1983-09-28

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, since Monday, a number of questions have been asked about the Canadian Dairy Commission, and more specifically about the chairman, Mr. Gilles Choquette, and his trips abroad to promote sales on behalf of the Commission. I was very surprised to hear these questions about the Canadian Dairy Commission, our dairy policy and our milk exports and sales abroad. When we meet representatives of agricultural organizations, they all tell us that we have the best dairy policy in the world, and that the quota system, established in 1976 and improved since then, is a very good policy.
Madam Speaker, we produce a lot of milk in Canada, and we have to sell it outside the country, because Canadian consumption is not sufficient to absorb production. It is clear that this year, the Canadian Dairy Commission, thanks to its chairman, Mr. Choquette, has done excellent work. It was able to sell $313.5 million worth of milk abroad, spending about $60,000 on travel expenses.
Madam Speaker, we have a very colloquial expression for saying that if you want to be effective, you must have foreign markets. Marketing means being aggressive, and export sales involve a lot of hard work. Now, if we spend money on promoting sales and we have enough money and-


Madam Speaker:: Order! Order!


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, on Monday the leaders of two of NATO's most important member nations spoke of the need for tough action to counter the growing Soviet threat to world peace. The British Prime
Minister proclaimed that aggression must never be allowed to pay and that it is time for freedom to take the offensive. The American President warned that we cannot count on the instinct for survival to protect us against war. However, our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) believes that the survival of our species depends on the courage and wisdom of nations and their leaders. Does he truly believe that courage and wisdom will stop the Soviet threat any more than appeasement stopped Hitler?
The Prime Minister signed a friendship protocol agreement with the U.S.S.R. in 1971 and proclaimed that Canadians find themselves living within a constitutional framework with a formal structure similar to that in the Soviet Union. He has also stated that he would choose Cuban or Chinese socialism as the national model for Canadian society, and he has led communist delegations to Moscow and Peking.
Is this why Canada ranks thirteenth out of the 14 NATO nations in defence spending? Is this why the Prime Minister vacillated for months before announcing a boycott of the Olympics after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and why he has been silent in the House on the Soviet destruction of a Korean airliner?
1 call upon the Prime Minister to rise in his place and declare Canada's commitment to NATO's efforts to match Soviet might with western might, or to state whether he is in fact still a communist sympathizer.


THE PRESS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise to draw to the attention of the House what I consider to be a very serious example of interference with freedom of the press by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola). Recently an article and cartoon appeared in a newsletter published by the Native Women's Association of Canada which depicted a massacre of Indian peasants by government troops in Guatemala. The cartoon was in fact drawn by an Indian child who had survived this massacre.
The office of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs blatantly interfered with freedom of the press by contacting the office of the Native Women's Association of Canada and suggesting to this organization that perhaps the cartoon did not reflect the policy of the Government of Canada. The Minister in question, Madam Speaker, indicated

September 28, 1983
that she felt that the cartoon was not in particularly good taste and was not relevant to that particular magazine.
I do not think that I have to remind Members of the House of Commons that in a free society, a society with freedom of the press, it is political thuggery for a Minister of the Crown to contact an organization about a newsletter which is partly government financed and suggest to that organization that she does not approve of their editorial policy, whether it be in cartoons or elsewhere. This is particularly serious in light of this Minister's responsibility for implementing the recommendations of the Kent Commission and bringing forward legislation that could touch upon freedom of the press. I am sure all members of the House would join with me in condemning this very heavy handed action-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen).


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to call to the attention of the House the fact that every year over 4,000 servicemen leave the Canadian Armed Forces because of compulsory retirement provisions or medical problems. The vast majority of these men and women are between 40 and 50 years of age, with some having only a primary school education. These service people may find themselves at the termination of their service with few marketable skills in Civilian life. The individuals who are fortunate enough to learn a skill will find that only one-third of the 110 trades available within the Armed Forces are recognized by provincial trade associations.
Serious consideration should be given by the Government of Canada to a meaningful increase in the funding of the second career assistance network currently administered by the Department of National Defence, along with a redirection of that program to assist those who face the greatest difficulty instead of those individuals who are easiest to place in civilian life.
At the same time the Government of Canada should consider, as a priority, the establishment of a Canadian Armed Forces technical school that would meet the educational requirements of the Provinces in skilled training and assist Canadian industry in averting shortages of skilled labour in the 1980s.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: The late Right Hon. John Diefen-baker once made the following statement, "I have but one love, Canada; one purpose, its greatness; one aim, unity from the Atlantic to the Pacific." These are indeed inspiring words- words which should be brought to mind regularly.
As a Member of Parliament, 1 feel it incumbent upon myself to bring up issues which affect the lives of Canadians and the unity of the country. Madam Speaker, the issue is one of fairness. In order for citizens to regain feelings of unity and harmony within Confederation, people in every Province must feel that they are receiving their share of the benefits from the federal Government.
The Hon. Member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) once spoke of the Liberal team in Quebec as one that will promote the interests of all Quebecers and indeed, all Canadians. If the Liberal Party is one that serves all Canadians, then why does the Government intend to set up helicopter manfacturing facilities in Quebec at a cost to the taxpayers of Canada of $500 million? This decision was taken despite the fact that alternate, cheaper facilities are available.
Fleet Industries in Fort Erie, a firm with a reputation as an aeronautical pioneer, can provide the same service with startup costs of only $35 million. Not only that, but many more jobs would be going to Canadians. Bell is an American firm, whose R and D will take place primarily in the United States. The proposal by Fleet Industries of Fort Erie will bring more jobs to Canadians and will cost much less.
I challenge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) to provide documentation showing that, job for job and dollar for dollar, the Bell proposal is a superior one-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time is up.


BILINGUALISM
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, between 1978 and the present the federal Government has reduced its commitment to the Provinces for funding second language education, with the result that the Provinces are putting up more and more of the costs. What this means is that the number of students who can be educated in their second language, and the number of Canadians who can be employed in assisting Canadian children to become bilingual, declines dramatically.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced that "Co-operative federalism is dead-and will remain dead in the sense that the federal Government is expected to hand money over to the Provinces for them to spend in any which
September 28, 1983

way." In this case, the cuts in federal funding in real terms would imply that, if co-operative federalism is dead, it is the Trudeau Government that has killed it.
If the Government believes that one of the hallmarks of the particular nature of federalism in Canada is the commitment of all citizens to a bilingual country, then it will have to explain how it expects Canadian citizens to support and entrench official bilingualism when, at the same time, the federal Government cuts funds for bilingual education and makes it more and more difficult for Canadian children to become competent in their second official language. We in the New Democratic Party urge the Government to commit itself to long-term funding for bilingual education.

If the federal Government is serious about bilingualism in Canada, it must take the necessary action and grant financial assistance to schools, across Canada, in order to achieve this goal.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, Funk and Wagnall's dictionary defines irony as the reverse of what is expected. I have just learned of a situation which Canadian taxpayers will agree is not only dripping with irony-it is bizarre.
CBC's AM station in Edmonton, CBX, has experienced a serious decline in audience ratings recently. Listeners prefer Ron Collister's talk show on CJCA, or Standard Broadcast News coverage on CFRN. At any rate, the high-powered commercial competition in Edmonton was apparently too much for mother corporation.
The CBC's answer was to hire media marketing consultants to lure listeners to CBX, to gear up for ratings week, which is happening right now in Edmonton. The slight problem is that the CBC hired two, possibly three, market analysts from Chicago, Illinois. At heaven knows what expense to the Canadian taxpayer, the firm of Reimer and Gerson spent several weeks surveying 18 to 35 year olds in the Edmonton market.
I find this astonishing and shameful. Surely the hundreds of millions of dollars we taxpayers pump into the CBC could produce either corporation expertise or, at least, Canadian media marketing talent to survey Edmonton or any other place in Canada.
The irony of this situation is that the CBC, with its pronounced nationalistic and anti-U.S. bias, should go to the Americans to tell Canadians what we are all about.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the incredible revelations over cabinet flights using one of the two government fleets-just Transport, not Defence- which cost Canadians over $10,000 per day for a given 100-day period, could the Acting Prime Minister please advise this House what guidelines, if any, govern the use of such executive jets, and will he give a commitment to table them in the House forthwith?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of State (External Relations)):: Madam Speaker, the guidelines are very well known. They were tabled in the House in 1977. There have been a few corrections since, but they are purely procedural. I would be delighted to table the new set, if asked.
People should read the guidelines. It would be very useful if they did so, particularly those people who comment professionally on the subject.
May 1 just extract a few sentences? One of the criteria is, and I quote:
... substantial savings of essential time can be made by using departmental aircraft...
The Leader of the Opposition, when he was at Iron Ore, had an aircraft because it was a way of saving his time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is quite normal, quite acceptable. It is getting the best for the buck you invest.


Mr. McDermid:: You missed the point.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Ministers are supposed to be seen from coast to coast regularly. People want to see them. They want to question them. So they use these aircraft to do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will read another criterion:
In instances where Ministers arc travelling with official parties of some size which need to travel together-


John Horton McDermid: Order.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The article criticizes the admission of officials to these planes. Hon. Members on the opposite side who have been Ministers know that very often it is most convenient and necessary to have the officials with you because that is when you finalize your position or debate some aspect of the issues you are going to tackle at the other end of the trip.


An Hon. Member:: Let's have a speech.

September 28, 1983
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: As a principle, the use of private aircraft, I believe is quite defensible. No one should be ashamed of it. The Hon. Members on the other side, when they were on this side, used those planes extensively-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Stevens:: No, we did not.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -and there is no increase in the use of the planes now. Sixty a month, twice a day, is the average in the last three years, I will grant to-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I am sure the Minister will have time to complete his answer when replying to supplementary questions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, hopefully not at such length because we would like them tabled. Methinks the Minister protesteth too much. There are also people who think on this side that we went too far one way, just as the Government has gone too far the other way.


PURPOSE OF TRIPS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, along with admitting that sometimes it is necessary, can the Acting Prime Minister give us the justification for spending $10,000 per day for a Minister to go to a boy scout reception, or to fly somewhere to announce the design of a new postage stamp?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this is where judgment comes in.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is why the whole thing is operated on a system under which the Minister who uses a plane has to tell the Minister of Transport, and sign a form, "I request the use of this airplane fully conditional to the guidelines established by the Department of Transport." It is run in that way. I repeat it, because I am quite proud of having said that. It is a question of judgment. To the people who were there in Edmonton for the ceremony announcing a new stamp, the presence of the Minister was essential. This is what made the event, otherwise it would not have been an event.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is what happens all the time. When you do not answer these invitations, people at the other end are raging mad at you for not having given them the attention they
thought they deserved and for not giving the event the importance it deserved to have. That is a question of judgment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Murta:: What a crock.


REQUEST FOR MONTHLY PUBLICATION OF DETAILS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, without getting into the question of judgment, 1 must confess I am somewhat mystified.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If the Minister's explanation is justified concerning the policy of shredding passenger lists after 90 days, if the Government has nothing to hide, why do people have to pay for something which does not have to be hidden? Will the Minister please make this information from both the Transport and Defence fleets public at the end of every month so we can remove the suspicion of cover-up by cut-up?


