1991-02-25

["Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks I have received calls, letters and petitions from seniors throughout the province of Manitoba and especially from my own constituency, the federal constituency of St. Boniface.\nI have received more than 400 such statements from one centre, the St. Vital Senior Centre, asking that I, with my Liberal colleagues, do everything in our power to restore Canada's universal health care program, which the government is systematically dismantling through legislation such as Bill C-69. Collectively we must stop and we will stop the government's attempts to eliminate the federal role in health care. These actions, such as Bill C-69, could lead to eventual privatization of our excellent health care system which exists for all Canadians and could become the preserve of the rich only.\nCanada's health care act assures no user fees, no extra billing by doctors and universality.", 'If the government decides to tackle the health program tomorrow, if it keeps on attacking our seniors, I can assure you it will have a fight on its hands!']
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that pursuant to the order of the House adopted on Monday, January 21, 1991, and the provisions of Standing Order 28(3), I sent a notice calling the House to meet this day, and I now lay this notice on the Table.
In addition, on Thursday, February 21, 1991, I sent each member a message by electronic mail explaining the reasons for calling back the House.

I also wish to inform the House that in accordance with the representation made by the government under the provisions of Standing Order 55(1), I have caused to be published a special Order Paper giving notices of a government motion and of a government bill.

I also wish to lay on the Table a letter from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, dated Wednesday, February 20, 1991.



Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, on February 14 the inshore ground fishery in southwestern Nova Scotia lost a pillar and a tireless advocate
in the fisheries when Clayton d'Entremont of Meteghan and West Pubnico was killed in a car accident at the age of 38.
I knew Clayton well, Mr. Speaker, and I was always impressed with the depth of his commitment to the cause of independent fishermen and processors. During a time when a strong voice was needed for the inshore, Clayton was always there making the best case he could on countless fishery advisory committees.
People of the quality of Clayton are rare these days, Mr. Speaker. That we should lose someone like him now, when our country faces so many challenges at home and abroad, is sadder still. The consistency of his commitment to a cause should be an example to us all.
To his wife, Roberta, his daughter, Lauren, and his family, I extend my sincerest condolences. It was an honour to have worked with Clayton for so many years. The fishing community of southwestern Nova Scotia will miss him.


GOVERNMENT OF NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the reins of government in Nova Scotia are about to be transferred from one farmer to another farmer. Premier Roger Bacon will step down after serving six months as premier of the province and although the position as premier was an interim position, Mr. Bacon did far more than an interim job. By the time that his term was up he had impressed the people of Nova Scotia and the people of all the Atlantic provinces with his ability. Roger Bacon did an outstanding job in a very difficult situation.
Soon another dairy farmer takes over. The Hon. Donald Cameron will become the first native of Pictou County to become premier of our province. Mr. Cameron brings with him a reputation of honesty and integrity as well as 16 years as an MLA and minister in the Nova Scotia legislature.

February 25, 1991
Nova Scotians look forward to his frank leadership style and are optimistic about the future under his government which will be sworn in tomorrow, February 26.
Congratulations and good luck to Mr. Cameron and his government.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan's plans to harmonize its retail sales tax with the federal government's GST is just one more example of cheerleadering and Premier Grant Devine's dancing to the Prime Minister's tune.
For our premier, who once said he opposed the GST, to agree not only to collect this harmful and regressive tax, but also to tiy to take $200 million annually out of the Saskatchewan economy for his own purposes is shameful. Less than four months ago, after much thought, he said, the premier announced the GST would be introduced "side by side" with the provincial tax and Saskatchewan businesses prepared their records and equipment to accommodate this.
Now, with the demand for a federal agriculture payment looming, Devine changes his mind and all that business planning and expense have gone for naught. The people of Saskatchewan know there is a provincial election coming. I remind the Saskatchewan voter that we wanted to say no to the federal GST) we will soon get a chance to say no to Devine's GST.


FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec mining association strenuously objects to the proposed amendments to the Financial Administration Act regarding cost recovery in the marine and air freight sectors.
These additional expenses and costs, especially in the marine sector, will have a disastrous impact on the economy of certain regions, especially in the mining industry. Cost recovery will mean additional expenditures which companies will be unable to recover from the
customer, who can find other suppliers on the international market.
Instead of opting for additional charges, the federal government should consider implementing recent recommendations by the Auditor General of Canada, which suggested cutting costs and privatizing certain services to save money, instead of putting an additional burden on Canadians.


PUBLIC SERVICE 2000
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, reform of the Public Service of Canada is supposedly proceeding under the program known as Public Service 2000. Announced in December 1989, the stated objective of Public Service 2000 "is to enable the Public Service to provide the best possible service to Canadians into the 21st century".
But so far, Public Service 2000 has succeeded mainly in alienating thousands of public servants. Public Service 2000 has forsaken employee consultation. There has been no parliamentary or public debate on this issue, despite repeated requests from Liberal MPS and Public Service unions in general. The 24,000-member Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada boycotted a National Joint Council meeting last fall as a form of protest because of this cavalier attitude.
If thousands of public servants are not being consulted, and their concerns not considered, how can the government expect this reform to succeed? The Conservative government is missing the opportunity for meaningful consultation with public servants, Parliament and the Canadian public.
I deplore the lack of sensitivity of this government in matters of the Public Service of Canada.


FOREIGN AID
Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I just came back from a short trip to Haiti as a member of the Canadian delegation to the swearing-in of Father Jean Bertrand Aristide.
The election held on December 16 in that country has given people hope for the future and helped them break

with a past history of dictatorship, violence and corruption. They can now aspire to democracy and progress.
The Haitian people, so rich in history-their country became the first independent black State in 1804-but poor in economic resources, need Canada's development aid. This aid should be substantially increased, considering the ties between our two countries. More than 60,000 Haitians live in Canada, mostly in Quebec, and Haiti is a member of the international francophone community.
I am convinced that my government will respond to this appeal from a country that has so much to offer and does so with pride and dignity.


WORLD FOOD PROGRAM
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, the World Food Program predicts that in 1991, 25 African countries will face a food shortage of 4 million tonnes, affecting 30 million people. The gulf war is endangering humanitarian aid to these African countries by diverting world attention and emergency funding away from this famine.
What are Canada's priorities relative to the gulf war and the need to help feed the world's starving people? Canada should not be more supportive of offensive military action in the gulf than it is to saving lives in Africa and throughout the developing world.
Tomorrow's federal budget will be Canada's opportunity to clearly state its priorities. Will we increase our commitment to emergency aid and development assistance now, when it is needed most and while the world's attention is focused elsewhere? If we do, we will be showing that Canadians believe that the saving of lives is a priority over all else.


CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, more and more Canadians every day are expressing interest and concern about the future of our country. Many are taking advantage of the citizens' forum and its process to get involved in planning the future of Canada. I would like to bring to the attention of the House and
the government the recent initiative of the Lunenburg Board of Trade, which has established a committee to respond to the challenge of the forum.
In a recent letter to me, which I would be pleased to share with all members of the House, the committee totally rejected the notion that Atlantic Canada should be cut off from the rest of Canada. They urge all Canadians, particularly the separatists of Quebec, not to assume that separation would mean the geographic isolation of Atlantic Canada.
They further, and quite properly, urge all Canadians to give pro-active consideration to the basis upon which we can build a new confederation, one which preserves the strengths of Canada today while responding to the legitimate cultural and regional interests as well.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians have been affected by this government's slashing of the CBC, but none as severely as Atlantic Canadians. The recent cuts are responsible for the cancellation of the highest rated series produced by the CBC in this country, Land and Sea.
Land and Sea is a maritime tradition. It is distinctive to the Atlantic region. No other program covers the cares and concerns of this area better than Land and Sea. All Atlantic Canadians believe it is crucial to have some understanding of what drives the region economically, of the traditions and values that make us unique. It is, therefore, crucial that we have an opportunity to appreciate the beauty of our region and the importance of our resources and have this interpreted on our public television system.
We are not asking for something new and we are not placing an unfair burden on government. Atlantic Canadians only want to see Land and Sea back on the screen.
I know that this government must stay at arms length from programming decisions, however, the elimination of Land and Sea should be of concern to any government. A recommendation from this government or an acknowledgement of how vital this program is to the Atlantic region might maintain our 20 year old tradition.

February 25, 1991
On behalf of Atlantic Canadians, I ask this government to speak out for Land and Sea.


GULF WAR
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, after Manchuria in 1931, Abyssinia in 1935 and World War II where 40 million people died brutally, the UN was created with the intention and power to stop bullies when they attacked other countries and killed innocent people. Unfortunately, for 40 years the cold war blocked collective action.
In the case of Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait, the UN acted unitedly and with great courage for sanctions and then action. Canada was part of that collective and courageous decision. The Liberals and NDP were opposed.
A few days ago Saddam Hussein made an offer to withdraw which had so many conditions that he would still have an aggressive capacity and intention. The Liberals and NDP wanted to accept his very first offer. The government and the UN coalition properly rejected this offer.
The bottom line is that neither the Liberal Party nor the New Democratic Party are worthy to govern Canada with our proud tradition of supporting the UN and its many agencies.


ALGOMA STEEL
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, with the exception of this government, everyone agrees that high interest rates and the high Canadian dollar are decimating Canadian manufacturing industry. If you want a concrete example, try Algoma Steel.
What we require now are assurances, a guarantee that the Americans will not construe a loan guarantee as a subsidy and slap us with a countervail duty. It is not enough to speak to Canadian legal counsel. We must go directly to our American counterparts in steel, trade and the government.
The Minister of Industry, Science and Technology assured me that he would be a part of a task force to study the long-term viability of Algoma. In an ensuing press conference, he indicated that there was no way that
the federal government would involve itself in the long-term restructuring of Algoma.
The government is part of the problem and it must be part of the solution. The minister must be an active participant, not a spectator in the task force.


MARK TEWKSBURY
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, it was quite a week for Calgary swimmer Mark Tewksbury. Capacity crowds at the Lindsay Park Sports Centre cheered Mark on to three world records. The University of Calgary Swim Club sprinter set the new world records in the 50, 100 and 200 metres backstroke.
Canadians will be watching proudly as Mark takes on the world's best at the World Cup in Europe next month. He is now the one to beat.
Congratulations, Mark, and good luck.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks I have received calls, letters and petitions from seniors throughout the province of Manitoba and especially from my own constituency, the federal constituency of St. Boniface.
I have received more than 400 such statements from one centre, the St. Vital Senior Centre, asking that I, with my Liberal colleagues, do everything in our power to restore Canada's universal health care program, which the government is systematically dismantling through legislation such as Bill C-69. Collectively we must stop and we will stop the government's attempts to eliminate the federal role in health care. These actions, such as Bill C-69, could lead to eventual privatization of our excellent health care system which exists for all Canadians and could become the preserve of the rich only.
Canada's health care act assures no user fees, no extra billing by doctors and universality.

If the government decides to tackle the health program tomorrow, if it keeps on attacking our seniors, I can assure you it will have a fight on its hands!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I know that all members of this House will join me in wishing the Leader of the Opposition a speedy recovery.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the Chretien family.

My question is for the Prime Minister. After six and a half years of Conservative government, our country has never been in worse shape, economically or constitutionally. After an election campaign promising jobs, jobs, jobs, will the Prime Minister explain why 1.3 million Canadians have no jobs, why 186,000 Canadian children line up at food banks every month, why 54,000 Canadian bankruptcies were declared last year and why our competitive position vis-a-vis the United States is the worst that it has been in 40 years.
Did the Prime Minister deliberately cause a national recession, or did he just mismanage the economy into one?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the comparisons that the hon. member has drawn. She says that the economy has never been in worse shape since the 1930s. She has a very short memory because it was in awful lot worse shape in the 1981-1982 recession-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -and that no one would disagree with.
The hon. member talks about the level of bankruptcies. If she would care to look behind the bankruptcy figures-which no one is happy about-she would see that, according to The Financial Post today, there are 160,000 business formations per year. The small business association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, say it is as high as 340,000 new businesses that are created. I think that is the important factor.
Oral Questions
We on this side of the House are not happy about the fact that the economy is in a recession and we are doing everything we can to get the economy out of recession, and I will have more to say about that tomorrow in my budget.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we on this side remember what the minister said. He said you have to die before you go to heaven, and right now there are 1.3 million Canadians dying for some new jobs.

As a result of the GST, 80,000 Canadian men and women lost their jobs in the service sector in the month of January alone. As a result of the government's policies, 300,000 Canadians lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector during the past two years.
What specific policies will the minister announce tomorrow that will give a measure of hope to those thousands and thousands of unemployed workers who are waiting for answers from the government?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would wait until tomorrow, she could have a good answer to that question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has mismanaged trade, mismanaged the dollar, mismanaged interest rates, mismanaged taxes, and mismanaged the national debt which this minister in his predictions of 1984 predicted would be at $18 billion in 1991.
Despite seven years of incredible world-wide growth, Canada is in the grips of a vicious recession.
Does the Prime Minister realize that his agenda of favouring the rich, hammering the middle class, and ignoring the poor is killing Canada's economy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend persists in talking about 1981-82. In 1981-82 we had interest rates that were 22 per cent and 23 per cent. Interest rates today are in the 9 per cent to 10 per cent range.
She talks about unemployment. Unemployment then was 14 per cent, the peak of unemployment. We have an unemployment rate that is just short of 10 per cent today. The level of inflation hit 13 per cent. Today we

February 25, 1991
Oral Questions
have an underlying inflation rate that is around 4 per cent.
My hon. friend is falling into a major trap. She should not be trying to use these tactics of comparing today with one of the blackest moments in our economic history of 1981-1982 and expect to come out unscathed.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, for the more than 1,300,000 Canadians who are out of work because of this government's deliberate economic policies, this is the blackest day in history; not some distant period. It is today.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Today, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs reported that this January alone, 5,991 more Canadians went bankrupt, an increase of 69 per cent over the same period last year.
When speaking of these numbers, the Superintendent of Bankruptcy said: "You have to look at the emotional toll it is having. There are some really tragic stories".
Why does the minister have an economic plan that is forcing these thousands of Canadians into bankruptcy? Why does he pursue policies that are creating these tragedies all across this country? Why will he not make a commitment today to end these tragedies and get us out of this recession without further delay? Why will he not do that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. friend to look at not just the numbers which are a tragedy. I agree with him on that. However, the point the hon. member misses is that the percentage of bankruptcies in relation to the size of the economy, the number of businesses in the economy, today is .8 per cent. Back when he was on this side of the House in 1982, it was 1.28 per cent.
I am not saying that the picture we have today is a good picture, but I ask him to put things in perspective and to look in the mirror himself at the mess he was responsible for back in 1981-1982.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this minister has been in his place for the past six years and he has to take responsibility for his mess and answer for that mess.
My supplementary question is also for the Minister of Finance and is about his policies. Last week, the Minister of National Revenue admitted what Canadians have suspected all along, and that is that this government is looking forward to having a multi-billion dollar revenue windfall from its infamous GST.
Why did the minister tell Canadians that the GST would be revenue neutral, when the Minister of National Revenue has admitted that it would bring about a multi-billion dollar tax grab for the government?
Was the government misleading Canadians about this, or is it simply saying that it does not know what it is doing? Which is it? I ask the minister to tell us which is it. Canadians want to know the truth.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, last week I repeated what we had been saying all along, and that is that we do not expect any additional revenue from the GST at this time and that all factors have in fact been taken into account.
I did go on to say, upon questioning, what both the Minister of Finance and others have said in the past, that in the future if circumstances change, if we come out of the recession and so on, that there is a possibility of additional revenues taking place.
If the hon. member is interested in the facts, he will listen to this. I concluded by saying: "In any event, as we sit here now, we are talking about a hypothetical situation because we do not know for sure at this point in time if there is going to be excess revenue or not".


GULF WAR
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I first take this opportunity to express on behalf of my party best wishes for a very speedy recovery by the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister will be well aware of my party's views on the gulf war. We opposed its start because we felt that economic sanctions and diplomacy should have a chance to work. We oppose its continued escalation because we believe that what will result is certainly more
February 25, 1991

martyrdom to support Saddam Hussein. We want to see Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait as much as anyone does.
What we see is what President Bush is prepared to do and what action he is prepared to take. I want to ask the Prime Minister what his views are on behalf of Canada in terms of what the Canadian government's objectives are in this war. Will the Prime Minister ensure and demand at the United Nations that the United Nations make an assessment of when the mandate of the resolution has been adequately fulfilled and not simply allow the United States to make that judgment?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I of course join the distinguished House leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party in conveying our veiy best wishes to the hon. member for Beausejour. We look forward to welcoming him back to the floor of the House of Commons in good health at a very early moment.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party asks what the objectives of the government are in regard to the prosecution of the war. They are the fulfilment of the resolutions of the UN Security Council. That is precisely what the government has done, precisely what the 30-odd members of the coalition are in the process of doing.
My hon. friend says that the NDP wants to see Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait as much as anyone. Well, you do not do it by wishing; you do it by taking action to defend principles.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
It is not very useful to the young Canadian men and women and others who are in the Middle East, and indeed to those hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East who are suffering and are innocent victims of this war, to talk now about whose principles should reign.
The Prime Minister and I have different views about what would have ended Saddam Hussein's aggression. However, I am sure there is one thing we can agree on, and that is that we all wish our troops home safely.
Oral Questions
We know what the Prime Minister is doing to participate in the escalation of the war. What is he and his government doing to participate in bringing about a quick end to this war and about proposing peace proposals that will work or supporting other diplomatic initiatives that will bring this war to an end? I would like to ask the Prime Minister specifically what he himself has been doing to initiate or support other diplomatic initiatives to bring this war to an end?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that she knows what could have ended Saddam Hussein's aggression. So do we all. Saddam Hussein could have said and should have said: "I have taken illegal action against a neighbouring state. I am going to withdraw pursuant to the demands of the United Nations Security Council". When he refused to do that, it was no longer appropriate to accept the view that we will do nothing. Canada chose to join with the nations of the world and do something to liberate Kuwait and to drive him out of that country.
My hon. friend asks whether Canada has been playing an active role in regard to post-war hostilities toward the ending of the conflict. I think it is probably fair to say, and perhaps on behalf of all members of the House, it is widely known that the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada has been playing a leading role here, in Europe and elsewhere around the world in looking for effective means that would bring this war to an end. On behalf of all members of the House, I congratulate him on his tireless efforts to bring about a peaceful solution to the war.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is widely known what could end the war. There are various opportunities now for a productive post-hostilities peace and reconstruction. In all these efforts Canada has played and will continue to play what we hope and believe is a helpful and constructive role.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I regret that the Prime Minister could not give us specific details. If indeed the minister responsible for

February 25, 1991
Oral Questions
external affairs is making these diplomatic initiatives, surely it would be in Canadians' interests and Canadians would be interested in knowing exactly what they were.
I have another matter.

-the Prime Minister said yesterday that Canada may increase its participation in the gulf war. Right now, that particular region needs humanitarian aid for refugees, for innocent people who are homeless and without food.
On February 5, the Secretary of State for External Affairs told me in a letter that the government was prepared to increase its financial contribution for humanitarian aid if the need arose. Obviously, the need has arisen. Instead of increasing our participation in the war effort, why doesn't the government act on commitments made by the Secretary of State and increase humanitarian aid?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I answered a question from a reporter who said-

"Prime Minister, do you see at any point in this ground war that we might commit further resources to the war? Answer: We may have to, yes. In what capacity? I do not know". You asked me a hypothetical question. It is possible, but I cannot tell you in what area. It could be in one of a number of areas, I suspect.
The government responds to requests from our leading military advisors. All this indicated was that should a further request come forward, we would consider it and respond, as we have from the very beginning.

The hon. member inquired about the contributions mentioned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The fact is that for the past few weeks, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has appeared two or three times a week before the House committee. He has given very specific details on his own and the Canadian government's initiatives in a variety of areas, including the search for a peaceful settlement of this conflict. He was elaborated on the various types of initiatives the Canadian government has taken and intends to take with respect to humanitarian aid. He described how the Canadian government intends to play a peace-keeping
role, if asked to do so, following the current military intervention in the gulf. He also mentioned that with a contribution of over $75 million, Canada was, on a per capita basis, one of the biggest donors in the western world with respect to humanitarian aid in the region.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I too have some questions for the Prime Minister.
Speaking after the war cabinet yesterday, the Prime Minister made statements that appeared to go substantially beyond the mandate of the UN set out in the resolutions as passed by that body. The Prime Minister spoke of dozens of reasons why sanctions should be maintained against Iraq after the war is over and it has been expelled from Kuwait.
I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us what are these dozens of reasons why he believes that economic sanctions should be enforced after the war is over and after the expulsion takes place.
Is it purely to force an arms embargo, or are there other objectives that the Prime Minister is now setting for the conduct of the war that have not yet been spelled out yet to the Canadian people?
Is the Prime Minister setting a new set of war aims of this case? In fact, are the statements yesterday not really contradicting in a very fundamental way the spirit set out in the speech he made three weeks ago announcing a peace plan for the Middle East?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the version of my comments yesterday given by the member would lead to that conclusion, yes, but the statements he attributes to me are not borne out by any analysis of the transcript.
The question was: "What about the possibility of economic sanctions continuing once the war is over? Is that possible? And if they were to continue, why would that be done? Answer: I think that would be for the UN Security Council to consider. I can think, quite frankly, of a dozen different reasons why it might be helpful that they be maintained in total or in part for a period of time".
One of the reasons that I gave-if my hon. friend wishes, I can give others-would be that the Security
February 25, 1991

Council would surely decide that it would be imprudent, given the destruction of Kuwait, which is ongoing as we speak, the attempted invasion in respect of Saudi Arabia, and the Scud missiles launched against Israel, a noncombatant member in that region, to permit Saddam Hussein after hostilities ceased to rebuild a military machine that would give him access to the same kind of violence against innocent states such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.
It was in this light that I would invite the Security Council, after hostilities, to review the situation and to proceed with the greatest of prudence to make sure that these kinds of Scud missile attacks are never launched against Israel or any other country in the region.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Relating back to the United Nations, on the weekend the Secretary-General made the statement that the UN resolutions against Iraq could be upheld while still addressing the moral imperative of preventing further destruction.
We know this appeal of the Secretary-General was not successful this past weekend, but can the Prime Minister tell us if there are efforts now under way to maintain and continue the role of the United Nations in determining the outcome of the war?
Specifically, with respect to the answer he just gave, is the Prime Minister now saying that Canada is going to take the Security Council proposals for new resolutions that would extend sanctions after the war?
In other words, is Canada now taking the initiative to broaden or to change the objectives? In fact, what is the role of the Security Council going to be in the management of the war and, in particular, in trying to manage the peace itself? Can he explain what the Canadian position and role will be in light of the answer he just gave?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing for the member for Winnipeg South Centre to take liberties with statements that the Prime Minister makes or that I make.
Oral Questions
I think it would serve the interests of us all if he did not take liberties with the statements of the Secretary-General. If he recalls, I had to call him to order on it in committee.
This is not the first time that he has taken one phrase from a statement by the Secretary-General and then attributed to the Secretary-General a meaning quite different from what the Secretary-General of the United Nations had indicated.
That is not a very helpful process for anyone who is interested in conducting an honest foreign policy in this country or indeed in his party.


