the federal government and also the overlapping of jurisdiction. The basic problem is: Can we Quebecers trust this government?


An hon. member:: Phil, have you become a separatist?


Philip Edmonston: Someone is asking me whether I have become a separatist. No, I am a Quebecer. I am a Quebecer like others here. I am trying above all to give both sides of the story. I am saying what many Quebecers are saying.
The problem here is not just Quebec. As my friend from Alberta just said, Quebec is asking the same questions as Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario have asked. Now that we are trying to bind this country together, actions of this government are breaking us apart and causing rifts everywhere. That is the basic problem.
You know, a Liberal senator said that perception is reality. Well, Quebecers' perception of our actions here in Ottawa is that federalism as it is now is not working. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would say that it is mainly
Government Orders
due to the acts of this government, which has removed national institutions one after another.
So, Madam Speaker, of course our party is against this bill and as a Quebecer, of course I support my party.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: 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.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until six o'clock p.m., Monday, September 30,1991.


THE RAILWAY ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 17, 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.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, I do not know the number of times I have risen to speak about the port of Halifax, either in direct relationship to the At and East subsidy or on other matters relating to the crisis situation affecting the port of Halifax today.
The At and East subsidy maintained fixed rail costs for moving grain and flour to eastern Canadian ports, notably the port of Halifax and the port of Saint John, New Brunswick. It was designed to make these eastern Canadian ports competitive with ports on the eastern seaboard of the United States and other Canadian ports. It was a simple theory and one that worked.

September 27, 1991
Government Orders
In July 1989 the At and East subsidy ended without, I might add, the benefit of legislation. On July 15, 1989 the subsidy was cut and the fallout began in the port of Halifax and in the port of Saint John. We have waited for the government either to see the error of its ways or at least bring the bill through the House. Finally, here we are two years and two months later, two years and two months without this subsidy, and now we have finally reached third reading of this bill. It is not something that will go unnoticed by the people of Halifax and the people of Saint John.
What has been the effect on these two ports of the cancellation of this subsidy? We all know what the effect was on Saint John, New Brunswick. The grain elevator there is closed. The jobs are gone. The port has taken a crippling blow. Elsie Wayne, the well known and articulate mayor of Saint John, has made her plea and it has landed on deaf ears in this government. Saint John has taken a serious, serious wound.
In Halifax the grain elevator is down to one-quarter of its normal capacity. The same can be said for the flour mill in the port of Halifax. The number of jobs lost is a serious blow to the economy of Halifax and the life of the port, which is the lifeblood of the city and to some degree of the province and the region.
In 1988, the last full year of the At and East subsidy, 337,914 tonnes of grains and 182,957 tonnes of flour came into the port of Halifax under the At and East subsidy. According to Captain Claude Bell of the Halifax Port Corporation roughly one stevedore is employed for every 1,000 tonnes of grain and flour exported.
It means that in that area alone we are looking at a loss of approximately 500 jobs in a city with a population of approximately 100,000. This loss is not inconsiderable. This loss is something that can and will create major hardship in a city that for years has prided itself on its self-sufficiency, particularly because of its port.
The At and East subsidy has been in effect since the early 1960s. As I said before, this was to allow the eastern ports of Saint John and Halifax to compete adequately with the superports on the east coast of the United States, New York and Baltimore in particular.
Since the cancellation of At and East-to add insult to injury, to pour salt in the wounds of Haligonians and Dartmouthians and Nova Scotians and New Brunswickers-among other things Canadian Pacific Rail has, with the able financial assistance of this government, purchased the D&H railroad. The D&H railroad out of the eastern U.S. ports is a direct and serious competitor with CN rail on the Halifax to Montreal run. Are there subsidies any more for CN rail? No. At and East is dead. Even without legislation it has been dead for two years, two months and two weeks.
At and East is dead but D&H is thriving. D&H is going along just fine, thank you very much, with the able assistance of the Government of Canada. There are jobs in Maryland and New York State. Those ports are getting along just fine. There are jobs on the D&H railroad.
What is happening in Halifax, what is happening in Nova Scotia? Five hundred jobs lost at the port, more jobs lost from the rail and so on and so on; a litany of disaster that is epic in its proportions. But that is all right. Let the free market forces bear. Things are good in Baltimore and New York. Halifax will just have to learn to get along without the assistance of the national government.
At and East has some other ramifications for the people of Nova Scotia as well. I am going to leave the full description of these problems for my colleagues who know more about the agricultural industry than I do.
I want to talk about one thing. In Nova Scotia this year we had a wonderful summer of weather as far as tourism was concerned. We had hot sunny days and beautiful blue skies. However, in the month of July we had one-quarter our normal rainfall. Consequently, for farmers in the province of Nova Scotia the hay crop is less than half its normal annual output. That is going to make things very tough for livestock farmers in the province of Nova Scotia.
What was the other benefit from At and East to the people of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island? It was a fairly good and reasonably priced source of feed grain. That is gone. The hay crop is less than half its normal output. The livestock producers in the province of Nova Scotia, and in the maritimes generally, are going to suffer as a result of that. I know that my colleagues who know a great deal more about agriculture would agree with me that this is going to be a very, very difficult time for livestock producers in Nova Scotia.
September 27, 1991

The province of Nova Scotia is a small province. When one sector is hit the spin-off, the bouncing ball effect, the ripple effect hits everyone in the province. That is why Haligonians are as concerned about the Sydney steel plant as residents of industrial Cape Breton. That is why the people of South West Nova are as concerned about the port of Halifax as Haligonians. That is why all Nova Scotians know that the problems of the farmers throughout our rural areas are problems for all of us.
We are small. The population of the province is at most 800,000. In the metropolitan area represented by the member for Dartmouth and myself-and I believe there is another member, but I cannot remember who it is at the moment-250,000 of those people live. However, they are concerned about the whole province and the economic future and stability of that province.
At and East has been effectively dead for two years, two months and two weeks. Today, the government finally puts the bill through for the last time. The people of Nova Scotia and the people of Halifax-Dartmouth will remember. They will remember well who caused their once mighty port to suffer and decline. Nova Scotians have long memories.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, as you mentioned, earlier, it is a Friday morning. The Chamber usually has some of its better speeches on Fridays because the members know we have to ensure that the government has learned its lesson for the weekend until we return on Monday. I hope that in the few moments I have, I will instil a little discipline on the other side.
I have spoken to this bill that is before us a number of times, as have other members on this side of the House. It is a regressive piece of legislation that the government bungled when it first tried introduce it.
The member for Halifax indicated that the At and East subsidy, which was an absolutely essential part of our grain transportation system and infrastructure in Canada, has been dead for awhile. It has been over two years now.
Government Orders
The government introduced a bill, and before the bill ever passed it decided that it was going to do away with the subsidy.
I spoke, and I think this is the third time, in debate on this so I am not going to speak specifically about the impact on the agricultural sector in Atlantic Canada, particularly Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, of the removal of the subsidy. Suffice it to say that this is one of those examples of the government selectively deciding to punish Atlantic Canada for being the eastern part of the country or maybe because it saw good sense in the last election and elected mostly Liberals.
Unfortunately, the people of Atlantic Canada, who knew better than to try and re-elect this government because they knew what in the name of goodness was going to happen to the country, elected Liberals. We will have to wait a little longer to rectify the damage that has been done by this government's policies, particularly in Atlantic Canada.
I want to talk a little bit about what has happened to the port of Halifax. The At and East program, a subsidy for the movement of feed grains to east coast ports, is gone. I have said in previous speeches that I am certainly not one of those people who gets up and says: "Well then you should do away with any freight rate assistance in western Canada or you should go up the St. Lawrence Seaway and do away with any infrastructural subsidy that takes place". There is free ice-breaking, free aids for navigation and things like that on the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Surely to goodness there is something called fairness. If the government is going to treat us one way, then everybody else should receive the same treatment. If it is going to treat the west one way it should treat the east the same way. This government does the old divide and conquer. At the port of Halifax, the loss of the At and East program was just one in a number of crippling body blows inflicted by this government.
My hon. colleague from Halifax spoke very succinctly about the problems in the port of Halifax that had been caused by the loss of the At and East subsidy. She talked about the 500 jobs that have disappeared in an area of only 100,000 people.

September 27, 1991
Government Orders
But more than that is happening in the port of Halifax. Just to give you an idea about what the At and East started, I want to let you know what has happened in Halifax in the last 12 months. The port of Halifax is one of the most efficient ports in North America. It is not one of these places where one says: "Well, there is a lot of fat to cut, so you should cut the fat and you will be more competitive," It is extremely competitive and that is recognized in the shipping industry around the world.
There is a problem because the government's transportation policies have caused the port of Halifax not just to lose $20 million or $30 million, but if one adds the At and East subsidy loss to the loss of traffic in the last 12 months, we are looking at nearly $60 million worth of traffic. We are looking at 500 jobs lost with the reduction or the elimination of At and East, and we are looking at at least another 400 jobs that have been lost in the last number of months.
This government has been asked repeatedly in the House of Commons to address the problems facing the port of Halifax, to stop its assault and battery on the port of Halifax and its business, and it has consistently refused to do so.
Another little body blow was delivered just in the last little while. The government has decided to change some of the regulations dealing with meat inspection on frozen meat that enters Canada. Why in the name of goodness would it do that? Was it because it did not think it was efficient? No. It was because Canadian Pacific rail lobbied the government effectively to change the regulations.
ment care? Does the government care that a change in one regulation might lose that traffic to the port of Halifax and might put it through the ports in Philadelphia or New York? It does not care at all. It did not even consult with the industry, it changed the regulation.
The At and East was the beginning of a large crack that this government instituted in the competitiveness of the port of Halifax. I do not think it is about to end. I asked in this House for the Minister of Transport to order the National Transportation Agency, the NTA, to hold an inquiry because we have heard from people in the industry that things like the loss of the At and East, things like a less than competitive schedule by Canadian National, things like perhaps a too high fee per tonne shipped by Canadian National between the port of Halifax and the inland ports in Montreal, or even perhaps the fact that the St. Lawrence Seaway is subsidized.
They tell us in Halifax when we deal with trains shipping things from the port of Halifax to Montreal or Toronto that it has to be full cost recovery. After all, that is why we lost At and East. That is why it cannot look at freight rates or try to lower the rates that CN charges because there has to be cost recovery.
Madam Speaker, do you know what? We lost business and 400 jobs in the port of Halifax when Hapag-Lloyd left and took $24 million in traffic with them. Do you know where it went? Fifty per cent of it went to New York, 50 per cent went up the St. Lawrence Seaway to Montreal.
The regulations usually work like this. When frozen meat products come into Canada, through a port usually, it is inspected at the port. However, now that Canadian Pacific has acquired the D&H line through the United States and is actively undercutting ports like the port of Halifax, what has it done? It has said: "Look, federal government, we have to get more traffic moving towards central Canadian markets through our ports in the United States because we've got a rail line there. If you just change your regulation that any frozen meat product that is coming into Canada via a U.S. port will not be stopped at the border and will only be inspected when it reaches the warehouse, we'll be able to steal some business from ports like Halifax".
Approximately 50,000 tonnes of frozen meat product was imported through the port of Halifax last year alone from Australia and New Zealand. What does the govern-
All we are asking for in the east is not that other places get pummelled and kicked and battered like Atlantic Canada, but we demand fair treatment for the Atlantic coast transportation infrastructure and most importantly for the ports on the Atlantic coast.
This is not the last time, Madam Speaker, that you are going to hear myself and other members from the Atlantic speaking. Because, if we lose our transportation infrastructure, if our ports lose their competitiveness because of negligence or because of design by this government, through things like the loss of the At and East, we will not be able to compete. We are in a period of constitutional renewal again and we are talking about trying to ensure equality in this country. Yet every single time that the government decides to come in and save a dollar here or a dollar there, it seems to hit the Atlantic harder than anywhere else.
September 27, 1991

There was a document released yesterday by this government. It talked a great deal about the need for an economic union. I fully support that. I think nearly every Canadian would support the idea of unrestricted movement of goods, traffic and people in this country. But, my goodness, how can one legitimately have an economic union in this country when the government, by every action it has taken in the transportation sector in Atlantic Canada, has removed or lessened our ability to trade and compete internally?
If the port of Halifax is weakened, if we lose a container terminal, if we lose a flour mill, if we lose a grain elevator, it means we cannot compete. If it allows Canadian National to keep its rates high so nobody will bother shipping through our ports but will go down and ship through the United States, very soon after CN will say: "You know, our traffic has decreased because of our rates and our service, therefore we are going to apply for rail line abandonment". We have heard this story before. We have been at this movie. We did not like it then and we certainly do not like it now.
In conclusion, this bill has been before this place so often I might have spoken on it 10 times. If I could get away with it, I would speak on it 20 times because this is a bill that shows callousness and the absolute lack of good judgment. This is the type of bill that goes a long way to destroying unity in this country, because the country is not going to stay together if people do not believe it is in their economic interest. When you see a government single out any region of this country for particularly brutal treatment by the way it legislates, if you think that does one thing for national unity then I should have a chat with you because I certainly do not think it does.
This bill is one that is probably going to pass sooner as opposed to later, because it has been on the government agenda for a long time. The people of Atlantic Canada, the agricultural industry in Atlantic Canada, the businesses in Atlantic Canada, the flour mills and the people
Government Orders
who have lost their jobs have already been stung by this bill before it has ever been passed by the highest court in the land, the Parliament of Canada. In conclusion, I make my final appeal for the government to come to its senses, to withdraw this bill, to reinstate the At and East program, and to do so immediately.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise today and participate in the debate on the At and East freight rates. As eloquent as the statements by the members from the Atlantic provinces may have been, this is not merely an Atlantic problem. I would like to explain why that is so.
In previous stages of this debate, a debate which has been going on for a long time, western members of the New Democratic Party have stood solidly with people from Atlantic Canada to fight this particular manoeuvre, and I think people are aware of that.
The reason we have fought this is because the principles at stake here are very important, and there are several of them. First of all, what we are looking at here is another case of the government dismantling the infrastructure that holds this country together, particularly the transportation infrastructure. This country was originally built on a transportation infrastructure. The national dream of John A. Macdonald and his successors was clearly based on tying this country together economically with a transportation infrastructure.
Our agricultural economy was based on that. It was early recognized that our major grain producing regions in this country, in other words the prairie basin, were far removed from any kind of tidewater, far removed from ports where grain could move into export markets. This is in contrast to all our major grain competitors in the world. In Australia virtually all the grain is grown within 200 miles of the coast. The same is true in Argentina. United States has major waterways. The Mississippi river system which empties its heartlands provides for cheap water based transportation out of its heartlands.

Government Orders
Western Canada and the prairies were the only grain producing regions in the world, virtually, that did not have a big enough internal market to absorb its production, and that was far from tidewater.
The infrastructure that was put in place was a very important part of the fabric of this country. It was particularly an integral part of the agricultural industry as it developed in this country.
What have we seen? We have seen this whole infrastructure come under increasing attack by a change in philosophy that says that infrastructure is not important, that it is not the government's job to ensure that the larger picture is looked after, that it is merely the government's job to make sure that whatever entrepreneurial organization or corporation, be it a railway, grain company or whatever, can make an extra dime on $1 million here or there.
This government and the government before it had abandoned the idea that it is the job of the federal government in this country to hold the infrastructure together. The erosion obviously started with the whole attack on the Crow rate, which I remember so well as being launched by the former Minister of Transportation, Jean-Luc Pepin.
Although we still have a western transportation act that includes some elements of that old Crow rate structure, certainly the major part is gone. Year after year it is being eroded and made less and less effective.
Another critical element of that whole debate is this At and East question. What At and East did was two things. First, it allowed western grain to get to the maritimes at a competitive rate so that the maritime agricultural industry had access to that grain. Second, it allowed for an alternate set of ports to be used in times when they were needed. Particularly that was important because these are ports that are open 12 months a year and not frozen in, in the winter, as the Great Lakes ports are.
We do have ports on the west coast that are open all year round, but we do not have any way to get to the Atlantic Ocean 12 months a year without going to the maritime ports. At and East gave us the capacity to do that.
What have we seen? We saw what I think is one of the most shameful legislative processes that I have seen take place since I became elected in 1988. Surely it is incumbent on the government to treat its own legislation and its own legislative processes with some respect, but it did not do that in this case.
It must have felt that somehow or other the maritime voice would not be heard here, that there were so few farmers in maritime Canada that their voice would not be heard or that the 500 workers who are about to be laid off or who have lost their jobs did not matter. I do not know what the thinking of the government was. I have trouble reading its mind.
What I do know was that on July 19, 1989 the government unilaterally, and probably illegally, cut off the At and East payments. It made them inoperative and it has been operating on that basis ever since.
Here we are over two years later still without legislative authority to consummate what the government had done by fiat. That is a totally unacceptable way of going about things from a legislative point of view, especially on a question that is as important to the national infrastructure as this one.
I would urge government members to reconsider what they have done here, not only in terms of At and East but to make sure first of all that the whole process does not happen again.
I think that if this government has any moral guts and moral convictions it should compensate the people for the losses that they have incurred over the last two years while the At and East rates have been illegally gone.
A further backdrop to this whole situation is the crisis that is facing agriculture in general in this country. Surely this is the wrong time to start pulling apart our agriculture infrastructure piece by piece by piece. We are seeing it happen with rail line abandonment in western Canada. We have seen off-loading of federal cost shared programs like crop insurance on to the provinces which can ill afford them. This is creating a patchwork of programs across the country.
That is the opposite direction from which we would like to be going. A very real cash flow crisis is endangering probably one-third to one-half of Canadian farm families and maritime farm families are no exception.
September 27, 1991

It is making it impossible for livestock producers and for people that depend on the flour milling industry in the maritimes even to plan in the short run, let alone the long run.
It is one more hammer blow to the economic well-being of farmers, not only in maritime Canada, but right across the country. If those maritime markets are lost as a result of the At and East going, it means that western Canadian farmers have one less opportunity to sell their grain within their own market.
I recognize the time is getting short, Madam Speaker. What we need is an agriculture industry that can serve our farming community from coast to coast to coast, that can ensure that we have an infrastructure which can ensure security of food for Canadian families right across this country, and not chip away our security of food supply the way this government is doing.