Jean-Luc Pepin: There should not be any suspicion at all. If these things come out it is because of the Freedom of Information Act. These things have been known all along. Members of the Press know they have access to this information now, and if it is destroyed after 90 days it is not to hide anything, it is simply because by that time everyone knows about it.
The members of the Press-really, Charles Lynch can keep his own file. He has extensive files on all of that, and after 90 days if he does not have it in his file it is because he has not done his work-and he does his work.


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a very specific question for the Minister of Agriculture which his Parliamentary Secretary refused to answer yesterday. Did the information concerning the Canadian Dairy Commission, which was tabled in Parliament last Friday, include all of the travelling expenses of the chairman of the CDC, including any free trips he accepted from people doing business with the Commission and any hospitality expenses, or were those expenses in addition to the $210,000 disclosed to Parliament?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the information tabled in the House, which the Hon. Member has, was given to me as authentic. 1 do not think he has to report anything to the Auditor General, the Comptroller or anyone, which was not reported there. I take it for granted everything necessary to be reported was reported because the expenses that the Hon. Member is talking about were checked by the Auditor General in the review that I requested.
September 28, 1983


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, in the Minister's misleading answer he was completely correct on one thing-the Auditor General did conduct a comprehensive audit which pointed out that senior officials in the Canadian Dairy Commission were accepting freebies from people doing business with the Commission. The Minister was asked the specific question whether or not those figures were disclosed in the return tabled on Friday.


USE OF CHARTERED AIRCRAFT
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, did the Minister personally approve the use of chartered aircraft by the chairman of the CDC, including four round trips between Paris and Algiers, two trips between Ottawa and New York, and one trip between Ottawa and Montreal? If he did, what was the reason chartered aircraft were used? Was it a matter of bad planning on the part of the chairman, or was it simply that he did not care about the expenditure of the public's money?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the chairman of the Commission has the responsibility to make sure that sales of dairy products are taken care of. No one in the world has a better system than we do, and no one has less supplies on hand than we do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: For the amount of money which has been spent selling dairy products in this very competitive world, where the U.S. has 689,000 metric tonnes of surplus product, and the European community has over one million-


Some Hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Eugene Whelan: We have none unsold up until, I believe, June of next year. The Hon. Member knows that this is a very minute amount of money spent for travelling.


John Horton McDermid: That does not excuse his behaviour.


Eugene Whelan: The Auditor General pointed out some of these things the Hon. Member is talking about. If he took trips as guest of someone else, I am sure the Hon. Member has never been guilty of that. No one has ever been guilty of saying, "Do you want to come with me on a plane ride? I am going to give you a plane ride," et cetera. It is a common thing in the country today. People call it hitchhiking on the highway. I do not know how anyone is going to check out whether anyone gives them a ride in a car or this type of thing. But when we are speaking of flights on chartered aircraft and that type of thing, the information I have concerning some of the flighs, and I would have to check it further, is that he was a guest on a flight for which he did not pay anything to be a guest, and he did not charter the flight, either.
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of the Environment. It concerns both the problems of acid rain and the need to create more jobs.
Is the Acting Prime Minister aware that the Province of Ontario imports, from the United States, 80 per cent of the coal that it requires, coal which has eight times the sulphur content, sulphur being the active producer of acid rain, as does coal coming from western Canada? If he is aware of this fact will he try to persuade Premier Davis, who is always speaking of the need to buy Canadian, to practise what he preaches, stop getting his coal from the United States and, instead, buy it from western Canada?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, perhaps because I have some past familiarity with these questions, I could respond to the Hon. Member. It has been the case that we in Canada have been pressing, both on the Provinces and on Governments outside Canada, namely, the United States' Government, actions which would lead to the appropriate level of emissions to control the problem of acid rain.
The approach we have always taken has been not to try to prescribe the methods of arriving at these objectives, but, rather, to establish the objective which is acceptable and then leave to the responsible jurisdictions whatever means they wish to pursue to arrive at that reasonable objective. Instead of trying to prescribe the means to establish what needs to be done, we leave to the responsible jurisdiction the means of arriving at it.
There is a context, under the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, of committees which leads the federal Government to be in continual discussion with all of the Provinces, including Ontario, concerning how to respond to the needs of bringing down the Canadian emission level which will lead to safe results. The whole question involving utilization of coal and the kind of coal has been an essential matter within those discussions.


John Edward Broadbent: Well, so much for bafflegab.


COAL BOUGHT BY ONTARIO HYDRO
John Edward Broadbent: I will ask either the Minister who has just responded or the Acting Prime Minister to respond to the question. The reality is that the coal in western Canada has only one-eighth the amount of sulphur, which is the active agent in producing acid rain, as that of coal from the United States. Since we know that fact, and since we know there are thousands of unemployed miners in western Canada who would also like jobs, why does the Government of Canada not simply request the Premier of the Province of

September 28, 1983
Oral Questions
Ontario to buy Canadian coal for Ontario Hydro? It is pretty simple.


John (Moody) Roberts: 1 think that the answer is reasonably simple also, Madam Speaker. The basic question involves the most cost effective ways of arriving at the desired result. Our impulse has always been to arrive at the desirable result and not to proclaim how provincial Government are to do so. It may be, as the result of a variety of factors, that there are alternative mechanisms, whether there are other technological processes, for instance, the use of scrubbers, the use of pyorrite rejection processes or whatever-but other means that are less costly of arriving at the over-all result.
I return to the basic point, that what we must do is to arrive at tolerable deposition levels, and that requires agreement on the part of both the Provinces and other Governments as to what the objective should be, and the means of arriving at it are within the jurisdictions of other Governments. It may be that-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


John (Moody) Roberts: -the approach which the Hon. Member suggests is the most desirable one, but not necessarily so.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister is really extremely long, whether he is answering with respect to the environment or something else. I just have to warn the Minister that his answers must be shortened.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, as usual, I agree with your ruling. The Minister, did not give us any answer at all on the environmental issue. I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question on the same subject, but in terms of its job impact.


PURCHASE OF CANADIAN COAL ADVOCATED
John Edward Broadbent: Considering the fact that Canada annually imports some 16 million tonnes of what is accurately described as "dirty coal" from the United States, if we purchased that coal for use in central Canada from western Canada instead, we would produce thousands of badly needed jobs. Why does the Government of Canada not take this action which would provide jobs, deal with the environment, and also provide needed east-west Canadian trade?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, 1 thought the Minister of the Environment answered the environmental aspect of the question very well. He did it twice to make sure he got his point across. The other question raised by the Member-and that is the disadvantage of having two questions rolled into one-was why does central Canada not buy coal from Canada instead of buying it from the United States. The answer to that is very, very simple. Economics. It is found that it is cheaper for us to
import coal from the U.S. into the central part of Canada and to produce coal and export it to Japan and anywhere else for the West Coast.


Mr. Chretien:: And we need railways too. We need the Crow.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We do the same with respect to oil. Canada is the only country in the world that imports oil at one end and exports it at the other end. Economics, my dear Watson.


TRUST COMPANIES
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, on June 14 last I asked the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a question regarding the activities of several trust companies and their refusal to rewrite mortgages at a lower rate upon the payment of three months' interest penalty. The Minister replied in part, as reported at page 26340 of Hansard-.
It is a situation that should not be allowed to occur, and I can assure the Hon. Member that my officials are, at the present time, making representations to the companies concerned with a view to correcting this situation.
What have the officials of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs done to stop this massive rip-off? Why is she keeping secret the report she has prepared on Canada Trust, one of the major players in this rip-off?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the answer is very simple. The report has not been presented to me. The investigation is still under way.
I might add that I am disappointed that the practice still continues and that many of the trust companies, indeed some of the banks, are continuing the practice. I have great sympathy for those people. I can assure the Hon. Member that when all the facts are known they will be public.


PROTECTION REQUESTED FOR HOMEOWNERS
William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. The massive correspondence that I have on this subject indicates that the trust companies declined to write into the mortgage contracts a three-month penalty clause, stating that it was unnecessary because it was standard in the industry. What is the Minister doing to protect the more than 750,000 Canadians who are being held at ransom by a handful of unscrupulous trust companies?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows very well that if there is something specific to be done it would be through the Interest Act. Is he suggesting that we amend the
September 28, 1983

Oral Questions CRIMINAL CODE
Interest Act? If so, I wish he would make his policies very clear on this point.


Mr. Epp:: What are yours?


Judith A. Erola: In the meantime I can assure him that we are investigating these charges and that we are taking a very close look. The report is not yet available at the moment. It has not been made to me, but I can assure him again that every case that is brought to my attention will be investigated.


INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE CONSPIRACY
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister and follows along the lines of that of the Hon. Member for Burlington. As the Minister is aware, there has always been a long-standing tradition in this country of being able to prepay a mortgage upon meeting a three-month penalty clause. Last Fall that policy changed as a result of corporate decisions. I am talking about Canada Trust, Royal Trust, and National Trust. Has she instituted any investigation through Combines Investigation with respect to a potential conspiracy which may offend the provisions of that Act?


Judith A. Erola: Yes, Madam Speaker, we have. In fact I was just talking about that very same examination that is currently under way. When that is completed I will make it public. I ask the Hon. Members, however, if there are other avenues they are suggesting, to let us hear them. Put them forward.


REQUEST THAT INTEREST ACT BE AMENDED
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Housing who, I know, is very sympathetic to the plight of mortgage holders who are undergoing a great hardship. I ask him whether or not he is sympathetic and whether it is the policy of his Government that the Interest Act ought to be changed so that at the end of two years instead of five years people can get out of their mortgages by prepayment of a three months' penalty?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, while I am very sympathetic to the issue as presented by the Hon. Member, I must say that I would have to reflect on the implications of what he has suggested since one of the goals we are trying to achieve is longer mortgages. We are in fact trying to come up with a policy which would, in part, answer the Hon. Member's preoccupation, on longer term mortgages. Of course I would support what would protect those who take mortgages, and I hope that the financial institutions, as the Minister of Finance has indicated, would be reasonable in their approach to their clients.


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ON SUBJECT OF STREET PROSTITUTION
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It relates to the Government's and particularly the Minister's lack of action in the area of street soliciting and prostitution. He will recall that his response at the end of June this year was totally unsatisfactory and was met with great rejection across the country. In fact his predecessor, the former Minister of Justice, the Hon. Ron Basford, has stated that he totally disagrees with the Government's position on prostitution.
After reflection over the summer, will the Minister not now consider allowing the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to go forward by way of legislation in the House so that we can deal with something that is a problem across the country?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I announced the Government's policy on this matter at the beginning of the summer. We are hoping to have the co-operation of Parties opposite in getting legislation to amend the criminal law passed in the new session of Parliament.
In the meantime, the committee that I have appointed to look at the matter of prostitution and pornography is very actively involved in its work. We are awaiting the work and the report of that committee. I hope they will be able to help us in either determining or creating what consensus may exist in Canada with respect to the solution of this difficult problem.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I believe the Minister is showing his academic side rather than his political side. I think the people of Canada want action now. This matter has been studied to death. They do not need another commission going around the world looking at red light districts and the flesh pots of this planet.


CHILD PROSTITUTION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, specifically as it relates to child prostitution and specific recommendations made by the committee, will the Minister not bring forward those amendments that were suggested by the committee to make it a criminal offence to be involved in prostitution with children under the age of 18 years of age? Will he not at least bring forward that particular amendment?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member may think he knows what the people of Canada want, but in fact there is a good deal of public division on this question. In fact there was division on his committee-


Roméo LeBlanc: Within his own Party.