An hon. member:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: I think one of his colleagues has had enough.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
This past weekend and indeed yesterday, the Prime Minister indicated that further Canadian troops and equipment might be sent to the gulf. This morning on television the Minister of National Defence indicated that those might be further CF-18s.
I want to ask the Prime Minister if any decision has been taken or if any decision is contemplated to send further Canadian personnel and equipment to the gulf and what they might be.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think the answer, Mr. Speaker, is one that I gave in response to a question from his colleague.
The transcript is very clear. It indicates that the question was: "Do you see at any point in this ground war that we might commit further resources?" The answer was: "We may have to, yes". That is depending on the recommendations that we receive from General de Chastelain and his colleagues of the senior military.
We have not yet received such requests but, if we do, we will consider them very carefully and respond in the national interest.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Last month, the minister was quoted as saying that military costs could rise fourfold if the war continued to escalate. Now that the war has escalated, what is his

February 25, 1991
Oral Questions
estimation of our cost to the war effort at this time including any contemplated personnel or equipment we might send in the future?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the quotation to which the hon. member refers was in the very context of the question he has asked. Someone asked a hypothetical question and I said I was not going to get into something that would say it was forefold because I do not have that knowledge. For the same reason, I cannot answer the hypothetical part of his question.


Lloyd Axworthy: It sounds like a lot of buffalo to me.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The member for Winnipeg South Centre is talking. I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying now.


An hon. member:: The cost.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The cost, as I have enunciated, is approximately $60 million a month in incremental costs. There is $30 million associated with ongoing costs.
The hon. member would be aware, I know, that the more hours, the more duty, the more time which are placed upon the CF-18s in fulfilling their missions, there will be additional costs. We have not been involved in the additional role of air-to-ground for a long enough period of time to estimate what that additional costs may be.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Unemployment, I say to the minister, is way up. There are thousands more Canadians who are having to go on to welfare. We just learned that bankruptcies have jumped by 69 per cent from last year.
All of us have seen these human tragedies in our communities during this break, men and women whose lives quite literally have been tom apart by this recession.
Is the minister prepared to tell us today that he is going to change direction in his budget tomorrow, stop
listening just to big business groups and start to put these people who are being so badly hurt first in his considerations.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think there are two things that the hon. member neglected to mention. One is that we have been responding to the weakness in the economy by bringing down interest rates. They have come down by over 400 basis points, 4 percentage points since the peak last spring.
In addition, I should point out to the hon. member there has been a substantial net increase of businesses in this country even during this year of recession. There is a net increase of 130,000 businesses and that means there are a good deal more new businesses being created.
As I said in response to a previous question, one commentator from the Faculty of Management, University of Toronto says 160,000 new businesses have been created. Those are incorporated businesses. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that the figure is over 300,000 so there is a good deal of additional potential employment being created by these new businesses.
We on this side of the House want to bring down interest rates to ensure that those new businesses are given a lease on life so that they can create new jobs, new opportunities and grow to the benefit of the whole country.


Steven W. Langdon: In fact, Mr. Speaker, 327,000 Canadians lost their jobs last year not according to the Minister of Finance, but according to Statistics Canada. Three hundred and twenty-seven thousand Canadians lost their jobs permanently.

A Tory spokesman, the hon. member for Halton- Peel, said in referring to the Budget:

I think we are at a point where, and I hate to say this, but to some extent fairness is a luxury.

Does the Minister of Finance also think social justice is a luxury he cannot afford to include in the Budget tomorrow?
February 25, 1991


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that the record of this government is an outstanding record in bringing about social justice in a number of ways. In the things that I have read about the budget that I will be bringing down tomorrow he is suggesting that we should be increasing spending and ignore things like the deficit.
If the hon. member is saying, "do something for the economy", the best thing we can do is continue to bring interest rates down. If we follow the approach that the hon. member is suggesting we follow, we will have the direct opposite effect on the economy. That would hurt people who are seeking new jobs. It will hurt the people who he is worried about who have lost their jobs. It will hurt those companies who are struggling to stay in business. If the hon. member considers what he has just said about social justice, he would look very closely at the policies that I am going to be announcing tomorrow and applaud them.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
P.E.I. seed producers are very angry and confused. RE.I.'s major export industry has been devastated, first by an American ban and now today by a Canadian ban on our seed potato exports.
Farmers feel that this government has completely mismanaged the virus problem and has lost control of the entire situation.
Mr. Speaker, potato producers want to know exactly when Ag Canada knew of the presence of the PVYN virus, why no action was taken until it was too late and it turned into an economic disaster.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the hon. member's concern with respect to the PVYN virus. It is not a trade issue but rather an issue that falls within the Plant Protection Act.
Steps have been taken to remove the restrictions that have been put in place. We believe there is still room for removing further restrictions from the province of Prince Edward Island, as much as the importation of the seed
Oral Questions
potato is only provided for in areas five and six of the Island, and that is not of the Atlantic variety, we are continuing to work at that.
Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the hon. member that there has been very close co-operation and consultation with the provincial governments, both of P.E.I. and New Brunswick and with the producers. It was through this that we were able to convince the Americans that for PVYN, which is a virus that is named under their plant quarantine act, we had the certification process and the various steps in place to eradicate the disease. Our challenge now is to eradicate the disease as quickly as we possibly can and to work out whatever compensation program may be necessary to save the producers from the devastation of this. That is what we are doing right now and discussions will be continuing in Washington tomorrow.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, I think the potato producers in P.E.I. had the impression, and I agree, that Senator George Mitchell and Senator Jesse Helms are calling the tune here, that it has gone far beyond a biological issue into trade and into the political arena.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. The minister's department is responsible for disease control and eradication. Why in the case of the virus PVYN did Ag Canada not take immediate action and destroy the affected crops? Will every seed producer receive compensation under the act because now every producer is in the same boat whether or not he has the virus?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, when it was first discerned that the virus was in existence, we took steps immediately with the provinces and with the growers to try to work toward the necessary eradication process.
As a matter of fact, we raised it with the United States, advised them of the situation and assured them that we were taking all possible steps to eradicate the disease so that normal trade would be continued.
As I said before, it is a disease issue, it is not a trade issue. Under the Plant Protection Act we have certain rules and regulations that have to be complied with, and we must comply with our trading partners in a similar fashion.

Oral Questions
The United States is imposing a restriction on the entry of these potatoes, which is no different than we would propose if the shoe were on the other foot, and I think the hon. member should recognize that.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, this government's high interest rates and high dollar policies have brought the Canadian economy to its knees. In addition, the GST has exacerbated the cost of living for millions of Canadians who are just struggling to make ends meet. That is what the Liberal task force heard from 35 communities across this country.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance if his budget will deal with the recession ordinary Canadians are feeling, or will it just be of benefit to those Canadians the minister has consulted with, his Bay Street buddies.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that I am going to take precisely the word that the Liberal task force has come up with because I am sure they have been very careful to put in front of the microphones a number of people who are going to spout the Liberal approach to things.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Hon. members express surprise that I might draw that conclusion. I would ask them to get serious.
The hon. member asks if we are listening to average Canadians. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are. We have had broad consultations with a wide range of groups, not just business groups. We have listened to labour organizations, social policy organizations, senior citizens and cultural organizations as well. We have taken all of this into account.
I would say to my hon. friend that when we dropped interest rates 400 basis points over the course of the last eight months that has had the effect of helping Canadians from coast-to-coast, in every nook and cranny of the country. That is the best way we can accomplish a strong recovery from the recession we are in now.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Finance did not want to insult the Chambers of Commerce, municipal leaders, labour leaders and ordinary Canadians who appeared before the task force. At least we had the guts to talk to Canadians. At least we had the guts to go to Reality Avenue instead of Bay Street.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance if he would explain to the 1.3 million Canadians who are out of work and the half million Canadians who are going to food banks each and every year in this country, how his over-valued dollar, how his high interest rate policy and how is over-all economic policies have benefited the Canadian economy and them.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend will acknowledge that we have seen interests rates drop on treasury bills from close to 14 per cent to last week's tender of around 9.75 per cent. We have seen mortgage rates drop from 14.5 or 14.75 per cent, I believe it was, down to the current level of around 11 per cent. That is ensuring that many thousands more Canadians can buy a house today which they could not buy about a year ago.
The hon. member is laughing. He ought to speak to some of those people on Main Street who he purports to have talked to and ask them whether they are pleased that they can now have a mortgage at 11 per cent.
I will say to the hon. member that the people on Main Street are very, very happy that they can get an 11 per cent mortgage. That is an awful lot less than they got in 1981-1982 when mortgage rates had skyrocketed.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, this morning Canadians struggling with the recession and the GST and who are bracing themselves for another Conservative government budget, were astounded, they absolutely could not believe their ears when they heard that the federal government had spent more than $40 million making videos about sand modules. There was a video about the minister of defence from wartime
February 25, 1991

Saskatchewan. There was one, I think, about the Prime Minister's office, called: "My Happy Days in Hell".
While this sounds odd, the point is that the Prime Minister is calling upon Canadians to tighten their belts, to share in the burden of these difficult times. Will he explain why he and his government are spending tens of millions of taxpayers dollars in such frivolous, indeed, stupid ways.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment, if I could, because the hon. member referred to myself and my department. There was a video made for $14,000 which brought to the attention of Canadians-


An hon. member:: How much was the make-up?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: -in the communities, the leaders in the communities and community groups which complimented them on their efforts on behalf of the Cadet League of Canada which I think we all, in this House, understand.
I should also say to the hon. member that there was another video made which put forward, complimented and paid recognition to some of the peacekeepers of Canada, present and past, involved in the Canadian forces who received a peacekeeping award from the United Nations.
I also draw to his attention that the government put forward a video which won a Juno. It was put forward by the Department of National Health and Welfare which involved the threat-


An hon. member:: Listen to this.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: -of AIDS to young men and women in this country. Does he say that that is not worth while?
I say to the hon. member that the use of videos for education, for training and, in my department, for recruitment is a good use of dollars to inform, recruit and train Canadians in the Canadian Armed Forces.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise with the Prime Minister another example of government waste and stupidity.
Oral Questions
The Prime Minister will know that the Minister of Communications, who is here in the House just back from Europe, has announced an expenditure of $45 million for the Canadian Institute of Research and Cultural Enterprises, exceeding even his record for boondoggles. This is at the same time the CBC is struggling to survive.
Will the Prime Minister intervene in this wasteful, unnecessary, frivolous and scandalous expenditure and put the money where it is needed, to help people in these tough, economic times?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the hon. member that the cultural sector in Canada-more specifically, our cultural industries or enterprises-generates 250,000 jobs and $16 billion worth of economic activity. This is an area where we must be aware of the economic contribution of creative artists and enterprises, especially at a time when our borders are open to international exchange of cultural goods and technology, Mr. Speaker.


CANADA POST
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post.
With the separation of our military families because of the gulf war, I wanted to bring to the minister's attention that many of our friends' forces in the coalition fight and struggle against Saddam Hussein have set up special provisions to communicate with their families.
I wonder if we, as Canadians, have done the same thing. What special provisions do we have? Has the minister met with the Minister of National Defence to facilitate the movement of mail to our families?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, yes. Early on when Canadian troops were sent to the Middle East, Canada Post did make provisions wherein the brave Canadians serving in the gulf area were able to send to relatives and loved ones, free of charge, their letters and communications for them. It is a policy that was put in place early on, of which we are proud and on which Canada Post and the Canadian Armed Forces are

February 25, 1991
Tributes
co-operating. It works to the benefit of our troops in that region.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications.
Last December, the minister justified closing down CBC stations in Matane, Rimouski and Sept-Iles, because of the economic situation. Last September, the same minister told artists he had no money to increase the budget of the Canada Council. How did the Minister of Communications manage to find $45 million for a Canadian institute for research on cultural enterprises, when he had no money for the CBC or for the Canada Council?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, cultural policy covers more than just one area.
And to add to the response given by our colleague a little earlier, in most activity sectors in this country we have research institutes that work in close partnership with various sectors such as pulp and paper, metallurgy, clinical research, space or earth sciences, and in fact every possible sector, Mr. Speaker.
The government is actively involved because it is aware of the economic importance of these sectors. The cultural sector is vital to our economy, and that is why the government wants to ensure, working in partnership with our cultural enterprises, that it is a strong sector, able to isseminate our creative output and cultural properties in this country.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. Talking about culture, Radio-Canada is very important to culture and communications in Canada.
I would like the minister to justify to Canadians how we can spend $45 million on a cultural institute when he closes stations in Calgary, Saskatoon, Windsor, Comer Brook, Sydney, Goose Bay and all the regions of Canada? How can he talk about culture when he is closing Radio-Canada?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of factors affecting the cultural sector in this country. One area where we must provide for a very strong presence is our cultural industries. One of the problems facing the cultural sector in Canada is the low market share of our cultural industries within Canada.
That is why it is important, both for our creative artists as well as from the job creation point of view, to work with our enterprises to give Canada a decent market share in the cultural sphere, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: There have been some discussions and the Chair feels it is appropriate that our friend and colleague, the Hon. Eugene Forsey, receive the proper comments from this House. I would call to begin the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


THE LATE DR. EUGENE ALFRED FORSEY
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians, particularly this House and this Parliament, suffered a loss last week with the passing of Dr. Eugene Forsey.
Dr. Forsey would never have been one to make this claim, since we knew him to be a man who never saw himself in terms of importance. He was a great Canadian.
I got to know Dr. Forsey during the years I spent in Parliament. Many a time, he gave me advice, a good argument, and many a time, some very good consultations.
Only a few weeks ago in a television interview, he said that he himself had never really accomplished much, although he admitted that he may have had some effect on one or two individuals. In fact, over a life of more than 86 years, he had a profound effect on many individuals and in that he accomplished a great deal.
Bom in Newfoundland, raised in Ottawa, educated in Montreal and Oxford, all of this shone in his personality. He was a brilliant scholar, a remorseless critic, a com-

mitted social reformer, a staunch federalist and a great Canadian patriot.
His thoughts were always framed in terms of a broad philosophy, but he was always demanding and always a stickler for detail. He brought remarkable energy and a distinctive turn of phrase to every endeavour he touched.

Eugene Forsey, that eminent politician, was raised in a conservative environment, later became one of the founders of the CCF-a socialist party, the ancestor of the NDP-and even ran for that party, and then, like any intelligent creature, reserved the right to change his mind and finally became a Liberal senator, thus moving from right to left to centre.
Later in life, he was reluctant to support a particular political party, preferring to pursue his objectives with the same vigour he had shown in defending his ideas, eschewing any form of partisanship.

The most remarkable thing that Dr. Forsey accomplished was his lack of pretence. He spoke in the same tones to young students as to Prime Ministers, took the same pains in expressing his views to many of us. We disagreed sometimes, but most of the time we agreed that it came from a very respected Canadian.
His memoirs speak of his life on the fringe of great events. History will show that frequently he was a constructive influence in the centre of this country.
We will miss Dr. Eugene Forsey.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, if we had attempted only a week ago to say a few kind words about Dr. Forsey in the House of Commons, we would have expected within 24 hours to receive a letter from him correcting our grammar, correcting our interpretation of history, or simply upbraiding us for having wasted the time of Parliament on something so unimportant as Eugene Forsey.
Sadly, none of us will receive such a letter from him now because last week, at the age of 86, Eugene Alfred Forsey died.
Tributes
Those of us who were privileged to work with him in this Parliament knew him as a scholar, as a statesman, as a passionate Canadian, and above all as a friend.
I first was privileged to meet Dr. Forsey over a decade ago when I served with him on the Joint Committee on the Constitution. He demonstrated both a formidable knowledge of Canada's Constitution and a fierce independence of mind and principle that caused him over the years to clash with the constitutional views of each one of Canada's political parties.
Knowing him in that capacity and as the distinguished co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, when he fought to protect the rights of Parliament and the rights of our ordinary citizens, I developed a deep regard for his intellect, for his courage, and for his passion for Canada.
We frequently did not find ourselves on the same side of issues, but opposing the views of people who felt privileged to know him as a friend was not an uncommon experience for a man who entitled his memoirs A Life on the Fringe. One might disagree with the policies he was proposing at any one time, but there was never any doubt whatsoever about his intellectual rigour, his courage, his love of Canada, or his willingness to fight fiercely for what he believed in.
We are fortunate that last year Eugene Forsey was finally persuaded to publish his memoirs, a witty, modest, and wonderfully readable account of his life and of Canada, from the time that he was bom in Grand Bank, Newfoundland, in 1904.
In the preface to his memoirs he explains why he resisted for so long the request that he publish his autobiography. In his words: "I replied that I'd sooner be sentenced to penal servitude. The thing wasn't worth doing; it would mean an appalling amount of work and I could not endure the thought of yet another editor determined to correct my English."
We can all be grateful that he was prevailed upon to commit to print his recollections of such a wonderful life.
We can be even more grateful for that life itself, which was dedicated to the service of this country. It is truly the case, as the Prime Minister said last week, that Canada

Tributes
has lost one of its most eminent sons with the passing of Eugene Forsey.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow the member for Ottawa-Vanier and the Minister of Health and on behalf of the New Democratic Party to pay tribute to a great Canadian, Eugene Forsey.
In the past week, much has been written and spoken, all graciously and positively, about the late Eugene Forsey. I think the former senator would be surprised and I hope delighted considering what he said, and especially what he wrote in his long and illustrious career, about the same politicians, political parties and commentators.
The Globe and Mail said that he was the best read and best known constitutional expert. The Prime Minister has called him, as the Minister of Health has just pointed out, one of Canada's most eminent sons. I can imagine what the former senator's reply would be to that one, probably in a letter to The Globe and Mail.
I want to note Eugene Forsey's involvement with the labour movement. From 1942 to 1966, which is for some people a lifetime's contribution, for Eugene Forsey it was only part of a lifetime's contribution. In 1941, I am told he won a Guggenheim fellowship and he went to the United States to study.
In 1942, he came back and was offered a job at the Canadian Congress of Labour which in 1955 became the Canadian Labour Congress.
He was research director, and as such he wrote countless briefs. He spoke everywhere. He advocated issues, especially old age security, and was eminently successful there. He did it in English and French.
Claude Jodoin the distinguished first President of the Canadian Labour Congress used to compliment Dr. Forsey on what Monsieur Jodoin called his "beautiful French".
Dr. Forsey's intellectual labour, his precision and crispness helped build organized labour in Canada. I believe we and the country have all benefited from that.
He ran unsuccessfully, I guess I have to point out, as CCF candidate in two federal elections and in one provincial election; the provincial election against George Drew, the premier of Ontario.
If I might say on a personal note, he told me just a few weeks ago of that debacle and that election. Also, he told me about his associations with the likes of Stephen Leacock, Frank Scott, Norman Bethune, not to mention Mr. King, as he would call him, Arthur Meighen or John Diefenbaker.
To my generation of parliamentarians, he made history come alive. We sometimes met him for dinner at the Parliamentary Restaurant on a cold winter night. You could go there, and there was Eugene Forsey. He would talk to you, not patronizingly but wisely and intellectually about the great personages of Canadian history and the great issues. If we did not like that, we would discuss Meech Lake for dessert.
He was lucid right up to his death. Many people were surprised to see in last weekend's paper his criticism of the Allaire report, a more critical and analytical work than was done by any Canadian politician or journalist. That is an amazing tribute, and for this we will miss him a great deal, especially now. All members of the House know what I am speaking about.
I think our best tribute, as parliamentarians, would be to live up to his standard. He was precise, committed and visionaiy. He did it with wit and respect for those who did not share his views. I can see that smile now. I see the twinkle in his eyes and think of his recitation of all the figures in Canadian history.
He was not a man of malice. He was not an idealogue, but he was a man of principle. Yes, he was a bit of a maverick. He joined three political parties of this House of Commons and he quit them, too. This is probably a lesson that you can achieve a lot outside the political system as well. He had a consistent view, a consistent vision of Canada which some people disagreed with and others happened to agree with very much. However, whatever you felt on his positions you knew it was done with vigour, wit, intelligence, precision and it was well held in principle.
Canada is going to miss him. You cannot replace people like this.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to pay homage to Eugene Forsey, who I believe was a great Canadian. I first met Eugene Forsey at a World University Service seminar in India in
February 25, 1991

1953 where he was a professor and I was a student. Since that time over many, many years I benefited from his advice and counsel. I must say, as others have said, he was a man of great wit. He was a great mimic. He used to regale us with his stories and he had many, many stories about every sort of incident that you can imagine in Canadian history.
Members have referred to his letter writing, to his letters in the magazines and newspapers of Canada. He always had something interesting to say. We will surely miss him. But I have a feeling that his ghost will still permeate these premises and we will hear him laughing at us, kidding us and inspiring us with stories forever and ever.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I believe my privilege arises from statements of more than one member of this House and constitutes a misleading of the House. This privilege involves the present minister of industry, the present Minister of the Environment and the previous Minister of the Environment, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
I believe a prima facie case of privilege exists and I am prepared to put the appropriate motion to the House on this matter. The privilege and future environmental damage arises from public statements of government policy from February 1, 1991, by the federal minister of industry in Montreal. This directly contradicts published government policy and two other ministers, one in the House and one before the Standing Committee on Environment. The issue was also touched upon just before Christmas by Canada's Auditor General.
The pulp and paper industry is the largest manufacturing sector in Canada and it is also the most serious and largest source of marine pollution in the country. New regulations have been in the works for some time. The former Minister of the Environment, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, promised them to be fully in force by June 1991 and certainly no later than June 1992. In December 1990 the government published the green plan and the present Minister of the Environment and
Routine Proceedings
the green plan promised that the regulations would be in full force by January 1, 1994.
However, on February 1 of this year in Montreal before the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association the minister of industry suggested January 1996, somewhere between a four and five year delay in promulgation and enforcement of the regulations.
I have five very short quotations to substantiate this question of privilege.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. The hon. member has raised a matter which amounts to this: that certain statements have been made with respect to government policy and that later on a press report of something that a minister said seems to contradict what may have been said earlier.
What I do not think I have to do in this case is try to weigh the differences between all statements. I have to point out that I think it would be stretching the question of privilege to ask the Chair to say that there is a prima facie case of privilege that should be put to the House.
The government may want to reply, but I have to indicate to my colleagues on the government side that I do not think it is necessary. While there may very well be a matter to be raised in Question Period or in debate, I cannot take the complaint of the hon. member which he makes as amounting to a question of privilege.
I thank the hon. member for giving me notice.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.