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


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -Stouff-ville):: Madam Speaker, I want to commend the Supreme Court of Canada for its decision yesterday to send Charles Ng and Joseph Kindler back to the United States where they face the possibility of being executed.
Charles Ng allegedly took part in the brutal torture and murder of at least 12 victims in California. Members of the Victims of Violence, both in the U.S.A. and in Canada, will be pleased and relieved with yesterday's decision.
Charles Ng made a mockery of our extradition laws by exploiting the appeal options and costing Canadian taxpayers over $6 million since 1985. I have brought up the Charles Ng case in the House of Commons on several occasions, pressing the government to have Mr. Ng sent back to the United States, and to toughen our extradition laws.
I urge the Minister of Justice to have Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act, passed quickly so that we will send a clear and strong message to U.S. criminals that Canada is no longer a safe haven for murderers-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sony but the hon. member's time has expired.


JUSTICE
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimau-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, the events in the wonderland of Tory trials and tribulations become curiouser and curiouser. Yesterday an unusual gag order was placed on all testimony at the tax appeal of former Tory MP, Michel Gravel. Not only will the testimony that will be heard in future hearings be kept secret until the end of the case, but even the evidence that was widely reported last week will now be hidden away.
This is not the first time Canadians have been prevented from finding out just what is said under oath about the constant stream of Tories facing accusations of fraud, breach of trust and influence peddling. We will not find out what was said during 17 days of hearings into allegations of corruption by more than a dozen prominent Tories until the end of all the court actions involving former Tory minister Roch LaSalle.
Likewise, the role played by Senator Michael Cogger, another mystery-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member knows he should not make attacks on people.


PUBLIC TRANSIT
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, the federal government's unilateral disengagement from public transit services affects thousands of its employees and is completely inconsistent with its responsibilities as a major employer and a corporate citizen for the environment, the congestion of roads and bridges, and even energy efficiency. Furthermore, this refusal of the federal government to honour its previous commitments is unacceptable and totally unjustified and unjustifiable.

Madam Speaker, I support Gatineau city council, which urges the federal government to reconsider its position and to honour the commitment which it made on its own initiative under the previously mentioned tripartite agreement through the NCC.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, Canada's official recognition of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania has understandably excited and delighted the proponents of Quebec's independence. So did the Prime Minister's statement that Canada will also recognize the results of a referendum on Ukrainian independence.
But will the Quebec sovereignists recognize the right of self-determination of the Crees and Inuit in northern Quebec? No, no, says Mr. Parizeau, that is Quebec. Surely, the right of self-determination is a right for all.


HAMILTON AIRPORT
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, did you know that for the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, Hamilton airport saved the day. Travelling to Toronto to deliver a speech, the minister's plane was unable to land at Pearson International and instead had to rely on Hamilton airport to make the landing. Again the lesson is clear; more air traffic must be redirected to Hamilton.
The junior transport minister, the member for Lincoln and the Minister of Transport disagree with common sense. The Minister of Transport would like to waste $800 million in taxpayers' money, not on improving Hamilton airport as an incentive for more business, but for a face lift on two terminals at Pearson. He should listen to his Conservative colleague from Bramalea- Gore-Malton, whose riding includes Pearson International, and whose ideas do make good sense. His suggestions? "The government should start making plans for another airport. I have toured Hamilton airport
and I liked what I saw, a good alternative to relieve some of the pressure at Pearson".


NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Madam Speaker, this year marks the seventh National Family Week. In 1991, it focuses on families and the home environment. Families are the cornerstone of our society, the fabric of our great nation. Our children are our most valuable asset. The development, welfare and education of the young are critical to the success of Canada in this changing, highly competitive world.
I believe that National Family Week is a time to commit ourselves again to our families by building stronger relationships with our wives, husbands, children and other families members for whom we care.


AGRICULTURE
Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, rather than getting the $1 billion they so desperately need, Canada's farm families are once again being put through the political wringer by the PCs.
This Monday we saw the bizarre spectacle of this government voting down a motion to provide an emergency payment which its own members on the agriculture committee had recommended. This followed positive signals by the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds and a promise of a third line of defence when GRIP and NISA were introduced.
Now we hear from PC committee rooms in Saskatchewan that they are expecting an announcement of a stabilization payout during the third week of Grant Devine's campaign.
It is time to quite playing politics with farm families. If this government has an announcement to make on grain stabilization, it should make it now and not when it suits Grant Devine.
The Prime Minister might also reread my letter of August 7, inviting him to come to Prince Albert for an agriculture summit. By going back to John Diefenbaker's hometown and listening to farmers, he might start to regain the credibility he has lost in rural Canada.
September 27, 1991

| Translation]


LOWER ST. LAWRENCE REGION
Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Madam Speaker, in the last year and a half, 6,000 jobs were created in the Lower St. Lawrence region.
According to the August 1991 labour market bulletin published by Employment and Immigration Canada, the Lower St. Lawrence region had 91,700 people at work in August 1991, the highest level ever recorded for that period. This outstanding performance officially and unequivocally contradicts those who talk about job losses in the region.
The bulletin indicates a gain of 3,700 jobs in the Lower St. Lawrence between May and July 1991. The economist responsible for the bulletin wrote that the Lower St. Lawrence region continued to turn in an amazing labour market performance in August 1991. We can see that employment has grown steadily in the Lower St. Lawrence region for 17 months now. These statistics are very revealing and show once again that, thanks to the dynamism of its businesses and our government's initiatives, the Lower St. Lawrence is one of only four of Quebec's thirteen regions that-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.
*	>k *


TORONTO PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I have good news today for the people of Broadview-Greenwood. I would like to announce that the world class Toronto Philharmonic Orchestra will be playing the 1992 season on the Danforth. It will be playing at the Music Hall and music conductor Paul Robinson will be featuring guest artists from all over the world.
The first concert will take place on Sunday, October 27, featuring Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No. 2, with guest virtuoso, Latvian artist Arthur Ozolins.
We want to let everyone in this House know that culture is alive and well in Broadview-Greenwood in downtown Toronto.
We welcome all people, not only from Toronto, but from all over Canada. Join us for a concert with the Toronto Philharmonic Orchestra and while in Toronto, enjoy one of the 300 restaurants.


WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, Western Economic Diversification was announced in 1987. Its beginnings were slow for Manitoba, but today the evidence of western diversification's tremendous success of job creating and attracting new investment is spectacular. Businesses in Portage La Prairie in my constituency have received in the last two years close $18 million in interest free loans and $12 million in a southern development initiative.
Just listen at this; WMC Enterprises, Go For Cart, South Port Aerospace, Western Combine, Southern Development Initiative. Can Oat is presently being opened by the minister as I speak.
It pays to elect a good, hard working Conservative member of Parliament. It gets things done.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Madam Speaker, the Acadian community of the Atlantic provinces is concerned about the future of Radio-Canada as an instrument for promoting the French culture in Canada. For nearly a year, the coalition for French-language television in Acadia has opposed the transfer of federal powers over culture and communications to the provinces and has particularly demanded an increased presence for the French CBC in the region.
At a time when we deplore Canadians' misunderstanding and ignorance of one another, it is inconceivable to turn culture and communications over to the provinces. Such a transfer of jurisdiction would further isolate the official-language communities. We cannot allow ourselves to shake an already vulnerable Acadian culture any more. The coalition deserves the support of all parliamentarians who believe in the importance of culture and communications for maintaining and develop-

September 27, 1991
ing a national identity based on the diversity and richness of its communities, including the Acadian community of the Atlantic provinces.


NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Madam Speaker, October 7 to the 13 marks the seventh National Family Week to be celebrated across the country. The theme of the week, "You've Got What it Thkes", promotes the need for individual family members to work at improving their family environments.
Traditionally the family has been a source of strength and comfort to its members. We know that whether we win or lose, our families will continue to love and to support us.
Unfortunately not all people belong to such strong and loving family units, so it is important that as we celebrate our own good fortune we do not forget about the women and children who suffer abuse within their families.
Family week is a good time to consider how we can all work together; individuals, communities and governments to reach out and help those who find themselves the victims of family violence. Improvements in family life are starting points for improvements in the over-all quality of life within our society.


PETRO-CANADA
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, on February 21, 1990, the Minister of State for Privatization said that the future of Canada's energy industry "depends on the development of our vast reserves. To be a partner in these initiatives, Petro-Canada needs equity capital.".
After privatization, Petro-Canada has nearly completed the sale of its holdings in Syncrude's oil sands development project. Strike one.
Speaking in committee on November 6, 1990, the minister said that privatization is "the best way for
Canada to grow, to create employment". But now Petro-Canada is selling off its one-third share of the new MTBE gasoline additive plant in Edmonton. Strike two.
At that same committee meeting, the minister said that money from the privatization sale "will help out the company immensely especially with its involvement in Hibernia and Terra Nova". However, Petro-Canada is now trying to sell a chunk of its holdings in those offshore projects.
That is three strikes. They're out.


POTATO INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, how would you or any member of this House like it if you had not been paid for the past year?
This is happening to potato farmers in Prince Edward Island who have not been compensated for the 1990 crop under the Plant Protections Act because of the PVY-N virus.
After strenuous negotiations between the province of Prince Edward Island, its farmers, and the federal government, a compensation package was hammered out in the spring of 1991. To this date only one-quarter of the compensation cheques have been received by farmers. Why, Madam Speaker? Is it deliberate?
To make matters worse the application forms for the 1991 crop are not available yet. This is totally unconscionable. There is one thing that potato producers or any farmers.hate to do and that is plough down their crops. To plough down a crop unnecessarily, as many had to do this year it seems, and to find that the promised compensation is nowhere in sight, and not even in the application forms, is truly heartbreaking.
P.E.I. farm families are living on bank loans which are costing additional money. Why is this happening, Madam Speaker? This government has to answer this question and get the cheques-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The time allowed has now expired.
September 27, 1991


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Acadie-Bathurst is scaring Acadians with his erroneous claims that the federal government intends to hand over Radio-Canada to the provinces. I think he is making a big mistake here. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Acadie-Bathurst is following in the footsteps of Bloc Quebecois members with their habit of using scare tactics.
I want to give Quebecers and French Canadians outside Quebec the assurance that the federal government intends to maintain its jurisdiction over Radio-Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where I should direct my question, because the front benches are pretty empty-


An hon. member:: There is no minister.


An hon. member:: There is no one!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask whomever answers on behalf of the government whether it is true, as I read on page 19 of the government's constitutional proposals, that agricultural supply marketing boards, a system that is used across Canada, would be an impediment to the mobility of goods in Canada. Is it true that the government intends to terminate a system that is used not in just one province but in every province in this country, a system that has provided farmers with a measure of production and income stability? Does the government really intend to put an end to price stabilization boards?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to reassure the Leader of the Opposition. We raised a very important issue. These boards have played a very important stabilizing role in the economy of this country. I can inform the hon. member that our reform proposals
Oral Questions
provide that these boards will be protected, thanks to policies in the national interest.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am
very pleased, Madam Speaker, but they should not put it in the paper if they do not want to take marketing boards out.
I would like to ask a supplementary question of the same minister. At this moment the price of a bushel of wheat in Canada is the lowest in real terms since 1931. The government is talking about a program that was in effect last year and is talking about a program that will take effect next year. In the meantime, thousands of farmers are being driven from their farms.
I want to know from this government if it has the intention of doing something, not last year, not next year, but this year to make sure that the farmers can stay on their farms and not be forced to move to the cities to try to find jobs that do not exist anyway because of the economic policies of this government.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Madam Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition should consider what the Canadian government's position has been in recent years with respect to grain. I believe that this government in particular has paid a great deal of attention to grain producers.
I may add that the Leader of the Opposition is also aware that as far as the grain sector is concerned, our current problem is an international one. The fact that prices are so depressed is above all a result of the incredible price war between the European Common Market and the United States.
GATT trade negotiations resumed just a week ago, and I believe that next Tuesday or Wednesday, the Minister of Agriculture will have a meeting in Europe with Mr. MacSharry, who is responsible for agriculture at the European Community.
I myself will be meeting Mr. Dunkel at the talks a few days later, to defend Canadian interests at the international level so that normal price levels can be restored on a long-term basis.

September 27, 1991
Oral Questions
Meanwhile, Madam Speaker, we have introduced two programs, GRIP and NISA, which were designed by and for farm producers, and under these programs hundreds of millions of dollars will be available this year. We have defended the interests of our farmers-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think this is starting to sound like a speech. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I know they have a program that will apply next year. What about this year? That is the question. It is not a speech that the farmers are waiting for, it is help this year. While Canadian farmers are being driven off their land, thousands and thousands of fishermen in Atlantic Canada are being driven off the sea.
The situation is so bad and the catches were so poor this summer that thousands of them will not even qualify for unemployment insurance this winter.
I want to know from the President of the Treasury Board if he has something in mind for these fishermen in Atlantic Canada so they can have a decent winter and qualify for programs of this government which should be there when we have a crisis like we are having today.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his concern shown about the tremendous failure that has been experienced by the Atlantic fishermen this year. It is indeed a tragedy that the fishermen off the coast of Labrador have had literally no fish caught, and there are portions of Newfoundland that have had very, very serious losses.
This government is concerned about it. This government acted this spring when there were ice conditions that we had never seen before in our lifetimes. It put $18 million into the hands of the fishermen, the people who could not get out to fish. We are busy working as diligently as we can on this. This Minister of Fisheries was back in Newfoundland last week, met with the premier, met with the leadership within the fishing industry, and there will be in the coming days announcements made as to what we can do to help those people who are in need.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. We have heard these speeches for the last two weeks. Almost every day for the last two weeks a member of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador has been on his feet in this House pointing out the depth of the tragedy and the failure in the inshore fishery. I have talked to fishing families who have not paid a bill in months, fishing families who do not know whether their light and power is going to be cut off, fishing families who are down to their last few bits of groceries in the cupboard, fishing families who literally live in fear of whether or not they can feed their children in the next few weeks. The government says: "We are investigating it".
Madam Speaker, we want action now. Will the President of the Treasury Board tell us today that, yes, there will very soon be an answer to the desperate plea for help from the fishermen of Atlantic Canada, specifically Newfoundland and Labrador?