Mark R. MacGuigan: And within his own Party undoubtedly, as well.

September 28, 1983
Oral Questions
With respect to child pornography, there is a very important study being done by Dr. Badgley. We hope to have that report on all aspects of children and victims of crime. We will certainly be prepared to proceed with legislation at the proper time. We hope to have that report early in the new year.


FISHERIES
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is my understand from rumours that the Minister will be meeting with Premier Buchanan tomorrow on the problem of Nickerson and National Sea Products. Is the Minister planning to propose to the Province the nationalization of these two companies? If so, what will he do to protect the position of all the other smaller companies across Nova Scotia and other Maritime Provinces caused by such an influx of capital into these companies? If not, will he allow private enterprise in Nova Scotia and other areas to pick up the assets of these two big companies?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, the last part of the Hon. Member's question asked, in effect, if the Government would allow the small processing companies in Nova Scotia to buy the bigger ones which have financial difficulties. My first comment is, of course, that this is a provincial responsibility. I am sure that neither the Government of Nova Scotia nor the federal Government would object to seeing the small companies take over the bigger companies.
Second, there is no question here of nationalization. What is even more important is that there is no question of bail-out. if we start giving hand-outs to big companies, the smaller ones- and rightly so-will say, "What about us? We want bail-outs and hand-outs". What I am trying to achieve with Premier Buchanan, and with Premier Peckford of Newfoundland and Labrador, is an equitable solution to a problem which could affect hundreds of small processors. If some big companies go under, of course there will be. a depressing effect on all the different companies of the Atlantic region.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the continuing 22 per cent unemployment among Canada's young people and the growing concern about dwindling timber resources for Canada's No. 1 industry, I find it incredible that the Government has not yet announced a comprehensive, long-term plan to provide jobs in forestry at decent rates of pay. As EBAP
forestry projects wind down at the end of this month, the Government has nothing substantial to put in their place-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member should ask a question.


James Douglas Manly: Instead of flying kites about a possible "youth corps" or "conservation corps" that may or may not be in the new Throne Speech, I would like to ask the Minister when he will meet his responsibility to our young people. When will the Government meet its responsibility to the forest industry and bring in a job-creation program which is not simply makeshift but will pay real dividends in the future?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member opposite were more in touch with the facts than he obviously is. Youth unemployment is not at the level he has described. It is under 20 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: Second and more important, in relation to the subsequent question he posed the Government has already undertaken considerable efforts in the forest industry across the country, particularly in British Columbia and particularly with the utilization of Section 38 funds to create employment in the forest industry and to undertake work which is important in terms of the long-term interests of that industry.
The third thing the Hon. Member should know, but seems not to know, is that it is the provincial Government of British Columbia which withdrew from The Employment Bridging Assistance Program. The federal Government made up the provincial Government's shortfall in that program. Even though the program is supposed to come to an end very shortly, we are considering ways of supplementing it. His real criticism should be directed against the Government of British Columbia which has pulled the rug out from under the programs we have sponsored for direct and special assistance to the forest industry.


CANADA WORKS PROGRAM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Would he agree that the British Columbia Government has cut back the social services programs and that in fact the federal Government has pulled the plug as well, because in the Canada Works Program money going to private initiatives means less money for social services? Would the Minister agree that he in fact pulled the rug from under social service programs which he was funding? Second, would he try to make one change which I will suggest to him, that is, allow co-operative business to get some of the Canada Works money?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, absolutely not. As I have just said, the fact of the
September 28, 1983

matter is that under a variety of programs we have been and are continuing to be of considerable assistance. It is not the fact that the federal Government has pulled the rug out from underneath the support of job creation in the forest industry. That is the reverse of the truth. It is in fact the British Columbia Government which has reneged on some of those programs.
The answer to the second part of the question is no, it is not the case that we have reneged on the possibility of using Canada Works funds in social and community projects. It is true that we have opened up Canada Works to programs which encourage and assist the private sector in creating jobs.
I do not know whether the Hon. Member is opposed to using the private sector to create jobs in this country. I sincerely hope not because that would seem to me to be an incredible-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is fine.


John (Moody) Roberts: He says fine. Then he should be endorsing our programs, not criticizing them.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: But don't take it from the other sector.


CRIMINAL CODE
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I will direct my question to the Acting Minister, the Solicitor General. The Minister of Justice has already told my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, that he has rejected specific recommendations by the Justice Committee which would make it a crime for adults to buy sex from juveniles. In light of the fact that B.C. law enforcement agencies say that there is an international "chicken hawk" ring in existence, ranging from Los Angeles to Vancouver to South Africa, in which the "chickens", or juveniles under 18, are preyed upon by the "hawks", or adults, how can the Minister justify the failure of the Government to implement the Justice Committee's recommendations?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Criminal Code in its present form provides penalties for involving juveniles in sexual activity. A legislative package is being brought forward by the Government now to toughen the laws in the area of prostitution. A commission has been established as well, and its terms of reference should have the support of Hon. Members opposite. I encourage the House to support the work of that commission which has already begun. It will deal with some of the controversial aspects of prostitution, and propose solutions to the House for legislation.


TRANS-BORDER TRAFFIC IN CHILDREN
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Minister. I
Oral Questions
should point out that the report to which he refers will not even be reported back to the Minister until December, 1984. In the meantime Vancouver law enforcement officers have in their possession 7,000 pictures of young people, some as young as 13, involved in the "chicken hawk" ring, plus an address book containing the names of the victims. Since some of these youngsters are from B.C. and others are from Los Angeles, what is the Minister doing to stop these trans-border transactions in young people?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that the type of activity she has just described is covered by the Criminal Code and that the enforcement of the Criminal Code is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of the Province. From reports I have read in the media, action is being considered by the Attorney General in that area.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Could he tell the House what we are to make of the statement of the Minister of Finance in Winnipeg yesterday to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in which he said:
We are expected to have this year and next year the largest real growth of any of the summit countries.
The Conference Board release today indicated that growth in the United States this year will be 3.4 per cent and only 3 per cent in Canada, that growth next year in the United States will be 5.4 per cent and only 2.7 per cent in Canada, and that in 1985 it will be 3.1 per cent in the United States and 0.4 per cent in Canada. How do we justify this kind of misrepresentation by the Minister?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thought I got across yesterday, Madam Speaker, that one, or one set of statistics does not make the winter or the spring. I tried to convey the idea that one has to take his daily dose of statistics with a grain of salt. Today we have one indicating that job creation went down in August to 15,000 from 50,000 the month before. If we look at statistics for past years we find out that August is usually a static month. There is usually less growth of employment in August. I have my daily bread of statistics.
"Unless interest rates", says the Conference Board, "fall, recovery will peter out." That is one factor only. Inflation is coming down, and unemployment is coming down. They are other factors. This is why I feel a bit embarrassed to try to answer statistics in single file. The only way to assess the state of the economy in Canada is to put them all on a single page of paper. That is why I find it difficult to comment on only one.

September 28, 1983
Oral Questions NEW PROGRAMS SOUGHT


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister will know-and 1 think he is even agreeing with me in his statement, now having given some Conference Board figures-that the Conference Board has forecast sluggish growth and continued high unemployment. The real question all Canadians want answered is when the Government will stop fuddling around. When will we have some new programs or new attitudes? When will he take a look at some of the things which Mrs. Thatcher told the Prime Minister yesterday? If he will not do something along that line, when will he recommend to the Prime Minister that the House be dissolved and we go to a general election?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend speaks as though we on this side of the House were totally satisfied. We are not. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance repeat that every day. There are a number of statistics and situations that we do not like. The Member speaks as though we are resting on our seats and contemplating the future. We are not doing that. We are working constantly to try to find if there can be improvements to the programs we now have. We do that on a regular basis. On the occasion of a budget or the announcement of new programs, we answer more specifically some of the problems we face. The problem of youth, for example, is an area on which we are now concentrating our thinking very substantially.


PROPOSAL TO EXPAND SECTORAL FREE TRADE WITH UNITED STATES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. It concerns the paper "Canadian Trade Policy for the 1980s" which he introduced about a month ago. When the Minister was commenting on the paper, he said that we need more sector by sector free trade agreements with the United States. About 11 years ago one of his predecessors, Mitchell Sharp, said in a similar paper that the free trade option "was judged to be inconsistent with Canada's desire to preserve a maximum degree of independence". Can the Minister explain why Mitchell Sharp's arguments have been rejected by the Cabinet, and why they do not carry weight with the Cabinet today?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is comparing apples and oranges, but I am delighted to see him interested in the vital field of expanding our trade opportunities. What Mitchell Sharp rejected and what the Government rejected was the question of total free trade with the United States or, if you like, a customs union. What I am talking about at the
present time is an examination of sectors where a free trade arrangement might be mutually beneficial to Canada and the United States, as has proved to be the case in the automotive business over the course of the past 20 years.
Right now we are looking at the question of whether it would be of advantage in relation to jobs in Canada for us to have a free trade arrangement with the United States in specialty steel, or in textiles and garments. We are also looking at the question of mass communications equipment in cities. Another possible area of examination is the petrochemical industry. The people who are in those industries and who create the jobs believe that there might be some advantages in both of those fields. It may be that our American friends will have others to suggest, but what is at stake is the free access of particular products to the vast American market which overcomes the disadvantage that Canadian manufacturers have of a very limited domestic market.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, despite the wind, the Minister has not answered the question. I want to know why the federal Government is leaning away from the third option, the option to diversify our trade, which was advocated by the federal Government years ago, as well as by the Diefenbaker Government before that, in favour of a more narrow sector by sector approach with the United States at a time when, ironically, America's share of world trade and output is declining and the share of trade and output of other countries is on the way up. Why this shift at this particular time?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should realize that there is no shift. If you are running a store, you want to sell to every possible customer, particularly to customers who have the money to buy the goods. We are seeking an expansion of our trade with the United States, trying to overcome any trade barriers by the lowering of tariffs so that we can get them in there better. That does not mean that we are in any way decreasing our pursuit of Pacific Rim opportunities where the ASEAN countries and other countries have very rapid rates of growth and, therefore, are becoming better and better markets. My attitude is, let us sell Canadian goods and services to the world wherever we can, keeping in mind that export markets are shifting targets. Therefore we must shift our efforts as the opportunities occur. That is why Canadian trade has grown from $17 billion in 1970 to $85 billion last year.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
September 28, 1983

Can the Minister confirm that the Government of Canada has been approached by the Government of the United States with a view to upgrading the DEW Line system at a cost of about $1 billion? If so, what has been the response of the Government of Canada, particularly to the request that Canada pay part of the cost?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Yes, Madam Speaker. In fact the Hon. Member sitting in front of the Hon. Member who posed the question addressed that same issue last week. An approach has been made by the American Government relating to the modernization of the DEW Line. The approach and the representations that were made for financial participation by Canada in that project are now under consideration. The Government of Canada has authorized my Department and myself to overview the ongoing negotiations. Of course the Hon. Member will understand that, until such time as those negotiations are completed, I will not be in a position to make any comments relating to their content, or to any of the positions we might wish to advance.


POSSIBLE CONTRACTS FOR MANUFACTURERS OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Supply and Services. If this $1 billion upgrading takes place, it will presumably mean that a great deal of electronic equipment will have to be bought. Is the Government considering any special plans which will ensure that Canadian electronics manufacturers have a good chance at the contracts which will be involved?
[ Translation]


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, I can inform the House that the matter of industrial spinoffs as a result of Canadian participation is one of the Canadian Government's major considerations in responding to the request made by the American Government. However, as I mentioned earlier, I hope the Hon. Member will understand that until negotiations have been completed, I cannot go on to reveal our basic considerations in these negotiations.