February 25, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 104 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Communications and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Department of Communications for 1989-1990.



COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, also on behalf of the Minister of Communications and pursuant to Standing Orders 109 and 32, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture concerning the National Arts Centre.



THE ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS ACT


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-347, an act respecting energy conservation standards for energy using products imported into Canada or sent or conveyed from one province to another.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to introduce for first reading an act respecting energy conservation standards for energy
using products imported into Canada or sent or conveyed from one province to another.
The purpose of this bill is to reduce the use of energy in Canada by providing for the establishment of national energy conservation standards. These standards are then applied to the energy using products that will make them more energy efficient.
As we know, Canada has one of the worst records in the world for energy consumption. We need strong national standards with forceful national leadership to reverse that trend. The bill is modelled after the Ontario Energy Act passed by the former Liberal government there.
Federally, the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the use of national energy conservation marks. Any product meeting the rules will have that mark on their product for sale.
Test procedures will be developed. As well, no products may be imported into Canada without meeting the national energy marks.
The list of products is to include central air conditioners, freezers, furnaces, televisions, dishwashers and water heaters, to name a few.
I am confident that all members will see fit to support this bill respecting the Energy Conservation Standards Act because in so doing they are supporting strong, national leadership on the environment, an issue of great importance to Canadians.


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

Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present two petitions. The first one is signed by many of my constituents from Ontario riding, as well as others from the greater Toronto area, who are concerned that restaurant and food packages are not required to disclose all food contents.
Therefore they call upon Parliament to enact legislation amending food and drug regulations in order to require manufacturers to list specific food ingredients and additives used in pre-packaged foods in place of the general classifications now permitted and, further, to require restaurants and food retailers to provide on

Routine Proceedings
demand to customers a list of all food ingredients and additives in prepared foods.


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from many of my constituents in the Ontario riding.
It relates to the Senate of Canada and states that the undersigned know the Senate to have been established in 1867 for the purposes of representation of the regions of Canada and providing a medium for sober second thought. The Senate now performs no useful function. It is completely partisan and has proven after many efforts to be impossible to reform.
They call upon the government and the Parliament of Canada to abolish the Senate outright.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two petitions containing 325 signatures from constituents in Port Alberni, British Columbia, criticizing Canada Post for cutting back services in that community and for transferring mail sorting outside the community, resulting in further delays in mail delivery.
In addition, Canada Post has now announced the shutdown of two rural post offices in my constituency at Coombs and Royston, British Columbia. Specifically, my constituents call on the Parliament of Canada to request that Canada Post Corporation be instructed to keep existing outlets, operate longer hours, expand revenuegenerating services, stop privatizing and start increasing services to raise revenues.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to endorse my friend's petition abolishing the Senate. I think it is a good idea.
It is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of the residents of Kamloops, British Columbia, who I admit are a little bit late in this point but still trying to make it.
They point out their deep and forlorn concern regarding the GST. They ask the government to rethink what it is doing to the people of Canada and to withdraw this tax.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition from citizens of Vassan, Val-d'Or, Maniwaki and La Motte in Quebec who request that the Government of Canada shelve the project described as the Parliament Hill sector which, at the estimated cost of $68 million, provides for a parking garage and a shopping mall under Canada's Parliament Hill. They urge the government to acknowledge the need to preserve the environment and the historical character of the buildings and the site of Parliament Hill in Ottawa.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to the House a petition collected by young Canadians in my riding of York West around Christmastime while they collected food for the local food bank, the North York Harvest Food Bank, which speaks, unfortunately, too eloquently to the problem at hand. Over 1.4 million Canadians now avail themselves of food banks across the country and close to 40 per cent of those recipients are under the age of 18.
Therefore, this petition calls on the government to end the economic policies that have contributed to this record number of food banks and begin to become somewhat more sensitive to a very embarrassing situation in a country that should not see a great use of food banks by families.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 411, 412, 413, 416, 420, 427, 428, 429, 430, 433, 435, and 440.

Routine Proceedings


Mr. Boudria: For the last four fiscal years, has Canada Post paid for any golf club memberships for its employees and, if so, (a) how many (b) for whom (c) at which golf club (d) at what cost?


Harvie Andre: Canada Post Corporation offers to all its employees compensation and benefit entitlements that are competitive with other comparative corporations with whom it competes in the market place for human resources.
As to the specific value of any entitlement, that information is only shared with the employee and the Corporation.


Mr. Caccia: Were the Supplementary Estimates (B) 1990-91 and the accompanying statement by the President of the Treasury Board of November 23,1990, subjected to an environmental assessment prior to their approval by Cabinet, and if so, in each case, (a) who conducted the assessment (b) when will the public statements on the environmental implications be released?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Supplementary and Main Estimates are not, in and of themselves, subject to the environmental assessment process. They represent aggregate statements to Parliament of the expenditure authorities which the government will request for the conduct of its various programs and activities, as well as notification of the expected financial requirements to fulfil existing statutory expenditures already approved by Parliament. Under the provisions of Bill C-78, The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, an Annual Report will be tabled in Parliament which includes a statistical summary of all environmental assessments conducted and completed under the authority of this Act.
In exercising the spending authority requested from Parliament through these Estimates, individual Ministers are responsible for complying with the legal and policy framework established by Parliament and the Government, including carrying out environmental assessments with respect to their department's activities.
Some of the individual items in these Supplementary Estimates may have been subject to assessment, either as new policies or programs under the Government's commitment announced when Bill C-78 was tabled or as projects under the Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order.


Mr. Karygiannis: What is the breakdown between interest and other costs for the $2.5 billion increase in expenditures on the Public Debt Program from the original Finance Department estimate of $41.5 billion to the total projected expenditure of $43.65 billion?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The following table shows the breakdown between interest and other costs for the $2.5 billion increase in expenditures on the 1990-91 Public Debt Program:
	Main Estimates	Current Estimate	Supplementary Estimates (B)
		($ Million)	
Interest Costs			
Domestic Marketable Bonds	14,818	14,662	481Treasury Bills	13,568	15,037	1,469Canada Savings Bonds	4,750	5,091	341Superannuation & Other Interest	8,357	8,566	209Tbtal Interest	40,856	43,356	2,500Servicing & Issuing Costs	294	294	0Tbtal Public Debt Charges	41,150	43,650	2,500


Mr. Boudria: For the (a) East Block (b) Centre Block (c) Langevin Building, has there been any renovation work performed relating to asbestos removal or containment and if so, were the workers made aware of the nature of the work and, if so, in what manner?
February 25, 1991


Hon. Elmer Macintosh MacKay (Minister of Public Works and Minister for the purposes of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act):: 


[Stage Direction]
Asbestos is present in the Centre Block as insulating material on pipes and some of the duct work.
During the summer of 1989, a specialist contractor was engaged to carry out remedial work on some of the pipes where, by reason of incident or unusual wear, the casing had been opened and asbestos material exposed. The purpose of the work was to ensure that all asbestos was properly encapsulated. Loose material was cleaned up, and properly disposed of.
This work had been thoroughly reviewed with the contractor, prior to its implementation, to ensure that appropriate equipment and approved protective wear would be used during the containment/repair process.
Similarly, last November 1990, additional remedial work, including clean up was completed. In all cases, the contractor was informed of the special measure necessary to ensure the safety of the workers and Building occupants.
[Stage Direction]
Asbestos is known to be present in the 1910 Wing of the East Block on mechanical pipes and most of the plaster walls and ceilings. The 1910 Wing is presently in a state of disrepair because little is being expended for maintenance in view of the upcoming major renovations proposed for this area of the building.
During the spring of 1990, it was decided that containment work should be carried out to ensure asbestos in deteriorated plaster walls or mechanical pipes was properly sealed and encapsulated and did not contaminate the environment. This remedial work was completed during the week-end of March 31, 1990 to April 1, 1990 and generally included the following:
-repairs of minor cracks in plaster walls;
-encapsulation of exposed asbestos material on mechanical pipes;
-clean up of loose material, as necessary, and proper disposal of materials;
Routine Proceedings
-installation of plastic barricades to cover major cracks in deteriorated walls to ensure the material is properly sealed.
The scope of this work has been reviewed, on site, with the contractor prior to issuing the work order. The contractor was made fully aware of the nature of the work involving remedial work in an asbestos environment in order that he may have the required equipment and protective work wear available.
In November 1990, another contractor was hired to carry out similar remedial work. The contractor was informed of the circumstances under which the remedial work would have to be performed.
[Stage Direction]
No work has been performed at the Langevin Building relating to asbestos removal or containment.
Mr. Milliken: With respect to a recent mailing sent out by the Department of National Health and Welfare informing recipients of Old Age Security cheques that they could receive their O.A.S. cheques through direct deposit did the Ministry put in place a mechanism to ensure that those people already receiving their O.A.S. cheques through direct deposit were not sent a copy of this letter and (a) if so, what mechanism was in place (b) if no, why were no mechanisms in place?


Henry Perrin Beatty: No such mechanism was required, as there were no Old Age Security clients receiving payments by electronic direct deposit at the time of the mailout. The mailout was in fact the first offer of direct deposit by Health and Welfare Canada, in its phased approach to enrolment.


Mr. Malone: In relation to the weight attached to tobacco products in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), (a) what is the current weight (b) when was it last updated (c) since it was last updated, by how much have tobacco sales fallen (d) what would be the weight if assigned today?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Statistics Canada Reports:
(a)	The weight of tobacco in the CPI is determined through a survey of family expenditure. The survey which gave rise to the current CPI weights took place in 1986. It only provided a combined weight for Tobacco and Smokers Supplies. That weight is 2.1 per cent of family expenditures.

February 25, 1991
Routine Proceedings
(b)	The last update to the CPI weights took place in December 1988 but reflected the results of the 1986 Family Expenditure Survey.
(c)	If measured in current dollars tobacco sales increased by 35 per cent between 1986 and the average of the first nine months of 1990. But if sales are measured in constant 1986 dollars, they actually dropped by 13 per cent over the same period.
(d)	Since there have been no new family expenditure results since 1986, strictly speaking we do not know what the weight would be if assigned today. However, based on data taken from the National Accounts of Canada the weight should be approximately the same.


Mr. Malone: In relation to the weight attached to tobacco products in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), does the government plan to (a) assign a new weight (b) adjust the weight on a regular basis?


Benoît Bouchard: Statistics Canada reports:
a)	Statistics Canada plans to update the CPI weights in January 1994 with the results of a Family Expenditure Survey for 1992.
b)	CPI weights are updated approximately once every four years. This has been the pattern since 1978. The next update is delayed by one year because Statistics Canada wants to ensure that the effects of GST are reflected in families' spending habits. Statistics Canada has no plans to update weights more frequently because all its experience shows that more frequent updates would only make marginal differences to the CPI.


Mr. Malone: If tobacco prices were to increase by (a) 10 per cent (b) 25 per cent (c) 50 per cent (d) 100 per cent, (i) what would be the impact on the all-items Consumer Price Index (CPI) (ii) what would be the impact on the all-items CPI if the products had a weighting in the CPI that reflected current sales levels?


Benoît Bouchard: Statistics Canada reports:
(i) Suppose that over a period of twelve months prices do not change. The corresponding CPI annual rate of change is 0 per cent. Suppose now that the only prices
that change over the same period are those of tobacco products and that they change by (a) 10 per cent, (b) 25 per cent, (c) 50 per cent and (d) 100 per cent. In that case, the CPI annual rate of change becomes (a) 0.3 per cent, (b) 0.7 per cent, (c) 1.3 per cent and (d) 2.6 per cent.
(ii) Since the weights are approximately the same there would be no difference.


Mr. Malone: In order to achieve cost recovery due to medical costs and lost jobs and time due to tobacco use, does the government intend to raise the tax on tobacco and tobacco products, and if so, by how much?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Since this is a matter that must be dealt with in the context of a budget, it would be inappropriate to provide an answer at this time. However, the member's representation on medical costs and lost jobs caused by tobacco use will be considered in the preparation for the forthcoming budget.
AIDS/HIV/HEPATITIS B CASES REPORTED WITHIN THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA


Mr. Nunziata: For each year, from 1985 to 1989, among (a) staff of Correctional Services of Canada, (b) inmates of the Correctional Services of Canada, how many cases of (i) AIDS (ii) HIV (iii) Hepatitis B have been reported?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: (a)	, (i), (ii), (iii);
The Correctional Service of Canada does not have the requested information as it is considered to be medically confidential and does not have to be revealed by the employee. All records containing AIDS, HIV, or Hepatitis B related personal information must be designated as protected and handled in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act and the confidentiality requirements outlined in the Occupational Safety & Health Policy, the Employee Assistance Program Policy, and the Security Policy of the Government of Canada.
(b)	>
0). (ii);
AIDS and HIV statistics were not maintained on a yearly basis by the Correctional Service of Canada until 1989. However, a cumulative total can be provided as follows: from late 1985 to December 31, 1989, 4 con-

firmed cases of AIDS and 43 HIV infected inmates were identified.
As of December 31, 1989, there were 24 HIV infected inmates incarcerated in federal institutions and no inmates with AIDS.
(b), (iii);
The number of reported cases of Hepatitis B for fiscal year 1986-87 is not available. Statistics for the remaining years requested are as follows:
1987-	88-101
1988-	89-99
1989-	90-132
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CASH CONTRIBUTION: POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AND HEALTH


Mr. Karpoff: Under the present Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act has the federal government determined when its cash contribution for these provincially-administered programs will (a) begin to decrease (b) reach zero and, if so, in what two fiscal years will this occur in (i) Newfoundland (ii) Prince Edward Island (iii) Nova Scotia (iv) New Brunswick (v) Quebec (vi) Ontario (vii) Manitoba (viii) Saskatchewan (ix) Alberta (x) British Columbia (xi) The Yukon (xii) Northwest Territories?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The reply to Question No. 265 answered on June 26, 1990 provides detailed projections of federal cash and tax contributions to provinces under this legislation.
(a)	On the basis of these projections and consistent data for earlier years: for Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories and Yukon, 1989-90. For all other provinces: 1990-91. These estimated dates are subject to change as further data become available.
(b)	No cash contributions reach zero during the forecast period (up to and including 1994-95).


Mr. Walker: For the years (a) 1988 (b) 1989, what is the total amount of taxes (direct and estimated indirect) paid by aboriginal peoples?


Otto John Jelinek: (a) (b)
Routine Proceedings Revenue Canada, Taxation:
The data requested is not available. It is not possible to produce the data requested from the information supplied with individual tax returns.
Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise:
In 1988 and 1989, Federal Sales Tax (FST) payable under the Excise Tax Act was collected at the manufacturer's level. It is not possible to obtain statistics on the sales of taxable, manufactured goods to aboriginal peoples. Consequently, it is not possible to provide an estimate of the FST content of the taxable goods which were purchased by aboriginal peoples.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 417 could be made an Order for Return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 417 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Boudria: What are the names and addresses of the buildings identified by Public Works as having sprayed asbestos containing material and for each building, what course of action has been followed with regards to removal and/or containment of such material?
Return tabled


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


Harvie Andre: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or Special Order of this House, at 4.30 o'clock p.m. on Tbesday, February 26, 1991, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House, and such proceedings shall be deemed forthwith adjourned, and the House shall proceed forthwith to the consideration of the following motion, to stand in the name of the Minister of Finance, for the purpose of the budget statement of the Minister of Finance.
"That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government"-;
That, immediately following such budget statement, the Speaker shall recognize a member of the Official Opposition in debate on the said motion, and when such debate is adjourned the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the usual time of meeting the next sitting day; and
That, the resumed budget debate be in accordance with the Standing Orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the Standing Orders there are long-standing provisions going back decades, Standing Orders 84 and 83(2), that provide for the establishment of an Order of Day for the hearing of the budget simply by the minister standing in its place, but that was a time when we sat in the evenings and the budget was usually done at eight o'clock in the evening after the markets had closed.
Now those provisions do not allow us to start a budget at the usual time. Government Orders commence while the markets are still open in this country and it is inappropriate to give a budget at that time, so that is the reason for this special motion which is necessary as a result of the Standing Orders not keeping up to the change we have made in the hours of sitting in the House.
Last week when the government indicated that it was prepared to present a budget in the House on Tuesday, February 26,1 and my colleagues contacted the opposition parties and Independent members as well, to review the schedule the government had proposed and, generally speaking, there was concurrence with that. So, today, we hoped to finalize the timing of the budget presentation by asking that the House concur in this motion and we can then proceed with other business.
I understand that some members have expressed a desire to speak to this proposed motion. I understand that desire and I understand that after a limited amount of debate there will be a disposition to pass the motion and move on to other orders. That is a brief explanation of why the motion is here. We have had considerable discussions and I would hope that we would be able to proceed with this motion relatively soon.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, while the opposition quite naturally will agree to this proposed order regarding the presentation of a budget, I think it important to take a few minutes to put a number of things on the record.
This is the first time that I have been called upon as opposition House leader to co-operate with the government in arranging the business of the House. I want to make it perfectly clear that I hope I shall be in a position to provide this kind of co-operation on most occasions.
It should be noted, however, that co-operation is very much a two-way street. It is my intention to approach discussions about House business as my predecessors have done in a reasonable and understanding manner, and I expect that the leader of the government in the House will do the same.
While the underlying assumption in parliamentary democracy is that the majority shall in the end prevail, it is essential as a facet of the process that the minority has the right to express its views in full. This House represents all of the people of the country, including the 57 per cent who did not vote for the government in the last federal election.
While we accept the parliamentary results of our democratic system and the legitimate expectation of the government that its proposals will be brought to timely decisions, we also insist on exercising the rights that the same system grants to us.
We know that you have a responsibility to ensure that our rights as a minority are maintained. We hope, however, that the government will be able to proceed with the normal courtesies-I underline those words
February 25, 1991

-that will lead to these rights being respected as a matter of normalcy.
It is well known that the government has initiated a discussion with the other parties in the House concerning the rules and procedures of our proceedings.
We enter these discussions with every expectation that the result will maintain the balance between the legislative needs of a duly elected government and the Canadian people's demand for thorough and proper examination in Parliament not only of the government's proposals, but also of all of its actions.
This is best accomplished through the normal co-operative conduct of the business of this House through honest and meaningful consultation. Our agreeing today to this order is an example-and I want to underline it for the government House leader-of our willingness to make this system work.
I want to get his assurance that in the future with all matters pertaining not only to government business, but indeed to all activities in this House, he will respond with courtesy, with meaningful consultations and not with a whip.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to spend just a couple of minutes on this motion.
I do so not from the perspective of the House leader of the Liberal Party. It does not seem to me to be useful to have a great deal of debate or discussion about co-operation at this stage. We certainly feel that this is a sensible motion. There is no problem with our reaction to it.
However, in a sense it is a motion which sets out the procedure for the budget. I want to say that from my perspective as the critic in my party responsible for responding to the budget and making suggestions with respect to the budget and so forth, it is unfortunate that the budget is being presented in this House with so little lead time before it in terms of House business.
We would certainly ourselves have appreciated the possibility to make use of some opposition days to put forward some of our suggestions with respect to this budget. For instance, the Minister of Finance today suggested that our position as a party was that we simply wanted to see a great deal more spending take place in
Government Orders
this country. We wanted to see the deficit expand, et cetera.
It would have been very useful to have had the chance for some preliminary discussion so that we could point out to the minister that that is certainly not our position.
Our position is very clear. It is a position which says that there is a massive interest rate gap between ourselves and the United States, something which historically is usually a gap of about 1 to 1.5 percentage points. It has become a gap of about 4 to 4.5 percentage points. In fact, this gap has been consistent for virtually two years now.
As a consequence of that massive gap between the two interest levels in our two countries, the Canadian dollar is at a level which frankly makes many of the businesses in my community and many of the businesses in communities across this country uncompetitive. Despite the fact that the skilled workers are there, that good investment has taken place, there has been a sabotaging of the efforts of many of these companies because of the high value of the dollar which has reflected the high value of interest rates in this country, not in an absolute sense, but relative to interest rates in the United States. Therefore, we have stressed the need to reduce that gap so that it returns to its historical level.
The interesting thing is if that is done, we would save as a country in the first year at least $5 billion in interest payments on our national debt because we would be dealing with lower interest rates.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must ask him to keep in mind the relevancy of his remarks in a debate on a motion concerning the time of the budget speech. Eventually the hon. member will have ample time to talk about the issue he is raising now, namely the elements of the budget policy.
Therefore I would ask the hon. member to be relevant to the motion now before the House.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly try to keep my remarks more pertinent.