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I could remind the member opposite that there are hearing aids around here if he is having difficulty being heard. I can tell him that everything is being done and there will be aid given to these people. However, you cannot, at the snap of your fingers, design a program which is unprecedented. We have not had a program like this, but there will be.
I repeat exactly, and he can read what I answered to his leader just in the last question.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, to the same minister. You cannot design a program at the snap of your fingers.
You also cannot turn away the facts of nature. This is an unprecedented year, but it is also true that we have a window of opportunity now that is going to evaporate.
If you do not do something now for the coast of Labrador, it will be too late in November. You have to act now: not next week, this week. Announce today that you are going to have that program.
September 27, 1991


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, again to the member for Labrador, we did act this year.
That program has been finished, because that was the ice compensation program. It amounted to some $18 million. I know the hon. member opposite has recognized and acknowledged that that was done. There will be action in the near future for the people whom he is concerned about.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, since last week we have had government workers at the bargaining table. We have had the grain rolling to port for prairie farmers, farmers who this year have had a bumper crop and record low prices.
Today, this will all stop. This government will allow negotiations to break down. We just heard from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who said that the government is concerned about grain and about farmers.
Will the President of the Treasury Board not appoint a mediator to this dispute to ensure that the grain keeps rolling?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member should be a little more careful in describing the situation.
We did not break the negotiations. As late as seven o'clock yesterday, we made two very important offers to the unions. They said: "We will consider them, and we will come back to you."
Today, we had Mr. Bean appearing on television saying: "We cannot solve this at the negotiating table." I disagree fully with the hon. member. I myself am beginning to wonder whether PSAC really wants a settlement negotiated.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, regardless of what the President of Treasury Board said about Crown corporations' executive bonuses yesterday, the fact is that last February, on the eve of the budget, 41 senior executives of Crown corporations did receive bonuses.
Oral Questions
Four thousand of 4,700 senior managers in the Public Service received bonuses as high as 10 per cent of then-salary over the summer during the same time that this government was refusing to negotiate pay equity for women in the Public Service.
Is there not a tiny bit of hypocrisy here? Will the minister not reconsider mediation to see just what is fair?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, there is no hypocrisy whatsoever.
The hon. member knows very well that we have these arrangements with our senior managers. They have been in place for decades. We have them also for Crown corporations.
What is clear is that this year, April 1991 to April 1992, everybody will have what I call a "zero" year. It will be zero for salary increases, and it will be zero dollar bonuses for all these people which is in most cases a decrease in salary of 5 per cent.
We are trying to be fair in difficult circumstances. We took many difficult measures at budget time, including removing 10 per cent of our managers. This is not an easy thing to do, so I think she should stop making comparisons and look at fair settlements.
I think the package we put on the table with PSAC is, indeed, fair.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the minister will agree that collective bargaining has been a well established practice with government workers as well.
The minister may not like the union and the minister may not like Daryl Bean, but surely this government does not despise its workers or hold them in such disdain that it will hammer them back to work without having appointed a mediator to attempt to resolve this dispute in a fair manner.


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I repeat again that last evening at seven o'clock, we put on the table a very important proposal which would have guaranteed employment to employees whose jobs within the private service are to cease as a result of contracting out and privatization.

September 27, 1991
Oral Questions
This is something that the union has been seeking for a long time. We have managed to sit with them and work something out. We made a proposal last night.
We also offered to guarantee a lump sum payment to all their employees earning up to $27,000. We increased the package yesterday to them and included a lump sum payment of $500. We have many other items that we put on the table, but they have not replied on any one of them.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
For weeks we have been urging the government to appoint a mediator as a fair way of ending the dispute with its employees in a manner that respects the collective bargaining process. The government has failed to do the sensible thing and, once again, Canadians are the losers.
When will the minister come to his senses? When will he appoint a mediator who can bring some sanity and some fairness to the situation and restore services to the public?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I would like to know if the hon. member would perhaps allow me before I answer her question to give some information to the Leader of the Opposition pertaining to his first question.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon. minister wants to add something or to make a correction to a previous question, I will of course recognize him after Question Period. He may want to answer the question which is on the floor now.


Gilles Loiselle: Excuse my inexperience, Madam Speaker. I will repeat again what I have just said, that we have been going through a process of negotiation. Do not forget that we had been at this for 90 days before the strike. We had 60 days of negotiation, and we had 30 days of conciliation. There was a third party involved and we did not seem to be getting anywhere.
We sat again in good faith. We put offers on the table. They were discussed for one week, so we were certainly
making progress. Yet again last night we came forward with two proposals that were new for PSAC.
They said: "We will consider them and come back to you", and they have not done so. We are at the table and waiting for them to come back.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, my second question is for the same minister.
What the minister is saying is that he is refusing to do for his own employees what he has already done for postal workers and try to reach a sane and sensible settlement while services continue. What the minister is telling Canadians is he is prepared to make them the victims on the battleground of his dispute with his own employees.


An hon. member:: Shame.


Marlene Catterall: The public is suffering because this minister and this government are too stubborn to do the right and fair thing and try to get a solution.
I ask the minister one more time to do as we have recommended, to respect the collective bargaining process, which is the law of this land, and appoint a mediator, who is neither friend of the government nor friend of the union, who can bring some fairness, some stability and some sanity to this mess. Will the minister do that or not? If not, why not?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I have already indicated to the hon. member that there is an ongoing process. We did not break off negotiations. We made new offers and I expect them to be considered.


PORT OF HALIFAX
Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
On May 27 in this House I asked the minister to instruct the National Transportation Agency to hold a full inquiry into the competitiveness of the port of Halifax. Instead of an inquiry, we hear now that the minister is considering a new tax on all vessels plying Canadian waters, a new tax which will further reduce the competitiveness of the port of Halifax.
My question is this: Since the minister has said that he is reconsidering this new tax, will he also reconsider my request of May 17 and order the National Transportation
September 27, 1991

Agency to hold a full inquiry into the competitiveness of the port of Halifax?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Madam Speaker, we have been working with the people in the port of Halifax, with the shippers and with the carriers to do what we can to enhance the port of Halifax.
I think the hon. member should take into consideration the fact that the port of Halifax at the current time is certainly in a condition where the tonnage going through the port of Halifax is down.
We should also remember that the port of Halifax right now is well above where it was five years ago. Historically it has been a victim of the cyclical change as far as transportation and shipping are concerned. We know it is in a downturn right now and we are working with the port to attempt to help in whatever way we can to increase tonnage through the port.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is on the same issue, but it is for the Minister of Agriculture.
The government has bowed to pressure from Canadian Pacific Railway and has changed its regulation with respect to the inspection of refrigerated meat products entering Canada. The result of this change is that it will be easier for imported meat products to enter the Canadian market through U.S. ports, not Canadian ports.
Given the fact that the port of Halifax sees over 50,000 metric tons of refrigerated meat products go through its port every year, I want to ask the minister if he will immediately rescind these new regulations which are going to be crippling and perhaps be the death-knell on the competitiveness of the port of Halifax.


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, we all know that from time to time we have problems with the borders in some specific cases, as the hon. member is mentioning. However, we should know that Canada is a net exporter as well in this sector and we must be very careful about import-export regulation at the borders.
What we want is to be more competitive and get more products out of the borders as well, to improve our capacity to export. We have the capacity to look after
Oral Questions
those borders and those regulations. I can assure the hon. member that we are going to look after these problems and get back to him on the specifics.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I want to return to the Constitution and ask the Deputy Prime Minister, whoever that may be, a question.
Under the proposed amendment to section 121 of the Constitution, which will now read to include, if passed, the free flow of not only goods but also of services, people and capital, I would like to ask the minister, for example: What would happen if this section is part of the Constitution to a Crown corporation like Sask Energy in Saskatchewan that Grant Devine tried but failed to privatize two years ago? If this provision were in effect, would it require, for example, Sask Energy in that case to be privatized, forcing it to live by the same legal and financial and tax regimes as the private sector and private energy corporations? Would that be the case under the free flow of capital under section 121?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, the intent of article 121 is very clear but, as was raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition earlier on about the les offices de commercialisation, it is written later on that certain institutions like those in particular which are targeted would be protected under a national interest.
Bill C-21 indicates that we should strive to remove all the obstacles, most of them, but we make provision for regional development, for regional disparity and for other interventions which might be judged to be of national interest.
In any case, it is only when the proper legislation is drafted that we can see how this will apply. I am not in a position at this time to pass judgment on the interpretation of a piece of law which has not even been written yet.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I think that is the very case in point. Here is the government minister saying he cannot pass judgment on law, and yet they are proposing the constitutional amendment. Sask Energy is not a marketing board. What guarantee is there that it be declared in the national

Oral Questions
interests? Those are the questions I ask. They are very important, Madam Speaker.
In addition to that real question, I would like to ask the following of the minister. In The Toronto Star this morning the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs is saying that once a provincial government opts in to a certain provision under the new amendment to section 91 of the economic union, a subsequent government cannot opt out. Thus that subsequent government is committed to the guidelines of the previous government. In the words of the minister, and I quote: "You are caught, you are bound in that situation", which theoretically means that the Ontario government might have been prevented from taking its most recent direction in its budget a few months ago.
The Minister of Finance said the opposite. My question is: Which minister has the proper interpretation- the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs who said there is a prohibition or the Minister of Finance?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I must say in terms of the aspects being raised by the hon. member about the budget making process or the macroeconomic approach that what we have proposed is basically something which should be obvious to all Canadians. We have 11 governments operating in this country. Surely they would not want to be at cross purposes. In my view it is very clear that provincial government are sovereign governments. In the end, if they can get into a deal, the same method should allow them to get out of it.
In my view the problem raised by the hon. member does not exist. What we want is to create a mechanism whereby governments can sit together, look at the situation together, try to reach a consensus, and then hopefully act accordingly for the good of all Canadians.


ARMENIA
Bill Attewell: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Last Saturday I had the honour to be in Armenia as Canada's official observer during their historic referendum for independence. The Armenian citizens voted overwhelmingly, 99.31 per cent, for independence to rid themselves of the oppressive yolk of communism which lasted over seven decades. The atmosphere was euphoric on Saturday, but now the new government must face the harsh realities toward building a free-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member does have a question.


Bill Attewell: Madam Speaker, my question is: Will Canada work closely with the Armenian government to provide all possible technical aid and assistance as it builds for the future?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, first of all I want to thank the hon. member for acting as my personal representative at the referendum on independence which did indeed produce excellent results for Armenia.
We will be ready to stand by and assist in Armenia. I would point out that during the earthquake a couple of years ago in that region, Canada was one of the first and major donors and, that in London this summer at the G-7, the Prime Minister committed $25 million to technical assistance within the republics of the Soviet Union. That funding too will be available to the Armenians.
We have a task force actively engaged in assessing Canada's expertise and how it can be matched. I am sure that Canadians of Armenian descent as well will want to be involved directly in assisting their country.


CANADIAN NATIONAL
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport.
September 27, 1991
[Stage Direction]
CN is selling its rail line from Truro to Sydney, Nova Scotia. Tenders are being called today. This line is vital to the economy of eastern Nova Scotia, including to Stora Forest Industries on which more than 2,000 jobs directly depend.
Why has the minister allowed CN to sell this vital rail line in Nova Scotia?
Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, CN has made a proposal under a formula that is possible within this country. The one caveat that is in there is that the bid received will not be entertained if it does not maintain the same level of service that is currently there on that particular line.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Madam Speaker, I remind the minister of section 99 of the Financial Administration Act which authorizes the Governor in Council to issue directives to Crown corporations.
Will the minister direct CN today to stop its privatization of the Truro to Sydney line? I also remind the minister of the Route Canada application in which the government allowed CN to privatize Route Canada and a few years later it went bankrupt.


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, until the tenders are placed, until the offers are received and until we see what the entire situation is on that line, no decision will be made.


WORLD SUMMIT FOR CHILDREN
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
This weekend marks the first anniversary of the United Nations World Summit for Children. Its main goal was to encourage governments to sign and ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. As we know, Canada has yet to sign and ratify this convention.
My question to the acting Prime Minister is what steps does the government still have to take before honouring this agreement?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I think this government and the Prime Minister have made it very clear that we have a longstanding commitment to this particular process and
Oral Questions
things are advancing as they should. We maintain that commitment. The Prime Minister has made it time and time again.
I would just like to reiterate to my hon. colleague that our position has not changed.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, that is the most frustrating answer I have ever received in this House. We know that money to help the needy is scarce at all levels of government, and especially since this government has put a cap on CAP, which is where the money is going to have to come from.
Given this strait-jacket that the government has put on the provinces, I really would like to ask the minister whether this convention and the summit have merely been an exercise in public relations by the Prime Minister?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, absolutely not. I have been in New York for most of this week at the United Nations and I raised the issue of the children's summit a year ago in my speech. I also was discussing with colleagues in other countries the over-all and co-ordinated response that we are expecting.
Canada will be responding veiy shortly. We have worked very actively on our response. I am sure the hon. member will be pleased when she sees it, and she will see it very soon.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, the bankruptcy statistics, which were released today, shows signs that the recession is not over and that recovery is still stalled. Business bankruptcies are up 7 per cent since July, and over all bankruptcies are up 17 per cent from last year.
I would like to ask this government what it is doing to change its economic policies given that unemployment is rising, given that the manufacturing sector output is falling, and given now that business bankruptcies are increasing?
Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and
Privatization)): Mr. Speaker, the rate of bankruptcies in this country is totally unacceptable. We do not take enjoyment in seeing either personal or business bankruptcies.

Oral Questions
One thing I can say, however, is that the rate of bankruptcies, the trend, is down not up and that is a positive sign. We believe with the drop in interest rates, which again dropped yesterday some nine bases points, that that trend has continued over a period of time. We believe that will help businesses naturally recover and recovery in this country.
We, of course, still firmly believe, and we have great support in that, in getting inflation down and interest rates down. Keeping them both down is going to be the best thing we can do in this country for business recovery. We are working toward that end.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, the government claims in fact that lower inflation is the path to recovery and yet the Bank of Canada has just reported that 41 per cent of present inflation has come from the GST and other taxes.
Why is the government pushing up inflation with these taxes at the same time that it claims to be seeking lower inflation? Surely there is a major contradiction here that is hurting people right across this country.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. One thing he fails to point out though is that the government predicted that inflation would increase 1.25 per cent because of the goods and services tax. That is exactly what happened.
The opposition said it would go up 7 per cent, as I remember.
The other major cause of the increase in inflation due to government policy is the increase in cigarette tax. That is the other major reason.
Does the hon. member oppose that tax?


TAXATION
Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, my question is for the acting Minister of Finance.
This week, Inter-City Products, a Canadian company, closed one of its American plants and moved jobs to Canada. Last week, Colgate-Palmolive, an American company, closed one of its Canadian plants and moved jobs to the United States.
Would the minister not agree that Canadian owners are more likely to preserve Canadian jobs? If he does, will the government encourage more Canadian ownership by increasing rather than decreasing the dividend tax credit?
. Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and
Privatization)): Madam Speaker, the best way to keep companies in Canada is to ensure that our economic policy, our trade policy and our tax policy are all conducive to international competitiveness. That is what it is all about.
That is what the free trade agreement is all about and that is what the removal of the manufacturers' sales tax which penalized our Canadian producers over their competitors off-shore is all about.
We believe that our corporate tax rate is in line with our competitors, and we adjusted our tax in tax reform in 1987 to that effect.
I read with interest about the 300 jobs that are heading to Brantford. They are closing down a plant in the United States and moving the jobs to Canada.
I visited IBM just recently. It is opening a new plant in Brockville, and it is enlarging its operation in London, all because of the free trade agreement. There is adjustment going on, but there is a lot of good news for Canada in this.


PAPER INDUSTRY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday, Donohue Matane Inc. announced it was shutting down indefinitely, laying off 400 people.
Some analysts days that the paper industry cannot compete with the Canadian dollar at 88 cents.
Here is my question to the minister: will the minister review his monetary policy to give a break to a region where the unemployment rate exceeds 25 per cent?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I will remind the member for Saint-Leonard who just talked about the exchange rate how difficult it is to control the value of the Canadian dollar and correct this idea
September 27, 1991

members opposite seem to have that the government could bring it down artificially at the touch of a button.
Foreign borrowing by the provinces for the first six months of this year totals some $10 billion, which is more than for all of last year. Such loans naturally translate into dollars, creating a huge demand for Canadian currency. So the price goes up. The value of our currency is set by the demand on the market, not by some government decision.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, maybe I should remind the minister that, just last week, at the 1991 economic rendez-vous in Quebec, the economic stakeholders passed a resolution urging the federal government to act and review its monetary policy to boost, so to speak, Quebec's economy. My question is quite simple. He asked the new minister responsible for Quebec economic development to- the Minister of National Health and Welfare had made a flashy announcement in Matane to save this area with over 25 per cent unemployment. Where is he today? What does he intend to do for these 400 new unemployed men and women in Matane?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, let me point out to my hon. friend that there are a lot of other factors involved in the decision to curtail production at the Matane mill.
The fact of the matter is that demand has very seriously declined by 10 per cent this year alone. Prices have fallen by 22 per cent this year for this kind of product.
It is tragic of course that a new mill like this, as well equipped as it is in technology, should not have overcome its initial start-up period and break its way into the market.
As I have said, the mill is well equipped with the very best in technology both in the environmental and technical sense. It bodes well for the future. I hope that the shut-down is not for too long a period.


PORT OF HALIFAX
Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, in the port of Halifax, the At and East grain subsidy is dead.
Oral Questions
Government contribution to the new double stacking program between Halifax and Montreal is strictly provincial. A new tax is being planned and federal government policy makes it easier to import meat products through American ports into Canada. Yet the Prime Minister said last week that he has concrete proposals.
I ask the Minister of Transport: What are these concrete proposals? For a change, what is the good news for the port of Halifax?