[ English]


CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State concerning Sidney Jaffe whose abduction from Canada is a matter of national and international concern. Is Mr. Jaffe a Canadian citizen and, if so, when did he apply for citizenship and when did he become a citizen?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a series of detailed questions which
Oral Questions
are indeed important. The request of the petitioner will be looked into in accordance with the provisions of the Citizenship Act. He will have an opportunity to state the reasons of his case and the judge will be in a position to make a decision. If there is need for an appeal, the Court of Appeal will look into the case in an appropriate manner.


GRANTING OF LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, my question is directly to the Minister as opposed to the Citizenship Act or the court. While the Minister is checking on that, perhaps he might inform himself as to whether the residence requirements under Section 5(1 )(b) were waived in accordance with the provisions of Section 5, Subsection (3) or (4) of the same act, which is his responsibility.
1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Were Mr. Sidney Jaffe and his wife accorded landed immigrant status? When was this done, and was it granted through regular procedure or as a result of ministerial intervention, such as a ministerial permit?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, this kind of detailed question could be more appropriately dealt with on the Order Paper. I will check on the facts and report to the Hon. Member.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister who, as a former Minister of Transport, will have knowledge. It concerns the Ways and Means Motion of June 29 of this year which, if passed, would tighten up customs loopholes and eliminate preferential duty and absence of duty on ships imported into Canada from other countries. What action is the Minister taking to bring forward this legislation as soon as possible in view of the fact that members of all Parties in the House, I believe, would give quick passage to it in the full realization of the urgency of this matter for the shipbuilding industry in Canada and the need for more jobs for this already hard pressed industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will ask the new Minister of Transport what priority he is giving to that issue. I would not be well behaved if I did not do that. 1 will also find out if these measures were not applicable the moment that they were announced, which is also a possibility. Again, 1 will contact my hon. friend to give him that information.

September 28, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Huntington


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Madam Speaker:: I would like to report to the House the following: the resolution which was adopted following the emergency debate that was allowed by the Chair on September 12 directed the Speaker to convey the text of that resolution to the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. As I was directed, I asked the Charge d'Affaires of the Soviet Embassy to present himself at my office so that I could deliver the resolution to him. He did come to my office on September 22, 1983, but informed me that he was under instructions not to accept the text of the resolution.
It is clear that I was and will be unable to communicate the text of that resolution to the Presidium through the usual diplomatic channels. I have, therefore, done my best to comply with the order of the House, and I must say to the House that, from the conversations that I had with the Charge d'Affaires of the Soviet Embassy, my feeling is that the opinion of the Parliament was well understood by him and that possibly that opinion was conveyed to the proper authorities in Moscow.


POINT OF ORDER
Madam Speaker:: I would like to rule on the point of order which was raised yesterday by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). He is not in the House at the present time, but 1 think perhaps I can rule. He was raising objections about the statement under Standing Order 21 made by the Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Burghardt). My reading of that statement is that it was in order.
The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is rising on a point of order?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, it seems that the Soviet Embassy is treating the Parliament with the same degree of contempt that has been accepted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). However, that is not my point of order.
My point of order deals with items now standing on today's Order Paper, and it will be brief. I am raising it at this time in order to facilitate the orderly conduct of the business of the House which will arise tomorrow.
It is a well established practice of the House and one that is set out in Standing Order 79(10) that when a Bill first comes up for debate at the report stage, the Speaker has the authority to select and combine amendments for debate and often has cause to rule on the procedural acceptability or unacceptability of any or all of the amendments.
There are currently, Madam Speaker, as of today's Order Paper, some 145 notices of amendments to Bill C-155 standing on the Order Paper and, of course, there is the potential for still more amendments to be added prior to the consideration of the Bill tomorrow. I am concerned, as I am sure are the Chair and the officers of the Table, that the sheer volume of amendments for which notice has been given and the lack of notice that Members are given prior to the Chair's observations concerning the procedural acceptability of report stage amendments will combine to slow progress of debate on Bill C-155.
If I may, Madam Speaker, direct your attention to a ruling made at page 2651 of Hansard for March 27, 1973, by the then Acting Speaker, Mr. Laniel, I think that it will help to clarify the point that I am making concerning the consideration of Bill C-155 tomorrow. At that time, the Acting Speaker was ruling on the acceptability of five amendments that were put forward by Members of the Social Credit Party. He noted that Members had the undoubted right to comment on the procedural acceptability of their amendments but they should direct their observations on any given procedural point to all motions affected by a procedure, practice or rule at once rather than dealing with the amendments one by one. The Acting Speaker said, as reported at page 2651 of Hansard:
The Hon. Member naturally has a right to comment on each of these motions. The Chair considers that the notices of motions are definitely interrelated, and I think therefore that I can say straight away, on my own initiative, that the reasons behind the ruling that I propose to make concerning the five motions are based on Standing orders, and have precedents in previous rulings and opinions, or in interpretations of Standing orders in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. I do not see why the Chair should have to make a ruling on any one motion in isolation.
Considering the number of amendments that may be on the Order Paper by tomorrow and recognizing that some of those amendments will most lfkely be questionable, I suspect that both the Chair and Members will face a considerable task when attempting to straighten out the arguments being made, if in fact motions are grouped for consideration prior to
September 28, 1983

inviting the input of Hon. Members with respect to the acceptability or unacceptability of each of the amendments.
Moreover, until such time as Hon. Members have had the opportunity to study the Chair's comments with respect to the proposed amendments, it will be difficult to respond to the Chair's concerns, which undoubtedly will be raised with respect to their acceptance or non-acceptance. I would therefore put forward the suggestion, Madam Speaker, that members be given the opportunity to defend the procedural acceptability of the notices of amendments that are on the Order Paper in their name at the time those amendments would ordinarily come up for debate. This would serve to deal with procedural arguments in a more orderly manner than if all arguments were to be heard at the beginning of the debate, and indeed it might assist the Chair by focusing the arguments being made by Members to a particular procedural point.
As well, my suggestion should give Hon. Members the opportunity to study your remarks on the proposed amendments before making their submissions to the Chair, and it would alleviate the kind of uncertainty that occurred at the time when Bill C-124 came before the House and when you, Madam Speaker, were in the Chair. I am sure you will recall that that legislation had to do with the capping of civil service pensions. At that time, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) was, through your generosity and that of the House and indeed with the consent of the House, allowed to turn back the clock and make an intervention with respect to Motion No.
1 then standing in his name at a point when debate had already progressed to the consideration of Motion No. 4.
I will not develop that point in any further detail other than to refer the Chair to Hansard of July 30, 1982, at page 19866 and subsequent pages. I will perhaps read one brief quote from Hansard because the language used was so delightful, Madam Speaker. I am quoting you, Madam Speaker, from page 19959:
It is quite a dilemma because I have just given an interpretation of what my ruling said, and in my view it meant that I had ruled. If the House did not understand what I meant, I suppose there is nothing wrong with being generous.
You then asked for the consent of the House, and the Hon. Member for Churchill was allowed to develop his argument, which you then took under consideration, Madam Speaker, and subsequently ruled upon.
1 would suggest, Madam Speaker, that before the announcement is made by the Chair, as such announcement inevitably will be made with respect to the grouping of the amendments, Members be allowed to present their submissions with respect to the acceptability or unacceptability of any of those motions within an intended grouping that may be of questionable procedural acceptability. In that way I think the procedural discussion, at least, would go ahead in a more orderly fashion. If that alternative is not accepted, then we agree that, even if the grouping occurs before the calling for submissions on the procedural acceptability or non-acceptability, it be clearly understood that Members could make submissions on each of the amendments the Chair intends to question procedurally.
Business of the House
I know that my next suggestion would place quite a burden on the Chair and the Table officers, having to deal overnight with 145, and possibly more, notices of motions bringing amendments to this measure but 1 wonder if, before the grouping tomorrow, the Chair might point out, as far as is possible, those amendments which might cause the Chair some concern with respect to their acceptability or non-acceptability. That could be taken as a signal to Members that they could work up their submissions in that regard.
1 have other concerns with respect to the interpretation of Standing Order 79(6) and the form of the notices of motions that have been filed under that Standing Order, but I can deal with those seriatim as they arise, as I expect they will, in the order in which they appear on today's Order Paper.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to this point of order. I feel that the interpretation of the Standing Order given by the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is exaggerated, and I can not subscribe at all to his suggestion on how to interpret the Standing Order, which in my view is quite clear and gives the Chair full discretionary powers. The fact, however, that Standing Order 79(10) gives the Chair this power and discretion does not alter the fact that according to parliamentary practice and other Standing Orders, Hon. Members are not allowed to discuss, comment on, or appeal, the rulings of the Chair. Perhaps I may remind the Chair, since I know, Madam Speaker, that you will read over the comments made by the Member for Yukon and will also take the time to read this particular Standing Order, which is quite clear, perhaps I may draw your attention to the paragraph in question which, basically, says two things: first, it gives the Speaker the power to select or combine amendments and clauses to be proposed at the report stage.
The Standing Order also gives the Speaker, and this is where the interpretation given by the Member for Yukon runs counter to the Standing Order of the House, to what this Standing Order empowers the Speaker to do, it is the power, freedom and discretion, in case of doubt, to call upon any Member who has given the Chair notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the subject of the amendment as may enable the Speaker to form a judgment upon it. There are two aspects here: the Speaker may combine or select the amendments, and once the Chair's decision is made, it cannot be discussed or appealed in the House; the second power conferred on the Speaker by Standing Order 79(10) is probably based on concern for full consideration of the matter and for ensuring that members proposing the amendments are treated in a just and equitable manner-that the Speaker is free to consult Hon. Members until the debate begins, within the period prescribed by the Standing Orders, that is, the Speaker may call upon Members and ask them for explanations, and that should be sufficient for the Chair to draw its conclusions and make a ruling, and decide whether an amendment is acceptable or not.
27542

September 28, 1983
Business of the House
As for suggesting that the Chair reverse its ruling because, with or without consultation, it had decided that an amendment was unacceptable, as for raising a point of order and having a debate on each amendment or several or a few or only one, I submit this goes against parliamentary practice, because Hon. Members may not appeal a ruling by the Chair, and the Standing Order is quite clear, and empowers the Speaker, and I quote:
-to form a judgment upon the subject of the amendment.
Once the Chair has formed a judgment, it can no longer be discussed, and we intend to respect the Standing Order. I do not agree at all with the interpretation given by my learned colleague from Yukon. In fact, I think he is giving us notice of a procedural debate that could take weeks and months-it is very easy to paralyze Parliament. The equity he is seeking, and the concern-if he is sincere, and 1 do not doubt that he is-he seems to have that each amendment, even if there are a great many, be given serious consideration, all that is covered by the Standing Order. With due respect, I submit that the Chair must consider the amendments within the limits prescribed by the Standing Order and not according to the interpretation preferred by a Member of the Opposition. In other words, if the Chair has any doubts, it can consult with any Member of this House, but once the Chair has formed a judgment, I submit that we should not waste any more of the time of the House on discussing that judgment. We have no right to discuss it. In the circumstances, I submit that we should apply Standing Order 79(10) very strictly. That is the appropriate procedure, contained in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons of Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Government House Leader did not intentionally distort what 1 said. I agree with everything he has said with respect to the interpretation of the rules-everything. I am not suggesting that the Chair should not have the discretion to group; of course the Chair has that discretion. What I am suggesting is that if the Chair has a concern about any particular amendment, then the Member in whose name that amendment stands should be given the opportunity to make submissions with respect to its procedural acceptability. We have already established precedents, and I read from them, to the effect that once amendments have been grouped, that procedure is not available to Members. It is on that fine point that I raise this problem.
In justice and fairness, Members of the House should have the right to make submissions with respect to amendments with which the Chair has concern before they are grouped, or there should be a clear understanding that it can be done after they are grouped. No one questions the discretion of the Chair to direct the grouping.