Government Orders
As I was suggesting in the original point, my concern was with the presentation of this motion at this time. This is a motion which sets out the procedures for when the budget is to be presented to the House of Commons. The point which I made is that I think it is crucial that there be a period of time in which members of Parliament, prior to the presentation of a budget, have a chance to put forward suggestions, considerations of importance that the government should be concerned with in bringing a budget forward. In that sense, certainly that portion of my remarks I hope, was considered pertinent.
I want to just add to those points two final comments. First, if there had been the possibility of, for instance, this motion being framed in such a way that we were talking about the budget being presented some weeks in the future, it would be possible for us, particularly in our party, to be able to present to the House of Commons some of the ideas, some of the concerns which we heard across the country on the economic recovery tour, which the New Democratic Party carried forward during the period in which the House was not sitting.
As you have suggested, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will have a chance to talk about some of those ideas and other of my colleagues will as well in the debate on the budget itself. But I do have to stress that it is important for many of the people who made presentations to us and indeed, those who made presentations to the Liberal Party in its somewhat different tour, that their ideas be presented to the House for consideration by the government before the budget was actually presented.
The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that as we look forward to the budget debate which this motion will structure, certainly for ourselves we will be commenting with respect to the government's budget proposals. But we will certainly be presenting alternatives which reflect the work of people within our own caucus and the comments and concerns which have been presented to us from various places across the country.
We have prepared a discussion paper on our alternatives for economic recovery. We have talked about these across the country. We will talk about these within this budget debate. We certainly welcome this motion which structures the debate. However, we hope in future years
that the government would see to it that there is a possibility to have some preliminary debate, some preliminary chances to put before the House the ideas and suggestions that come from many people across Canada.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on the pre-budgetary motion, all the more so because, on the eve of the budget presentation, it gives us an opportunity to examine the various factors which make it necessary for the Minister of Finance to table a budget within the next 24 hours.
This is a good time for me to convey to the Minister of Finance some of the thoughts I have concerning tomorrow's exercise. Hopefully he will keep them in mind, Mr. Speaker, because his fiscal and monetary policies have landed us in a mess.
Right now, Quebec is paying very dearly as a result of the fiscal and monetary policy of the Minister of Finance. I would even suggest that the Minister of Finance, intent on cooling down the overheated Ontario economy, is prescribing rather strong medication which forces us Quebecers to pay millions if not billions of dollars more than our own economic indicators would normally call for.
By way of explanation, Mr. Speaker, I support this motion introduced by the government because I am anxious to hear what the Minister of Finance will be telling us. How can he explain that in 1988 the inflation index or the CPI in Ontario, for example, stood at 5.5 per cent as against only 4.2 per cent in Quebec, a difference of 1.3 per cent, and that this year inflation in Ontario is running at 6.6 per cent while it is at 4.7 per cent in Quebec, a difference of 1.9 per cent? We all know that the government's budget policy as it relates to interest rates and fiscal issues is supposedly aimed at fighting inflation. Therefore Quebec now has to pay much higher interest rates, even with that kind of difference, quite simply to make inflation less severe in Ontario.
We can see the same indications on the labour market. This fight against inflation in Ontario therefore has cost
126,000	Quebec jobs since August 1990. We are talking about 126,000 Quebec workers who have been laid off as a result of the Canadian monetary policy, not to mention
February 25, 1991

their loss of dignity when they lose their jobs and find themselves in the line-up with other Canadians seeking unemployment insurance benefits.
The Minister of Finance will be facing quite a challenge tomorrow. You know that in Quebec now we have record unemployment levels-around 13.3 per cent for Quebec as a whole, but the situation is even worse in some regions like the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe area. In the Gaspe area and the Magdalen Islands the unemployment rate stands at 20 per cent.
For example, the unemployment rate in the region represented by my leader, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, is 17 per cent. I would suggest that all the members from Quebec who are impatiently waiting for the budget of the Minister of Finance will want to urge him to implement special measures for Quebec because of the fact that the national policy seriously harms the over-all economic situation in Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I must interrupt my friend the member for Shefford as I interrupted the previous speaker, the hon. member for Essex-Windsor.
I am looking at the motion before us, the aim of which is only to specify the way the Budget will be presented. I just realized that the hon. member is in fact speaking on the substance of a possible Budget.
I would therefore ask him to limit his comments to the subject of the debate. The hon. member for Shefford.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I understand that you would be annoyed, since unemployment is veiy high in your area also.
I want you to know that this motion is extremely important precisely because it provides us the opportunity to take a look at the notice, which states that the Minister of Finance tabled a motion requesting: "That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government." Mr. Speaker, this government's general budgetary policy cannot be dealt with without considering unemployment, inflation and interest rates. That is why I think all these factors are interrelated.
Government Orders
Of course, we could debate only the procedure, but I know you have a much broader view than that, and that you too are concerned about inflation. No doubt you were extremely worried last week when you heard that inflation rose above six percent during the past month in Canada, and 1.8 percent of it is due to a voluntary measure taken by this government, i.e. the implementation of the goods and services tax.
You too must have been flabbergasted to see that this government-


Ron J. Duhamel: And staggered as well!


Jean-C. Lapierre: -who claims to battle inflation has become the number one inflation-maker. As I said, Mr. Speaker, like you, I am concerned and nervous at the thought that tomorrow the Minister of Finance will rise and could be announcing yet more taxes, more horse medecine, and I understand your uneasiness.
The fact is, that the number of bankruptcies in Canada increased by 69 percent over the past few months! In the province of Quebec, we are hitting record highs, as indicated in the weekend edition of La Presse.
I wonder if we should allow the Minister of Finance-after all he is responsible for driving down our economy over the past seven years-to go on messing up the Canadian economy and particularly the Quebec economy. Our economic situation is getting worse by the day, and Quebec is paying an exceedingly high price. Quebec is suffering the consequences of the national policy. That is why organizations such as the Quebec Chamber of Commerce are starting to question the economic purpose of the union, the Confederation. People are starting to question the way the fiscal policy is established. People now want to know why they should pay exceedingly high interest rates, rates 5 points higher than the American rates. Why indeed, after our inflation was brought under control and the labour movement made big sacrifices. Why ask them to make yet more sacrifices?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Shefford again. I just want to set his mind at rest. The Chair is neither irritated nor upset. It is simply the servant of the House and has its duty is to apply the Standing Orders. According to the Standing Orders any debate must be on the purpose of

Government Orders
the motion, which is merely to indicate that tomorrow afternoon, at 4.30 p.m., the Minister of Finance shall be allowed to make his Budget statement.
I would appeal to the hon. member's common sense and spirit of co-operation.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, like you, I was wondering whether we should allow the Minister of Finance to bring down his Budget tomorrow afternoon. With all the figures we have here, I think we are entitled to ask this question. That is the purpose of this debate. I am sure the Standing Orders of this House are not meant to prevent people from considering, for instance, the record number of bankruptcies we have seen. It is a fact that most Quebecers are concerned about the economy and are not looking forward to the fact that the Minister of Finance will rise in his seat tomorrow at 4.30 p.m. They don't know what to expect.
Besides, they listened to the last two or three Budget speeches made by the Minister of Finance. Those budgets were supposed to have an extraordinary impact, but things are going from bad to worse. As the member for Shefford, I must remind the Minister of Finance before he rises tomorrow afternoon that there are real situations out there. There are unemployed workers who today are still covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act but who will lose their benefits very soon because of the new Unemployment Insurance Act. The last time the Minister of Finance rose, he promised them occupational training courses. You know as well as I do that the minister did not keep his word, because today, there is still no new agreement on occupational training that could provide some support for these workers. These people are worried because they know the federal-provincial agreement on occupational training was not signed on March 31.


Mr. Ricard:: Jean, wait until tomorrow! You will know all about the Budget tomorrow!


Jean-C. Lapierre: I heard the hon. member for Laval who doesn't speak very often but when he does, he speaks from his seat-


Guy Ricard: Because you talk all the time!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that tomorrow's Budget is making us very upset. We will probably support this motion because we recognize the government's responsibility. Like you, however, I want to make sure before I finish my speech that the Minister of Finance realizes how seriously Quebec has been penalized by his policies and that immediately after his Budget speech tomorrow, he should set up a program to compensate Quebec and restore its economic vitality, because high interest rates, the government's monetary policy and endless taxes have undermined Quebec's economy.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Finance is directly responsible for the nasty surprises and statistics we are getting now, and I think he should act accordingly, because Mr. Speaker, under our present system, we must ensure that none of the parties is unduly penalized. In this case, I hope that by 4.30 p.m. tomorrow, the Minister of Finance realizes that his last Budget, his monetary policy and his fiscal policy have caused Quebec very serious harm, and I would urge him to prepare immediately a program that will compensate for the negative impact of his monetary and fiscal policies.


Guy Ricard: I'll give him the messsage, Jean!


Jean-C. Lapierre: You never even talk to him!


Mr. Plamondon:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, who just addressed so eloquently the concerns of the Quebecers about tomorrow's Budget. He spoke about compensatory program, but we know that in his two last budgets, the same minister froze the equalization payments to the provinces, so that the Quebec government lost more than one billion and a half dollars. Did he want to suggest in his remarks that, since we managed to give Newfoundland two billion dollars in grants after the Meech Lake Accord demise, one billion dollars for Western development and another one billion for eastern Canada we should-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but I cannot tolerate this any more-I am naturally a tolerant person, but the debate relates to the timing of the Budget speech. I am a very understanding person, but I do not see the relevance of the remarks to the timing of the Budget speech. Resumed debate.


Louis Plamondon: Yes, resuming debate, I was giving my question the finishing touch. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy-
During the question and comment period that follows a member's speech, it seems to be the usual procedure of the House, and it is the first time the remarks of a member have been censored. Often, when a bill is discussed, we hear members talk about everything under the sun without the House interrupting on content. The House will intervene about procedure, but never about content.
In that sense, I wanted to put a question to my colleague from Shefford about the compensation fund he was talking about, to warn the minister, still regarding the relevance of tomorrow's debate-which is what I am talking about since that is what the motion is all about-the relevance of allowing the government to table a budget.
Should we allow the minister to table a budget without letting him know the wishes of our constituents? Regarding the suggestion my colleague made about a special fund to pay back the money lost through equalization, if the Minister of Finance listened more closely to the people, the government could get better results in the polls.
I would like my colleague to give us more detail about that compensation fund he is suggesting to the minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Shefford, with due regard to relevance of the debate.
The hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are interested in this debate on the economy.
I think today is the right time to get a few messages through to the Minister of Finance since he is the one asking our permission to speak tomorrow at 4:30 p.m.


Guy Ricard: It's already done, Jean!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, you know then that a few of your colleagues-sorry, a few members across the way-don't even bother to stand up when they're speaking. I hope they will stand up and tell the Minister of Finance how their government has thrown Quebec into an unacceptable recession.
Government Orders
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that those members who are mute, who are like sheep, will once and for all tell the Minister of Finance that Quebec urgently needs the one billion dollar compensation fund to get its economy going again.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the delays and the economic problems we are presently experiencing are a direct consequence of the government's monetary policy.


Mr. Peterson:: That's true.


Jean-C. Lapierre: We are not blind, Mr. Speaker, to the reality of interest rates. One can see historically prosperous concerns go bankrupt every day; the bankruptcy rate has gone up by 69 per cent, Mr. Speaker.
And the members across the way have the nerve to applaud the Minister of Finance when we know that the bankruptcy rate has gone up by 69 per cent. The government itself is going bankrupt, Mr. Speaker. It is going bankrupt economically and politically. Consequently, we are giving it the chance to boost its fortunes and to help Quebecers have a bit more faith in its administration. I urge them to take immediate action and to demand of the Minister of Finance demand a compensation fund which will help Quebec's economy get going again, as it should be. The fact is, this government is responsible for strangling Quebec's economy.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: And Canada's economy.


Jean-C. Lapierre: And all that was done in an attempt to please Ontarians, or rather to control inflationay pressures in Ontario. And I feel sorry, Mr. Speaker, for my colleague, the member for Willowdale, who is forced to admit it. The government of Canada has drawn its policies for Ontario to the detriment of Quebec. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable and I hope that they correct the situation no later than tomorrow at 4:30 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions or comments?


Mr. Rocheleau:: No, Mr. Speaker, debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer has the floor.


Gilles Rocheleau: In the House which is nearly empty, I am concerned with the fact that the minister of Finance will table his budget tomorrow, while the current budget is not yet over and that we have lived through some significant events over the past year. Not only this government, but Canadians generally have had to face very tragic times following the implementation of the Finance Minister's last budget. There is a motion calling for a budget to be tabled. Yet, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
Government Orders
Speaker, this motion makes it possible for hon. members to warn the Minister of Finance who is about to table his Budget tomorrow that in view of the very serious and negative economic situation faced by most Canadians, while provincial governments-I am talking here about the Quebec Government which, under the Ryan reform, will dump a $500 million deficit into the municipalities backyards-while the Quebec Minister of Finance indicated a few weeks ago to the Quebec people that the Federal Budget this year would deprive the Quebec economy of several tax points. Mr. Speaker, the House is almost empty as the government is about to tighten the screw without taking into account its Budget's implications.
Mr. Speaker, we were told in last year's Budget that interest rates would come down markedly. Over the last months, we have just experienced the beginning of a reduction. Last year's Budget never mentioned a recession. Yet, we had to face a recession "made in Canada". Why is the situation today so serious? It is because the Minister of Finance orchestrated a recession which he doesn't know now how to control.
This is the situation as it exist today and we want to warn him, Mr. Speaker. We are not especially against the fact that the Minister of Finance will table his Budget tomorrow. We are not against the motion. We just want to give him fair warning, and I do so on behalf of my Hull-Aylmer constituents, because we are part of the National Capital Region. My riding which is on the Quebec side of the Ottawa Valley remains a federal constituency pending Quebec's sovereignty. Until then, there are federal civil servants working here and I want to make sure that they will not be transferred as was the case for some last week under the immigration agreement policy. Some 60 of them were transferred to Montreal or Quebec City.
The same with the GST, Mr. Speaker. Some 500 civil servants were transferred to tie in the GST with the provincial tax. These National Capital Region civil servants are being moved away. Just now, we are in a constitutional deadlock and the Finance Minister will table a Budget. Quebec is being penalized because of Ontario's overheated economy, and we should keep
quiet about it. Just a minute! We are still Canadian citizens. We still carry Canadian passports and we are here to defend Quebec's best interests and we want to be heard. This government Tory members do not speak out on behalf of Quebecers. It is the members of the Bloc quebecois who stand up for them. That is what we wanted to tell the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments.


Louis Plamondon: First of all, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Hull-Aylmer for questioning the appropriateness of tabling the Budget tomorrow, of allowing the Minister of Finance to table a Budget tomorrow. I would like to ask my colleague this: Can we afford to allow a Minister to table a Budget if he indicated in the preceeding weeks neither the intention to control the deficit nor a firm commitment on the part of the government to help businesses and act on bankruptcies. Record numbers of bankruptcies in Montreal are reported in today's paper, but no commitment has been made toward reducing unemployment. All that was picked up by my colleague and very well conveyed by him, especially when he talked about shovelling. Could he explain further what he was saying about the Federal Government having shovelled in the backyard of the provinces and the provinces in turn shovelling in the backyard of the municipalities, so as to show the minister before he tables his Budget how important it is to put an end to that shovelling through a freeze in transfer payments?
So, very briefly, Mr. Speaker, we heard today the Minister of Finance tell this House that the Canadian Air Force had been authorized to fly bombing missions over Iraq and Kuwait, which would increase expenditures in the Defence operating budget. That is all shovelling. We are already contributing to this war effort as part of the United Nations. First, we provided protection and, in the last month, we played an escort role. Today, everything seems to be going perfectly in the US-Irak war. And now, because the Prime Minister is up a few points in the polls, we take on an attack role. How
February 25, 1991

many more millions will that cost, Mr. Speaker? That is all shovelling in one another's backyard.
We were told last week and again this week by the President of the Treasury Board in Quebec, Mr. Daniel Johnson, that there would be no tax hikes. Right! Some 500 millions in expenditures will be shovelled in the backyard of the municipalities. There will probably be no federal tax hike, but the deficit will increase accordingly and the Federal Government will transfer to Quebec important expenditures which Quebec will in turn transfer to yet another level. That is what shovelling is all about, and that is why Canada's present system is not working anymore.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I only wanted to address a short comment to my colleague from Hull-Aylmer. I undestood him well when he criticized the minister of Finance as I could do the same, of course. We are all afraid when we realize that the minister is preparing a new budget because, if we consider the other budgets that he introduced in the past, we are aware of the damage that they did to us. But I didn't understand my colleague when he spoke of daydreamers because in the past he called daydreamers a certain group of people, mostly the independentist in Quebec and when sti nding up for Quebecers, he said the Bloc Quebecois is the only real defender of their rights. I ask myself a lot of questions about that because I find there is a certain hypocrisy in the House which might be normal because people are a little bit like that. But when we are talking about the rights of Quebecers and the Bloc quebecois, I am obliged to say that I checked if my colleagues of the Bloc quebecois voted in favor of abortion.


Some hon. members:: That is not true.


Philip Edmonston: During the vote, I remember that some of them voted for the bill and one of them voted against it. You can read in the record and you know who it was, it was the member for Verdun. I took note of that and I said to myself: "Here is the one who stands up for Quebecers, women as well as men." I can speak to you about-
Government Orders


Jean-C. Lapierre: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague for Chambly should know better than that for he would have noticed that the member for Shefford, the member for Hull-Aylmer and the member for Richelieu have all voted against that measure. We strive for all Quebecers but, most of all, for the Quebec women.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, if I am mistaken, I am ready to admit what the hon. member just said, but surely, when one looks at the results of the vote here in this House, one finds some contradiction. For example, on the issue of war, as the hon. member for Saint-Denis just mentioned, we do not see a political party voting as one, but a political party rather tom by dissension on many important issues.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Free men!


Philip Edmonston: Free men, as my honourable friend just said.
But on the issue of war, for example, I do not think the way the vote was presented and the way the Bloc Quebecois voted had anything to do with the interests of Quebec. We might have different views, but I do not think that to vote for this war was to stand for the interests of Quebec.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, speaking of standing for the interests of Quebec, we have seen members of the Bloc Quebecois vote for the GST and now, of course, they complain that the GST is hurting us. But we have to talk about the background of those people. Before becoming members of the Bloc quebecois, they created the evil they are now complaining about. That is not what I call to stand for the interests of Quebec men and women.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Hull-Aylmer had a question or a comment?


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I did not detect any questions, but I still want to comment on one of the statements that the member made.
I voted against the Abortion Bill. As for the war issue, I think we voted to support the UN, but I did not vote, for example, for our CF-18's to bomb Kuwait and Iraq.

Government Orders
The minister of Finance told us this morning that that will cost more in the Budget, and I am against that.
The Bloc quebecois is defending the interests of Quebec here in this House, because the three members of the Bloc quebecois, beside the member for Chambly, rose to speak, while no Quebec member from the Conservative Party did. Soon, it will be too late, the Budget will be passed and, after that, it will be criticized. I would rather criticize before than after.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is one minute and a half left for questions and comments.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the member for Hull-Aylmer mentioned the most particular situation of his region and I would like him to expand on the situation of public servants in his region, who could be affected by the Budget. For instance, it has been said that the Minister of Finance's Budget would be at the expense of the public servants. I would be pleased if he could elaborate.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I must say to my colleague from Shefford that it is true that since the Conservatives took power in 1984, there has been a reduction of about 10 per cent in the number of civil servants. The Outaouais has had to absorb part of that reduction. Today, we hear about significant cuts and the President of the Treasury Board has even given notice of that. Will the people of the Outaouais and of the National Capital have to bear the brunt of this Government's mismanagement or will it be the same kind of cuts in the Public Service that we have seen in the last few years? That is a concern for me and for the other members on this side of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: That puts an end to the question and comment period. Resuming debate.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, like my two colleagues, I wonder how relevant it is to let the minister of Finance table his budget tomorrow. The Minister is about to table a budget in cooperation with our two traditional political parties which have not bothered to let him know that our people, our constituents are very, very worried. They are concerned about what has been going on for the last two years, and before a new budget is tabled, they would like the minister to
promise them budgetary cuts, expenditure restraints for example, in order to reduce the deficit.
Before the budget is tabled, they would like the minister to make a very firm commitment to fight unemployment. For example, what does the minister plan to do about interest rates? Will he let them go 4 percent to 5 percent above interest rates in the United States? Will he let the Canadian dollar go as high as 90 cents, knowing that would hurt some companies in my constituency? I would like to have all these commitments before we have a final text, in theory at least, before we give the Minister of Finance leave to table his response to the current recession that he created with his last two budgets. What kind of commitment does he make, before tabling his budget, that he will fight the recession?
Can he promise that he will not freeze equalization payments as he did the last two years, because that was very damaging to Quebecers? What kind of guarantee do we have that the federal government will not, as headlined today the Journal de Montreal, continue to waste taxpayer's money. What guarantee do we have that we will not see extravagant spending like $14,171 for a video on "Minister Bill McKnight". Fourteen thousand dollars to make a video to send to military personnel. Is it acceptable to spend $34,533 for a TV program on the Department-I mean the Defence Department-sent via satellite, and $36,385 for a video on safe driving in Germany? Could the minister guarantee, before tabling his budget, that such profligacies won't be repeated?


Jean-C. Lapierre: This is awful!


Louis Plamondon: For a video on controversial flights by NATO planes over the Goose Bay area, in Newfoundland, they spent $37,554. And then a further amount has been granted for translating it into Italian, German and Dutch. Could the minister promise the House that no more funds will be wasted in such a way? And what about $40 000 spent for the making of a video on a State visit to Rideau Hall? How could the Department of National Defence spend more than 40 million dollars on various videos? More than 200 videos have been made so far. What next? Pom flicks? We could always make some to entertain our soldiers who might be lonesome abroad. The Canadian International Development Agency spent $55 000 to make a video on the various cuisines of the world. And that kind of spending has been going on for years. Most of these video films are available only to a restricted client group according to the newspaper re-

port. That is what has been going on for two years while cuts have been made in equalization payments, forcing the Government of Quebec to recover its loss from the municipal governments.
Such permission should not be granted to a minister. I think that the Prime Minister should remove the Minister of Finance and allow another minister to manage the finances of the Canadian Government and I suggest that that the minister would make commitments through a public statement followed by a request put to the House to ask its permission to table a Budget that would embody what he thinks of state financing. But no, today, they table a proposal, a blank cheque saying: the Minister of Finance wants to table another controversial budget which will not cure unemployment, which will continue to drive industries into bankruptcy, which will maintain an untolerable deficit, which will still allow high interest rates in collaboration with John Crow, in charge of the Bank of Canada, and an inflated value of the Canadian dollar, which will harm our exports, force us to stay in a perpetual recession and to invent a new recession made in Canada. Can we allow such a Minister of Finance to table a budget tomorrow? It is what this House is asking us today. I am asking you: would it be logical and would we not be the accomplices of this minister if we agreed to the tabling of such a budget without a public commitment from the minister that this government has indeed come to its senses.
No, there is no commitment that we are going to curb this intolerable deficit, lower the rate of unemployment or stifle an overvalued Canadian dollar. There is no commitment, so my dear fellow citizens, brace yourselves, it is going to be tough. Tighten your belt while we make $14,000 videos about minister Bill McKnight and a $36,000 video, in French and in English, on safe driving in Germany.
Can we allow that to go on? Can we allow that kind of expenditures to continue? Another video about Rideau Hall-


An hon. member:: Sheer irresponsibility!