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern about her particular area of the country and that indeed is why we are all in this House, to work to make this country grow and make it prosper.
As I mentioned earlier, the port of Halifax does have some problems right now. It is caught by a problem with tonnage on the high seas being reduced. Therefore it is no longer going in. The container traffic certainly is down at the port.
It is, however, still higher than it has been in the past. There are projections that it will improve again in the future. In the mean time, we are working with the port. As the hon. member knows, the province has worked. The federal government has worked with port officials to see what can be done.
It is something we must all work together on, along with the member for Halifax. One of the things that she should keep in mind also is that when it comes to port competitiveness, the municipality also plays a part in this. She may know that the municipal taxes paid by the port of Halifax are higher than what it they are in other North American ports, such as New York and Montreal. We all must work together to make the port work more effectively.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, the question was: What is the federal government going to do? The question has been: What is the federal government going to do? Pretty words and nice phrases will do nothing for the port of Halifax whose business is down from last year, which the minister knows well.
If the minister cannot tell us what the federal government plans to do, and it appears that she cannot, maybe she can tell us why Ports Canada refuses to release its report on the competitiveness of ports like Halifax.

September 27, 1991
Oral Questions
What is the government hiding? What is the bad news?


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, nothing is being hidden. Ports Canada will release that report when it has the report finished and is in a position to-


Mary Catherine Clancy: It's finished.


Shirley Martin: -and all of the necessary background work is done to release it, it will release it.
The member must also remember that we have to look after all ports in this country, not just the port of Halifax. We are concerned about it.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Good job in St. John's.


Shirley Martin: We are concerned about it.
The hon. member is calling out about St. John's. She might want to talk to her colleague from Thunder Bay-Nipigon about the port of Thunder Bay and how it has benefited by what has been done.


Mary Catherine Clancy: It will sell well in Halifax.


Shirley Martin: I know it will sell well in the port of Halifax, Madam Speaker, because this member is representing her riding. There are other ridings in this country also that have to be represented when it comes to ports. We are working on the port of Halifax and we will continue to work.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Com-ox-Alberni.


LITERACY
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, last May the government promised to cut Canada's illiteracy rate in half by the year 2000. According to the government's own figures, 4.5 million Canadians are basically illiterate or marginally literate. This means the government will have to come up with funds to provide literacy training for 2.25 million Canadians over the next nine years. Yet there is no new funding in the minister's budget and the minister continues to fund only short-term pilot projects.
My question is for whomever is sitting in for the minister today, or for the Minister of Finance. This is a promise in the last throne speech of this government. How can the government expect to deal with Canada's literacy problems, which are costing this country $10 billion annually unless there is sufficient money in the minister's budget to provide long-term funds to support literacy programs?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member has correctly indicated, it was referred to in the throne speech, like many other initiatives which are part of the government's global agenda. With respect particularly to prosperity, we all are aware that we have serious problems in this country, one of them being illiteracy, the other one being the drop-out rate in high schools. The government is putting into place the appropriate programs to deal with those problems in co-operation with the provinces which have specific jurisdictions with respect to education.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Pilot projects funded by the Minister of Multicultural-ism and Citizenship have a proven record of success in improving literacy. Yet these projects lose their funding after a year or two because of the government department's short-term funding policy.
An example is the Write Place in Parksville, British Columbia, which, although very successful, had its funding cut and was forced to close its doors three weeks ago.
My question to the minister is: Why does this funding program punish success? When is he going to address illiteracy problems seriously by providing ongoing funding for successful literacy programs?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, I cannot answer with respect to the specific program to which my colleague refers. I will certainly have it looked into and will get back to the hon. member as quickly as possible.
September 27, 1991


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
A few moments ago the President of the Treasury Board said that agricultural marketing boards would be protected under the national interest clause of the constitutional proposal.
Why then, two days after the constitutional proposal, did the government table the economic union document which qualifies agricultural marketing boards as undesirable trade impediments? Is the government in favour of or against marketing boards? Canadians want to know.


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, in the document on the economic union we list all kinds of organizations or rules preventing full mobility in Canada. Of course, marketing boards are on that list. However, marketing boards serve other purposes also, such as the external market as was well explained by my colleague this morning.
In some instances the national interest would prevail. In this particular instance it is our intention to make it prevail.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, the document on the Canadian economic union clearly mentions agricultural supply marketing boards as an internal barrier that it would not be desirable to maintain.
Why does the minister consider our marketing boards to be "detrimental"? Is he for or against marketing boards for our farmers?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, we have always said that we took a political decision to maintain marketing boards and I can tell my colleague again that, with his help and the other party's help, we will do all we can to maintain agricultural marketing boards.
Point of Order POINT OF ORDER


CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS-MARKETING BOARD
Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order, in view of the opposition leader's first question, simply as a reminder that of course the document must be read in full, as a whole.
He read an excerpt in which institutions or obstacles to free movement are mentioned. Obviously, a board that regulates and controls is by definition an obstacle. Some obstacles are desirable. On page 22 of the document on economic union, it says precisely, under "Managing the Internal Market", that the government proposes to adopt laws, programs, practices, but "the amendment -allows for exceptions for reasons of national interest".
I tell him that this is an exception in the national interest. It is on the lower right-hand side of page 22.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. minister, but when making a correction, one should not get into debate. Does the Hon. Leader of the Opposition wish to speak?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, yes, I wish to speak, because the government is completely confused!
In a document, the government says that it wants to maintain marketing boards; in another, it says that it wants to do away with them. While that is going on, thousands and thousands of fanners do not know what will happen to them. These people owe money to the banks and have obligations to meet. We ask the government: Are you for or against? If you are in favour, take out what is in the second document. If you are not, take out what is in the second document everywhere it is mentioned.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition was also getting into debate. The beginning of one debate started another. I think that we will continue with Routine Proceedings. Did the Hon. Minister of Transport wish to speak?

Routine Proceedings


CLARIFICATION OF ANSWER
Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning an answer I gave to the member for Halifax.
I said that the port of Halifax was paying more taxes. I meant to say that the container terminals were paying more taxes in the port of Halifax. I just wanted to clarify that.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. minister for the clarification.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Charles Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the eighth report of the Standing Committee on House Management and, if the House agrees, I intend to move adoption of this report later today.
[Editor's Note: The Clerk of the House read the report.]


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would there be unanimous consent to dispense with reading the document?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Rocheleau:: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Hull- Aylmer on a point of order.


Gilles Rocheleau: Yes, Madam Speaker, I would like to hear the names of committee members, since the Bloc Quebecois has already asked to be on those committees. I would like to know which of my colleagues are on them. I would like to hear it, personally.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are copies on the Table. I am sure that the hon. member can refer to them and I can even send him a copy right now.


Gilles Rocheleau: You are too kind, Madam Speaker, but I think that all Canadians would like to know who are representing them.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Since there is no unanimous consent, I would ask the Clerk to read it to us.
[Editor's Note: The Clerk of the House read the report. See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, this morning you ruled about the New Democratic Party trying to put asterisks next to their nominees to the Constitution committee. I would like to have the assurance that in this case all the nominees of the NDP do not have stars next to then-names so that they do not get any special treatment from the House of Commons.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, as the member is doubtless aware given his long years of experience in the House, all New Democrat members
are stars.


Gilles Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, I apologize for making the hon. members listen to the complete list of committees and the members from this place who compose them. I just want to point out that we from the Bloc Quebecois had offered our full collaboration to participate in any of these committees, but were appointed only to those dealing with matters of general interest, as substitutes.
We are not considered full-fledged members of this House and it shows.



Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, with leave from the House, I move that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on House Management tabled today be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
September 27, 1991

Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, I ask that Notice of Motion No. 33, standing in my name on the Order Paper under Private Members' Business, be withdrawn.
It relates to amending the Hazardous Products Act for children's sleepwear. There are many times that we criticize the government for not doing what we wish it to do. This is one instance where the government has done something in favour of all consumers across Canada as it should with regard to fire retardant material for children's pyjamas.
I checked back and looked at the law. It has been corrected and it represents a much better situation today than when this motion was first presented.
To finish, I would like to say that I spoke with the chief health officer of Winnipeg, the doctor who began the crusade. He is very happy with what has been done by the government.
I think that the people working in the Hazardous Products Branch of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should be complimented for the work that they did.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I think you would find disposition in the House to accept the following motion, seconded by the member for St. Leonard. It is a follow-up to the eighth report:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order or the practice of the House or its standing or standing joint committees, the incumbent chairman of the standing and standing joint committees shall continue in office until the committee concerned shall otherwise order, provided that those standing or standing joint committees whose chairmen cease to be members of the committee shall proceed to the election of a new chairman as their first order of business.
Routine Proceedings
This is a motion that we did pass on October 8, 1989. It is normal practice when these kinds of situations arise.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have 10 petitions.
This petition is circulated by the Association of Iroquois and Allied Nations. It is signed by a number of people from Saskatchewan, all the way through to the province of Nova Scotia.
The petition reminds the members of Parliament that the first nations of Canada are immune from taxation by virtue of their aboriginal and treaty rights in spite of the fact that the federal government has set in place a goods and services tax which will affect aboriginal people.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to fulfil its responsibility to the first nations in Canada by taking immediate steps to rectify the deficiencies of the policy guidelines, including changes which will protect the taxation immunity of first nations citizens both on or off reserve lands, including those citizens who do not as yet have recognized reserve lands.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by more than 3,000 people in my riding of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.
They come from all over Highlands-Canso, and the petition concerns the Scotia Synfuels project. The economy in eastern Nova Scotia and in Cape Breton is severely depressed at the moment.
The petitioners feel that the Scotia Synfuels project represents the best hope for industrial development in eastern Nova Scotia. It would create an additional 2,000 jobs for the Cape Breton economy and would provide us with a made-in-Canada energy source. It would use some of our natural assets, namely, our coal in Cape Breton and our very good deep water port.
The petitioners humbly pray and beseech Parliament that this government will support this very worth-while project.
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, I have been asked to present a petition to have Bill C-21 changed in order to give equal paid leave to adoptive parents.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday June 17, 1991, 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.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing another speaker, I would simply like to say a few words to hon. members of this house. As was the case yesterday, in the absence of one of our colleagues, some hon. members who chair committees and are part of this panel, have been kind enough to accept to replace him in the Chair for short periods, and I know that you will extend the person who will replace me for the next hour or so the same courtesy you have always shown me. I thank the hon. member for Saint-Denis for accepting to take my place for a short while.
The hon. member for Egmont.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Madam Speaker, I would like at this time to address the April 1989 budgetary decision of this government that terminated the At and East export grain and flour subsidy. This decision, which was actually implemented in July 1989 reflects the callous disregard that this government has repeatedly
shown toward the aspirations of the people of Canada, particularly the people of Atlantic Canada.
Over two years after the actual implementation of its decision, this government is still seeking the approval of Parliament for its action. Yes, it is seeking over two years of retroactive approval. What a display of contempt for Parliament.
The removal of this subsidy was supposedly made in an effort to reduce government spending and reduce the deficit. No one quarrels with the desire to reduce the deficit, but a little research and two years of experience shows that the removal of this subsidy has had the opposite effect and actually increased the deficit as well as increased unemployment and aggravated other social problems.
In September 1989 the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission submitted a study showing that the net savings in removal of this subsidy would be minimal and that a small, one-time expenditure in the upgrading of the Saint John terminal to enable the off-loading of ships, would have allowed this subsidy to impact positively on the well-being of the economy of the Atlantic area.
Rather than study this document, and have the courtesy to respond to the suggestions contained therein, this government did not even have the courtesy of giving a response to the people of Atlantic Canada.
It would appear that the much touted policy of consultation with the people before a decision is made does not extend to the Atlantic provinces. The closure of CFB Summerside is another example of this.
I would like to take a few minutes at this time to review briefly some of the contents of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission submission. I hope this will remind this government of the Atlantic provinces' desire and need to keep open the terminals at Halifax and Saint John in order to serve the needs of the people in this region and provide jobs.
This study showed that in 1988, the last year that the subsidy was in place, the cost to the Government of Canada was slightly over $32 million. The study also showed that the economic loss of this decision would be approximately $27.5 million, for a net savings of only $4.5 million. The same study showed that upgrading the Saint John terminal by providing a marine receiving facility, so that ships could be unloaded, would reduce the cost of the subsidy by $22 million. This would then change the
September 27, 1991

subsidy from being a cost of $4.5 million to a gain to the economy of $17.5 million if the subsidy was retained.
These figures illustrate that the decision to remove the subsidy was made on the false assumption that there would be a drop in the cost to the Canadian economy when in fact the study showed the opposite effect would occur.
There were other recommendations made that would ensure that the grain elevators at Halifax and Saint John would be able to continue as viable operations and that the export of grain and flour would continue to move through the ports of Halifax and Saint John.
These recommendations included permit plan C feed grain to come to Halifax and Saint John by water; eliminate the countervail duty on U.S. com- I believe this has been done-provide facilities in Saint John to receive grain by water; use the port of Halifax to export flour; allow feed grain to be imported from foreign countries.
When this issue was debated over two years ago, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission said, and I quote:
The termination of the At and East rate structure will have serious economic consequences for the Maritime ports as well as for other activities that depend on the movement of export grain and flour through the ports. These activities include grain elevators, port employment and railway employment. There are also negative implications in relation to flour milling and the movement of domestic feed grains in the Atlantic Region. The importance of maintaining the Halifax grain elevator as a viable operation is of critical economic importance to the entire Atlantic region.
The Saint John grain elevator serves only the export market. However, the rail traffic provided by the movement of export grain over that portion of the rail line from Montreal to Saint John was an important contribution to the viability of that line.
The shipment of export flour through the Port of Halifax contributed significantly to employment at the port.
The At and East export grain and flour subsidy program had important implications for several domestic industries in the Atlantic region, including local livestock producers, flour milling and the railways.
Government Orders
With the cancelling of this program, the continued viability of the grain elevators at Halifax and Saint John is in jeopardy.
Let us now look at what has happened in the two years since the decision to terminate the At and East.
The Saint John elevator has closed with the accompanying job loss. A study of what will make it viable indicates that if this government insists on continuing its present policies, it will never reopen.
Two hundred and fifty tonnes of export grain are required, mainly because the market for feed grain is limited. Without some form of government action, this is an unrealistic expectation.
In Halifax, we now export only 60,000 tonnes of grain. Feed grain demand cannot make up the shortfall. The port needs 400,000 tonnes to make a profit and ensure long term viability. Without some form of government action, this will not happen.
We have already seen substantial job loss at the port of Halifax. The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission in an extensive study this year has concluded, and I quote:
Under current operating circumstances, if the government takes no
action to assist them, the long term viability of grain elevators in
Atlantic Canada is in doubt.
To achieve financial viability requires an increase in export grain for Atlantic elevators. If this does not happen, Saint John will stay closed and Halifax will close.
The loss of this economic activity in the two ports involved will have a terrible impact.
But we must keep in mind what will happen in the agricultural sector. Cost of feed grain is predicted to rise by $10 a tonne. That would make our livestock and poultry industry non-competitive and these industries would die. The warning signs are already there. Only a government as blind and insensitive as this one could ignore these signs.
Atlantic Canada has already been the victim of this government's policies in many areas, the fishery, transportation, small craft harbours, the post office, and the list goes on.