Yvon Pinard: I am not going to repeat what I said before, but I was in fact talking about this particular point. The powers the Chair has are conferred upon it by the Standing Orders. Of course, Hon. Members proposing the amendments may be consulted if the Chair so decides, but it is not up to them to decide. The consultations provided under Standing Order 79(10) cannot be imposed on the Chair by Hon. Members. If, after consultations or on its own initiative, the Chair decides that it requires explanations before making a decision, it is free to call upon Hon. Members before eleven o'clock tomorrow morning. That is what the Standing Order says. The consultation process is limited by the Standing Order, and I submit that we should follow this very clear interpretation of Standing Order 79(10). The Member for Yukon claims that the Chair should go further than that and allow a procedural debate for each Member who wishes to speak tomorrow after eleven o'clock, in order to justify the acceptability or unacceptability of the amendment. I submit that this would be a tremendous waste of Parliament's time, because it would be, and it is, against the letter and the intent of the Standing Order. The Hon. Member may be consulted, if the Chair so decides, before 11 o'clock tomorrow morning, as provided in paragraph (10) of the Standing Order.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, that is not what I have been saying at all. I guess the trouble must be the difference between my anglo thinking and the Hon. Member's franco thinking. I am not suggesting that the Chair does not have that discretion; it does. First of all, I am dealing with the amendments about which the Chair expresses some concern. Presumably if no concern is expressed about any particular amendment, it will be accepted for debate and this procedural debate would not arise. Ninety per cent of those amendments were accepted in committee where there was an excellent chairman with knowledge on procedural matters, so presumably they will be accepted here. It is only those amendments which raise questions in the mind of the Chair that will become the subject of discussion. I do not suggest for a moment that Your Honour does not have the right to hear any argument on the question of an amendment. I am suggesting to you, however, that certainly the traditions and practices of this place would seem to indicate that the Chair would want to be assisted and that the Chair would want to hear some degree of submissions with respect to the procedural non-acceptability of an amendment, if for no other reason than either fortify, or otherwise, the conclusions which she has reached on the advice of her Table officers. That is all that I am suggesting.


Madam Speaker:: Well, I think the debate probably has some usefulness because we do have a very, very important task before us. The Table officers already are trying to suggest a grouping which I hope will be acceptable to the House. Indeed, there might be some questions about the acceptability
September 28, 1983

of some amendments and there might be some cases where the Chair itself is in doubt, or would like to have more explanation on some particular amendments.
1 will follow the practice which 1 have always followed. Even in giving my groupings, I have always grouped them in words which preserve the right of an Hon. Member to bring in objections if he thought that he was being frustrated in his right to see an amendment debated by the House. 1 will try to maintain that practice because I believe it works very well. I have done that in the past and the Hon. Member for Yukon has cited a precedent which conforms exactly with what I have done in the past.
Of course, 1 will fulfil my responsibility of grouping to the best of my knowledge, with due ruling out of certain amendments if 1 feel it is quite clear that they should not be debated.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to your earlier announcement in connection with your inability to comply, as you indicated, with the resolution passed by this House on September 12. This House showed its concern by adopting a unanimous resolution to convey to the Chairman of the Presidium of the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet our condemnation of the act of the Government of the Supreme Soviet, and demanding, among other things, compensation to the families of those persons who lost their lives in that action.
With all respect to the Chair, may I suggest that the mere affront to this House which was committed by the Charge d'Affaires of the Soviet embassy in Canada ought not to end the matter. The final paragraph of that unanimous resolution specifically provides as follows:
Directs the Speaker to convey the text of this motion to the Chairman of the Presidium of the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet.
That specific direction did not require the Chair to deliver the text of the motion to the Embassy of the Soviet Union for transmittal to the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet, but rather simply to convey the text of the motion, leaving it up to the Chair to determine the mode of conveyance.
May I be permitted to submit to the Chair that there are a number of ways in which this conveyance might be undertaken? 1 am thinking specifically of a delivery of same through diplomatic pouch to the Canadian Ambassador in Moscow for delivery by hand, if necessary, coupled with a copy of that same motion to be mailed in the Soviet Union to the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet, coupled with an action by the Chair to use the Canadian mails for the purpose of mailing same to the Supreme Soviet.
1 submit to the Chair that the efforts of this House in a matter of this nature ought not to be frustrated by the actions of some underling diplomat of a foreign government who is

House Resolution
about to be reprimanded by this House of Commons. Accordingly, 1 urge upon the Chair an undertaking of the specific directions given by this House to the Chair. Some of the methods of conveyance to which I made reference certainly do not exhaust all of the methods which might be employed. I am convinced that if Madam Speaker puts her mind to it, others can be devised. My urging upon Madam Speaker is that we do not let this matter lie dormant, having regard to the concerns of all Hon. Members of the House who were involved in the passage of that unanimous resolution.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order as the mover of the motion. 1 would like to say, as one Hon. Member of Parliament, that 1 am deeply disturbed by what can only be described as a contemptuous action by the Soviet Union with regard to this motion. If I heard your honour correctly, and I think 1 did, in reporting back to the House, the Charge d'Affaires of the Soviet Union had been instructed, presumably by his superiors in the Soviet Union, not to accept this message which was passed by the Parliament of Canada.
I repeat, Madam Speaker, in my view that amounts to a contempt of Parliament. It is to compound the mistaken, villainous or cruel act, however one wants to describe it-and I believe all of those adjectives are appropriate to describe the original action of the shooting down of a civilian aircraft by the Soviet Union-for the Soviet Union to respond in this way.
I also feel very seriously, Madam Speaker, that the Parliament of Canada cannot let the matter stand with our having received from the Chair a message from the Charge d'Affaires. I would like to say that I, for one, feel the course of action that Your Honour has taken was the appropriate one, the initial step, and I am, frankly, astounded and surprised that no matter what it thought of the content of the message, the Soviet Union has seen fit simply not to receive it.
1 feel, Madam Speaker, in addition to some suggestions which have been made now about subsequent action, that it would probably be appropriate for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) on behalf of the Government of Canada to request now that the Charge d'Affaires come to him, as the appropriate Minister in the Government of Canada, to explain why such contemptuous behaviour should be taken by the Soviet Union, which, I repeat, amounts to a contempt of this Parliament. That resolution was unanimously passed. It reflected the very serious, deeply felt feelings of the people of Canada. The very least the Soviet Union ought to do is to receive the message before it responds to it.


Madam Speaker:: I am quite grateful for these suggestions which have been made by the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble). However, I will address myself to the last suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). I do not feel that I can delegate this responsibility to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), who would be speaking in the name of the Government about a resolution which the Parliament of Canada has asked the Speaker to transmit to the Soviet authorities.

September 28, 1983
House Resolution
The effect of the order given to the Chair by the House is that the Charge d'Affaires did not accept it. We know the answer. I do not believe it would be useful for me to ask, and I would not delegate that responsibility to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If the Minister wants to pick that up on his own and initiate some kind of action, of course, he is free to do so. However, 1 will look into the other suggestions to see how this message can be transmitted. We already know that a message which was transmitted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not been received, has been refused, here in Ottawa. Also a message which was conveyed by our Embassy in Moscow was refused.
1 can go that route myself, following the suggestions of the Hon. Members. However, I repeat, I would not delegate that responsibility to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I do not feel it would be proper for Parliament to delegate that responsibility, unless the House decides unanimously otherwise. I do not see that it is implicit in the order which this Parliament has given me that 1 now go to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him to perform that duty for me.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I do not think I said that you, yourself, should request the Secretary of State for External Affairs to take that step. If I did say that, I did not mean to. But I do believe he should do it, and that, quite correctly, should come as a request from some of us on this side of the House. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) is here; he might indicate he is in agreement with the suggestion and take it to the Minister.
The reason 1 think it should now be raised with the Minister is that I regard the initial response of the Soviet Union as a contempt of Parliament. We have already seen that it does not intend to respond to the highest officer of this Parliament and therefore is not likely to take any other appropriate action. As a result of that, my view is that we now have to shift the focus. The Soviet Union has taken an additional step to the original one in indicating it is not even prepared to listen to the Parliament of Canada. I think that is a very serious mistake. It is a contempt for any Government which has representatives in this country of ours to so treat Parliament. It is very serious indeed.
Some Hon. Members; Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It is my view that the Secretary of State for External Affairs ought to be calling in the Charge d'Affaires to pass on this message that we view with contempt, if you like, their contemptuous behaviour.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Mirainichi):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble) made several suggestions to you, only one of which I think you should even consider, that being the one concerning the Ambassador in Moscow. 1 would hope you would not reduce the dignity of the House by sending a letter from within the Soviet Union. 1 agree with the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) that the Charge d'Affaires is in contempt of this House, but I disagree strongly that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to take the matter up on behalf of the House.
1 would have another suggestion to offer to you, Madam Speaker. Since the Soviet diplomats are in contempt of this House, 1 suggest that you inform each one of them that he or she is persona non grata in the galleries of this House until the message from this House has been accepted by them.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, as someone who just a little over a week ago attended a special memorial service undertaken by Canadians of Korean heritage in front of the Ontario Legislature, together with Members of this House from all three Parties, I plead and beg of you on behalf of the families who lost relatives in this murderous act that you explore all available avenues. Again, 1 think your ruling is very correct; this is not an issue between the Parliament of Canada and the Government of the Soviet Union. This is an issue between the Parliament of Canada and the Soviet Union. 1 think we should explore all possible avenues. Maybe it means communicating with the Parliament of the Soviet Union, Madam Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: What Parliament?


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, 1 intended to rise at the same time as the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble) and subsequently the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). 1 do not think I can add much more except to say that I am incensed by the results you brought back. I hasten to add that, obviously, it is not the messenger we are angry with, it is the message itself. I think this is in great contempt of this Parliament, and we in Parliament cannot let it rest there.
May 1 just add to the list and, if it is in order, even submit a motion that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization review this matter very quickly and report their recommendations to Parliament. If you find that in order, I would simply move to seek the unanimous consent of my colleagues that we send the subject matter for urgent attention to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it is clear that the Soviet diplomat's attitude constitutes an affront to Parliament, and in our search for an effective means of transmitting this institution's message, we, as parliamentarians, are prepared to consider all useful suggestions. Several were made to the Chair today. I think that before making a hasty decision, we should remember we all have the same objective in mind. Perhaps the Chair could reflect on this matter within the next few hours, and, if it deems appropriate, consult with the parliamentary House Leaders on what should be done to ensure that the resolution
September 28, 1983

adopted by Parliament is transmitted to the appropriate authorities.
As for the Chair's position that this is a parliamentary and not a Government matter, I agree wholeheartedly. I think it is now up to the Chair to transmit the message as the servant of the House, but if we can help you in any way, in addition to the comments made in the House today, we are at your disposal for further consultation, as the Chair decides. Nevertheless, 1 would like to give my Hon. colleague from Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) the assurance that we shall transmit his views and mention the attitude of the Soviet diplomat to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen).