Louis Plamondon: It is unacceptable. That is why-
Government Orders


An hon. member:: About Rideau Hall?


Louis Plamondon: Yes, sir, about Rideau Hall, $35,000 spent by National Defence to tell us all about Rideau Hall. So those are the kinds of expenditures, no wonder we read scathing headlines about on-going irresponsible expenditures of taxpayers' money. This is why we in the Bloc Quebecois find it so hard to allow the minister to go on spending like that.
Today we fail to understand why the Quebec Conservative members remain silent-


Jean-C. Lapierre: They are not here!


Louis Plamondon: Now that the Prime Minister has delivered his federalist speech, they can be expected to behave like the old Liberal noodleheads of 1982 who stood idle while the government repatriated the Constitution without Quebec's consent. Now of course they are like lambs, silent, glued to their seats. But tomorrow they will all be here to give a round of applause to the Minister of Finance, but such days are nearly over. After the next election we will be glad to mail pension cheques to those who deserve them, but the others will have to apply for unemployment insurance and then they will realize that this government has cut down the benefit period. They will perhaps be affected themselves and they will be in a better position to understand why people have a hard time accepting that this House is silent and allows the Minister of Finance to table a budget tomorrow without making a public commitment to his constituents, and the citizens of his province and of our two countries, Quebec and Canada. No concrete commitment has been made and this government asks for a blank cheque. I could not put up with this undemocratic procedure and such callous indifference to the hardships of my constituents. I thought it was my duty to stand up and refuse the blank cheque this government is asking for.
I had to warn this government who has been such a disaster for the Canadian economy, particularly in the last two years, I had to tell you, before the tabling of your budget, that we will not tolerate the same kind of budget once again. Things have to change. While all other members in the three official parties were silent, we will have done our duty and publicly warned this government about the dissatisfaction of our constituents and the tragedy the whole Canadian economy is about to experience.

Government Orders


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the hon. member for Richelieu. His speech illustrates the difference between a member who is free to speak his mind and a group that is absent from the House but nevertheless carries a great responsibility. There are about 50 or 60 Conservative members from Quebec but in today's debate, we have not heard from a single one.
The hon. member for Richelieu is to be commended because he is not afraid to say what he thinks. He has no qualms about expressing the frustrations of his electorate on the floor of this House. The Minister of Labour has just come in. Perhaps he could give us his opinions and the opinions of his constituents on the very serious unemployment situation in Quebec, the bankruptcies in that province and the very serious situation in the city of Montreal. Ever since he became the minister responsible for Montreal, things have gone from bad to worse. He is the worst minister responsible for Montreal Island we have had since Confederation. All he does here is smile, without saying a word, without responding to the concerns of the people of Montreal. I want to say to the hon. member for Richelieu that if the minister responsible for Montreal Island had as much courage as he does, he would not be as low in the polls as he is today. The minister should have come sooner, because the hon. member for Richelieu had a lot of good advice for him about how to get Quebec's economy back on its feet. I would ask the hon. member for Richelieu whether he could provide a short description of the situation for the benefit of the minister who just came in.


Louis Plamondon: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank my hon. colleague for his kind words, and I would also like to return the compliment and say how much I appreciated his speech. He proved his point most eloquently on the relevance of warning the minister of the problems facing Canada before allowing him to bring down his Budget. He referred to the minister responsible for the Montreal region, the Minister of Labour. They say the name of his department is going to be changed very shortly to department of unemployment a more appropriate description of the minister as well and the region of Montreal which he represents in this government. His continued silence is typical, so that the
problems I raised earlier concerning unemployment, record bankruptcies-A newspaper like La Presse had the following headline: Montreal has record bankruptcies! So I think the minister should act responsibly and do something to-It says here it is worse than in 1982, in terms of businesses that have been forced to close down. The minister should take his own department and his responsibility for the Montreal region in hand and do something to stop this. I also mentioned the deficit. For two years the government has been promising us the deficit would go down, and now we will have an even bigger deficit than predicted. Their excuse will be the war in the gulf and interest rates, but did they do anything to control those interest rates? I mentioned this earlier: the 4 or 5 per cent spread between interest rates in Canada and the United States has been very harmful, especially to Quebec. Of course, it served the interests of other regions in this country but Quebec did not matter, as usual.
We talked about the value of the dollar which is now at 87 cents. What kind of commitment is the minister prepared to make to change this? And this is why we in the Bloc Quebecois are very reluctant to allow the minister, as proposed in the motion tabled today, to bring down his Budget. Can we say yes to a minister who has made no commitment and who acted irresponsibly, keeping interest rates high throughout the year, to serve the interests of one particular region in this country, at the expense of Quebec? A minister who froze equalization payments-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. De Blois):: I am sorry but I have to interrupt the hon. member for Richelieu because he is talking about the Minister of Finance whereas the motion is about the moment when the Budget will be tabled.


Louis Plamondon: Thank you, Mr. Minister, I mean Mr. Speaker.


An hon. member:: He is not a minister yet.


Louis Plamondon: I mean Mr. Speaker. Again, when you bring me back to the subject matter, I sometimes have the impression that it is a form of censorship in the sense that the British parliamentary system has always been very open-
February 25, 1991


An hon. member:: He would be a better minister.


Louis Plamondon: Yes, perhaps, you are the Speaker, but you probably would make a better minister than our present Minister of Finance.


An hon. member:: It always destroys them in the end.


Louis Plamondon: My colleague is suggesting words that I would not dare to repeat. I leave that to him.
I was speaking to the minister responsible for the Montreal region, because the region was deeply affected, and I was hoping, by calling on his attention, that he would have the Minister of Finance undertake public commitments. We expected that from the minister before the House was recalled, we wanted him to undertake public commitments to put the situation right and avoid the same type of budgets that always cornered Quebec, that always did Quebec wrong. More than $800 million in the last budget on account of an equalization which was frozen, without notice. And we get ready to cut again.
But they want to keep the powers to themselves. They want the constitutional powers. But when comes the time to pay, they pass the bill on to Quebec. The only assurance Quebec has from the federal govemement is that it will get the bill. That is for sure. But it is another thing to get concrete commitments to remedy unfair situations created by this minister- the recession created by this minister. Should we allow a minister to table a Budget? That is the question. And, Mr. Speaker, as was already mentioned a while ago, we have to ask ourselves today if it is adequate to table a Budget. Or is it adequate to allow a minister responsible for heavy unemployment, many bankrupcies, an inacceptable deficit, intolarable interest rates, a too strong dollar and a recession-
Can we say today to a minister, while smiling as do the Opposition members, NDP members and especially my conservative colleagues from Quebec, that he can continue to ruin this country by tabling a Budget that will do nothing to remedy the economic situation? Can we do that? Are we going to be that irresponsible? Are we members of the House only, as my colleague from Hull-Aylmer said, when the strings are pulled, and all jump to their feet to vote en masse as the whip says, or will we be in control, take our responsibilities as parlia-
Govemment Orders
mentarians and warn this Minister of Finance that he will not be able to table a budget if he does not seriously commit himself to correct the disastrous economic conditions we are in today.
We, members of the Bloc quebecois who decided last weekend to found a political party, warn all of you who remain silent today, that you will have to face a member of the Bloc Quebecois and will pay dearly for your silence and the economic destruction of the country you are entrusting to the Minister of Finance. We will not allow him to table a budget without saying aloud and shouting our determination-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I apologize for interrupting, but in case other members would like toother members may want to put questions to the hon. member for Richelieu.
Is the House ready for the question? May I be dispensed from reading the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-91, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendment) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It has been proposed that Mr. Peterson replace Mr. Milliken. Is the House agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There are three motions on the notice paper at the report stage of Bill C-91, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act and other Acts in consequence thereof. They are all

Government Orders
in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are acceptable and will be debated together but voted upon as follows: Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be voted on separately.
Affirmative votes on Motion No. 1 or Motion No. 2 will obviate the necessity of a vote on Motion No. 3.
If Motions Nos. 1 and 2 are rejected, Motion No. 3 will be put to a vote.


MEASURE TO AMEND
James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-91 be amended in clause 6 by striking out line 19 at
page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"the service or the use of the facility to the user or classes of user who benefit thereby."
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-91 be amended in clause 6 by striking out line 47 at
page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"lation or order provided that such rules for adjustment may not provide for the consideration of any new factors for adjustment of the amount of a fee or charge."
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-91 be amended by deleting clause 6.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consent of my colleagues to speak on this issue.
First of all, let me say that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who proposed our party's three amendments, has done an excellent service on behalf of many people who have come to him, to me as well as to our party, to discuss the potential implications of these amendments to the Financial Administration Act.
In brief, we applaud the government for many of the proposals which it has put forward in this bill. We feel that many of the housekeeping amendments which it has made have been long overdue. Many have been recommended by the Auditor General for a number of years.
We commend the government for dealing with these important issues which are going to streamline many of the government operations. But it is wrong to assume that the entirety of this bill to amend the Financial
Administration Act deals simply with housekeeping amendments.
There are some provisions which give our party, the people on this side of the House, and many Canadians a great deal of concern.
The one that has caused the most concern is the one which deals with the concept of user fees. By these amendments the government is enlarging its power to impose fees or charges for services for any of the functions which it performs on behalf of Canadians.
You might ask, whether it is proper for Canadians who benefit to have to pay the cost. We do not do that in everything. We have a general revenue fund out of which we pay the costs of health, the costs of education; after all, it is not just students who pay the costs of education because we all benefit from having a highly educated populace.
The concept of user fees and charges can be taken to an extreme whereby one could destroy the basis of what this country is about, and destroy the basis for imposing taxes. If the concept is taken too far, only the people who benefit in any measure or used any type of facility would be the ones who would have to pay for it.
Let us be fair. There was not a groundswell of Canadians who came forward to speak to the committee about the problems created for their particular groups or industries because of this bill. But those who did come forward raised some very important concerns for us.
One of the major concerns was: How far is the government going to go in imposing user fees or charges? What are the real intentions of the government?
We asked this at committee and they said: "Well, we might have to charge a little more for passports to make sure that the costs of issuing passports are borne by the people who receive them. We may have to charge Xerox costs or reprinting costs."
We have no objection to small things like this, but they would not confirm for us that they were going to limit the powers granted to the Governor General in Council-not the subject of a debate in Parliament, but simply an Order in Council proposed by the government and written up behind closed doors.

We asked questions such as this: What is the government's hidden agenda? How far are they going to go? Will there be user fees for the Trans-Canada Highway? What about services at our airports? What about customs services for our importers and for our exporters? Should only they bear these costs?
What about the airport user fees themselves? Must they all be self-supporting and self-sustaining? It is taking the concept of privatization and pay-as-you-go to the maximum limit.
We have one particular industry which raised concerns with us, namely the shipping industry in Canada. Let us look at a bit of the background. A short while ago Transport Canada proposed that the shipping industry pay a higher cost for certain services rendered by the Government of Canada to it. However, it said that these costs were not going to be borne by pleasure craft owners or fishermen, but were going to be borne by our commercial shipping industry. These charges, according to the government, are going to be borne by the big shippers, those who ship grain, coal, iron ore and steel.
Who should pay for the costs of shipping services such as navigational services, search and rescue, ice-breaking, the Coast Guard fleet and navigational aids? Reasonable people are going to debate and have differences of opinion on who should bear the costs of maintaining a high standard of navigational safety and sophistication in Canada. We want the search and rescue operations of the Coast Guard, but who is going to pay for them? Should it be all boaters? Should part of it be out of the general revenue fund of Canada? These are issues which are critical to all of us as Canadians and must be the subject of debate and representations in the House of Commons.
For example, now the big shippers themselves pay for 100 per cent of Ports Canada. They pay for 100 per cent of the Seaway costs, the pilotage costs and most of the costs of the Grain Commission in Canada. But if we are going to extend the costs to these big shippers of these other services that Transport Canada is talking about, why will the government not come forward and say so?
What the government have said to us is that it does not know what it is going to do and it will not give us any
Government Orders
commitments as to how far it will go. Then it proposes some amendments to its own bill in response to these representations which have been made to it. I appreciate that the government is attempting to be forthcoming, but I really do not think the government heard or understood exactly what those representations involved.
First of all, what we as Liberals, and what the Milliken amendment attempted to do was to say that if additional fees are to be imposed on users as opposed to the general revenue fund or the budgets of departments, please make sure that it is borne by all of the persons who use that facility. In other words, do not just hit either the big persons or the small ones, or the foreigners who come into Canada, or the domestic people, or the people from central Canada; make sure that the users who benefit from those facilities are the ones who are paying for it. If you do not benefit why should you have to pay for it?
Should not the question of increased services to our shipping industry be the subject of open discussion with them? If they do not want those services why should they have to pay for them? Why should those services not be the subject of a political decision? Then the fees could come out of general revenue or departmental budgets.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands who has just come in here now, had proposed three amendments on our behalf. These amendments were designed to ensure that the persons who pay were the users who "benefited" from the services provided. Surely this is reasonable. Why would the government not have accommodated our party and the hon. member's proposal by allowing this simple amendment?
That is why, there is much good in this bill. We congratulate the new Treasury Board minister for his efforts in bringing forward this bill to update the law in the Financial Administration Act. But we do not want to give a blank cheque to the government, under the section 6 amendment dealing with user fees, to be able to impose the fees right across the board. It is arbitrary. It is against what we stand for in Parliament. It is unfair to those persons. It could hurt industries unfairly and that is why we have to oppose this bill, unless we can get the amendments which we seek.

February 25, 1991
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Before recognizing the next speaker, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for South West Nova-Fisheries; the hon. member for North Island-Powell River-Oka; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-Regional Development.
Resuming Debate.
[Translation\
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State (Finance) has the floor.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs) and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I think there was a promotion in there that was not intended.


Mr. McDermid:: Take it while you can.


Dave Worthy: I would like to address the motion made today by the hon. member opposite on Bill C-91. This is the aspect that has generated the most discussion, both in this Chamber as well as in committee. It is, of course, the amendment to section 19 in the act concerning user fees as proposed in clause 6 of this bill.
What section 19 of the Financial Administration Act is primarily concerned with is services that are provided to discrete and identifiable users or a group of users. The underlying principle is that, subject to program considerations, costs of services and rights and privileges should be paid by those individuals or groups of individuals.
I would be remiss if I did not underline the qualification in there: "subject to program considerations". The impact that fees will have on users, other affected parties and program objectives are very important considerations. In some cases there may be no user fees that should be imposed, or they could possibly be set to recover less than full cost, where imposing a fee or recovering full cost would jeopardize program objectives. On the other hand, not imposing appropriate user fees where circumstances warrant places an unfair burden on the general taxpayer.
An aspect of clause 6 that has been the subject of considerable discussion is the concept of setting fees by class of users. This change is intended to clarify that costs are to be averaged within classes when setting fees, where it is impractical to set individual fees every time a service is provided. While it may be decided for public policy or other program reasons that certain users should not bear the full cost of this service, it is not the intent that these costs will be recovered from other users.
However, concern has been raised that the current wording does not provide assurance that a class of users will not be charged more than the cost of service provided to that same class of user. In our view, taken as a whole, the current wording of clause 6 does provide this assurance. However, it may be useful to make it clearer.
The hon. member opposite proposes to do so through using the words, "to the user or classes of users who benefit thereby".
I do not want to take a lot of time, but I think we should indicate that this wording in itself has some problems. The phrase, "who benefit thereby" introduces a subjective test, whereas what is important is that a particular service or facility has been provided to a user or class of users.
For example, in the case of certain inspections falling under the Department of Agriculture, there is no question that a service has been provided, however one might argue who has been the ultimate person to benefit from that.
Accordingly, as an alternative to the wording suggested by the member opposite, I propose two amendments.
First, that motion No. 1 to amend clause 6 of Bill C-91 be amended by deleting all the words after the word "therefor" and substituting the following therefor:
"the service or the use of the facility to the users or class of users. ' '
Second, that motion No. 2 to amend clause 6 of Bill C-91 be amended by deleting all the words after the word "therefor" and substituting the following therefor:
"lation or order, but no such rules may provide for the consideration of any factors of adjustment that are not specified in the rules"
February 25, 1991

Government Orders
I think the House will see that this will in fact make the situation clearer for all.


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Both motions presented by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Finance are admissible.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Angus:: On a point of order, is it not a requirement at report stage that if notice has not been given of amendments that unanimous consent must be sought to allow these amendments to be put.


Mr. Baker:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wonder as well if you could consider the motion that is presently before the House which, as you explained it, is really a combination of three motions and one of them, if I understood you correctly, was to eliminate an entire section of a particular clause. I am wondering how one can amend an amendment that calls for a deletion.


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: As for the first point of order raised by the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, I am told that it is not necessary to give notice to move an amendment which is already before the House.
Regarding the second point of order raised by the member for Gander-Grand Falls, the Chair is taking note of it. I will render my decision as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the debate of the motions can resume.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of deja vu for me to rise on this bill today. It takes me back to another bill in this House at another time, back in 1985. It was called the Canada Shipping Act, Bill C-75 and it was clause 4 at that time. That clause attempted through the front door to do what clause 6 in Bill C-91 is attempting to do through the back door and that is the imposition of user fees, particularly on the marine industry of Canada.
The government's attempt with Bill C-75 failed back then. This attempt must fail as well. If it does not fail it will be yet another nail in the coffin of Canada's maritime industry. In fact, it will go the way VIA Rail and other industries did in Canada at the hands of this government.
One more cost burden is being put on the marine industry that will only accelerate the following: the scrapping of existing ships owned by Canadian companies and turning them over to the wrecking yards; reflagging of the remaining salty-lakers on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway; consolidation of steamship companies both on the Great Lakes and elsewhere. These actions in turn will see major job losses and major losses to the treasury of Canada and to the provinces and, obviously, increases to unemployment insurance and welfare.
I must say at the outset that the amendments put forward by the government do not deal with the real problem. While they are an attempt to make a bad bill slightly better, the problem still exists and that is the policy of this government and the implementation factor contained in this legislation that would allow them to proceed with the cost recovery measures.
As a nation that is based on exporting, we will at some point be without our own marine industry in which to transport our grain, coal, potash, as well as our other commodities.
In the short time available to me I want to quickly underline the procedural situation that we are in. We have the government that on the one hand is saying clause 6 of Bill C-91 does not in any way give it new powers as it applies to the marine industry. In fact, the Minister of Transport said in a letter on December 17, 1990, to the President of the Treasury Board:
It is my understanding that no new legislative authority is necessary to permit implementation of the department's proposals, should it be decided in due course to do so. In the opinion of the Department of Justice, the existing section 19 of the FAA (Financial Administration Act) provides a sufficient legal foundation.
The Financial Administration Act has been around since well before Bill C-75 was tabled in this House and debated. The question I ask and representatives of the marine industry ask is: if in 1985 amendments were needed to the Canada Shipping Act to allow for the Coast Guard's cost recovery measures to be implemented, why all of a sudden is no legislation required now?

Government Orders
Or if, on the other hand, the amendments in clause 6 are not aimed at the marine industry, who are they aimed at?
The marine industry has tracked this particular legislation from the time it came to realize that in fact it was a threat to it, that it would enable the government to do through legislative means what the industry believes, and certainly reports from the joint committee on scrutiny of regulations indicate, that the government under the old clause 19 does not have the power to implement a user fee or cost recovery mandate on the marine industry. In particular, the documentation provided by the Maritime Chamber of Commerce suggests that unless the fee is applied to a specific user, whether it is an individual or a corporation, at the request of that user or corporation, then legally the government cannot use the Financial Administration Act to levy cost recovery measures on the marine industry.
Throughout the debate at report stage and third reading, whenever we get to that, my colleagues and I will be outlining the impact of this legislation and the cost-recovery policy of this government, that is slowly working its way through the bureaucracy to the minister's desk, to indicate why it cannot go forward.
We have seen a major shift in transport where the marine industry has been declining because a variety of factors have pushed it into a weak position. For example, tonnages on the St. Lawrence Seaway have declined from 74 million tonnes in 1979 to 48 million tonnes in 1989, a drop of 35 per cent. Cargo volumes carried by the CSA fleet have dropped by 18 per cent from 94 million tonnes to 77 million tonnes during the same period.
The largest decreases have been in grain and iron ore where structural changes in the respective industries have been beyond the control of the marine industry. Government policy and shifting world markets are largely responsible for the drop in water-borne grain tonnage. The long decline in North American competitiveness in steel production has caused a major drop in the demand for iron ore.
Aside from a decline in markets, it should be noted that the inland marine mode itself faces heavy competitive pressures. Competition is being experienced from other modes, primarily rail, and other routings, Mississippi River, U.S. east coast, and Canadian west coast ports for grain only.
The result of forces at work on the marine mode is evident in the number of marine carriers which have had to sell, cease or consolidate operations in this increasingly uneconomic industry. The names of more than a dozen marine carriers have disappeared in recent times. In addition, existing marine carriers are consolidating bulk carrier operations as evidence of continuing pressure to reduce costs and provide for more efficient services.
In the past decade alone the number of actively trading ships in the CSA fleet has steadily declined from 176 in 1979 to 119 in 1989. According to the Canadian Lake Carriers' Association, the number of actively employed unionized seamen under their aegis has dropped from 3,592 in 1979 to 2,245 in 1990, a 38 per cent decrease.
This policy through this legislation will hit every region in this country. It will hit British Columbia in a very negative way. It will hit Ontario in a negative way. It will hit Quebec especially hard. It will also hit Atlantic Canada.
In doing so it will hit all of this country because without the ships to move grain, potash or coal from the prairies through the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway then the prairies will decline.
If we do not have ships moving then less steel is needed to build those ships. In fact, we have no ships being built; we have not had ships built for a number of years because of the policies of this government.
In spite of the last-minute tinkering by the government this particular aspect of the legislation is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to all of us who represent marine communities, who represent ports, who recognize the value of the marine industry in Canada. It cannot afford one more cent being added to its cost of operation.
What this government should be doing, instead of its cost-recovery measures, instead of this particular clause, is what the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has been doing, developing lower incentive tolls to bring more products through the system so that more people can work, more people can benefit, and the country as a whole can benefit.