Government Orders
Surely Atlantic agriculture deserves a better fate than that which will surely befall it if the AT and East subsidy is not restored.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I would liJce to rise once again to speak on this legislation. It is a piece of legislation which comes at a time when the transportation infrastructure of Atlantic Canada is so much in peril and under attack. At a time when this government, as announced this week, has proposed major plans to create an economic union and a common market across Canada, the At and East subsidy and the legislation which in effect kills this subsidy without any reasonable form of replacement fly in the face of the laudable objective of creating a viable economic union across Canada.
If in Atlantic Canada we do not have an adequate and competitive transportation infrastructure, which has been part of the reason for being part of this country since Confederation, how can we realistically expect to participate in a viable economic union? Those are the fundamentals of this debate today.
This comes virtually two years after the At and East subsidy was cancelled without even recourse to Parliament. In fact, the previous legislation, Bill C-26, which was in effect in the last Parliament, was enacted after the subsidy had been removed and after the consequences of the subsidy, namely the closure of the Saint John terminal and the downsizing of the Halifax terminal, had already taken effect.
This raises the procedural point related to this legislation, that is the arrogance with which the government has treated this particular matter in initially introducing the legislation after the fact. On top of that, to add insult to injury, it reintroduced it in this Parliament without going through the proper legislative steps which are expected after a government begins a new Parliament with a Speech from the Throne.
The abuse of Parliament and the arrogance by which this legislation was introduced are additional insults to the people of Atlantic Canada.
I do not want to confine my remarks at this time to the procedural matter because the substance of this legislation is also very important. In fact, the At and East subsidy was a vital way of lowering the price of agricultural products produced in Atlantic Canada by enabling grain to move across the country to the farmers of
Atlantic Canada. Therefore, the loss of a subsidy without an adequate replacement places the farmers of Atlantic Canada in additional jeopardy, not to mention the millers in Halifax.
What is also surprising about this whole affair is the fact that the government had an option. The government had an alternative to cancelling this subsidy. In fact, it even commissioned a study which provided the government with a more efficient and viable way of assisting the movement of grain in eastern Canada. This would mean that those people and industries so vitally dependent on this service would not have to go without. They would be able to continue to receive the benefits that the At and East subsidy, perhaps not as efficiently as it might have and perhaps more costly than it might have, provided to the farmers and the millers of Atlantic Canada.
Instead the government has chosen to cancel the subsidy, to eliminate this program, and then come to Parliament a long time after the fact for approval.
This is a further insult to the people of Atlantic Canada. It is an insult because they are losing their vital infrastructure and do not have a sense that they have a say about it. When they offer their opinion, when they agree to participate-as the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission did in working on this study and in providing advice through the committee on transport on how to modernize, update, and re-orient the subsidy programs available to eastern Canada-the federal government has chosen to ignore their advice. It says: "We are pressing on in the way we planned to, thank you very much, but we do not want to listen. We have our minds made up".
It is this kind of disregard for the views of Atlantic Canadians and the associations which represent them which has been a hallmark and a trademark of this government. It is in evidence with this particular piece of legislation.
We on this side of the House want to demonstrate by our opposition to this bill the fact that in Atlantic Canada we are concerned about transportation. We are concerned about being able to play on an equal playing field. We are not willing to accept, lying down, the transportation infrastructure as represented by this piece of legislation.
September 27, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Prud'homme):: Do other member wish to speak? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Prud'homme):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Prud'homme):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Prud'homme):: In my opinion the yeas have it.

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded division stands deferred until six o'clock p.m. Monday, September 30, 1991.


DEBT SERVICING AND ACCOUNT REDUCTION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, September 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-21, an act relating to the accounting of certain payments for the servicing of the debt of Canada, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee F.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Prud'homme):: At the time we adjourned the debate, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre had the floor. He has 15 minutes left. The floor is his again.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 is what we are debating today. The government is calling it the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act.
Government Orders
We are willing to let this bill go to committee, but we are not going to let it go to committee without making some comments about it.
First, in my view this act is somewhat misleading. When the government tells the public that it is opening an account in order to reduce the debt, it is almost telling the public that there is some surplus of funds coming in and it is going to take that surplus and put it toward the reduction of the deficit. The reality is that there is no surplus fund whether the government is going to open one account, two accounts, three accounts or 100 accounts for that matter. The bottom line is that there is a deficit in terms of the total revenues the government is receiving on an annual basis compared to its total expenditures on an annual basis.
Taking everything into account, there is a shortfall. Opening a separate account and setting up a bureaucracy to manage it, or for that matter even trying to give the illusion that the government is doing something about deficit reduction when in fact nothing is done through this account, is somewhat misleading and puzzling.
I think the government is doing this because a lot of the people who are still and will always be opposed to the goods and services tax, which is now the law, are saying: "If the government were to take the net revenue from the GST and put it toward the deficit reduction, we would not mind it that much. But the government is spending the money unwisely and mismanaging the economy. That is why we are upset about it".
The government in its wisdom thought: "Let us put out some sort of public relations gimmick and try to make the public feel that we are doing something about deficit reduction by opening an account", and it did open the account. All of the revenue from the GST, or the surplus revenue from the GST, will go to that account.
In 1988, and prior to that, when the then Minister of Finance was talking about the GST, if I recall correctly and the public does recall that, the idea was that the GST would be revenue neutral. Supposedly, the main intention of the GST was to replace the manufacturers' sales tax because the manufacturers' sales tax was a bad tax and because the government wanted to come up with something it called progressive. It replaced the manufacturers' sales tax with the GST. It was never, as I recall, the intention of the government to have a surplus.

September 27, 1991
Government Orders
However, now that there is a surplus it wants to put it toward deficit reduction.
It is interesting to know that the so-called surplus will not happen before the year 1996. Even then there will be no surplus. One would wonder why government is opening an account now when it is not going to be able to do anything with this account until 1995-96. That is why I believe that the government's move is somewhat misguided, misleading and unwise. It is raising the expectation of the public about something that is not going to be effective until 1995-96.
Even then, any chartered accountant or anyone who knows about addition and subtraction would say that there is no need for a separate account. The deficit in
1990-	91 is approximately $30.5 billion. The projection for
1991-	92 is $30.5 billion again. The projection for 1992-93 is $24 billion; 1993-94, $16.6 billion; 1994-95, $10 billion; and in 1995-96, $6.5 billion. Even until then we will still be in a deficit position, assuming that all of the government forecasts are good. We know from past experience that most of the time those forecasts were not on target.
The total debt which is right now about $388 billion will be $476 billion by the year 1995-96. When the Liberals were in government in 1982-83 the total debt was $167 billion. Six years later, the total debt has almost more than doubled.
Telling the public that we want to reduce the deficit is a very nice thing to do. However, doing something about it is something else.
In my view, if the government is really serious about reducing the deficit, it should focus on investing in the future oi Canadians. Rather than cutting services, attacking the Public Service, smashing the infrastructure of national institutions that we pride ourselves on, the government should focus on investment. Like anything else in a democracy, in a country where we have the freedom of choice, the freedom to to invest and make money, the government should follow its own philosophy by investing. That investment is in the future of Canadians and our youth.
Mr. Speaker, you will be somewhat disappointed to learn that, more than anything else in Canada, we have a human resource deficit. Right now approximately 38 per cent of Canadians, or four out of every 10, have some difficulty reading or writing in either one of the two official languages. In my view, that is a deficit. Approximately one out of every three youths drop out before he or she finishes high school. That is a deficit. The productivity of the labour force in Canada, compared to other industrial countries, ranks right at the bottom. That is a deficit.
Those are the kinds of things the government should be looking at if the government is really serious about deficit reduction.
The shocking thing is the literacy level. Unless you have a literate workforce and a literate population, there is no hope. You can buy the best technology in the world and put it in the industrial sector, but if you do not have a labour force that is capable of using it and utilizing it, there is no point.
In June 1991, I sponsored a forum that many of my colleagues attended. We brought in representatives from government, labour, business and the educational sector. In fact, we had 122 representatives here on Parliament Hill in Room 200 West Block. The theme of the event was a partnership between the public and the private sectors to attack the question of literacy.
I would like to share with the House and with Canadians some of the recommendations that came out of that forum on literacy. I would hope that the government would take these recommendations, which I am going to put on the record, look at them one by one and implement them. In that way, we could deal with our human deficit and perhaps address the budget deficit.
First, those people who attended the forum recommended that the federal government's role should be one of leadership as it steps up its emphasis on education through public policy avenues.
Second, it recommended that the federal government should establish a national strategy on literacy to include a policy, a national education minimum standard and a national awareness program and campaign, something which the government is not doing.
September 27, 1991

The government should encourage employers and union investment in training for workers. It was suggested that the recipients of social welfare benefits should be encouraged and be given incentives to upgrade their literacy skills.
The government, among other things, while it is levying taxes day and night, should consider a training tax, providing business with an incentive to provide literacy training. It was suggested that a national registry should be set up to consolidate resources, grants and contact persons in relation to literacy programs, projects and other activities.
It was also suggested that the federal government should encourage the provinces to carry out a complete revision of their school systems, their education objectives and their curricula to arrest the literacy problem and to prevent its perpetuation.
Also, Mr. Speaker, it was suggested that a monitoring mechanism should be developed to police federal transfer payments for education. When the federal government gives money to the provinces for post-secondary education, the provincial government should not be allowed to spend that money on building roads, bridges or on other programs, something which is not happening now.
The federal government should consider establishing both a mobile education system that transcends provincial boundaries and a federal ministry of education to oversee federal involvement in education.
It is also suggested that national education standards be developed and include, among other things, notes of excellence. More than anything, it suggested that the federal government should set up immediately a national task force to look at the question of literacy and education in Canada.
These are some of the recommendations that came out of the forum. The government should look at them very closely and address each one individually.
There were recommendations for business. It was suggested that business also should promote literacy by building the self-esteem of workers and by providing incentives.
It was suggested that businesses should establish more co-operative and liaison programs with schools, and and
Government Orders
that business should help promote literacy awareness by sponsoring media-based educational campaigns.
That magnificent group of people recommended that the media have a role to play. It suggested that the media and Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission should not only support initiatives to promote literacy awareness, but also take a leading role in devising a national advertising campaign aimed at fighting illiteracy.
Our society as a whole must recognize that literacy is a basic human right. We must examine or redefine our technology and attitude when we talk about people who have literacy problems. We should set a goal to at least reduce by half the number of those who need literacy training, who are either in or have completed remedial programs by the year 2000.
These are recommendations that came out of the literacy forum 1991. The government is at liberty to look at them. I will be more than happy to provide members with a complete report.
The reason why I moved a little off the topic is to let the government know the problem is there as a result of lack of investment. If the government is really serious about reducing the deficit, it should move forward and invest in the future of Canadians. It should not just throw on the table some sort of a gimmick called "deficit reduction account". I am not buying it, my constituents are not buying it and the people of Canada are not buying these kinds of proposals because they do not make any kind of sense whatsoever.
One thing which bothers me in this proposal is the fact that it wants to put into this account all the gifts that are given to the Crown. There are organizations out there, especially charitable organizations, that benefit from people's contributions. We are going to see the government competing with charitable organizations for the same dollar. Rather than John giving his $15, $50 or $100 to the United Way the government will be saying to him: "Look, you have another option. Put it toward deficit reduction." What a shameful way for the government to proceed with its proposal.
I could go on and speak about this subject for a long, long time. I want to see this bill going to committee so that special interest groups and my colleagues will have a chance to make amendments and suggestions.

Government Orders


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it is a solid thing that the member for Ottawa Centre continues to bring to the attention of the House the fact that we have a serious illiteracy problem in this country. That brings to my mind the fact that this bill is basically a smoke and mirrors bill.
When we started off talking about the goods and services tax in this House, the government put forward the premise that this was going to be a revenue neutral tax. We now know, after almost a year's implementation of this bill, that it has been a massive tax grab.
Who has suffered the most? We have approximately 2 million people in this country who are out of work. As we are going through this period of restructuring, with that number of people out of work, and the government always talking about competitiveness, it seems to me that this would be a perfect opportunity to pick up on the point of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, where we get into skills development. If we are going to become world class competitors, we need to have the basic skills of reading and writing.
If foreign companies are going to invest in this country, what is the first thing they do? They look at the labour force. Right now the labour force in this country needs help. We need skills development training. We need help. The Frontier Colleges of the world-I cite Frontier College because it is from my home town, Toronto-are constantly in need of funds.
Here is the irony of this whole situation. We have this debt reduction fund which does not make any sense. It should be going into the general revenue fund because it is all the same balance sheet. Why the government, when there are 2 million people unemployed, would not take this excess from the GST and put it into skills development, put it into a major attack on illiteracy in this country, I cannot figure it out.
My question for the hon. member for Ottawa Centre is simply this. Does he not think that taking the excess from the GST and putting it into skills development/illit-eracy fund would be a much better investment in the human capital of this country which would ultimately create an international opportunity for foreign capital to come here, which would ultimately reduce the deficit
and debt and interest rates? I believe that if we are going to reduce the deficit and debt of this country, we have to show that we have an intelligent skilled workforce. Right now we have 2 million unemployed, many of them sitting at home doing nothing.
My question to my colleague is: Does he not think that would be a better use of the funds that are in excess from the GST?


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood for his excellent intervention. Certainly he always has the right ideas at the right time. I think it is an opportune time for the government to be listening, especially in light of the fact that it is going through this constitutional debate across Canada.
Yes, he is absolutely right. That money would be better spent if it were invested in the future of Canadians, into the labour force and into training and retaining of our workers. Of course, there is no question about it.
He is saying this because he knows about Siemens, which is a well recognized company internationally, with a great reputation and a leading industry. The president or somebody from Siemens was saying that they have concerns about our ability as a society to provide the necessary workforce in order to support their industry.
Of course, this is one company, but there are thousands of other companies that might not even speak out publicly. But they might quietly decide to move elsewhere. Yes, this account should have been called an investment account in the future of Canadians. While the government is looking and addressing the question of the Constitution, I think the public should note that one of the things the government is considering is in fact abandoning its role in the area of employment training. I think that is extremely dangerous in light of the fact that there is a lack of leadership-


An hon. member:: No national standards.


Mac Harb: Absolutely. There is a lack of leadership in the area of training and retraining of employees and workers across Canada.
I just want to give one example of the shameful state of our education system. When a student goes to university in Newfoundland and he or she wants to move to a university in British Columbia, he or she cannot
September 27, 1991

even get the equivalent credit for their courses because of the lack of co-operation between the provinces in the area of education. It is no different when it comes to the mobility of the workforce, because between different provinces as it is right now, there is no free trade when it comes to the mobility of the work force.
Of course, my friend and my colleague is dead on in his suggestion.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset congratulate you on the fair, temperate and judicious manner in which you are conducting the business of the House in the chair. You truly, sir, are an ornament in this Chamber.
Having said that, let me just very briefly set out the two main reasons why I cannot support this wretched little bill. The first reason is that it is a sleight of hand. It is a joke. It is a joke on the Canadian taxpayers to say that we are going to take this excess from the GST and somehow dedicate it to payments that would be made regardless.
If I may draw a brief analogy. Let us say for a moment that I am owed money for the regular provision of labour from Jill, Judy and Jocelyn and I owe money for the goods I purchase that enables me to do the labour for which I am paid. I owe money to Sarah, Sandy and Samantha. It does not matter from which of Judy, Jill or Jocelyn I receive the money. It does not matter which pocket I put it in, I still eventually have to pay money out to Sarah, Sandy and Samantha. Now, I can if I wish, I suppose, say all right, all the money I get from Jill I am going to transfer straight over to Sarah and that somehow that makes that money different and special. But it does not, Mr. Speaker, because even if I was receiving no money from Jill, I would still have to pay Sarah. For that purpose I would simply have to draw on the funds I received from Judy and Jocelyn.
For the government to hold that this bill will set up a regime in which the treatment of the moneys received by the imposition of the GST is special or separate or distinct or in any way other than simply the transfer of funds that would be transferred anyhow is, to be charitable, Mr. Speaker, modestly deceptive.
The second reason I oppose this bill is in fact the more important. I oppose the GST. I have opposed the GST since it was first suggested. I fought against the GST in
Government Orders
Edmonton and in the standing committee. I remain resolutely opposed to the GST. It is the wrong tax. It is an unfair tax. It is a discriminatory tax. It is not a tax on which any fair minded government would rely for the raising of revenues.
And yet, this bill presupposes the existence of the GST. For that reason, principally, I cannot support it. I would note that in this regard the government seems to be taking a leap straight out of Reform Party policy. I am quoting now from policy resolution No. 20 passed at the Reform Party's annual national convention earlier this year which reads: "Resolved that the Reform Party support the establishment of a debt retirement fund to which all revenue raised by the GST or proceeds from the sales of Crown assets could be applied rather than being included in the federal government's budgetary process".
Of course, the Reform Party in passing that resolution was engaged in exactly the same sleight of hand that characterizes the government's legislation now. But it is interesting, I submit, to note that the Reform Party did pass this motion explicitly, in my opinion, approving the collection of the GST thereby.
I say this only to note that although the Reform Party at the time of its introduction and passage spoke vigorously against the GST, it seems now to have accepted it and indeed to encourage its collection for the purposes set out in its resolutions.
I would close by noted that the introduction of this bill by the government has affected at least one major service for the Canadian people, and that is that it now is clear which parties support the collection of the GST and which do not. That means that the New Democratic Party is now the only party that is unequivocally, irrevocably opposed to the GST.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Prud'homme):: As I said earlier, there are no more questions and comments. Therefore, the next speaker is the hon. member for Dartmouth.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment you on what you have brought to this House. I think you have been extremely fair. It is a pleasure to see you in the chair. You should be there