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Government House Leader has made the suggestion that I would have made had he not risen. 1 think perhaps, if we have the usual House Leaders' meeting tomorrow, we might review the matter at that time and perhaps consult with you subsequent thereto. Certainly something has to be done to resolve the situation. There is also the very important question of whether or not ordinary diplomatic immunity applies in a case of this nature. That question will have to be explored as well before we come to any premature conclusions as to what Parliament should do about the contemptuous behaviour of the Charge d'Affaires in refusing to accept the message of this House through its servant, Madam Speaker.
1 would suggest the matter be allowed to rest there, and in the meantime may I point out that 40 minutes have now gone by on two very important points which have arisen, one concerning the business of tomorrow-because there is no other occasion upon which that point can be raised-and this one which had to be addressed immediately because it dealt with a report from the Chair. Perhaps, Madam Speaker, there might be a disposition to extend the hours by unanimous consent tonight by 40 minutes so as to allow all three items, which now stand on the Order Paper as Private Members' business, to be called.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, to answer the question of the Hon. Member, I must add the words "if necessary" because these past Wednesdays we have noted that time has often been wasted and that the House had to adjourn before six o'clock since one or two Members were not ready to proceed with their Bills. So, if the Hon. Members are ready to proceed with the study of the three Bills on the Order Paper today, of course we agree that the House sit until 6.40 p.m., if necessary.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the House sit past six o'clock, if necessary?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: In answer to the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and other Members, I must tell them that I will examine what
Petitions
other means are available to me to convey the message which the House has asked me to send to the soviet authorities. I can only warn Hon. Members against some means which have been suggested and which are perhaps not in keeping with the dignity of this institution. I did convey the message to the highest level. I received a reply which neither I nor the House like, but should 1 go running right and left to hand over the message, or even slip it under a door to be able to deliver it? Anyway, those are things to be considered.
If Hon. Members agree, I will examine all means at my disposal and, as the President of the Privy Council and the Hon. Member for Yukon have suggested, I will advise the Leaders of the various Parties of my conclusions so that they may review the question and then make new recommendations to me.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Madam Speaker, 1 am pleased to present a petition by concerned citizens of my riding of Grey-Simcoe which urges the Government to take all necessary steps to ensure that grocery stores, variety stores and other similar outlets that are open late hours in the evenings be adequately staffed and protected in order to help curtail robberies, beatings and even murders that lately have taken place in ever-increasing numbers in these establishments across Canada.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and duty to present three petitions to the House this afternoon. If I may, 1 would do so under the umbrella of one preamble.
These petitions manifest the steadfast opposition of citizens of the riding of Oxford to the proposals of the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario that would alter the riding in a manner disrespectful of the longstanding cultural and economic ties and associations within the present federal constituency of Oxford. The first is signed by 24 residents of East Zorra-Tavistock township who object to the proposed severance of their township from Oxford riding. The second petition includes the names of over 90 people from Zorra township who express a firm desire to prevent their township from being separated from Oxford.
Finally, the third petition I have the honour to present today is signed by over 1,100 concerned citizens of the constituency

September 28, 1983
Order Paper Questions
of Oxford who oppose the Commission's proposal to remove East Zorra-Tavistock and Zorra townships from the riding.
These people, availing themselves of the right to petition, humbly call upon the House of Commons to urge the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission to reconsider their proposals so that Zorra and East Zorra-Tavistock townships may continue to be represented in the Parliament of Canada by the elected Member for Oxford.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 5,002.
[ Text]


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Is the Government prepared to allow the speedy introduction of AM stereo in Canada and, if so, on what date?
2.	Is the Department of Communications considering allowing only the sale of "universal" AM stereo receivers in Canada in order to allow broadcasters to choose whatever .system of transmission they would prefer?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: In so far
as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
1.	The Government has issued experimental authorizations to broadcasters in various parts of the country to test a number of different AM stereophonic systems. The results of these experiments are being reviewed by three different consultative groups including a specialized committee of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Technical Advisory Committee of the Department of Communications, and the Canadian Radio Technical Planning Board. Upon an analysis of these experimental results and based on the recommendations of these consultative groups, it is expected that AM stereo will be introduced in Canada in a timely manner.
2.	One of the most recent technological breakthroughs in the field of AM stereophonic broadcasting has been in the development of multisystem receivers capable of decoding any of the systems which are currently available. The technical committees are reviewing this new development and will make recommendations concerning the cost effectiveness and technical acceptability of these receivers for the Canadian market. Should these recommendations be favourable and in the public interest, the Department will consider the development of regulations whereby only "universal" type AM stereo receivers would be allowed to be sold in Canada.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 4,810, 4,811, 4,812 and 4,813 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 4,810 to 4,813, inclusive, be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Text]


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a National Gallery Advisory Council and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount has each member received (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	(a) What are the terms of reference of the Council (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Council publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?
Return tabled.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a National Museum of Man Advisory Committee and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount has each member received (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	(a) What arc the terms of reference of the Committee (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Committee publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?
Return tabled.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1. Is there a National Museum of Natural Sciences Advisory Committee and. if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii)
September 28, 1983

term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount has each member received (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2. (a) What are the terms of reference of the Committee (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Committee publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?
Return tabled.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a National Museum of Science and Technology Advisory Committee and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount has each member received (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	(a) What are the terms of reference of the Committee (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Committee publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?
Return tabled.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Madam Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order, please. It being past six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 6.32 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Thursday, September 29, 1983']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Shall all orders listed under Notices of Motions preceding order No. 80 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?
Capital Gains Tax INCOME TAX ACT EXEMPTIONS FROM CAPITAL GAINS TAX Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act in order that, a once-in-a-lifctime exemption from capital gains taxation be provided for the main business property of non-incorporated or incorporated farmers and businesses employing less than 30 persons, and with gross sales less than $1 million annually, and with fewer than three places of business, excluding foreign-owned farms or businesses, franchise operations and quota values of any kind, and this exemption from capital gains be made conditional upon those involved investing at least 50 per cent of the taxable amount in the Farm Credit Corporation or in Small Business Development Bonds, at a rate of interest to be more than 50 per cent of the Canadian prime interest rate.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with substantial pleasure that I rise to speak briefly on the motion today, because 1 believe the fact that 1 am able to raise this issue and to cause some deliberation of this proposal by Hon. Members on all sides of the House is a reflection that the process in Canada continues to work and that individuals at the grass roots level can have the opportunity to have their ideas contemplated and promoted by themselves, and then deliberated by the House.
1 want to pay particular tribute to a farmer in my constituency, an immigrant to Canada from Belgium some many years ago by the name of Leon Meersseman who, while growing tobacco on his property, cultivating his fields, expresses his concern with respect to the quality of life in Canada and how it may somehow be improved for other Canadians by giving thought to the tax system, among other things, as reflected in this particular motion. I wish I could claim its complete authorship. 1 wish, that I could stand before Hon. Members today and suggest that this idea had its genesis in my own conciousness, but it was in fact this farmer who initially came to me with the idea. It was probably generated from thoughts being put forth by Members of this House and by the Government when we were debating alternative sources of funding for the Farm Credit Corporation and the concept of Small Business Bonds to assist not only small businessmen but also the farming operations in Canada.
I think it is a fact accepted by Hon. Members on all sides of the House that we are currently in a time in our society when there is a tremendous impact upon farmers and small businessmen of high interest rates and of the effect of an ever-restric-tive credit market to which they can go not only for their ongoing daily operations but for their long-term credit as well. Indeed, this House has expressed itself on a number of occasions in supporting the Small Business Bond concept.
In supporting the extension of sources from which farm credit could be seeking its funds, allowing it to go to the private market, and in coming forward with this particular Bill, the idea in mind, in simple form, was to permit Canadians to invest in themselves, in particular, to allow small businessmen and farmers to invest in their own operations and to come to the assistance of others who find themselves in the same employ. In effect, through this motion we are asking the Government to contemplate permitting farmers to fund the FCC themselves, at least in part. In order to effect that, we are


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

September 28, 1983
Capital Gains Tax attempting to alleviate what, at the very least, is an irritant in my view and in the minds of most of those in the farming community of Canada, namely the capital gains tax.
While making this proposal to the House, it is not without recognition of the fact that this country had provisions for inheritance taxes and state taxes. One can place it in this context, that the society that we represent bought the removal of those inheritance and succession duty taxes by the acceptance of the concept of the capital gains tax. However, there are certain problems with that kind of taxation. Farmers, in particular, and certainly in the same sort of way the small businessman, are the engines of this nation who create employment and provide the food which would otherwise not be placed on our tables. They are in a different position from that of the labourer or the salaried employees who have the opportunity, through other tax provisions such as RRSPs, RHOSPs and the other mechanisms the House has put into our tax system, to set aside money for their retirement. I believe Members from all sides of the House accept the principle that farmers and small businessmen find their retirement programs in their farms and businesses since they do not have the disposable income from their business operations to permit them to purchase RRSPs or other retirement plans for their advanced years. They are unable to take advantage of tax incentives to save money in that manner.
With respect to farmers, they use their money for the improvement of their land or buildings in an attempt to enhance their operations and make them more viable, or to become more efficient producers. Therefore, at the end of their working lives they find that what others would have put away for retirement they have used on their farming operations. When that operation is sold they are exposed to the capital gains tax.
1 think it is probably charitable to express that as an irritant. In many instances it is far beyond an irritation. While exemptions have been provided to permit tranferral to members of the family, there are still farmers in our society with no sons or daughters to whom those transfers can be made. Not only do those individuals lose the ability to make that rollover, they are subjected to a tax which they view as a robbery of their ability to look after themselves in their old age.
Therefore, this motion attempts to achieve two goals. It attempts to provide funding for the FCC and small business development from the private sector while providing an exemption or relief from the total effect of the capital gains tax at the same time. The motion suggests that there be a minimum investment and that only a portion of the investment be subjected to a preferred tax. The return from that investment should be lower than the standard rate of interest so that it is not viewed as a windfall but rather a conscious decision on the part of the investors not only to protect themselves for the future in some small way but to help those who may want to continue the occupation they loved throughout their working life.
1 recognize that 1 do not have the benefit of the Finance Department to analyze all the financial implications of this proposal. However, 1 put it to the House that my idea has sufficient merit at least to bear discussion and examination by the Finance Department as well as a response in the House, in the event it is found unacceptable, to explain why it is so. It should not simply be said to be unacceptable without its conceptual problems being disclosed.
I believe this concept will work. It is not so novel as to be completely unheard of. It probably bears some similarity to the agri-bond proposals of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which are not without some merit. That concept certainly bears some consideration, and I am not married to this proposal in the sense that I would be opposed to an alternative such as an agri-bond issue or other proposal which would achieve the same end.
I am attempting to sensitize Members of the House, and hopefully the bureaucracy, to the idea that there is a need in the country and that the public would like to see us working on this or similar ideas that would achieve the same end.
At the end of the day, if I could have achieved that, I believe I will have achieved the end to which I alluded at the beginning, that is, that our system permits the upward movement of an idea from the fields in Essex County to the point where the House could express its views upon it, then into the bowels of the bureaucracy, hopefully to be generated back to the House in this or some other form so that we could see legislation implemented.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin) for doing some thinking. While I would not suggest naturally that all of his thoughts were the same as those of others, he has touched the central theme that small business persons and farmers across the country have been expressing to their Members of Parliament at least since prior to 1971. The theme is that capital gains taxation affects them negatively. Furthermore, they perceive it as being unfair, as do most representatives.
I submit that we do not have the concept called capital gains tax today. That is, we do not have a tax on gains. Instead, it is a tax on gain plus inflation.
Let us use the farming business as an example. Since valuation day is 1971, a tractor purchased in 1971 may sell today for more than its purchase price. But surely there is not a Member sitting in the House today who believes that that tractor is in fact worth more today than it was more than a decade ago after it may have had as many as a thousand hours of use. That tractor, which has less new technology, less comfort and more wear, is not worth more. The fact is the inflation has added phoney, or funny, money. Therefore, the sale price simply indicates a number that looks larger but does not, in reality, represent a greater value. Therefore, that is not a capital gains tax but a capital gain plus inflation tax.
What other segment of our society is paying tax on inflation? More important, farmers are among the only group of
September 28, 1983