I urge the government to agree to entirely drop this particular clause, clause 6, amending section 19, so that the rest of the bill can go forward and this particular clause can be sent back to where it belongs and never seen again.


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Before recognizing the next speaker I am in a position to say that, after taking under advisement the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls about the motion introduced by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chil-cotin and after due consideration, the Chair still believes that the two amendment motions presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State (Finance) are in order. Resuming debate. The hon. member for York West.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak at report stage of Bill C-91, which essentially encourages, through clause 6, the essence of cost recovery and generation of greater amounts of revenue for the federal government. Despite the amendments proposed by the parliamentary secretary, my party and this caucus have a great deal of concern with clause 6. We believe that clause 6 should be stricken from Bill C-91.
Clause 6 essentially says, on page 1990 of the bill, that the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, (a) by regulation prescribe the fees or charges to be paid for a service or the use of a facility; and (b) authorize the appropriate minister to prescribe by order those fees or charges.
There have been a number of members who have alluded to the complications and the ramifications that this bill, particularly clause 6, would have on the shipping industry. The dramatic effects were in fact first discovered by representatives of the Great Lakes shipping industry.
In essence, it could mean an additional $25 million at the bare minimum in terms of additional charges being placed on a shipping and marine industry that, as has
Government Orders
been mentioned, is hurting. It is hurting in all regions of the country, particularly in the province of Quebec. Rather than trying to create a greater sense of confidence, rather than trying to create incentives, rather than trying to create policies that are going to be a shot in the arm to this particular industry, passing on greater cost recovery services to that industry is a way of aggravating an already bad situation.
Representatives from that industry are looking to this Parliament, are looking to this government, for reassuring signals that the government understands the plight of that industry, understands the importance of not trying to make it more uncompetitive, because they are already facing a very difficult competitive situation .The shipping industry is down anywhere from 8 to 12 per cent in various parts of the region, and therefore it can least afford at this time any additional costs on doing business.
It is not the first time that we rise in our places to try to come to grips with this problem. As the transport critic, on November 5, I raised this very issue when we were discussing the Port Wardens Act as it affects the ports of Montreal and Quebec City. We talked about the possibility that this is another way of trying to raise $25 million from the users, who traditionally have used the facilities provided by the federal Government of Canada.
We also raised on November 20, 1990, the possible ramifications of extended user fees to our various airline companies, particularly the smaller regional services in regions such as Atlantic Canada that will be hit the hardest. The scheme is not only unfair but it is unproportional, so that the smaller airlines based in Atlantic Canada, for instance, will in fact be paying greater amounts of cost recovery fees than the larger airline services in central Canada. As well, airports in northern Ontario will be paying more, proportionately speaking, than airports in Toronto, such as Pearson International, and other regional airports.
On November 2, I asked the very questions that we raise today, of the Minister of Transport, giving him and his administration yet another chance to try to come to grips with the problem.
Despite the many representations that have been made by colleagues on my side and by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party we have, as our first order of business, a piece of legislation that shows no sensitivity to the many representations made in this Chamber.

February 25, 1991
Government Orders
In addition, obviously the various interest groups have brought to bear their frustrations. Norman Hall, president of the Canadian Ship Owners' Association, in briefs and in submissions to the government, has made its position crystal clear on the ramifications that clause 6 would have on its industry. Mr. Peter Smith from the Chamber of the Maritime Commerce, in a lengthy and well outlined expose of the shipping industry, has also come to the same conclusion. Yet, as I mentioned moments ago, we are still trying to make the government understand the ailments of the shipping industry as one industry that would be impacted by the larger amount of user fees.
When we talk about user fees, we are talking about the greater movement, once again, to privatize. When we look at the transportation network in this country we have the privatization of Air Canada, we have the gutting of VIA Rail, we have the whole movement of deregulation that was supposed to be a Messiah for the country and for the travelling public and it has been the exact opposite. We have the privatization of Terminal 3 where the builder did his job. The builder designed a class operation in Terminal 3, but the jury is still out on what kind of job the government did because it is clouded in secrecy. Canadians do not know what deal was struck between the developer and the government.
So you cannot look at C-91 in isolation. Put together with the other aspects that have been part of the government's agenda it demonstrates a greater move to privatize, a greater move to deregulate and a greater move for the federal government, through Transport Canada, to divest itself, in one way or another, from its responsibilities and the infrastructure that has been created for many a year.
Our party will not stand idly by and watch the disintegration and removal of the federal government from this national infrastructure. While the world is changing before us, while the federal government needs to be flexible considering the political situation with regard to the Constitution; we also have to keep in mind the importance that transportation plays not only in terms of jobs, economic wealth and spin-offs, but also in what it means to the continuation of this country. It is a large country. We know that when we travel from our ridings. Some of us know it better, certainly than members from
Toronto, when we have to travel six and seven hours by plane. It is like going to Europe.
One of the forces, one of the networks, that has permitted this country to continue so successfully has been its transport infrastructure. I think, by the moves to VIA, by the moves to privatize Air Canada, by the moves to increase privatization, greater emphasis on user fees and greater pressure on the private firms which are having a tough time as it is, we are beginning to see the foundation begin to crumble.
I do not think we can see this bill in isolation because if we do we will-pardon the pun-miss the train, but it is in concert with the other moves of this government that we can see the big picture. The big picture is very troubling.
Therefore, I request our parliamentary secretary, who is the lead spokesperson for this bill on the government side, to rethink and to relook at clause 6. Our position would be to advocate a lifting of clause 6.
We had the minister, back in December, suggest to us that he was going to come back in February and give us his undertaking on what he is going to do with the whole question of user fees. We have yet to hear from the Minister of Transport. He has ushered no final position on the question of user fees. Therefore, let us not use the back door, as was mentioned already, to deal with an instance that should be dealt with clearly from a full, open perspective.
Therefore we are suggesting that this is an inappropriate way of dealing with a monumentally important issue.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing Bill C-91 and in particular the impact of clause 6 on our maritime industry and thus on our resource industries, I would just like to begin by saying that not only does this impose user fees on the transport marine industries, but it is also just another tax increase in addition to the 33 that have already been imposed by this government since its commencement.
One of the problems with the proposal before us is that it is open-ended. It is going to increase the costs of our maritime transport industry and thus our export cost for resources, just at a time when many of our exports

are in serious trouble as a result of many other aspects of this government's economic policies.
We have high energy costs, the costs of the high Canadian dollar, the memorandum of understanding on softwood lumber, and the grave difficulties that many of our coal shipments are having in the province of British Columbia. This latest thrust by the government, which is open-ended, will place us in an increasingly uncompetitive position with regard to these major resource exports.
Kootenay West-Revelstoke is an interior riding, a long way from the maritime industries some would say, but one thing has an effect on another. Within both the West Kootenay and the East Kootenay many of our mineral exports-from Cominco, for instance, lead and zinc, the largest smelter operation of its kind in the world, which is already undergoing a great many serious difficulties with regard to the effectiveness of its modernization program in which this government is a shareholder-are experiencing difficulties caused by this government's and the previous Liberal government's policies.
When it comes to the problems that the coal industry in the East Kootenay is having and the major difficulties that our softwood lumber industry is having all over Canada, but particularly in British Columbia where it is such a major part of our entire economy, more and more of our shipments of both exports and imports of these resource commodities are now being shipped through U.S. rather than Canadian ports due to both government inaction and bad government action.
We are afraid that the current proposal before us within this bill, and particularly with regard to clause 6, is going to complicate matters further at the worst possible time for those industries, the workers within them and the communities that rely upon them.
It is little more than a back door attempt to accomplish what clause 4 of Bill C-75 failed to do in 1985. Clearly it gives the government the legal ability to impose user fees on the marine industry and on our resource industries. If this attempt by the government does not fail, it will be yet another nail in the coffin of Canada's maritime industry and one more cost burden that will accelerate both the scrapping of existing ships and the consolidation of shipping companies which in turn will have very
Government Orders
deleterious effects. These actions in turn will result in major job losses, major tax losses and increased costs to both UIC and welfare as employees within these basic resource industries are impacted severely.
As our earlier speaker, the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, mentioned, I want to deal with the impact on certain specific commodity and industry groups. There is some ground for believing that the first-year target of $25 million envisaged by the government might well be conservative on the basis of the charges proposed. Information provided by shippers, port and industrial interests suggest that a limited number of companies and commodities, not more than about 20 in all, could pay upwards of $22 million to the cost recovery program.
More important than this total, however, are the potential sectorial shifts resulting from the additional transportation costs for market sensitive commodities in situations where the commodity, the carrier, or the port, is head to head with its competition. This is particularly true where the final delivered price is separated by a matter of cents from competitors who either do not pay the charge or enjoy a mileage advantage under the scheme.
While it is beyond our ability to analyse every movement, the Canadian Shipowners Association has identified certain commodities and situations which Transport Canada may have overlooked.
Marine traffic volumes of these selected commodities are, in the case of coal, some 30.8 million metric tons of exports to be effected and some 17.7 million metric tons of imports; in forest products, 18.6 million metric tons of exports and imports, simply .5 million metric tons.
In the sector of mining and metals, preliminary estimates suggest that as much as one-third of the total year one target of 25 million would be recovered as a result of movements of mineral and metal products. Shippers are particularly concerned about market share effects since transportation is a substantial component of the delivered cost of many raw materials. Thus, what may appear to be minor increases in the delivered costs of a number of commodities can cause sudden shifts in the delicate balance governing the ability to penetrate competitive hinterlands, resulting in lost sales and markets particularly to foreign competition free of this burden.

February 25, 1991
Government Orders
In the area of coal, most exports of coal are from west coast ports while imports and domestic movements are in the east. Imports include large quantities of U.S. coal used for electricity generation and steel production in southern and northern Ontario shipped from U.S. Lake Erie ports such as Toledo, Cleveland and Sandusky. Some western Canadian coal is shipped from Thunder Bay.
Very important from a cost sensitive point of view, however, is the movement of U.S. Appalachian coal currently moved from Cleveland by Canadian lakers for transhipment to very large bulk carriers at Sept lies proceeding to offshore markets. This move is particularly sensitive to transportation costs, since it is in direct competition with the port of Norfolk, Virginia, and will be jeopardized by the double imposition of the user charges.
Western Canadian producers of export coal are also highly concerned with the CCG cost recovery charges which they believe they will have to absorb. The large majority of these coal exports are metallurgical coals, the demand for which is flat or declining. The world market is highly competitive, and coal prices have dropped significantly.
Export coal producers located in British Columbia lost over $4.4 million in 1990. Export producers believe that their competitive position is already penalized by high Canadian rail diesel fuel taxes, high interest rates and an over-valued Canadian dollar, and that the new marine user charges will further impair their financial viability. This stresses what I was saying before, that this kind of action, open-ended as it is, comes at the worst possible time for the Canadian resource industry, particularly in western Canada.
Finally, in the matter of forest products, 39.8 million tonnes of forest products were transported by the marine mode in 1988. It has been estimated by the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association that the proposed cost recovery policy will cost the forest products industry approximately $4 million in additional marine shipping costs. Export shipments will absorb the majority of these additional costs.
In conclusion, additional transportation costs and declining traffic volumes could further disrupt transportation patterns and tonnages by upsetting the delicate competitive balance of key Canadian export commodities in U.S. and offshore markets.
The concerns of all these various interests must be rigorously addressed before any further steps are taken to implement the user charge scheme as currently proposed. That is why we take this position. We ask the government to rethink what it is doing before it drives one more nail in the coffin of Canada's resource export industries.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, this bill presently before the House should be called the collection agency's bill. The reason for that is because, of course, the clauses all complement one another-clauses 4, 5, 6, 7. What it does is bring a new element into fees and moneys owed to the federal government and that is the collection agency, those people who hound usually poor people for moneys owed to this or that person, this bank or this or that agency.
Under this legislation two entire sections deal with collection agencies. It even defines what a collection agency is, in case one cannot pay the fee imposed or one owes money to a federal government department. They define them as follows: a collection agency means a person other than an employee of a department-and department is defined in the Financial Administration Act as really being a department of the government- who (a) carries on the business of collecting debts for other persons and is registered or licensed as a member of the legal profession or as a collector of debts in the province in which the person carries on the business of collecting debts.
There are two things wrong with the legislation, and these are serious things. These are outrageous things to put in an act of Parliament. One is, of course, that you are going to charge all of these new fees and, second, you put into place a system of employing collection agencies to do all the collecting for you.
I suppose the signal to be taken from this is that the Government of Canada is saying the business to get into these days is the collection agency business. If you are not a receiver, then the collection agency business is the place to be according to this legislation.
There is something wrong with that. Suppose it is not your fault that you owe the money. Sometimes it is our fault that Canadians owe money; it is not their fault they owe money. This Parliament passed a law in 1988 called the advance child tax credit act or some sort of legislation. Right now in Canada there are debts owed to the Government of Canada by widows whose husbands perhaps died in November or December, or debts that

are owed to the Government of Canada because of a fire that took place in December and burned down a home and the children had to be put into a foster home for the month of January.
We passed a law that said that advance child tax credit payments would be paid out to mothers in the month of November in the amount of $518, I think it is, initially, and if you have no child care expenses you get an additional $38 or something like that, but you do not qualify for it unless every single child claimed was in your care in the past January.
Now we have the situation across Canada of single parents and widows owing money to the Government of Canada under this legislation. This authorizes collection agencies to collect that money, so there is a danger that sometimes it is not your fault that you owe the money.
The second thing that is unfair about these fees is that where they are in place in the fishing and shipping industries, for example, the fees favour foreign nations. I will give you one example, because I have a total of only 10 minutes as I understand it.
I was looking at some figures on the weekend of the Japanese take for blue fin tuna and sharks in Canadian waters. They do not have a quota, but they actually took 170 tonnes of blue fin tuna and 53 tonnes of shark without a licence and without a quota.
The way it is done legally is this. Of course, they caught it as a by-catch, more than Newfoundlanders or Nova Scotians are allowed to catch. They caught it as a by-catch. It was perfectly legal. They only caught their by-catch, and then they got out. They did not catch the other species they were fishing for.
They do not pay a fee for their licences. No foreign nation in the world pays a fee for their licences when they go to pick them up in the office in St. John's, Newfoundland or Halifax, Nova Scotia. A Canadian cannot get a licence unless he pays a fee.
What happens to all these fees? Over the years, they send bills to these countries. We see examples today of France negotiating half the fee that it owes for fishing off the east coast of Canada.
Government Orders
It is not fair to have Canadians bearing the brunt of these new fees and a different system, a discriminatory system, against our Canadian fishermen in place that lets all those foreign nations off the hook for all those fees that are supposed to be paid. Because they are all foreign nations, it is really done through the Department of External Affairs and billed over a period of years.
Mr. Speaker, you might say with the Japanese fishing fleets that they are the sharks and we have become the bait in the fishing industry.
There are many other things wrong with the legislation. I do not have time to go into it. I wish I did because if I did perhaps government members would vote against this bill.


Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate this afternoon. The debate is rather interesting but somewhat old theme in this House since the arrival of the Conservative government in 1984.
What we are looking at today is yet another form of taxation on the people of Canada and the kinds of taxations that have occurred on the people of Canada. The public is absolutely outraged at this government. It is completely outraged.
It was expressed in an interesting way just early in the year when somebody pointed out that the present government is enjoying the confidence of about 12 per cent of Canadians. They suggested that to put that into perspective it was necessary to understand that 15 per cent still thought Elvis Presley was alive and that they had seen him in public more often than they had seen the Prime Minister.
Ultimately, the erosion of the confidence in this government is incredible. It is largely because of things like privatization, deregulation and cost recovery, the destruction of Canada's national infrastructure.
It is ironic that this government would have time after time taxed Canadians so heavily with not just income tax, but with charges such as these at every turnaround, driving up the cost of doing business in this country.
So often the cost of recovery comes out of the pockets least able to pay such as the goods and services tax, an enormously regressive tax. It is absolutely abhorrent to the vast majority of Canadians just as this proposal that affects the shipping industry will be today. The government forges ahead. The Prime Minister, at 12 per cent in

Government Orders
the polls, facing enormous opposition from every citizen in this country from coast to coast, except that stalwart 12 per cent, said: "Never mind, I know what is best for Canadians and I am going to do it no matter what they think about it".
In reality what has happened is that the Prime Minister neither knows what is best for Canadians nor enjoys any of the confidence in this country.
One of the things that is so catastrophic for Canadians is that this Prime Minister, in whom Canadians have no confidence whatsoever, is the person who is going to restructure Canada, who proposes new constitutional forums that are going to, by the look of it, decentralize this country, devolve Canadian federal government powers to the provinces and essentially Balkanize this nation. You have to ask why. Why the cost recovery, why the privatization, why the deregulation, why the devolving of powers to all the provinces and removing the strength of the federal government, the integrity of this nation?
One school of thought says that the trade agreement was not in fact a trade agreement, it was a proposal for economic union with the United States. The way that you would bring about an economic union with the United States is to not only negotiate the fundamental agreement, but also destroy the national infrastructure that holds this country together on an east-west basis. You would destroy the rail system, VIA Rail. You would sell off the national energy corporation that gives Canada a national energy policy from one end of this country to the other. You would sell that off, turn it back to one of the seven sisters or the equivalent.
You would in the process put in an open skies policy in which you allow American carriers to run the route from Vancouver to Toronto, and run it at a lower rate than Air Canada and Canadian could do it. You could destroy the national air transportation structure, completely destroy it, turn it over to American carriers, U.S. Air or American Airlines. That would destroy the east-west structure. The removal of the railroads, VIA Rail, would destroy the east-west structure that holds this country together.
You would then get rid of the communications system. You would begin by loading into the legislation something that destroyed the CBC, the national communications system that holds us together on an east-west basis.
Gradually, one step at a time, from 1984 through 1985, through 1986, through 1987, you would begin to undo this country, the infrastructure that holds the east-west nature of this country together against that enormous pressure from the south.
You would also put in things like foreign investment. You would remove any controls over foreign investment so that American firms could come into Canada and literally buy up Canadian firms. The Americans would not only be working with a destroyed infrastructure in this country, a destroyed national infrastructure, but they would also be dealing with a country whose economy was largely owned and controlled by foreign owners from the United States.
I have the greatest fear that one day the Prime Minister, in the not too distant future, still at 12 per cent in the polls, still behind those that believe Elvis Presley is alive, would come up and say: "Well, it is time to leave. I have achieved everything I set out to do".
It is interesting that the chairman of the finance committee, in a candid statement one day, said: "You give us two terms in here and nobody will ever put it together again". What an ominous statement for Canadians.
It would be interesting to know that down the road when this Prime Minister is not able to gamer any more than 12 per cent or 15 per cent in the polls and must leave, the Conservatives will put another leader in place. With the pig-headed determination to pursue such wrong-headed policies, policies that are completely opposed by Canadians, the only answer that he could give Canadians as he leaves office to be replaced by someone else that the Conservatives will use to try and get another victory would be that "I have achieved everything that I had set out to do". This is the systematic destruction of Canada: privatization, deregulation, cost recovery. Just a couple of quick, beautiful examples. Deregulation is an opportunity to let as many carriers get into an area and service an area as they possibly can and do it as cheaply as they possibly can. The Nanaimo-Vancouver run for aircraft is a beautiful example. They moved from two to five carriers. Had the
February 25, 1991

carriers pooled their money, built a bridge and put a toll on it, they would have made more money. It would have been cheaper for them in the long run.
When the five of them were involved the fare from Vancouver to Nanaimo was $17. The lowest fare that you could travel that distance was $17. Of course they went broke. Of course they had serious accidents, fatal accidents. Finally the two main carriers took over and now it is $96.50 to travel from Vancouver to Nanaimo, a completely outrageous monopolistic price.
I notice my time is running short. Let me give an example of cost recovery. The northern end of Vancouver Island, an area with a precarious economy, is working hard to build that economy and give a decent living to its inhabitants. National Revenue decided it was going to remove the customs office. What happens now is that in order to clear customs, to move in and out of that economy in the northern end of Vancouver Island, you must go somewhere else. If you go somewhere else and it is more expensive because of what the government has done in cost recovery, you might as well stay somewhere else. Gradually the economy on northern Vancouver Island begins to implode, to shrink and the homes and lives of people there are negatively affected.
They blame directly this government's wrong-headed cost recovery procedures, the same wrong-headed procedures that are in this bill before us today.
Hopefully it will withdraw the open skies policy. Hopefully it will withdraw this provision of the bill and begin to take some responsibility to provide a national infrastructure as a national responsibility so that local and regional economies can grow with that kind of sheltering and assistance.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the House the effect of this legislation on communities in northern Canada, such as my own in Labrador. I am wondering if the House and the government have an appreciation of exactly what this will mean for northern communities. I am talking about resource based communities where there are no alternatives to the extraction of iron ore or to the catching of fish. I am talking about single industry towns which have
Government Orders
no alternative in terms of job creation for those people who live and who have lived there for 20 or 30 years.
When I talk about my own riding I could just as easily be talking about communities in northern Quebec, northern Ontario, northern British Columbia, the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. Those small isolated northern communities are resource based, have no alternatives and depend wholly and solely on those resource industries. They are also isolated for a great part of the year and depend on either sea transportation in the summertime to get goods in and to move goods out or depend on air transportation in the wintertime to do the same things for passengers and freight and commodities. Those are the communities that are going to be negatively affected by this legislation.
It is worth while noting that those communities, isolated, vulnerable, resource based with no alternatives already have imposed upon them airport user fees, whereby people travelling by air-there are no roads and there are no ships in the wintertime-must travel by aircraft, already have to pay on top of their high cost of transportation an airport fee. They will now have to pay GST on the cost of goods and services moved into those communities.
These communities already have the highest cost in Canada in terms of fuel. A litre of gasoline in my riding, for example, at this moment is close to $1. Does anybody else in Canada pay $1 a litre for gasoline? That is the kind of costs I am talking about. That is the kind of costs that companies and individuals have to pay that live in the north. Yet this government is now thinking about imposing a further cost.
We are not talking about handouts here. What we are talking about is the imposition of a further obstacle to survival on companies and individuals who live in northern Canada.
I am talking about the imposition of additional user fees on small airlines, for example. I am talking about the imposition of possible user fees on ice-breakers, where a long liner is caught in the ice in the springtime and an ice-breaker has to be sent in to set that boat free. That fisherman in that boat, who is already suffering