Government Orders
much more often. Perhaps we can do something about that.
I rise today to give 10 minutes of debate on this piece of legislation, but before I do that, I want to correct the record. The previous speaker from the New Democratic Party, as New Democrats always do, like to try to make the people believe that they are holier than thou, they are the only party, the only people in the world who care about taxation, they are the only group that cares about the poor and the disadvantaged, they are the only people who have all of the answers. We see this time and time again in this House. I would just like to make it clear that the Liberal Party has always opposed the regressive goods and services tax and it is the Liberal Party that is looking for meaningful ways of real tax reform.
I want to mention something to you, Mr. Speaker. These members opposite who are always good for getting up and saying "I, I, I, I, I" should have a little read of some publications from my hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood who has put considerable time and effort into putting forward some proposals for true tax reform.
You will all recall that the goods and services tax was phase two of tax reform. It was supposed to make us all much better Canadians and we were supposed to be jumping up and down. We were to be so happy with this tax reform because it was going to be fair, it was going to be equitable, it was going to be revenue neutral and it was going to be harmonized so there would only be one tax. All those things that this government misled the people of Canada into believing would be in phase two of tax reform went down in flames when we saw the GST legislation.
My hon. colleague for Broadview-Greenwood has spent a considerable amount of time talking to people in our party and in other parties and people across the country. He has sought the advice of experts. He has paid a lot of money out of his own pocket because he believes, as do the people in the Liberal Party, the members here, that what Canada needs to get this economy going again, that what Canada needs to collectively get over the psychosis about language, culture, east and west, centre and north, is finding some way to turn on Canadians. The way that you do that is not by coming in with a goods and services tax, the way that you do it is not by causing a recession, the way that you do not do it is by coming in and ripping apart your social programs. It is by giving them jobs, by making sure that the economy
is strong and by putting fairness and equity into the tax system.
I want to tell my hon. friends opposite to the left of me, in the New Democratic Party, that my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood has put a proposal together which is exciting, which is positive, which is reform-minded and which would do all those things that my hon. colleagues to the left could never even dream of doing collectively and that my hon. colleagues opposite in the government just do not have the will to do.
Bill C-21, this debt reduction bill, is a farce. It is an absolute farce. Every time I hear about the GST it sounds like The Lies My Father Told Me. Mr. Speaker, do you remember that play and that movie?
It is almost the same as dealing with statements by the Minister of Finance. He told Canadians that it was going to be revenue neutral. He said it would be fair. He said it would be equitable. He said it was going to be all these wonderful things. Every single thing the Minister of Finance told us about the GST-guess what-did not turn out to be factual, did not turn out to be the way it really was.
We find out that the GST, which was supposed to be revenue neutral, is going to be a cash cow. It is going to be milking money out of every senior citizen's pocket across Canada. The two million unemployed my colleague mentioned still have to pay the GST, and the one million children who live below poverty are going to be nailed by this regressive tax.
When the government gig was finally up the Canadian people said: "We don't believe a word you are telling us about this tax". The government said: "Oh, boy, we have to do something; they are on to us. Let's get the legal drafters in from Finance, the same people who used to do Mr. Wilson's speeches. They were pretty good at making things real fuzzy when it came to finances and putting proposals forward to the Canadian public". Do you know what the government did? It came up with a bill that is a sham. It is smoke and mirrors. It is the worst kind of deception to put before the people of Canada.
The national debt has more than doubled in seven years because of the mismanagement of the Conservative government at a time of record revenues. Revenues increased more than we have ever seen because the government continued to raise taxes, but it doubled the deficit during a time of record revenues. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that is bad fiscal management. If revenues increase and the debt increases it means the government is spending like a drunken sailor. I say that with all respect to sailors across the country; I
September 27, 1991

don't really like to lump them in with the Tories. I have more respect for them than that.
What has happened here is that the Tories said: "Okay, fine, we now have to pay about $40 or $45 billion a year just to service the debt". They said: "Boy, the GST is doing what we always meant it to do before the Canadian people found out what we meant. It is going to raise more revenue, a couple of billion dollars more". The Tories need a slush fund to go into the next campaign with, rather than say: "We are going to create a fund. If there is $3 billion more collected by the regressive, awful, terrible GST-which is a sop on Canadian taxpayers' wallets-than by the tax it replaced, the manufacturers' sales tax, we will take that $3 billion and not just pay $40 billion in interest charges on the debt. We will take the $3 billion more which we have to pay anyway-it is all in the same pot-and apply it against the debt".
That is not what this bill does. That is what they are trying to tell Canadians, as they try to make everything a little fuzzy around here. They are trying to fool Canadians into believing that any excess revenue from the GST is going to be applied against the debt. Simply not true. It is false, f-a-l-s-e; false, not truthful. If the members opposite would be honest with themselves and their constituents they would tell them that.
If the GST raises an extra $4 or $5 or $10 billion there will not be an extra $4 or $5 or $10 billion applied against the debt. No, sir, Mr. Speaker. It is going to go into a little fund to re-elect Tories. That is exactly what they are going to do over there.
They are going to create a fund and try to buy Canadians again, this time with their own money, this time after the fleecing they have just given the Canadian public in squeezing those extra $5 or $6 billion from seniors and individuals on fixed incomes, single parent families, and even from children.
In principle, we support this type of an initiative. However, we want to see the government come clean with Canadians. If it is going to raise more money then put it in the bill that it is going to collect $3 billion more from the GST than the FST, the federal sales tax it replaced. Why not put it right in the bill? Then the
Government Orders
government will take that and put it right on top. If the government does that, it will certainly have the support of the Liberal party. When the Liberal government takes over there will not be any smoke and mirrors in dealing with the taxpayers' dollars because we will facilitate real, meaningful, fair tax reform, the type of tax reform which my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood has spent so much of his time and talents in putting before the Canadian people.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about the GST and I hear my Liberal colleagues, I feel that my reportorial skills are challenged to follow them. I listened to what the leader of the Liberals said during his leadership campaign about the GST. He said he would tinker with it, he would modify it, he would look at it. Not one time did he say-I stand to be corrected- that he would abolish it. That was the Liberal leader.
The New Democratic Party has one position. We have always had one position. We feel that the GST is wrong. We feel that there is need for fiscal reform and we feel this should be abolished.
If I can have the same quiet, attentive reaction from my colleagues as we on this side try to give them, I will try to explain myself.
As the GST was not visible, not fair and mainly because it was misrepresented to consumers and Canadians across this country we, as a party, said we would abolish it.
That does not mean that everything the hon. member said is not factual. As a matter of fact, I would agree that one of his own members has presented a very interesting paper on fiscal reform, a very interesting paper on tax reform. I am surprised that the party, as far as I have seen, has not given it even greater credibility.
Rather than pointing fingers at each other and saying: "You did not do this, or you did that, or you are not correct in your actions", we should look at some constructive proposals. They are around. There have been a number of constructive proposals but the GST is not one of them.

Government Orders
My colleagues from Quebec would agree with me. [Translation]
I am quite sure that Conservative and Liberal members from Quebec will agree with me that Quebecers are against the GST, the majority of them are against the GST. This is one of the reasons why hon. members, especially those on the government side, will have pots of problems.
Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to say is that the public, in its majority, is against the GST, against that type of practice. The present problem is that we are faced with a bill which tries to make us believe that the GST will be solely used to reduce the deficit. The government is constantly claiming that it has no more money, that the cupboard is bare.


An hon. member:: This is true.


Philip Edmonston: The hon. member say it's true. In that case, how could you find- I have a good question for you-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Prud'homme):: Would the hon. member address his comments to the Chair as the Standing Orders require.


Philip Edmonston: You are right, Mr. Speaker. The problem is that when people are asking me interesting questions I am tempted to answer directly. From now on, I will do so through you.
I think that the money that we are going to collect through the GST is going into some kind of slush fund, a type of fund severely criticized by the hon. member from the Liberal party, who is probably very knowledgeable in terms of slush funds. Because indeed it is common practice in Canada, and if the Conservatives are doing it, it is because the Liberals have perfected the way of collecting money and spending it just before an election.
I could talk about the past, about some people, senators now, who were masters at this kind of fund raising.
Mr. Speaker, I think this bill continues a long tradition which is to try and make Canadians believe that we are doing something, that we are paying our debts. The government is trying to make us believe that it is doing one thing when, in reality, it is doing something entirely different.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this is something which is very difficult to accept because in Quebec we know that the money we are going to pay as GST is not going to help reduce the deficit. We have seen the government give away $250 million, while saying that the cupbuard was bare, just before an election was called in British Columbia. It found $250 million to inject in a scientific program that federal scientists themselves denounced as a black hole. This is serious!
How are people from Quebec-


An hon. member:: This is cynical!


Philip Edmonston: Yes, of course it is cynical, but this is really- I think that people in Quebec and every Canadian are asking themselves how the government can argue it does not have any money when it is able to find $250 million the day an election is called in British Columbia? And I am expecting the same in Saskatchewan. And again just before the next federal election is called. The government is pretending it does not have any money. There is the GST, all the money produced by the GST, it does not recognize it yet, but don't worry the money will be spent one day.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I say we must vote against this bill which is not clear at all. This is not a bill which will really contribute to a reduction of the debt. I think it is essential to reduce the deficit and there is an easy way to do it. You know what it is?


An hon. member:: Raising taxes!


Philip Edmonston: No, no, Mr. Speaker, not raising taxes. Not at all. The way to reduce the deficit now, Mr. Speaker, is to reduce government's spending.
I am wondering. While civil servants are ready to go on strike again because they have come to distrust this government, this same government is prepared to give millions of dollars to its most senior employees, the mandarins of the civil service, the creme de la creme in Ottawa. It is giving out a lot of money-


Some hon. members:: That is not true!


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members say it is not true. They should read the papers. All members opposite have to do is listen to government members, Mr. Speaker. It is true that they contradict each other a lot, but still, Mr. Speaker, government expenditures have to be cut.
September 27, 1991

Now, as I guy from Quebec, I can tell you that I notice a great deal of overlapping between jurisdictions. I could never figure out why we needed 40 departments. The number of departments has doubled. Yet, I am sure that the people of Canada and the people of Quebec are not better served today than they were 20 years ago. In fact, I would say that we Canadians and Quebecers are not served as well with 40 departments than we were a while back with just half that number.
I for one do not believe in big government. Humon-gous expenditures and deficit reduction do not go hand in hand. That is what Quebec has been trying to do for a long time, and it is not alone. All the provinces are talking about the same thing. They are talking about a problem which this government, has, that is, to face reality. There is a double reality at this time. First, throughout the country, people have had it, they are fed up. As we say in French: "they have had their trip".
Mr. Speaker, by that I do not mean that the Canadian people want to go on a trip.

I am not saying that they want to take a trip. They would prefer to see this government take a trip, permanently, because it has done the thing that the Prime Minister said he would do.
The Prime Minister said that this government would bring people together. It would bring its interests together, and it has.
Do you know in what way? Practically everybody now distrusts this government, and that is the reality. The other reality is we only have to endure it for maybe another 15 or 18 months and there will be a major change.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, they say things will improve, but what can you say in ten minutes? Nevertheless, I will try to clarify a few points.
But first of all, Mr. Speaker, my congratulations. I am delighted to see my hon. friend from Saint-Denis in the chair today. He is the senior member of this House, and I
Government Orders
don't see why he is not in the chair on a permanent basis. I say this with all due respect for the current Speaker. They are both gentlemen worthy of our esteem.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today has been called a smoke screen. That may well be. In any case, this legislation is cosmetic, because it does not alter the fact that we have a national debt of about $400 billion by the end of the year and that we have to pay our debts at interest rates that are sometimes kept under control by the government but sometimes may be very high, with as a result, annual interest charges of 30 to 40 billion dollars. That is a lot of money.
Mr. Speaker, I say this legislation is probably cosmetic because it does nothing to alter the fact that Canadians are the most heavily taxed people in the world. It will not alter the fact that we have a government that may not be as good at running the country as we would like it to be and which in a budget it brought down-in February 26, if I am not mistaken-announced that it would introduce legislation-Bill C-21 before the House today-which would create a fund within the Public Accounts, a new account to which certain revenues would be credited and from which certain expenditures would be debited.
I dont't know whether my wife is listening, but suppose that to pay the mortgage on our house, we had a bank account called "mortgage payments", but we still have the same income, and suppose she deposited a certain amount of money every month in this "mortgage reduction" account. After a few months, the mortgage company or the bank would call her up and say: "Where is the money you owe us in mortgage payments, Mrs. Gauthier?" She would answer: "Well, I have a nice new account called "mortgage reduction" and it's in my bank account". He would probably say: "Will you please send it over, Mrs. Gauthier?"
That is what I mean by smoke screen and cosmetic legislation. This is a measure that does not entirely satisfy Canadians because they were led to believe that GST revenues would be sufficient to pay off the national debt. That is absolutely false, Mr. Speaker!
It is also a measure the right wing of the Conservative Party likes to promote, since their policy is to have Canadians believe, through different book-keeping practices, that we are solving our main national problem, the debt.

September 27, 1991
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, of course, this would be a good initiative if the government had additional sources of revenues. But, as I said earlier, we are one of the most taxed nations.
Last summer, I went door to door to meet the people in my riding of Ottawa-Vanier. My constituents were not interested in talking about the Constitution or the environment. They said to me: "Mr. Gauthier, can you tell us how come our income and our purchasing power have gone down with all these damn taxes we have been subjected to the last few years? " It is not easy, Mr. Speaker, for ordinary Canadians to understand why the rich, who earn $100,000, are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer. Mr. Speaker, the middle class is sick of being taxed by this government.
Therefore, this bill is a fraud. I will vote against it, not because there is no rationale for this bill or because it could not be accepted if we had sources of additional revenues but because we are overburdened with taxes and overtaxed on the national level, Mr. Speaker. I think this bill is simply intended to mislead Canadians, a kind of account introduced into the public accounts, an account that does not mean much, an account, as I said a moment ago, that will not satisfy Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to outline the effects of that legislation. We hear about the revenues of the GST and of gifts that Canadians would give to the federal government, and I even have correspondence from the minister of Supply and Services explaining to us what we should answer Canadians who want to make gifts into this account and to the government.
Here is what it says: "Finance Department-Explanation." As was announced in the February 1991 Budget, the Bill would guarantee the following: 1) The revenue from the Goods and Services Tax, the GST, as well as the net profit from the sale of Crown corporations and contributions made by taxpayers and companies will be paid into the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account. 2) These revenues will be used for the servicing of the debt and, as they grow, for the reduction of the debt outstanding. 3) The account will be examined annually by the Auditor General.
Mr. Speaker, that is the aim of this legislation. There is no mention in there about other revenues. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in there about a solution to the national problem of a debt that is too high, a debt which will be a burden for our children and our grandchildren.

I just want to end my comments because there is not much one can say once one has said that this is a smoke screen. It is a measure that does not affect the annual deficit.
I want to read from a Library of Parliament research office document-it is not mine-because I think it is quite eloquent:
The annual deficit, and therefore the annual change in the net debt position of the government, is determined by total revenues and total spending. This bill would control neither element. This bill and legislation to be introduced in the future to control program spending would ensure that higher GST revenues could not be used to fund exceptionally high program spending growth.
Some people in this House believe, with an election coming hopefully in 1992 as it rightfully should after the government being four years in power, it should be going to the people for reconfirming its status. Some of us believe strongly this government is getting ready to have a slush fund for political partisan purposes. We object to that and we will vote against it.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, thank you for having pronounced well the name of my riding.
I rise today to take part in the debate of Bill C-21 on second reading. Second reading is the stage when we discuss the principle of a bill. We have today before us an Act relating to the accounting of certain payments for the servicing and reduction of the debt of Canada. If the purpose of this bill is to establish an account to reduce the deficit of Canada, I think Canadians as a whole agree with the principle of deficit reduction. I am one of those Canadians; I acknowledge that the current deficit and the debt created by a series of deficits are far too high and have to be reduced.
One of the priorities of this government and the next governments is to try to reduce the deficit and the debt. I have no objection with this principle. But there is another principle even more important, the credibility principle. The Minister of Finance and his predecessor know that governments need a minimum of credibility to be able to manage the economy properly. It is most important for the Minister of Finance and other ministers with economic portfolios if they are to manage our
September 27, 1991

economy, mainly at the macroeconomic level, using the instruments available to them, particularly the government budget.
That is the principle which I want to discuss over the next few minutes, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk about the fact that the government, particularly the Minister of Finance, has decided to introduce this bill seven years into its mandate, after having doubled our national debt, after having maintained the annual deficit at about the same level, right in the middle of a recession, contrary to promises and commitments it made at the beginning of its first mandate. Canada's economy was experiencing growth and was even overheating for a certain period of time, just before the last elections.
This government, which has doubled the debt after promising to reduce it, has lost all credibility. To realize that, one only has to read what economic columnists say and look at the recent economic history of Canada. Just before the last election, when the government should have put the brakes on spending and on the growth of the money supply, for which the Governor of the Bank of Canada is responsible, so as to restrain inflationary pressures, the government did the opposite. The Minister of Finance, who was so conscious of his credibility as a prudent manager of the Canadian economy, did exactly the opposite of what he should have done before the election. Mr. Speaker, this led to higher inflation just after the election, another surge in prices. After the election, the Minister of Finance told us that we were in a crisis, we had to put on the brakes, restrain spending, increase taxes, because the economy was going into recession. That is what happened, Mr. Speaker.
Now, how can a finance minister claim to have credibility if he does exactly the opposite of what an economic manager should do?
I am now coming to the goods and services tax. If the finance minister had had the courage before the election to tell us that the goods and services tax would be an incredible source of revenue, that it would bring all kinds of money in to the government, which would use these funds to reduce Canada's debt, if the government had had the courage before the last election to be frank with Canadians, maybe we on this side of the House would have been prepared to accept the principle of the goods
Government Orders
and services tax that the government later imposed on us.
I will conclude in a minute or two, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to quote a source that the government opposite should know and should keep in mind about what I am saying. It confirms what I have just said. This confirmation comes from the OECD.