business persons in the entire country who can not protect themselves against inflation. For example, if that tax were applied to a clothing store operator, and his cost to purchase clothing for the store increased, he would simply sell the clothing for more. Whoever heard of a farmer saying that his gasoline costs him 30 per cent more this year so his wheat will be sold for 30 per cent more? Whoever heard of a farmer, after hearing feedgrain costs had risen, selling his meat for a certain amount more? Farmers must pay the price on the products they buy and they receive the price that is offered to them when they sell. Therefore, there is a double jeopardy where farmers are not only the only group in society which is taxed on inflation, but are one of the groups in society that cannot protect themselves against inflation.
The Government needs to listen to the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent who sits on its side of the House. I am pleased that this piece of legislation is in his name. According to the rules for Private Members' Motions, if we speak beyond an hour this piece of legislation will have been spoken out. I am pleased to follow the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent because I do not want to speak out this motion. 1 think it deserves the consideration which he requests. I have some trouble with the last part of it because I do not believe we have the right to tell farmers to invest in the Farm Credit Corporation. 1 think they are subjected to a phoney taxation now, but at least the motion of the Hon. Member is better than the present case.
Canadians listening to the debate today on television or those who will read it in Hansard in the future should know that whatever Member talks out this motion will have to bear the burden. It is upon his or her shoulders if this good piece of legislation does not go forward.
As the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent indicated, farmers are faced with a tax on inflation. Also it should be pointed out that of all the tax systems in Canada today, the capital gains tax is the most expensive to collect. In the case of income tax, people sit in their homes, fill out their forms, mail them in, and once they are audited and checked by the Department of National Revenue, that is the amount they receive from or owe the Government. In the case of the capital gains tax, the Government is dealing with acquired properties and assessed values. It requires a bank and battery of assessors and inspectors, and an entire new process of collecting the tax dollar is created. The fundamental question is not whether it is more expensive to farmers, but whether it is justified in the first place. To be truthful, if a farmer did not pay his capital gains tax, that money would be recorded as income and would be subject to income tax. Surely one should not have to pay income tax and be exposed to the capital gains tax at the same time.
What a whipping of our farmers who are the most efficient producers in Canada! Anyone who doubts that should read the speeches of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in which he praised the efficiency of farmers compared with other Canadian producers. In his great rhetoric of "irregard-less" and "et cetera", he talked about how efficient farmers
Capital Gains Tax
were. The Government of Canada does not believe that because it treats them in a totally unfair manner in terms of taxation and capital gains.
With the capital gains tax on farmland, I believe we have a double jeopardy in taxation. For example, if a farmer purchased a new parcel of land in 1975 at a fixed value of $1,000 per acre, and if he sold it in 1983 at $1,500 per acre, the $500 difference would be called profit and subjected to taxation. But in 1975 he used money on which he had already paid income tax to purchase the land. If he is taxed when he sells the land, then he has actually been taxed twice. If we look at the question of gains, we must analyse whether or not it was a gain or whether the gain was inflation. If the gain was simply inflation, then he is certainly being taxed twice.
There are many examples in the agricultural and small business sectors of something being called gain which is not gain but in fact is double taxation or prejudice against a sector of society which the Minister of Agriculture frequently claims is the most efficient in the country today.
Those of us who have the privilege of serving rural communities-and the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent serves a rural community-occasionally hear our city cousins in coffee shops talk about, "the rich farmer".


Mr. Althouse:: Oh!


Arnold John Malone: I hear an Hon. Member of the NDP making noises. It is amazing how 11 per cent of the membership of the House of Commons makes more than 50 per cent of the noise.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Especially with 20 per cent of the vote.


Arnold John Malone: There he goes again. He referred to 11 per cent of the vote in the next election.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: 1 said, "20 per cent".


Arnold John Malone: In any event, when we hear our city cousins talking about "rich farmers", they fail to realize that farmers do not only work eight hours per day, five days per week. Also our urban cousins fail to remember that there are more than one or two breadwinners in farming families. Their hours per day and their days per week are longer. Many family members are involved in the task of producing goods, yet farms are taxed as if they were some other business, all within a year's calendar and as if all the money were one earning. This productive sector of our society is being taxed in an unusually harsh manner.
Before taking my seat, I want to indicate that 1 am deeply annoyed with the way in which we have developed, both federally and provincially, discrimination against rural people. I am not only referring to the example of capital gains which affects mostly farmers. 1 am also referring to the rates of telephone companies. Our urban cousins, depending upon the Province, receive this service for $6 or $8 per private telephone per month, whereas farmers are forced to make deals on $100,000 combines while four of his neighbours listen in. In my constituency, which is mainly involved in ranching, there is

September 28, 1983
Capital Gains Tax
a move to take away rural mail service. Some ranches are 60 miles apart in the southern part of my riding. Yet our urban cousins receive door-to-door delivery from Canada Post. They can simply get out of bed, go to the door and reach around the corner to grab their mail. This is somehow deemed to be fair by Canada Post, by Mr. Warren. I submit that it is not. Turning to telecommunications or television service, in east central Alberta and west central Saskatchewan, this service is absolutely atrocious. There are communities which do not receive adequate television, despite the fact that the residents of Frobisher Bay receive six television channels. I believe there is discrimination against the rural sector of Canada.
Very few groups in society, except farmers and some small business persons, pay tax on inflation, pay double jeopardy tax, and have their retirement funds stolen. The Hon. Member for Essex-Kent mentioned the point as well that when a farmer acquires his property, in effect he is hoping that someday, when he receives his capital, it will be his nestegg for his retirement years. In comes the Government, big fisted, grabbing half of what the farmer has brought in, claiming that the farmer's retirement fund belongs to it.
All Members should accept the motion put forward. It merely states that "the Government should consider the advisability". Whether it is right or not in all of the specifics, the Government should consider the advisability of taking a new look at the capital gains question. 1 remind all Hon. Members that the last person to speak, if he speaks for the full hour, has upon his shoulders the burden of upsetting this initiative of questioning its acceptability. That should not occur. This Bill should be allowed to pass so that we can give due consideration to an injustice which has existed for more than a decade. That has been far too long a period, and should not continue to exist.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Essex Kent (Mr. Daudlin) to study the whole question of the capital gains tax as it affects farmers and small businessmen. This has been of concern to those in rural communities in particular ever since it began to develop as an uneven or unequal form of taxation, starting in about the mid-seventies.
Members of the House do not easily forget the promise made by the governing Party in the last election to attempt to ameliorate the situation. I remind the House that the promise was to change the evaluation day from December 31, 1971 to an evaluation day in 1974. Some of their literature indicated that an indexing provision would be applied as well.
Since coming here, prior to every budget I have written a letter to the Minister of Finance. This is one of three or four items included in my letter. So far it has been ignored by Ministers of Finance. Because the item has again come up for debate today, 1 hope that in a subsequent budget the Minister will recall one of the few campaign promises affecting small business and agriculture which his Party made at the time of
the last election. It was part of the mandate. It is time that that small amelioration of excess taxation in this regard be looked at.
We got into this position on what seemed to be fairly rational grounds. The Carter Commission investigated the whole taxation system. It was to come up with a system that would tax everyone equitably. Carter made the very succinct statement that a buck is a buck and it should be taxed. Unfortunately, 10 or 12 years later we do not have a much better situation than at the time of the Carter investigation. We have wobbled away from any attempt to have equitable taxation and have gone back to ad hockery at its finest in every budget since then. It is very timely that the House consider this motion, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act in order that a once-in-a-lifetime exemption from capital gains taxation be provided for the main business property of non-incorporated or incorporated farmers and businesses employing less than 30 persons, and with growth sales less than $1 million annually, and with fewer than three places of business, excluding foreign-owned farms or business, franchise operations and quota values of any kind, and this exemption from capital gains be made conditional upon those involved investing at least 50 per cent of the taxable amount in the Farm Credit Corporation or in Small Business Development Bonds, at a rate of interest to be more than 50 per cent of the Canadian prime interest rate.
That is a very good area of study, something that should be a primary objective of the House in the next few months. Many questions are raised in this motion which require further study and investigation. Included in the items for study is the whole question of the ownership of farmland and the relationship between professional and business investment in farmland as a hedge against inflation.
The taxation system will have to address the question of whether the investment is simply a hedge against inflation. In recent years, up until last year, the value of farmland has increased faster than the average rate of inflation. This has been the case for the past six or eight years. It has been a good investment for a professional or someone operating another business to provide himself with a hedge against inflation. The problem is the effect that this has on rural communities and farmers attempting to use their investment in farmland as a means of making a living. Sometimes the requirements or expectations of the two groups are quite different.
The farmer buys the land in order to generate income and provide himself and his family with a living. The investors invest because recent experience has proven that the investment will not deteriorate very quickly. The question is whether they should be treated equally when it comes to taxation.
Another question is whether we should continue with some of the ad hoc solutions thrown into the capital gains aspect as it affects farmers and small businesses. For example, will the in-family rollover continue, or should that be studied as well? When we look at capital gains, we should also look at how Revenue Canada treats farmers. That should be put under intense scrutiny as well. The definitions that Revenue Canada is using for those attempting to become farmers and the distinctions they are making between those who are genuinely attempting to begin farming by having an off-farm job and
September 28, 1983