February 25, 1991
Government Orders
from a decline in the fish stocks off the Atlantic coast, could now be charged an additional user fee for freeing his boat from the ice.
What about search and rescue? Are we going to be charged now for search and rescue? If your life is on the line, if you are lost in a storm at sea, or if you are caught in the ice in the spring, would you have to pay a user fee now so that your life can be saved and your boat preserved?
This is the kind of cost that is going to drive companies and individuals in the north out of existence altogether.
I want to talk in particular about the iron ore industry. When I talk about the Iron Ore Company of Canada and Wabush Mines, I could just as easily be talking about mining companies in northern Quebec, northern Ontario, the Yukon, or the Northwest Territories, because all of those are going to have to depend on transportation to ship their product to market.
The Prime Minister will understand that because at one time he was president of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, president at a time when it was going through a great deal of difficulty. That company has gone through that troubled time. It has cut its costs, it has had some lay-offs, and it is now competitive in the marketplace. But it is not making a great deal of money; it is barely surviving.
If there is going to be an added imposition, an added financial burden on that company, it is going to drive that company that the Prime Minister formerly headed completely out of existence, as it will with other mining companies.
I want to read into the record what Mr. Muloin, the general manager of Wabush Mines, has to say about the legislation in question. This could very easily be any other mining community in the north. He says:
As you are aware, Transport Canada has resurrected the concept of user fees for the Marine Industry. This proposal will have a serious impact on the members of your riding.
Under the proposed legislation, international (including USA) customers will be charged $0.12 per ton for the iron ore shipped from the Canadian iron ore mines while Canadian customers will be charged $0.06 per ton.
This fee, if adopted, will increase the cost of Canadian iron ore products from the Quebec/Labrador area by over $4 million per year.
Iron ore is an internationally traded commodity that is currently in oversupply. It is therefore critical for producers such as Wabush Mines to remain cost competitive if we are to continue to sell our product and to remain in business.
This initiative by Transport Canada poses a serious threat to our ability to remain competitive and, as such, threatens the employment and living standards of the families that work in the Quebec/Labrador iron ore industry.
I urge you to convey our objections to this proposal to your colleague, the Honourable Doug Lewis, the Minister of Transport.
I have done that today, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and to the Government of Canada.
I want to read into the record as well a letter from Mr. Bill Kelly, who is the Mayor of Wabush. And I am sure he is supported by the Mayor of Labrador City, and I suspect that he is supported by the Mayor of Fairmont and those communities over the Quebec border that also have iron ore mines as well.
Here is what he says:
We have been informed that Transport Canada is in the process of restructuring the concept of user fees for the Marine Industry.-
Wabush Mines has been able to survive and remain competitive in the iron ore business because they are very cost conscious and efficient. The slightest increase in cost per ton could mean the difference between a successful operation and one which is closed.
Wabush is a single industry town. Our existence depends on Wabush Mines being able to sell its product at competitive prices. To remain competitive and to reduce costs, Wabush Mines has reduced its workforce- We are very concerned that substantial increase in the cost per ton will result in more lay-offs or even a shutdown.
The Quebec/Labrador area produces 90 percent of the iron ore in Canada. This fee, if adopted, will increase the cost of iron ore produced in our area by over $4,000,000.00.
We are not talking about hand-outs here. What the government is doing is imposing a financial burden on those companies which will make it impossible for them to survive, to make sure that they do not maintain or create jobs, but in fact lay off people and close those industries in northern Canada.
We are not talking about financial support or handouts. We are talking about a fair chance to survive. This government, which supports the private sector and says quite rightly that the private sector is the only way to create long-term jobs, has to get its house and head in
February 25, 1991

order, and stop imposing fees on isolated, vulnerable, northern communities that are going to be driven out of existence if this government has its way.
That is why clause 6 of this legislation must be defeated.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today and say a few brief words about the bill that is before us, Bill C-91.
I would like to preface my remarks by saying that in British Columbia where I come from, particularly the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, the economy is based on agriculture as well as on forestry and to some extent on mining.
All of these things depend on the ability of the producers of these commodities to be able to ship their goods to the markets. Of course, being from British Columbia, the markets that we are looking at aside from the United States are the Pacific Rim markets.
Over the last number of years, we have seen major problems in the forest industry in particular, not only in British Columbia but throughout Canada.
In British Columbia of course, we have the free trade agreement, the Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and the United States that levied 15 per cent tariff on top of the price of the wood products that were being shipped into United States.
We have the artificially high Canadian dollar and artificially high interest rates. When the free trade debate was raging in 1987 and in 1988, the forest industry thought that perhaps as a result of this particular agreement they could have some benefit. It was contingent upon the dollar remaining low and interest rates remaining reasonable.
As history has shown us over the last couple of years, that has not happened. Interest rates have skyrocketed. The MOU came in. The forest industry has run into major problems, and this particular bill with the user pay feature in it for forest products is one more nail in the coffin.
In my province, this industry right now is in the throes of the recession and is having a hard time. As the recession goes world-wide, so goes the forest industry. If
Government Orders
they cannot sell their products to the housing industry, then they have a lot of problems.
More and more the problem we are seeing is government hitting this particular industry while it is down. The forest industry is more than a housing industry. It includes, of course, the major part of pulp and paper. The policies of this government have not helped in that particular instance. In fact, it has hurt one of our major producers in the province of British Columbia. By introducing cost recovery, we find more and more that this is what is happening to our industry and part of the reason why we are seeing major lay-offs in the province of British Columbia.
These lay-offs are having a major effect on access to unemployment insurance. Instead of taking two to three weeks to get their unemployment insurance benefits now these people are looking at six, eight, and sometimes 12 weeks in order to get those benefits. That, I believe, is a direct consequence of what this government's policies are, one more thing that is stuck in the way of increasing the ability of the forest industry as well as mining, whether it be in metallurgical mining, coal mining, or whatever, it is an extra cost that is being added. It is hitting regionally at areas like British Columbia, northern Ontario, and the maritimes.
These industries have to be assisted with those shipping costs to ensure that they are able to continue to produce and ship to export markets, to markets overseas, to ensure that we have increased industry, employment within our areas and the ability to add to the marketplace.
What I see in this also is some of the tendency of this government toward a major privatization. The user-fee aspect in itself perhaps is not that bad. But when you take it and add it to all of the other things of privatization, whether it be privatization of Petro-Canada, Air Canada, or whether the thrust will be toward the privatization of our rural post offices and the post office sector as a whole, it is a whole malaise that is going across the country through the actions of this government. This is simply one other plank, if you will, in the deck of privatization; it is privatization simply for the sake of privatization itself instead of a move toward something that will assist or help the people of Canada and the people of my riding.

February 25, 1991
Government Orders
One of the former speakers in this debate talked about the difficulty and the overflow in this area upon the air industry. I am sure that you know, the problems that the transportation industry has, especially with the addition of the goods and services tax, the actual triple taxation that the transport area is running into. They pay their taxation either at airports or at the marine facilities. They pay their taxation on their fuels. Now with the user fee they will be paying a fourth tax, aside from the goods and service tax added to the problem that they have got.
It seems that we are more and more getting to the area where we are pushing down those that in fact need some assistance. In Canada, with the long distances and transportation costs many of our industries need that assistance. Throughout the history of Canada we have always ensured that assistance was taken into consideration for the the development of mining coal, forestry, or whatever in a particular region.
We are seeing the abandonment of that principle in Canada. We are seeing the abandonment of the idea of Canada as a single united entity.
All of these things pick away at that particular part of the Canadian unity. When this government starts to realize and recognize the importance of all of this to the whole network, instead of compartmentalizing and beating down all of these individual sections, it may then have an idea of what we can do to unite this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on the amendment of Mr. Worthy. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the amendment carried on division.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt motion No. 1, as amended?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion, as amended, carried on division.
The next question is on the amendment of Mr. Worthy to Motion No. 2.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the amendment carried on division.
Amendment of Mr. Worthy agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on Motion No. 2, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, as amended?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion, as amended, carried on division.
Motion No. 2, as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Motion no 3 cannot be voted on until Motions 1 and 2 have been passed.


Hon. Tom Hockin (for the President of the Treasury Board) moved: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion agreed to on division.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if we have consent to proceed with third reading of Bill C-91 at this particular time?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the members of my party would give unanimous consent to proceed with third reading of Bill C-91.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, as long as clause 6 is in the bill, we will not give consent to proceed to third reading of this bill.
February 25, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: When shall Bill C-93 be read the third time?


Some hon. members:: At the next sitting of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: At the next sitting of the House.


BRETTON WOODS AND RELATED AGREEMENTS
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-93, an act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: There is one report stage motion set down on the Notice Paper, an amendment to Bill C-93, an act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act in the name of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor.

The motion is admissible. The debate is now on motion No. 1.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-93 be amended by adding immediately after line 16 at page 5 the following clause:
"6. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:
(14) The Minister of Finance shall cause to be laid before Parliament the communiques issued by the Interim Committee of the International Monetary Fund and the Development Committee of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund."


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, there has been some confusion with respect to precisely what could be tabled before the House and precisely when it could be tabled before the House. I
Government Orders
wonder, therefore, if I could have unanimous consent to change a brief section of this amendment which says at the moment:
The Minister of Finance shall cause to be laid before Parliament every six months reports of the meetings of the Interim Committee-
If we could replace that with:
The Minister of Finance shall cause to be laid before Parliament the communiques issued by-
That to replace the every six months reports of the meetings held.
I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to that small change.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: On a point of order.


Mr. Manley:: I do not have any great problem with the substance of what is being proposed by way of amendment.
I would like to know from the Chair whether the intention is to accept this as a precedent that a bill may be amended to amend a section of the act that is not being amended in the bill which is what is being accomplished with this amendment.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, my friend makes a valuable point and I think it is important that we understand that from time to time the House does do a variety of things by consent and that is not in any way to establish a precedent. I appreciate the point he has made is a valid one and we would certainly support his concerns, but in this this particular case we are moving by consent and, therefore, do not expect it to be in any way a precedent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The Chair takes under advisement the comments from the hon. members. The motion has already been deemed admissible, but it is not inappropriate to take another look at it. Meanwhile, the debate may resume.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, what we have been concerned about with respect to this bill is that the bill itself is an effort to increase the capacity of the International Monetary Fund to apply sanctions against less developed countries that run into problems with the IMF.

February 25, 1991
Government Orders
It is an interesting point which we can take up in the third reading debate whether it makes sense to move in this direction or not. But if we are to move in this direction of increased sanctions which the IMF is able to make use of vis-a-vis less developed countries, it seems to us in this party very important that there should be regular reports to the House of Commons from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. This would make it possible for the House to be aware of how these powers, in which we would acquiesce through this bill, are being used.
This amendment would include, within the proposed legislation itself, a commitment that whenever there was a meeting of the Interim Committee of the International Monetary Fund or the Development Committee of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the communiques emerging from those particular meetings would be laid before Parliament. That would make it possible for members of Parliament to be fully apprised of the way in which these new powers, which we are granting to the IMF, are being used.
I would just like to briefly explain the changes, for which I have asked for unanimous consent, which I have been given, from the House to put forward. It is not clear that within the usual scheduling of the IMF and the World Bank every six months is a figure which will be operative, that it may be five months on one occasion or seven months on another occasion until a meeting takes place of the Interim Committee and the Development Committee. That is the reason for taking out the every six months. The replacement of reports by communiques is simply to make it clearer that the documents which should be laid before the Parliament of Canada are the documents which emerge from the Interim Committee and from the Development Committee of the World Bank and the IMF.
As I say, I think it is important to establish the principle that these regular reporting procedures be established clearly in legislation. It then becomes the responsibility of the government to see to it that those reporting responsibilities are in fact met, and it becomes possible for members of Parliament to respond to those communiques when they reach the House of Commons.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, although I remain confused about whether we are establishing a precedent here or whether it is still under reserve, I did have a couple of comments to make on the substance of the amendment itself. These relate in part to the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: One moment, please.

Before you speak to the merits of the motion, I would just like, considering your earlier comments, to make it very clear that the amendment moved by the member for Essex-Windsor relates to the amendments brought by Bill C-93 and that it-is admissible. Therefore, it is not a new element in the sense that you mentioned earlier.
Consequently, the House is justified to consider the proposed motion moved by the member for Essex- Windsor.

The hon. member for Ottawa South has the floor.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the clarification because the citations in Beauchesne seem to imply that it would not be in order, so I presume we have established a precedent in this case.
I would first of all like to express minor concerns about the references in the amendment. When you review the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act and when you review the schedules to that act, the Bretton Woods agreements, it is difficult to understand in the context of the legislation itself what is the interim committee.
The interim committee exists and we are all aware of it, but as a legal or statutory entity I do not believe that it exists in Canadian law, either in the act or in the schedule. So I am concerned about the clarity of the drafting.
Furthermore, the reference to meetings of the interim committee, of the IMF and of the World Bank leave open some question as to what meetings in particular are being referred to.
Those being my concerns about the drafting of this provision, I would like to say that the substance of it, its intent to make the participation of the Government of Canada in activities of the International Monetary Fund in particular more accountable to the Parliament of Canada, is a very desirable objective. We have found over the years that in many ways the objectives, particu-

larly of Third World development, of realignment of Third World debt, have been frustrated by policies pursued by the IMF. Many times these policies are carried out without the direct knowledge of the Parliament of Canada.
To the extent that the amendment of the member for Essex-Windsor intends to present before the Parliament of Canada the substance of what is being discussed and debated and decided in meetings of the IMF and the World Bank, then I am fully in support of that.
I think that our party would like to see an increase in the accountability and the reports delivered by the minister so that we can be fully informed, so that the Canadian public and those in the media who report on matters of Third World development can be fully informed as to the status of our government's participation and of the decisions that are being made which in many ways are so important.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Langdon) agreed to.


Thomas Hockin: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that there is a feeling in the House that we should deal with the bill right now.
Government Orders


Thomas Hockin: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make just a few comments on third reading of this piece of legislation.
I think it is very important that we recognize that this is a bill which does two things. It is a bill which effectively increases the amount of-


David Charles Dingwall: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure there would be a disposition within the House, in view of the courtesies which have been extended to the hon. member, particularly by this side and by individuals opposite, that he would give the floor to my colleague from Ottawa South who is the official spokesperson for the opposition on this particular matter. I am sure the hon. member would want to concur with that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the member for Essex-Windsor agree to yield to the member for Ottawa-South?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of peace, harmony, and good feeling, if not to reflect my view of a certain party, I shall be very pleased to allow my esteemed colleague from Ottawa South to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Speaker welcomes the collaboration.


John Paul Manley: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that after two years I still continue to be mystified by procedure here. I am very grateful to the member for Essex-Windsor for granting me the floor. Perhaps the mystery will resolve itself one day if I stay here long enough.


An hon. member:: There is little chance of that.


John Paul Manley: Somebody says there is little chance of that.
What I would like to say concerning Bill C-93 is that this bill provides us with an excellent opportunity to review some of the concerns that many of us have had about the International Monetary Fund and how it has impacted upon Third World development and problems.

February 25, 1991
Government Orders
That being said, it should be remembered that the issues raised by this piece of legislation reflect only two fairly minor amendments to the method by which the IMF functions. First of all, it increases the quotas which countries are obliged to hold on deposit with the IMF. Second, it introduces a new mechanism of discipline for those countries that are in default with the IMF, namely the suspension of voting privileges.
With respect to the first of these proposals, I think we find that there is general and perhaps entire support, with the possible exception of the United States, for increasing the quotas contributed to the International Monetary Fund.
These quotas which will not take effect unless they have been approved by an 85 per cent voting majority of member countries require that member nations increase their contribution to the fund.
In hearing this, I think all Canadians become a little concerned that this is yet another expenditure of government assets that is ultimately going to cost us all as taxpayers.
In supporting this bill, it is on the assurance by the government and by government officials that the method by which these quotas are achieved is the placing on deposit of assets with the IMF that then reflect the fact that these are assets of the Government of Canada.
In other words, we are assured that these increased quotas are not an expenditure item for the Government of Canada. They do not cost the taxpayer anything is what we are told.
Accepting that, I would note the concern that we have about the suspension of voting privileges for defaulting nations. It is true, as we said in the earlier debate on this-and I had the occasion to debate at that time this issue-that the IMF occasionally needs a workable method of seeking to enforce payment of obligations to it.
Until now that method has been the right to suspend member countries from participation in the fund, a somewhat draconian measure, one which has never been taken.
The suspension of voting privileges is much more usable as a disciplinary measure because the consequences are somewhat less grave. To do so, however,
essentially silences the voices of the countries that are weakest and that are most in need of the financial assistance provided by the fund.
To move in this way raises for many of us-I know for the member for Essex-Windsor as well-the concern that in using its impressive powers as a funder of international business transactions the IMF will further fail to hear in many cases the voices of those countries that are most in need of assistance.
We support this bill. I think the way to explain why, however, is best expressed in the words that were presented to us by Roy Culpeper of the North-South Institute when he appeared before the legislative committee on Bill C-93.
He referred to the concerns of many MPs about the response of the government to the report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade which was tabled somewhat earlier.
Although these concerns are there and although other organizations, including the North-South Institute, raised many concerns in appearing before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade as it completed its study, Mr. Culpeper advised us to go ahead with the bill. He stated:
I do not believe that Bill C-93 provides the best vehicle to carry forward this debate. In my view, Bill C-93 should be enacted so that Canada can give its support to help make the quota increase effective as early as possible. The IMF is not, to be sure, without its faults or without need of improvement. But this legislation does not provide adequate opportunity for a thorough and much-needed review of the IMF and for political input from our legislators and the public. The point I want to make is that Canada, probably along with most other member countries, lacks an adequate review process to ensure the accountability of this supremely important international institution to the public at large.
The point is that we have a bill which achieves certain objectives that the North-South Institute has endorsed but which fails to raise, in essence, the important issues of ongoing accountability of the IMF and concern for what is happening with respect to Third World development.
What we find is that many of the policies pursued by the IMF, well intentioned, structural adjustment policies, have not been terribly successful in improving the state of Third World countries. The result of IMF interference in the performance of some Third World countries, together with the increasing debt crisis in the
February 25, 1991

Third World, is that IMF policies have in some cases actually hurt the countries they were intended to help.
We typically had in the IMF medicine prescribed for ailing countries prescriptions for cuts in subsidies to the poor, devaluations, deregulation, and the intention of trying to create trade surpluses which had the effect of eliminating agricultural production that sustained the population and provided adequate food for them.
After nearly a decade of IMF adjustment, GNP per capita in the Third World, I am told, is 6 per cent lower than it was 10 years ago. Even on strict economic grounds IMF policies have often seemed to be unsuccessful.
We have these concerns. We have them in Canada and in other countries that have participated in support of the IMF. They are concerns that need to be brought forward, both in Canada and elsewhere, in debate as we approach, we hope, the imminent end of a war in the Persian Gulf. We concern ourselves with the frequent interpretation in Third World countries that this in fact is a war of the rich nations against the poor, that it is a war between the north and the south, interpretations that I do not agree with but which are there in these emerging countries. We have to face in that context what our population perceives as generous aid to Third World countries, with the realization that the flow of wealth continues to be not from north to south but the net transfer of wealth in the world today is from south to north.
While many of us, Canada and other countries, maintain a pretext of helping the developing countries of the Third World, the reality is that through our policies, through our debt structure, we continue to draw wealth away from Third World countries. We continue in many cases to draw their people away. We draw their best and their brightest through immigration policies that award points for skills and education. We find places in Canada for the very best of the Third World, but not for the very poorest or the very weakest.
In this context, I think all of us as Canadians have to realize that there surely will come a day of reckoning when the poverty, the hunger, the deprivation, the famine, the problems which exist that seem insurmount-
Govemment Orders
able in the southern hemisphere will come back to us for solution. If we do not begin to work on the basis of solutions today, the problems will be even more insurmountable tomorrow.
Therefore, as I said earlier, I support the amendment of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor that has been accepted in terms of its content. I hope that we will see increasingly the attention of parliamentarians in Canada and in other developed countries to the issues related to how we solve on a long-term basis the problems of the developing world. They are problems which we must recognize that we share as Canadians, and I suspect that members of the governing party are less likely to share this than some of us. But I think Canadians by and large do recognize that within Canada we must seek to find ways to ensure that all parts of the country share in some measure in the prosperity of our land.
It was one of the basic principles upon which Canada has expanded its Confederation over the years, one that we need to be talking more about today. Surely the same principle needs to apply on a global basis. Surely we need to begin to recognize that we cannot forever deny citizens of other countries a share in the wealth that we enjoy. It is not ours by right of any goodness that is inherent to ourselves. The responsibility lies on us as trustees of enormous wealth to ensure that poverty, disease and deprivation does not destroy the hope and the goodwill of people in whatever nation they happen to have been bom.
Therefore, we are looking at a technical bill in some ways, but a bill which has underlying it matters of great importance. It is important now that parliamentarians renew their efforts to address some of these issues.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, as I was just starting to say before we decided to change course a little bit, this is a bill I would like to say just a very few things about.
First, this bill does accomplish an important purpose. It is one step in the agreement of the number of countries that will be necessary to increase the total financial resources of the International Monetary Fund to make it possible for that fund to lend more money to developing countries that are facing serious debt crises. We in this party support that goal very much.