-in English, it is the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Last week the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development gave this government a failing grade in its management of the Canadian deficit. It basically said exactly what I have just stated, that the government started off in its early years dealing with the deficit. Then it threw all caution to the winds.
We are now in the recession which this government created through its mismanagement of the economy and through its willingness to expand expenditures just before the election, to essentially buy the last election.
No wonder on this side of the House we are suspicious that that is exactly the intention of the government with this particular account. While we support the principle of using an account to reduce the deficit, we are extremely suspicious of the government's intentions since, in the past, its credibility has been so severely tarnished.
We will be studying this in committee, and we will want to tighten this legislation. We will want to make amendments to this to make sure that this government cannot weasel out of its commitments just before the next election.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times my colleagues and I have risen to speak against the GST. I do not know how many voices have been raised in this House against a tax grab, an unfair tax, a hidden tax, a tax that attacks the people of Canada.
In my riding, Mr. Speaker, the feeling against the GST is hostile, widespread and ongoing. One might even say the feeling can be measured in exactly the same manner as the feeling in my riding against the government.

Government Orders
When I fly home to Halifax, I take a cab from the airport into the city. My taxi driver, who has been driving a taxi in the Halifax area for over 30 years, reminds me every single time I get in his cab that it is the issue which is breaking his back, and it is the issue, along with government policy that is wreaking havoc with his life economically and every other way.
Mr. Speaker, this debt reduction bill we are being asked to consider today is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Why does the government have a debt this size? Why has the deficit doubled since these people took office? Why? Because they do not know how to properly manage the economy.


An hon. member:: That is right.


Mr. Milliken:: They could not manage a lemonade stand.
Ms Clancy: I am sure, as my hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands says, they could not manage a lemonade stand.


An hon. member:: I have not contributed a nickel to the debt.
Ms Clancy: I am sure you have not, and you will not either. Somebody will have to pay it, but it will not be the hon. member from Alberta.
It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, how the truth hurts. It hurts, but it also rouses the people on the other side from their torpor, from their-dare I say it-stupor. The hon. members sitting there in their Friday afternoon rest period suddenly come alive to the fact that somebody is standing up and taking them to task and calling them to account for their grotesque mismanagement of the financial affairs of this country.
I have been accused on many occasions of being a partisan member of this House.


An hon. member:: Unjustly. Unjustly.
Ms Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I wear the label "partisan" proudly. I was born into this party, my parents-at least my mother-was born into this party, my grandfather was born into this party and so on. I come from a proud tradition of liberalism in Atlantic Canada.


An hon. member:: If you thought for yourself you would be a New Democrat.
Ms Clancy: No, I would never be a New Democrat. We are practical people. One of the reasons I am proud of
that heritage is because it is a heritage that mixes practicality-as I just mentioned to my hon. friend from Windsor-with compassion.
You did not inherit the other 50 per cent of the deficit, my friend from Ontario says. No, they doubled it. I believe it is doubled but it may be bigger than that by now. My friend from Kingston and the Islands knows the answer. But it has more than doubled, I believe, in the last seven years. Creative mathematics is a strong point on the other side, unfortunately creative management is not.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk, and talk quite seriously about mixing practicality and compassion, we talk about a tradition of which the majority of Canadians approves. Canadians do not believe that you settle your financial problems on the backs of those least able to take care of it.


An hon. member:: Right on.
Ms Clancy: They do not believe that the poor and the sick and the needy, that those who are unable to help themselves, should have to bear the burdens this government is placing upon them.
When I was first elected in 1988 and came to this House, I have to admit I had certain prejudices that Atlantic Canadians carry. We tend to think, wrongly, that we are the only area of the country to really understand poverty, unemployment and suffering. Sadly I have learned in the nearly three years that I have had the privilege to sit in this House that that is not the case. There are poor people in Ontario. There are poor people in Quebec and poor people in western Canada. I am not sure whether there are poor people in Newmarket or not. But there are poor people outside of Atlantic Canada.
In every region, in every province, in all of the territories of this country it is necessary to ensure that programs are available that are compassionate, that speak to the people and say your government cares.
At the same time those programs and government policy must speak to the poor, the middle class, the wealthy and say: "We care, but we are responsible as well. We will bring you good government so that not only will you be able to have a decent life, but your children will have a decent life as well".
September 27, 1991

Right now in this country the biggest fear for the largest number of people is: "I might be hanging on today, but what is going to happen tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow"?
This government has lost its compassion, if it ever had any. But most particularly this government has lost any appearance of competence in learning how to manage and pay off its debt and its deficit. This debt reduction bill is a magician's sleight of hand, perpetrated on the people of Canada. It is not going to do anything. It is not going to significantly reduce the debt.


Dennis Joseph Mills: More paperwork.


Mary Catherine Clancy: The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood says: "More paperwork", and he is absolutely right. Perhaps, if the government took a leaf from the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood's book, and talked about things like flat taxes and fairness to Canadians, it might be in a better position than it is in today. However, that would take a certain level of comprehension as to what the whole problem is about. Unfortunately, it appears that level of comprehension is sadly lacking in the government benches.
I began and I end with the same plea, that compassion and practicality have served this country well in past governments and they will serve this country well in future governments. I say to this government that the GST is not the answer to debt reduction in this country. I further say that it well knows that the GST is not the answer to debt reduction in this country. I further fear that this government does not have a clue as to what the actual answer to debt reduction in this country might be.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us this Friday afternoon Bill C-21, and as with all bills at second reading, we are talking about the principle of the bill.
The people of Scarborough West, being a practical people, want to know what the principle of any bill is that is taking up the time of the House of Commons.
Of course, the first question one has to ask is: Why is the bill before us? What is the genesis, what is the raison d'etre of having this bill before us? For that, we have to take a little bit of an historical journey and it begins with
Government Orders
the government's desire to impose the goods and services tax on the people of Canada.
Everyone in this country will remember that time after time, in speech after speech, all we heard was that the goods and services tax was going to be revenue neutral and that the people of Canada understood revenue neutral. For example, if the manufacturers' sales tax was, in fact, bringing in $18 billion a year, the GST, this marvellous replacement would bring in $18 billion a year. Therefore, there would be no increase in tax. So went the logic. Indeed, it would be revenue neutral. In fact, the people of Canada would not be paying more than they had paid under the antiquated old system. This litany was repeated virtually daily until finally the goods and services tax, despite the will of the vast majority of Canadians, was imposed on Canadians. Of course, what became very clear very quickly was how absolutely and categorically false the claim of revenue neutrality turned out to be.
We very quickly saw shortly after the imposition of the GST that indeed the tax was not revenue neutral and that it was going to develop hundreds of millions of dollars and, indeed, billions of dollars in extra tax revenue.
Now, not surprisingly, the people of Canada, who were vastly opposed to the goods and services tax, got even angrier when they found this out. Not only did they have to accept this unfair tax, not only did they have to swallow it and pay it, but what was told to them, that it would be revenue neutral, was categorically false.
They continued to complain. They did not just complain to the opposition members of Parliament, they obviously and clearly complained to the members on the government side who no doubt heard an earfull. They saw thousands upon thousands of petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of people. They saw what happened to the government of this country, and to the other place, as a result of the goods and services tax. Then they saw that what it had said all along to justify the goods and services tax was a big lie and that it could not be justified on the basis of revenue neutrality.
What to do, then, in order to regain face with the people of Canada? Well, we know that Canadians are

Government Orders
prepared to carry their weight. We know that Canadians want to reduce the debt. They know that if they have to tighten our belts, and it is going to result in some meaningful debt reduction, they are prepared to do it.
Lo and behold, instead of admitting that: "Yes, we were wrong. We told you incorrect information knowing it to be incorrect information time and time again. No, the tax is not going to be revenue neutral. It is going to bring in lots of money.", the government comes up with this debt reduction. I will call it the correct name, the debt servicing and reduction account.
What is supposed to be put in there? It is supposed to be credited with revenues from the goods and services tax, net proceeds from the sale of Crown corporations and contributions from individuals or businesses. Well, the people of Scarborough West say: "Why Bill C-21?" The government knew all along that this tax was not going to be revenue neutral. Why did it not put the provisions of Bill C-21 in the goods and services tax legislation that it brought forward and have the forthrightness to tell the people of Canada the facts.
The government did not have that forthrightness and so now, in a further effort to sell an unpopular tax, it comes up with this so-called debt servicing and reduction account to take the revenues from the goods and services tax, which were not supposed to have excess revenues. The money that is going in here is money that was never supposed to have been collected, according to the government and the finance minister of the day.
All of this money that the government never should have collected, that it told Canadians would not be collected, that they would not be taxed on, the big lie is now being legitimized in this debt servicing and reduction account.
What are we to do on this side of the House? As a matter of principle, there are certain facts. It is a fact we have the goods and services tax whether we like it or not. Those who have watched the debates of this House know perfectly well how hard the Liberal Party fought in this House and in other places to defeat the goods and services tax. We do not take any lessons from the New Democratic Party on our fight against the goods and services tax. Everybody knows how hard we fought.
What do we do? The goods and services tax is a fact. Excess revenues are being collected. It is a fact. It is now
admitted. What do we do with those excess revenues? Do we let them go into the consolidated revenue fund and let the government of the day spend them for the various projects it is spending them on to raise our national debt to over $400 billion and blame it on a party that has not been in power for seven years, which is its usual litany? Again the big lie. Or, do we say: "All right, let's grapple with the facts as they stand". We have to do something with that money, and Canadians say: "If we are going to pay this hated tax then let's see some benefit from it. Let's put it into a debt reduction fund and apply it to reducing the debt".
In principle this proposal makes sense, but I want this House and the people of Canada to remember the history of how we got here not in a straightforward manner but through the big lie and justifying the big lie with the so-called debt servicing reduction account.
When we get to committee we are going to want to make sure that this legislation is nailed down, air tight and waterproof, so that the amount collected, the excess revenues from the goods and services tax, is be used for nothing but what it was promised to be used for, that is the reduction of the debt. If that is not guaranteed then the government will not receive the support not only of the opposition but of the Canadian people for this scam to try and hide the big lie.


Steven W. Langdon: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that arises from the last two speeches in which the member for Halifax indicated she was against the legislation and this member has indicated he intends to vote for the legislation. Which is the actual Liberal position?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Prud'homme):: I regret this is debate. The member has participated. I must listen to the point of order of the gentleman before saying whether it is or it is not a point of order. I have to be fair and listen first. I definitely regret to say to the hon. member that he knows it is not a point of order.
Another member is rising on a point of order. I have no choice of course but to listen first to see if it is a point of order, and he probably knows already if it is one or not. However I will act promptly.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member, my colleague from Halifax, the position of the Liberal Party is crystal clear and has been so stated by speaker after speaker. We are talking about the principle
September 27, 1991

of the bill which is a reduction of debt. Who can be opposed to that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Prud'homme):: I am sure the House appreciates that debate. May I ask if the House, seeing no other speaker, is ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Prud'homme):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee F.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Prud'homme):: May I call it three o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Prud'homme):: Therefore, it being three o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Member's Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should:
(1)	acknowledge that the internment, disenfranchisement and related repressive measures taken against Canadians of Ukrainian origin between 1914 and 1920 were unwarranted and unjust and contrary to the principles now adopted and reflected in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
(2)	instruct Parks Canada to erect historical markers at each of the 26 concentration camps where Ukrainians were interned and undertake the archaeological restoration of the Castle Mountain internment
Private Members' Business
camp in Banff National Park with a permanent historical educational
exhibit; and
(3)	undertake negotiations with the redress committee of the Civil
Liberties Commission of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress on the
question of redress to the community.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the privilege of winning a draw on Private Members' Business. I was delighted that my motion was drawn in the recent draw and that I can now present it to the House. I have a number of items on the Order Paper under the Private Members' Business section and I am pleased to at least have one come forward, even if it is for a brief debate. I had hoped that perhaps at the end of the hour the government might allow the motion to pass so that we could possibly see some government action in this particular area, which I know the government is, in fact, considering.
Many Canadians are unaware of the plight of the Ukrainian Canadians who were interned during World War I. In fact, when the war broke out, the government said that Canadian Ukrainians who had emigrated to Canada from the western Ukrainian territories of Gala-cia and Bukovyna, both of which were then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, were enemy aliens and they posed a threat to national security.
The government took the view that this threat required that these particular persons, who were in many cases Canadian citizens, ought to be interned and held in camps for the duration of the war. Accordingly, about 5,000 Ukrainian Canadians were in fact interned by the federal government in 26 camps that were located across Canada. One of those camps happened to be in my riding of Kingston and the Islands and was in the famous old fort there, Fort Henry, which was built some time in the middle of the 19th century.
Approximately 88,000 others, most of them Ukrainian Canadians, were forced to report regularly to local police and to internal security authorities, this, in spite of the fact that in many cases these persons posed absolutely no risk, security or otherwise, to the Canadian state.
I would like to read a quotation from a book written by Lubomyr Luciuk, a constituent of mine who is a professor at Queen's University in the Department of Geography. Mr. Luciuk is a well-known Canadian Ukrainian and a member of the committee that is seeking redress in

September 27, 1991
Private Members' Business
this case. He has written a little pamphlet called A Time for Atonement, subtitled Canada's First National Internment Operations and the Ukrainian Canadians, 1914 to 1920. I quote from his book at page 19:
Upon each individual's arrest, whatever valuables they might have had were seized. Some of this confiscated money was stolen. As early as 1915, General Otter wrote that "difficulties have arisen in accounting for the moneys received".
In his final report, he observed that as many of those interned were residents of Canada and possessed real estate and securities, etc., such have been turned over to the Custodian of Enemy Alien Properties for the future decision of the government.
Over $32,000 in cash was left in the Receiver General's office at the end of these internment operations. The estimated present day value is $1.5 million.
What the property, security and other valuables that were also confiscated might now be worth has yet to be calculated. The human costs of these internment operations are, of course, incalculable.
The internment went on for a considerable period, until 1920 in fact, but the internment was not the only problem that was faced by these citizens. In 1917, many members will recall that the government at the time passed the Wartime Elections Act which disenfranchised most Ukrainian Canadians as well as many others.
Members will recall that the vote was given to wives of men serving in the Armed Forces. It was also taken away from Canadians of German origin and other ethnic groups involved in the First World War on the other side.
It was not an Election Act of which Canadians can be proud. Frankly it was a national disgrace. The government rigged the elections very much in its favour so that it could win the 1917 election campaign which saw the Union Government-as it was then called-run and win the election in that year.
It paid for it in due course, as a historical footnote. In 1921 it was thrown out and replaced by a very sound administration under the very distinguished and capable William Lyon Mackenzie King.
In 1918, an already censored Ukrainian language press was closed down. This obviously was right near the end of the war. During the war Ukrainian Canadians were often maligned in regional and national newspapers.
They were forced to work as poorly paid labourers in remote areas and were often relocated away from their homes and families.
Those imprisoned had their property confiscated, as I have already indicated. Some committed suicide while they were in prison and some were killed in unsuccessful escape attempts.
When the war ended, a large number of Ukrainian Canadians were still interned. The government changed their status from that of "enemy-alien" to "Bolshevik" and kept them locked up for fear that they might be sympathetic to the new communist regime in the Soviet Union.
Not until 1920 were the camps finally closed down. There was never any evidence presented in any public place that the Ukrainian Canadians posed a threat to national security. Indeed, the government never produced any evidence to that effect at all. In January 1915 the British foreign office informed the federal government that Ukrainian Canadians should be treated as friendly aliens. The government was told that many Ukrainians, like other nationalities within the Austro-Hungarian empire, were opposed to Austro-Hungarian rule and would not be sympathetic with Canada's enemy in the war.
The motion I have put before the House is one that is supported by the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress. The Congress wishes the government to formally acknowledge the unjust and unwarranted treatment these persons received during the First World War.
They would like to have the event commemorated by having historical markers established at the various internment sites, including Fort Henry in Kingston, which was the first site used as an internment camp.
I should also note as an historical footnote that the same fort was used during World War II to house prisoners of war. The International Red Cross said that it was not a suitable place to house prisoners. One can only imagine what the condition was during the First World War when apparently no international organization was involved in checking on the internees.