February 25, 1991
Government Orders
Unfortunately, the bill also has within it, apparently under the influence especially of American representatives to the IMF, a number of increased sanctions which can be applied against developing countries if they find themselves in arrears to the IMF.
This becomes possible if this bill is accepted by this Parliament and, in turn, by a number of other Parliaments throughout the world. If that happens, it will be possible for the first time for the International Monetary Fund to actually suspend voting rights for member countries of the IMF.
Prior to this, it has been possible if the IMF becomes so concerned about a country which is in arrears to expel that country from the IMF, a solution which is so Draconian that it has generally not been adopted by the IMF.
This particular piece of legislation, in concert with a number of other countries, will make it possible to have the way of getting at Third World countries that are in arrears to the IMF without having to kick them out of the organization entirely.
To suspend the voting rights of a member within the IMF is a penalty which I certainly hope will not be applied except in the most serious and in the most irresponsible of cases in which a country blatantly refuses to make any efforts whatsoever to put itself into a position of starting to deal with some of its IMF arrears. This bill does make it possible to take such action regardless of what the circumstances are of the arrears which exist.
This is, as the previous speaker noted, a technical bill. I want to just bring it down to earth, if I can, for members of the House and to tell them a little bit about one of the countries that I worked quite closely with in Africa when I worked for the International Development Research Centre before becoming a member of Parliament.
That country is Zambia. It is a country which got itself into serious debt problems not because of anything it did itself, but because of a catastrophic drop in the price of copper. Zambia, in fact, had been a country which had developed fairly sophisticated methods of planning for the future, five-year plans which were aimed to program out quite carefully the new development projects which the country wanted to cany forward.
It was also a country which had recognized that to carry this kind of development forward, it had to put into effect a very strong support policy for individualized agriculture in the country. In fact, one of the things which the IDRC worked on was support for some of these projects with peasant agriculture in Zambia.
I could go on in more detail about Zambia, but I will spare the House that. This is a country which has done a great deal to try to deal with its economic problems. Despite that, because of the tremendous decrease in the price of copper, it found that loans it had taken out for development projects, which looked perfectly viable at the time it took out those loans, suddenly became next to impossible to pay back because there were no longer the export revenues from copper which had seemed to be there in the past.
The consequence for the people of Zambia was that in order to try to pay off some of these loans, it became necessary for the Government of Zambia to massively reduce social programs, to cut back on educational expenditures, on health care, and to significantly reduce the wages of copper workers, for instance, producing the exports of the country.
In short, life for the average person in Zambia became very much harder as a consequence of having to pay back these loans which had been incurred in the past.
We recognize that in the case of many of our aid loans to developing countries, when circumstances like that come up, it makes sense to forgive those loans, to let the country move ahead and therefore to be able to purchase goods from us and purchase goods from other countries in the world.
In the case of commercial loans, however, that is not possible. In the case of bank loans it is not possible. In the case of IMF loans it is generally not something which the IMF permits. Unfortunately, that results in considerable pain and suffering for the people in the country involved.
Some of these countries affected probably have been guilty of irresponsible policies which are very difficult to justify. Panama, for instance, is a country which was not careful in the kinds of development projects it put into effect.
February 25, 1991

One might make the same case for Cambodia and Peru and, perhaps, for a number of other countries such as Zambia, Sudan, Sierra Leone and Costa Rica. These are countries which have generally tried to follow sensible development patterns and yet have found themselves, because of changes in commodity prices-coffee in the case of Costa Rica-unable to pay their debt. I have mentioned copper in the case of Zambia; cocoa in the case of Sierra Leone. These countries faced problems, not because of anything they had or had not done, but because of changes in the world economy.
Mr. Speaker, our hope would be that the IMF will approach such countries with a sense of understanding and a sense of care for the human costs which a tough application of the kinds of policies that lie behind the increased sanctions in this act represent.
I would hope that such a sensitive approach will be taken by the IMF. It is on that basis that we are prepared to see this legislation go forward.
We are not, however, prepared to support this legislation. Despite the useful steps in increasing the amount of money which will be available for Third World countries, the establishment of these new sanctions against such Third World countries represents a negative step which we feel is something the IMF should not be taking and which we are not prepared to support as a party.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been in front of the House since prior to Christmas. It has received good debate. It has been an example of legislation where there has been a lot of co-operation between the various parties in committee and in the House, and for that I would like to thank the members opposite for their assistance in passing this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.
Adjournment Debate


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that we have made some decent progress today, with one government motion passed, one bill through report stage and a second bill through report stage and third reading. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader could indicate what is on the agenda for tomorrow.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend for his point of order.
We have indeed had a good day today, and it establishes a wonderful precedent. Therefore, tomorrow, we expect that we will complete third reading of Bill C-91. We want to complete the debate on Bill C-26 and, after we have done that, at 4.30 we should be able to complete the debate on the budget.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to expand further on the question I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on December 17, 1990 regarding the individual transferable quota system his department planned to implement for Scotia-Fundy. I say "planned" because today it is being implemented for the Scotia-Fundy inshore fishery.
In answer to my question, the minister said on that day that the draggermen of that area have been asking for it, have been asking for individual transferable quotas.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any dragger fishermen in the area, small or large dragger fishermen, C-ls or C-2s, who have actually asked for an individual transferable quota. And I will speak more on that. They may have asked for a viable quota, at least a quota that would give them their livelihood.

February 25, 1991
Adjournment Debate
The minister, in my opinion, has not had the decency, the courage or the political will to meet with the fishermen in Nova Scotia, particularly the inshore fishermen, whether in Ottawa or in Nova Scotia. He will always meet with big company officials who come to Ottawa, and I do not want to question why he meets with the larger companies and not the many hundreds of people who are connected with the inshore fishery.
As well, I do not know what his officials have been telling him, but judging from my meetings and the mail, they certainly did not bother to consult with the inshore fishermen of Nova Scotia. The minister may have the Hache task force that he can refer to, but Mr. Hache and his officials did not do the two important things that the fishermen were looking for when they went around: one, evaluating the present stocks before going ahead with their idea of cutting back in the inshore without looking at the actual stock evaluation in those waters; and, two, providing a viable quota. I stress the word viable because this minister is not doing that.
At every meeting I attended and with every letter I received on the subject, it is clear to me that the Scotia-Fundy inshore wants no part of an individual transferable quota, nor any part of the current management plan. You just have to look at the court cases that have been attempted. The dockside grading that the minister wants to implement as it is being looked at in Newfoundland and will come into play after the unemployment scheme for training these people runs out in August, where the individual fishermen, if there are any left, will have to pay for a scheme, that this minister allows, where the fishermen has to report she hours before he can dock and he must report at least two out of the six before he can land, storm or no storm.
It is ridiculous. The minister has forgotten that the markets will not take a good quality fish, that they have individual quotas, that they can report what they have caught, but to continue this system of forcing fishermen and processors to abide by dockside grading and paying for it is ridiculous.
Because of this great management plan we now have National Sea and other large companies transferring their enterprise allocation to smaller boats-which are
more efficient and who used to catch that fish because the offshore could never catch it in the Bay of Fundy and in other areas of the inshore fishery-and we have the large companies asking the under 65-foot dragger fishermen to now fish for them at a reduced price, half the price for the fish, and that fish is then transferred to the offshore companies' plants. That fish used to go into the inshore communities.
That alone should tell the minister that the inshore communities want to meet with him. I would like to have an opportunity to meet with him. In all the time I have been a member of Parliament, whether I was on the government side or the opposition side, I have at least been able or been given the respect in an answer to a letter or a request or whatever to meet with any minister in the House. I have at least been given that. I have waited almost two and half months for a reply to a letter seeking a meeting with the minister on friendly terms, just to talk about the disaster his policy is having. But no, you have to be a big company in order to rate this government or that minister's attention.
I want to tell you what the individual transfer quota will do. This is perhaps the last step in my mind of privatizing a once common resource. It used to be that if you put a quota on, they could go out and fish it. But the result of this transferability is going to be to squeeze out the small owner-operators. Some local industry representatives estimate that the individual transferable quota will result in the loss of one-half of the current employment when the fighting and transfers are finished. I venture to say that you will see with the transferability one to five companies controlling all the catch in the inshore fishery at the end of this management scheme unless this minister is stopped.
I want to say one last thing. It is about the appeal process to this management scheme.
The fishermen got a four-page letter last July 23 and they were given one month to appeal it. What did they have to do?
I think it is almost against human rights. "For a review of catch history, use package A attached." There was package B, too. I think it was 25 pages. "Complete the cover page and Ihble 1, Table 2, Table 3 for any year's landing you wish to contest, and sign the statement
February 25, 1991

confirming data accuracy." The fishermen needed an accountant.
They needed all that in the middle of summer at the time when they were supposed to be fishing, when accountants are on vacation. But they had one month. Supporting documentation was required for the information contained in the tables. This is an affront to any Canadian.
For people who have been in the fishery for 10, 20 or 40 years, documentation must include the following: copies of the buyers' purchase slips, copies of fishing logs, a signed permission form for release of income tax documents to DFO, a signed permission form for release of UIC documents to DFO. This minister is a lawyer. He should realize that is an affront. Any cases of suspected fraud in a letter will be referred to the RCMP.
Now, you tell me that this government is playing fair with the livelihood of the inshore. I know the parliamentary secretary is going to say something on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans but I think she should tell the minister that if only he would come to meet the fishermen, he would know what is going on, rather than listening to one or two of his officials.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, there are difficult decisions faced in the 1991 Atlantic Groundfish Management Plan and these were made only after careful consideration of the advice and views provided by the organizations, by fishermen and industry members and provincial governments as well as by fishery scientists who gather and analyse the vital biological data on the various fish stocks, including those of Scotia-Fundy region.
A reasonable balance has been achieved between the conservation of the resource and stability for the participants in the industry and for the economy of the Atlantic region of Canada. The new multi-year approach to managing the groundfish fishery will allow for better planning of Atlantic Canada's groundfish industry and allow Canadian exporters and their customers to develop long-term planning as fish stocks are rebuilt.
Adjournment Debate
The multi-year plan establishes three-year quotas for most groundfish stocks. These TACS will be reviewed by scientists on an ongoing basis and they will be revised should scientific evidence warrant this.
The 1991 plan particularly helps cod fishermen in South West Nova where the quota has been increased to
26,000	tonnes. Furthermore, both inshore draggers and fixed-gear fishermen within the Scotia-Fundy region are better off this year than last. Therefore, the plan will help maintain and provide for long-term stability.
As for the introduction of ITQs for various fisheries, this plan was announced months ago on May 7, 1990, as part of the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program. Where it is deemed feasible and after thorough consultation with affected fishermen, the individual transfer quota systems would be extended to more and more fishermen.
In 1989, over 40 per cent of landings on the Atlantic coast were from vessels operating under the ITQs. The stated plan is thus a reflection of a process which started in the early 1980s in the offshore groundfish fisheries.
Today, all offshore fisheries are under the same type of ITQ and a similar system has recently been extended to smaller vessels in the Gulf and Scotia-Fundy inshore groundfish fisheries. Discussions are ongoing with industry and provincial governments for the introduction of ITQs on the Gulf shrimp fleet.
It is important to notice that the ITQ systems do not entail the privatization of the fishery. Indeed, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans retains his authority to vary these quotas subject to conservation and socioeconomic needs. All transfers of quota between participants require authorization from DFO in the form of amendments to fishing licences.
The introduction of ITQs is a management approach in line with current realities.
Individual allocations allow fishermen to better plan their annual fishing operations and to operate more as business enterprises.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, this late show debate involves the question

February 25, 1991
Adjournment Debate
that occurred some time ago in the House on the matter at Oka and a request from our side of the House of the Minister of Justice to implement a public inquiry into the matter at Oka.
I would like to explain why it is absolutely critical that a public inquiry go ahead rather than the partisan, locked-hom relationship of the committee which I really do not think will elucidate the kinds of things Canadians have to know.
In the fall of 1989, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said he had an agreement in principle with the Mohawks at Kanesatake over the land settlement issue which led to the Oka crisis. In fact, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had no agreement. The minister submitted a document which he claimed was an agreement in principle, but the document was in fact only signed by three officials of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and no one else. It was not an agreement.
The minister claimed that the Mohawk leadership was unable to produce an agreement because it was so badly divided, but in fact the Mohawk leadership had absolutely and unanimously rejected this minister's proposal for an agreement. It is interesting. If the minister is telling the truth he should submit that document to the House of Commons forthwith.
The second matter was that in the spring of 1990, the minister said that he was willing to purchase the lands at Oka, the lands in dispute, and thereby resolve the matter at hand. The Mohawk leadership has a tape of a meeting with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on June 21,1990. On that tape the minister says that he cannot purchase the land because there is no money in the Treasury.
If the minister is telling the truth, he should forthwith lay all documents related to the purchase of those lands before the Oka crisis before the House of Commons.
Every opportunity to resolve this dispute was in the hands of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It involved lands that the municipality at Oka had paid less than $200,000 for. The stupid and incompetent bungling of this issue had to be resolved with 4,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces faced off against the Mohawk Band at Kanesatake. The stupidity and incompetence of the handling of this issue resulted in a $200 million bill to the Canadian taxpayers
and the Canadian taxpayers are still paying as this process evolves.
We should not be here demanding a public inquiry, which is the only way that we can get the truth from the government and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by having a judge who can compel witnesses to attend and compel witnesses to testify and produce the documents involved.
These are things that neither this House nor the committee will ever see both because of the lack of power and the lack of determination of the government to bring this matter before the people. We need that public inquiry if Canadians are ever going to see a true version of what happened in the lead-up to the turning loose of 4,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the spending of $200 million in taxpayers' money.
What should really happen is that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should resign immediately because of the absolute lack of credibility in the contradictory statements put forward by the minister in this House. What the minister's statement contradicts is the truth.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has once again raised the question of a need to call a further inquiry into the stand-off at Oka. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in fact has voted to conduct a comprehensive and independent inquiry into the events of the summer of 1990. The committee will be inviting members of the public who wish to comment on these events to contact it.
This will give those interested an opportunity to discuss fully their concerns and will assist in achieving a full review of the events at Oka and Kahnawake.
To date, there has been substantial review of the events at Oka including an inquiry by the province of Quebec under the National Defence Act and the conclusion by the Federal Court of Canada on two separate occasions that the actions of the forces did not result in any violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I am confident that the report of the standing committee will support these earlier findings. However, I welcome the decision of the committee to conduct its inquiry, as I believe this forum will present Canadians
February 25, 1991

with sufficient opportunity to air concerns and access the type of information they may be seeking.
It will also provide answers to questions which may be outstanding. I strongly believe, though, that while we can learn from the past we must look ahead and apply that knowledge to the future for the benefit of all Canadians.
This is the objective of the government's new agenda for aboriginal peoples outlined by the Prime Minister in his speech to this House on September 25, 1990. In that speech, the Prime Minister spoke of an agenda with four main pillars: land claims, economic and social conditions on reserves, the relationship between aboriginal peoples and governments, and concerns of Canada's aboriginal peoples in contemporary Canadian life.
The goal of the agenda is the creation of a new relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. Defining and developing this relationship will take creativity and perseverance, the courage to see things as they are, the honesty to acknowledge them for what they have become, and the common resolve to correct current problems for the benefit of future generations.
The success of the agenda depends on the commitment and leadership of governments and aboriginal leaders. I am confident that by working together, while looking to the future and applying the lessons of the past, we can achieve the goals of the agenda.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the sad demise of Winnipeg's Core Area Initiative. This program was begun 10 years ago under the leadership of the member for Winnipeg South Centre who, in his capacity as a minister, brought together the three levels of government work concerned about the future of Winnipeg's inner city.
Up to that point, there had been a great deal of division among these three governments as to what to do with important issues such as the CP rail tracks.
Under the leadership of the Liberal government at that time, a $100 million program was put together which was then renewed and changed in 1985-86. This program is now being left to hang in the air and Winnipegers
Adjournment Debate
would very much like to know the intention of this government.
There are rumours that there will be a one-year extension with no funding. I would like to say to this House that is totally unacceptable to people in the inner city.
Since rumours began to circulate last year that the Core Area Initiative was not going to be renewed, several groups have been meeting in the inner city to discuss the implications of this issue.
The Urban Futures Group, under the leadership of an academic from the University of Winnipeg, presented to the federal and provincial governments several proposals to change the core initiative and to give some 90 groups from the inner city a chance to speak out.
I attended these meetings and I can assure the House that there is a wide range of opinion from both the social activists and the business community seeking to restore the Core Area Initiative to its proper role as a focus for public action in the inner city.
Subsequently, governments refused to meet with this group and its program has been put on the back-burner. Last week, Inner City Voice, a well-known local community newspaper in the inner city, put together another group to discuss these issues.
At that meeting which I attended, many people brought out issues such as housing, the poor condition of housing in the inner city of Winnipeg caused in large part by the refusal of CMHC under this government to fund properly co-op and low income housing. It has left one block after another looking devastated.
In addition, when people do want to renovate their homes, the moneys are no available because the Core Area Initiative has run out of funds.
Second, people talked about day care. We hear a lot from this government about jobs, jobs, jobs; get out, work and look after yourself. Mr. Speaker, you can imagine a situation in which most people who are single parents cannot find the support through day care in order to get into the work force. This government has turned its back.
There was a wonderful program, Parent-Child Centres, in the inner city. It was low cost. There was no bureaucracy attached to it. It involved a few parents getting together in a very simple storefront operation. This government through the Core Area Initiative, could not see its way to continue support. As a result, all these small infrastructures are being taken away. Another organization on Broadway Avenue in the inner city, the

February 25, 1991
Adjournment Debate
West Broadway Family Centre, had a parent respite centre where people could drop in and talk about their problems, talk about the difficulty of bringing up a family alone. That, too, has been taken away.
Everyone in Winnipeg agrees that perhaps North Main is one of the most devastated urban areas in this country. It reminds us in our worst dreams of what it must be like to live in the inner core of an American city.
The North Main Development Corporation, a group of business people, have bravely tried to put together an organization for the last five years in order to build up public support for new facilities, for new infrastructure, to change the impression that only derelict hotels and run down businesses are there, and to tiy to enhance the value of their properties.
One would think that such a conservative agenda would appeal to this government. That the very least they would do is say: "Yes, let us work on North Main". But, no, the only response is a deafening silence that will not help out North Main.
Or perhaps take a look at the CP station, which is one of the most historic sites in Winnipeg. Very responsible leaders in the aboriginal and business community have come forward with a very well thought out program to purchase that building. CP is interested in making a deal. They need one government to take the initiative, to step forward and say: "We will be first in". Then the others would follow.
The Core Area Initiative was designed to help such people get started. Without the core there is no one around to say: "We will give you that extra push to make sure your program takes place."
Again we find that the absence of an active federal government is having devastating results in the inner city.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on with several other examples of how, in the last ten years, the core has become an essential feature in Winnipeg despite some very subtle errors in judgment, such as the way it has become involved with the Forks, or the way it has become involved in the North Portage development site. But the essential idea is to have a concerted effort in the centre
part of a city under tremendous economic stress and to put in a large chunk of money and to have something visible, something that would help out new Canadians, the unemployed, that will train aboriginal youth. A program like that is essential for the future of the city.
This government has ignored Winnipeg when month after month, we have needed government action, a symbol of reassurance that it in fact is committed. We need assurance that the federal government will not pull out of the core as it did out of federal-provincial relations or economic and regional development agreements, that it will not pull out like it did in major industrial projects, that in fact it understands Winnipeg.
We have asked and asked again in the House and there has been nothing but silence. So I ask this government one more time: will they not support the Core Area Initiative, sign a new agreement, show some life, show some support for the centre part of Winnipeg?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Winnipeg North Centre has noted, the Winnipeg core area initiative was created in 1981 under the umbrella of the Canada-Manitoba General Development Agreement in order to respond to what was then a decline in the inner city. This was having an impact on the whole province because the population of Winnipeg is 62.5 per cent of the province of Manitoba.
By 1986 after the expiration of the first five-year agreement considerable strides had been made in reversing that decline and the momentum at that particular time was deemed as just too recent and perhaps too fragile for a withdrawal of public support.
Therefore, as the hon. member has suggested a second agreement under this government was negotiated in 1986 and the five-year economic and general development program was put into place.
Core II, as the program was called, was designed to solidify the momentum and ensure that the trend toward renewed investor confidence was consolidated. That has happened. A brand new 33-storey Toronto-Dominion Centre on the comer of Portage and Main, for example, stands as a testimony to the idea that investor confidence has been renewed in the inner city.
February 25, 1991

All governments have an obligation to ensure that public funding is directed toward the highest priorities, that it responds to current situations and needs, and that it relates directly to mandates of certain areas of government.
Many of the needs of the inner city of Winnipeg, to which the member has referred, fall most appropriately within the mandate of the city and the province. Even so, Winnipeg itself is looking ahead and beyond the inner city. It has shown excellent initiative in establishing Winnipeg 2000 to provide a focal point for economic development for the entire city, economic development, Mr. Speaker, led by the private sector.
What has emerged from this is a renewed sense that the real long-term solution to inner city needs is to increase job opportunities through private sector investment in the city. So whether we achieve this by way of a new tripartite agreement or something different, remains to be negotiated.
However, I will say that Ottawa is not on the verge of abandoning either Winnipeg or Manitoba.
In the health care sector, as an example, some $200 million of investments will be made in Winnipeg and Manitoba and these will include the federal government's virology lab which will be located in the inner city and will have a significant impact on Winnipeg's econo-
Adjoumment Debate
my. Canada is committed to co-operating in areas of federal mandate, whether that will involve formal agreements or simply co-ordination of program areas, it is a little too soon to say.
However, the objectives of Winnipeg 2000 which include the priority emphasis on urban natives as well as on general economic development throughout the city are very much the objectives of my government.
With the private sector, as well as with the municipal and provincial governments, we are moving together in advancing the diversification and industrial development of Winnipeg and of Manitoba as well as focusing the needs on people such as in the native community.
We believe that our directions are those which will have the greatest long-term impact for the community and for the 1990s.
It is with this in mind that the Hon. Jake Epp met with the provincial and municipal counterparts and will be meeting again to discuss an era of new intergovernmental and private sector co-operation for the 1990s.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.27 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 26,1991