The Ukrainian-Canadian Congress has asked the firm of Price Waterhouse to compile a study on the financial losses of the internees. The report is due later this autumn. Once it is complete the committee would like to discuss the matter of redress with the government.
The treatment of Japanese-Canadians interned during World War II has clearly established some kind of precedent. It is certainly clear that given the number of years that have elapsed since the Ukrainian internment took place very few internees must still be alive. Accordingly, the Congress is not seeking redress on an individual basis but rather the establishment of a trust fund for the Ukrainian community in Canada which could be used for various purposes of that community.
The purpose of the motion I have put before the House is to urge the government to look at the facts, look at the record and see if something cannot be done to commemorate the evil perpetrated by our country on these people at that time.
These were innocent citizens of our country, never convicted of any crime, who just happened to have come from an area with which Canada was at war. As a result they were deemed unsuitable to carry on their daily lives on their farms and their homes wherever they happened to live in Canada, they were rounded up and herded into these camps. They were separated from their friends, from their families, from their communities and held far longer than was necessary solely because the government perceived that there might be a security risk to our country because they came from that particular part of Europe.
With great respect, it is clearly a situation which calls for some kind of relief. I am not suggesting, as I indicated earlier, that payments be made to individuals. Neither is the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress. The Congress seeks redress for the community and seeks to have the fact of this internment commemorated in plaques at the various locations across Canada where these internments took place.
In closing, perhaps I can quote an article by my friend Mr. Luciuk and Bohdan Kordan, both members of the Ukrainian Canadian community, published in the King-
Private Members' Business
ston-Whig Standard. I think the article summarized the views of their community. They wrote as follows:
What happened can never, of course, be undone, and no amount of financial compensation, to individuals or to the community, can truly make up for the injustices experienced by these Canadians. But by dealing with this issue expeditiously the government of Canada can make good on its publicly stated commitment to treating fairly with any group of Canadians who, as a result of discriminatory and unjustifiable actions on the part of the federal authorities, suffered grievous damages. By doing so the government will not only help to fill in a blank page in Canadian history but will in the process, ensure that no other Canadians, of whatever ethnic, religious or racial origin, are ever again subjected to such a national humiliation and gross violation of their fundamental human and civil rights.
I know that the government is sympathetic to the plight of these people, to the plight they suffered many years ago. I know that the government is considering moving on this issue. I urge the government to take the matter in hand, handle it with dispatch and seek to come to a satisfactory arrangement to ensure that the fact that this kind of thing went on in our country is not forgotten but indeed commemorated as a sad reminder of how we sometimes disregard the notions of fairness, equity, and justice which we so often take for granted in Canada today.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, let me at the outset commend the hon. member for bringing his motion forward. It is timely and I am pleased to be able to address the motion and acknowledge the treatment of Ukrainian Canadians at the hands of past governments.
We all agree that mistreatment of Canadians because of their origin is unacceptable. Unfortunately, the history of our country has not always reflected the principles of justice and equality that make us proud Canadians today. Thankfully this sad chapter in our history is now behind us.
The course of history cannot be changed, however. These events must be brought out into the open. This concerns each of us. We firmly believe that Canadians must be aware of situations like this one and that it is important to set the record straight.
Our government today is committed to building a strong multicultural society, one that abides by the rules of justice, human rights and mutual respect.

September 27, 1991
Private Members' Business
The basis of this commitment is a clear understanding of how Canada came to be. We must be able to confront our history and face up to our past.
The Prime Minister has committed himself to a formal apology regarding the matter of Ukrainian Canadians interned during the First World War.
We must not forget that Ukrainian Canadians helped build this country. We must not forget that the history of Ukrainian Canadians is closely interwoven with the growth and the achievements of the prairies. Their contribution to Canadian life, which began in the 1800s, continues today.
As Canada's fifth largest ethnocultural group, the Ukrainian Canadian community is present in every sphere of activity: cultural, professional, educational, political, religious and financial. With a network of over 1,000 organizations and a highly organized structure the community has a voice in over 150 towns and cities across this country.
Ukrainian Canadians have come a long way. Ninety per cent of the community is Canadian bom and therefore fully integrated into the mainstream of Canadian culture.
Nonetheless, Ukrainian Canadians are strongly attached to their heritage and therefore determined to maintain their culture, language and identity.
Ukrainian Canadians are a perfect example of the country we are thriving to build. They are full-fledged Canadians with a Ukrainian heritage giving them a unique flavour. They personify our multicultural society.
As people committed to their language, religion, and cultural heritage the Ukrainian community has long been the most outspoken advocate of a multicultural nation, one that recognizes that diversity is a fundamental characteristic of our country and a vital part of being Canadian.
In 1986 the Ukrainian community produced an indepth study entitled Building the Future: Ukrainian Canadians in the 21st Century. As the title suggests, the document is proof that Ukrainian Canadians are turned toward the future. They are men and women of action.
The document established a strategic process of renewal and co-ordination within the Ukrainian community in Canada. It sets specific goals in education, arts,
communication, and cultural development, as well as public policies and programs.
The document clearly stated that multiculturalism is the key to maintaining their culture while participating fully in the larger Canadian society.
Ukrainian Canadians promote the concept of functional trilingualism. Many of them exemplify this by being fluent in English, French and Ukrainian.
Ukrainians can definitely pride themselves in being among the architects of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act passed in 1988.
Because they refused assimilation Ukrainian Canadians have met challenges of integration while retaining the essential qualities of their heritage.
Our country is proud of the numerous Ukrainian Canadian personalities who contribute to the innumerable facets of Canadian life: at Rideau Hall with Governor General Ray Hnatyshyn, in the Supreme Court with John Sopinka, in the world of sports with hockey players like Dale Hawerchuk and Mike Bossy, in the business world with Bill Teron, to name a few among many.
These people, and thousands more, confirm the enormous contribution of Ukrainian Canadians to the economic and social development of this land. The Ukrainian Canadian community has come a long way. Despite difficulties Ukrainian Canadians have done well. They are a strong and vital community and one that continues to prosper.
This year Ukrainian Canadians are celebrating the proud centenary of Ukrainian settlement in Canada. The official opening, held at the end of August, marked the beginning of the festivities to unfold throughout the country during the next 12 months.
The official closing of the centennial celebration in October 1992 will coincide with the triennial Congress of Ukrainian Canadians.
Many special events are planned by individuals and organizations on national, regional, provincial and local levels. What better time for these Ukrainian Canadians to commemorate and honour their rich historical past, salute their present and create a vision for the future? The government stated in this week's proposals for constitutional reform:
It is true that this country and its creation have not taken place without pain and suffering. The aboriginal people, in particular, have paid a high price for other peoples' search for freedom. Canada has not always been inclusive and many have been left out of the benefits of citizenship. Yet, despite these gaps which we are only now
September 27, 1991

acknowledging and trying to remedy, Canada remains deeply symbolic of freedom in its broadest sense. Many around the world still long to come to our shores, to share in what we have built. People in other nations continue to risk their lives and sacrifice their security for freedoms that previous generations have already guaranteed for us in this country.
What better time for all Canadians to recognize the contribution of this vibrant community, one which has undergone tremendous change over the past 100 years, but one that retains values, traditions and a language and all fundamentals of our Canadian way of life.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I too would like to thank and congratulate the hon. member for Kingston for bringing this matter to the House today. It is a matter that has cried out for effective treatment for a long time.
I would like to start by asking you, and through you, the other members present here today, to conjure up a picture in your mind. Place yourself on highway 1A, the road that was there before the Trans-Canada Highway 1 was built, northwest of Banff in the Bow River Valley, within the Canadian Rockies. About half way up Highway 1A, between Banff and Lake Louise, at a junction in front of the towering Castle Mountain, is a wall of rock that stretches, literally for miles, rising up on the east side of the Bow River Valley.
Place yourself there in your mind, on the road, in the flatlands of the valley in winter. Few people stop along this road, especially in the winter. The scenery is stupendous. The towering mountains are brilliant in their fresh coat of snow, and with every gentle wisp of breeze, the pine trees drop a cascade of snow in a sparkling dazzle of crystals and colour. Occasionally, a car swishes by speeding toward Banff to the south, or Lake Louise and other points to the north.
If, while standing there, you close your eyes and stand stock still, and again use your imagination, you can see another scene, a shockingly disturbing scene, right there, and not very long ago.
Between 1914 and 1920, in one of the most shameful episodes of Canadian history, thousands of recent immigrants to Canada were imprisoned there. The concentration camp near Castle Mountain, outside Banff, was only
Private Members' Business
one of the 26 such internment camps scattered across the country. Thousands of Ukrainians, and other people of east European descent, were designated enemy aliens, stripped of their property and denied their civil rights. Over 80,000 people, mostly of Ukrainian origin, were forced to carry identification papers and report to local police. Over 8,000 others were separated from their families, confined behind barbed wire and forced into hard labour.
What was the crime that justified this imprisonment, this massive injustice perpetrated under the provisions of the recently passed War Measures Act? There was not one. These Ukrainians were simply recent immigrants who happened to hold Austrian passports. Many simply did not have a job. These were not enemies of Canada.
In fact, the British Government expressly informed the Canadian government that these Ukrainians should be considered friendly. Many of them had fled their homes to avoid being conscripted into the Austro-Hungarian army.
Even though they had committed no crime, these new Canadians were forced to build the internment camps that contained them, to build the roads, including the predecessor to that Highway 1A, to clear the land, to cut wood and work on railway construction projects.
Later, they were forced to work at miserable pay for private companies. Every year thousands of us drive past these sites that used to be internment camps, yet few Canadians know the extent of the hardship that was caused in Canada to our own.
Canada should finally acknowledge that this gross injustice occurred here. We can never right the wrongs that were committed, but we can teach our children what happened, why it happened, in the hope that they may learn from the past so that such injustice may not happen again.
For this reason, I and the New Democratic caucus and party of which I am a member, very strongly support several steps.
First, an official acknowledgement by the government of the serious injustices that were inflicted on these Ukrainian Canadians.

September 27, 1991
Private Members' Business
Second, the placement of historical plaques at appropriate sites near those 26 internment camps.
Third, the establishment of a national redress commission to review requests for redress of discriminatory acts of past Canadian governments, and recommend appropriate and expeditious action to deal with this and other dark episodes in our history.
In addition, Madam Speaker, we support the partial reconstruction of that Castle Mountain camp in Alberta, as an educational site to which Canadians, and other visitors, could go and be encouraged to pause along their drive through the majestic Rockies, and reflect on what they themselves might do to ensure that such a sorry event never occurs in Canada again. Perhaps, as well, they could reflect on what it is that human societies can do to themselves when the idea of the enemy, the other, the apart, the separate, becomes a more compelling idea than the certain knowledge that we are all of us brothers and sisters.
Madam Speaker, this is a motion completely worthy of the non-partisan support of all elements in this House. I greatly hope it receives that support.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton - Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak in response to the motion by the hon. member, especially in light of the importance of the issues being raised.
Canada today is a vibrant and tolerant country that recognizes the essential nature of its multicultural reality. Ukrainian Canadians have been major exponents of the recognition of the multicultural nature of Canada. Canadians can trace their origins to every part of the world. People from all over the world have played a major part in settling the land, developing our resources, building cities and forging transportation links over vast distances.
The internment of Ukrainian Canadians during the First World War is not a proud moment in our history. It is a history, however, that has to be told. The government takes this issue very seriously and is looking into how best to set the record straight and to symbolize our recognition of this very sad event in our history.
In more recent times, the Government of Canada has acted to protect its citizens from this kind of treatment. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equal protection and benefit of the law, without discrimination. Through the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the Parliament of Canada has recognized that our society is fundamentally multicultural in nature and has committed itself to the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in shaping Canada's future.
The War Measures Act, as an example, has been repealed by this government. Encouraged to immigrate to Canada by Canadian governments, Ukrainians were a vital part of the settlement process of Canada, particularly in the prairies. Ukrainian settlers in the prairies wanted no more than the chance to live and work in dignity in this country of Canada.
The Ukrainians were among the founding settlers of Canada. They were especially important in settling the prairies.
Between 1891 and 1914, 170,000 Ukrainians came to Canada. Between the wars another 68,000 Ukrainians came to Canada. After the Great War, 33,000 more Ukrainians immigrated to Canada.
Ukrainians did settle in small numbers in Canada long before the mass immigration that took place in 1891. According to the publication The Canadian Family Tree, there were soldiers of Ukrainian origin in the de Meuron and Watteville regiments which fought for Canada in the War of 1812.
Some Ukrainians settled in Manitoba during the period of Lord Selkirk. There were also Ukrainians in Manitoba who came from the United States prior to 1891.
In the beginning the Ukrainians faced a very difficult life in the prairies as they broke into this land and broke the land itself. In spite of this harsh existence, community cultural and social life grew with development of a variety of organizations, women's groups, newspapers and periodicals, architecture, folk arts and poetry over the years.
In 1905 the Ukrainian Mutual Benefit Association was founded in affiliation with the St. Nicholas Ukrainian Catholic Church in Winnipeg. Among these Ukrainian workers and farmers there emerged a credit union movement, which began in 1939 when the new Community Savings and Credit Union was founded in Saskatoon.
September 27, 1991

By the end of the 1960s over 60 Ukrainian credit unions served an estimated membership of 50,000. Over time the Ukrainian-Canadians, like their fellow citizens, have become an urban people.
According to the 1981 census, there were 63,000 Ukrainians in Edmonton, 59,000 in Winnipeg, and 51,000 in Toronto. Other major centres of Ukrainian population are Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, Saskatoon, Hamilton, Thunder Bay, Regina and the Niagara Peninsula.
Of the 529,615 Ukrainians in Canada in 1981, 59 per cent lived in the prairie provinces and 25.3 per cent lived in Ontario. Much of the cultural struggle for the Ukrainian Canadian community has involved the maintenance of its language.
In recent years bilingual and even trilingual education, with French included, has been offered in the publicly supported education systems of the prairie provinces.
Ukrainians are a vital part of the cultural fabric of Canada. The Ukrainian Community Development Committee report for the prairie regions published in 1986 by the Ukrainian Canadian committee noted that "the Ukrainian situation as an ethnocultural minority is a very special one, permanently woven into the fabric of Canadian society".
Over 1,000 organizations exist within the Ukrainian community. The paintings of William Kurelek, inspired by his experience on the prairies, have been widely recognized. George Ryga is a writer of Ukrainian origin of national stature.
Ukrainians have long been involved in municipal politics as well. William Harwylak in Edmonton and Stephen Juba in Winnipeg have been prominent mayors. The first Ukrainian elected to a provincial legislature was Andrew Shandro in 1913 in Alberta. In 1926 Michael Luchkovich became the first Ukrainian elected to the House of Commons. Over 200 Ukrainian Canadians have been elected provincially and another 60 have been elected to the House of Commons. In 1970 Stephen Worobetz became Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan. A former hon. member of this House, His Excellency Ray Hnatyshyn, now serves the country as Governor General.
Private Members' Business
During the Second World War approximately 40,000 Ukrainian Canadians served in the Canadian Armed Forces. Ukrainian-Canadians play a vital role in Canadian life. They are important advocates of recognition of the multicultural nature of Canada. However, we must not forget the treatment of Ukrainians which took place during the First World War.
We must ensure that present and future generations of Canadians understand the reality of Canadian history, including events such as the Ukrainian internment. Many Canadians are unaware of the details of these events, or even that they took place. They are seldom mentioned in the official history books, in museum exhibits, or in popular press reports about historical events.
I am grateful to the hon. member for this motion and for the occasion to speak about the Ukrainian internment. More important, I am grateful to those members of the Ukrainian Canadian community for increasing public awareness about this history.
Without this knowledge of history, we risk repeating the same mistakes whenever world crises break out to stoke the embers of fear and intolerance.
One of the most important conclusions of the Spicer commission report last summer was that Canadians need a greater knowledge of their history, of themselves and of each other.
If we are to remain together as a country, we must encourage the recounting and hearing of our histories.


Barbara Greene: Madam Speaker, I attended a meeting on behalf of the minister about a year and a half ago at which the Ukrainian redress committee had a press conference to tell their story.
It is the story of a minority in Canada that still hurts.
This motion which the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has presented is one that should be given every consideration by the government. The government is committed to doing something to redress this historical wrong committed by a previous Government of Canada. The suggestions by the hon. member are certainly excellent and should be given every consideration.
I will certainly support the referral of the motion.

September 27, 1991
Private Members' Business


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I want to thank all hon. members, and the members for Burlington, Edmonton East, Carleton-Charlotte and Don Valley North for their kind interventions.
As there is unanimity on this point I wonder if rather than drop the motion it could be carried by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think I will also find unanimous consent to call it four o'clock p.m.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Monday, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.47 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 30, 1991