those people they consider to be using a farm as a means of avoiding taxation are questionable, to say the least. 1 have had cases in my riding where a farmer has been farming for 45 or 46 years. That farmer is now in his middle sixties. He has turned over by sale some of his property to his sons and daughters. He still farms 700 acres or 800 acres but, for some reason, Revenue Canada has decided that he is no longer a farmer. The reasons for this are not too clear. He is, however, being taxed as a non-farmer and he is not being allowed to deduct some of the farm expenses that he has had in the profession that he has carried out for all of his life. Those are the kinds of things that must be clarified and made consistent if equity is to be introduced into the taxation system as it affects small business people and farmers.
Are the limits that are proposed here indeed the best limits that could be proposed? Are they workable right across the country? Are they workable in the farm community as well as in the small business community? The limit of $1 million for total actual turnover of gross sales means different things for different businesses. For instance, even within the farming sector, there is a wide variation between gross sales and the actual amount of investment that the farmer will have.
If a farmer engages in an intensive livestock feeding operation, his gross sales could meet or even occasionally exceed the amount of money that he has invested. However, for prairie grain farms at the present time, and 1 think the same would hold true for cropping operations in central Canada and maritime Canada, gross sales under current market conditions are equivalent to about 10 per cent of the investment. In other words, if a grain farm in western Canada, under average conditions in western Canada today, were to generate gross sales of $1 million, we would probably be looking at an operation that would have an investment of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10 million. With the mechanization that is often present in that particular branch of farming, the operation would not employ anything approaching 30 people but would perhaps employ more like eight or ten people.
The question of what limits to impose and what criteria to use should, I think, be studied and not accepted as given, as may be the interpretation of this particular motion. I would hope, if it does get to a committee of some sort of special consideration, that all of these proposed limitations be treated simply as proposals and that such a committee would work diligently to come up with a more equitable kind of taxing system, not only in the area of capital gains but also investigate the taxing system as it affects small businessmen and farmers in general.
The proposal to provide some sort of reinvestment funding through the purchase of a form of agri-bond that seems to be present in this motion is something that is definitely worth further study. It is something that has been called for by many farm organizations and some of the business communities. This proposal, as I read it, would give the selling farmer or small businessman the opportunity to avoid any form of capital
Capital Gains Tax
gains tax if he had apparently already made his once-in-a-lifetime sale and had some further property or business to dispose of. He would have the option of designating half of that income to an agri-bond or a special bond through the Small Business Development Bank which could be used by the next generation of small businessmen or farmers.
1 remind the House that some of the lending institutions that existed back when 1 was just beginning in my profession of farming did have a policy similar to that. At that time, Co-operative Trust in western Canada would provide loans to young farmers who had very little equity. It would provide loans to farmers with as little as 20 per cent equity, provided the seller of the farmland would invest at least half of the proceeds of the sale in Co-operative Trust investments. It was simply a requirement of the transaction that at least half of the proceeds of the sale go back into the lending institution so that it could serve an ever-increasing clientele of young beginning farmers and small businessmen.
Until such time as there is a complete review of the taxation system as it applies to small businessmen and farmers and until we have a system that would take all aspects of the taxation picture into account, as an interim measure, I would alert the House to a proposal that was made by Members from this corner of the House many times. Until such time as there is a full reassessment of the taxation policies of the country, the House would be well advised to adopt an exemption for capital gains purposes for small businessmen and farmers that would exempt the first $100,000 of the capital gain. This proposal has been implemented in at least one Province in the country. Under the previous provincial Government administration in Saskatchewan, the New Democratic Government had placed that kind of exemption on the provincial portion of capital gains tax that is levied. I think that there would be some merit to proposing a similar kind of exemption at the federal level.
As the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) mentioned, there is a measure of inequity involved in the way the taxation system affects farm people and the way it affects their urban cousins. While it appears to be equal in terms of the full exemption for the primary residence, it is a very clear economic fact that a farm house, no matter how nice it is, never achieves the same market value as does a similar home located in an urban setting. This proposed exemption on the first $100,000 of capital gain would tend to rectify the inequality that exists there.
Indexation is something that 1 think must accompany any kind of continuation of a valuation day that one must work from. While all of us in the House are, I think, in favour of indexing any valuation day that continues on in the current method of imposing tax, the problem is, which index is to be used? Is the straight cost of living index to be used or is the real valuation of the property, business or farm in that particular Province to be used?
There are wide variations from year to year between regions of the country with regard to capital gains that accrue. In the year that has just finished, many Provinces noted no captial

September 28, 1983
Capital Gains Tax
gain in the value of farmland. Many showed a negative gain with land actually dropping in value. Only one or two Provinces showed a marginal increase in the value of farmland last year. This does vary. The question of indexation, whether a property index, a business index, a combination of both or a general cost of living index, should be studied. The fact that there is no index has created a disproportionate tax load on farmers and small-businessmen who have retired under the current capital gains law, and that inequity should be corrected as soon as possible.
I recommend that a study of the whole area of taxation, particularly capital gains, should be proceeded with post haste. In the interim, there is room for patching up of the well-patched valuation day and the capital gains taxation. I think the proposals I have made today would make the law more equitable.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin) for bringing this motion forward today. It is a timely motion and recognizes an inequity that has been a burden on all farmers and small-businessmen across Canada. It is a tax that was imposed perhaps as a result of a series of discussions and pressures brought to bear by other sections of society that wanted the deletion of the estate tax and the implementation of a capital gains tax as an alternative. Little did the organizations that presented the proposal realize the effect the tax would have during the inflationary 1970s. As was indicated by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), the tax could be regarded as being harsher than was intended, and in fact as being a tax on inflation. I want to commend the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent for his concern.
1 think we should look at what has happened over the years. In Alberta the total value of land and buildings increased ten times in 12 years, from 3.5 billion in 1971 to S30.2 billion in 1982; in Saskatchewan it went from $3.8 billion to $26.8 billion in the same period; in Ontario from $5.1 billion to $24.7 billion in the same period.
There is another problem, Mr. Speaker. If we are concerned about the disappearance of productive agricultural land in Canada-and obviously the Provinces, whose jurisdiction this comes under, are not doing anything about it-then we should look further than has been suggested by either Member of the Opposition who spoke. We should examine the possibility of exempting all agricultural land from capital gains tax as long as it is kept in food production. This may be the only way for the Government to prevent its disappearance if the Provinces are not going to assist in this regard. I recognize that the management of these resources comes under provincial jurisdiction.
I have to agree with the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent that over the years of their involvement, farmers and small-businessmen have reinvested in order to improve their holdings or expand their businesses and hope to use the proceeds as their retirement income. 1 believe the time has come to make some
allowance for the toll that inflation has taken of retirement savings. It is for this reason that 1 wholeheartedly endorse the motion.
I should like to suggest that perhaps it is time for the Government to look at another aspect of farm financing or of financing small businesses. We should examine the possibility of giving a guarantee to any farmer or small-businessman who would take back a mortgage on fixed capital assets, as is done with farm improvement loans or small business loans or even through Canada Mortgage and Housing. 1 wholeheartedly endorse the motion and hope it will receive speedy passage.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion before the House. The capital gains tax imposed on the sale of agricultural land is one of the major problems that farmers face, particularly when it comes to the continuation of the family farm. In the constituency that I represent, on valuation day in 1971 a quarter section of land sold for approximately $12,000 per quarter. Today that same property is selling for $70,000 or $80,000 per quarter. The resulting capital gains tax is a tremendous burden on the family farm and more particularly on the senior farmer who may want to retire with some dignity. If a farmer owns five or six quarter sections of land and wants to retire to settle in a small rural town in Saskatchewan, he finds that he does not have the cash available to buy a home so that he can retire with dignity. Usually he wants his son to carry on the family farm. The motion before the House would alleviate his problems to a great extent. The rollover provision in the Income Tax Act is of some help but in many cases the senior farmer just does not have the money that would allow him to retire while at the same time allowing the family farm to continue operation. The Income Tax Act has been counterproductive in many areas but if we were to single out one area where it is most counterproductive, it is in the continuation of a farm or business.
I am very pleased to support the motion and to bring to the attention of the House that for several years this Party has called for this kind of move on the part of the Government. I hope the Government will see fit to support the motion and will bring legislation to the House which will benefit the whole agricultural area, particularly the senior farmer who faces these problems.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, 1 am happy to speak to the motion although I do not agree with everything that is in it. 1 think you mentioned my name as seconder of the motion; I do not know how I got that honour. I am happy to second it but I have some reservations about portions of it.
It seems to me that we are talking about two different questions in this little motion and I think they have been mixed up and incorrectly construed in some of the speeches we have heard. We are talking, first, about capital gains tax in general. Then, more specifically, within that broad question we are talking about the indexation of the capital itself, so that the
September 28, 1983

only portion being taxed is the portion which is a real gain. If that is the principle, I certainly support it.
We have done that in other areas. We have done it with our personal income tax, which is indexed every year. We are about to introduce, on October 1, the indexed security investment plan, which will index capital gains for publicly traded shares on the stock market.
1 would like to draw to the attention of every Hon. Member a very important paper which was published in November of 1980 entitled "A Review of the Taxation of Capital Gains in Canada". On page 4 there is a very important principle stated in one brief sentence, which 1 would like to quote:
An individual who realizes a S100 gain has the same increased spending and saving alternatives as another person who receives an additional $100 in his paycheque.
That is a very important principle. There are three ways to make money in this country: first, from your pay cheque. If you are a factory worker, a school teacher, a clerk in a store, an executive or whatever, your weekly pay cheque is your first way to make money. The second way to make money is from profits from a company. The third way to make money is to invest in a capital gain and watch that gain grow.
When we heard some of the references here about capital gains tax, particularly by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), we learned of some mistakes in the calculation of the tax liabilities on capital gains. Capital gains tax out of those three areas is the easiest tax to carry because it is a half tax. At maximum rates it is a half tax. Half the gain is brought into income and half is overlooked entirely. Then the half which is brought into income is taxed at the subsequent marginal rate. That makes the capital gain out of those three areas the easiest tax to bear because it is, first of all, only a tax on half of the profit.
Let us take the example given by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) with respect to farmers in his area and follow it straight through, including in the example the extra provision of capital gains reserves, which makes the capital gains tax even easier to bear. Let us say that the farmer sells a quarter of his land at $80,000 profit. His total sale based on the figures which the Hon. Member gave us would be, let us say, $92,000. The farmer bought the land for $12,000 in 1971 and is selling it for $92,000 today. He has a total profit differential, inflation plus real gain, of $80,000.
What the farmer would do if he sold it to his son or daughter is to report one-tenth of that profit every year. He has a ten-year reserve period. Therefore, every year the farmer reports a gain of $8,000. Because it is a half tax, he then cuts that $8,000 in half and he pays tax on the $4,000.
Let us say, then, that the farmer, like the Hon. Member for Assiniboia, has other income, that he is a rich gentleman; life has smiled on him and he is in the maximum tax rate, the richest rate-like the Hon. Member for Assiniboia. He would then pay tax at 50 per cent. His annual tax, therefore, on that $80,000 would be $2,000 a year for ten years. It is hard to say,
Sports Franchises
Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member was doing a few minutes ago, that that is an onerous task if your highest tax on an $80,000 profit is $2,000 a year for ten years. I do not feel the Hon. Member should toss these figures around in quite such a way. It is a bit misleading.


Mr. Taylor:: You have missed the whole point.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The Hon. Member for Crowfoot also missed the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the capital gains tax is a half rate tax. We hear this a lot in the House. If we are to deal honestly with the question of capital gains, we should constantly remind our listeners and our constituents that this is the easiest of all forms of tax.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are haywire. That is his nest egg. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.



The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding Order No. 490 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-690, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (sport franchises), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill, which received first reading on June 29, 1983, is straightforward and rather narrow in scope. The proposed amendment would make it absolutely clear that the granting, transfer and operation of sports franchises is subject to the full force of the competition provisions in the Combines Investigation Act.
The genesis of this particular proposal which 1 bring forward today was the arbitrary and rather unsatisfactory treatment given by the governors of the National Hockey League to an application for transfer of franchise from St. Louis, Missouri, to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. At that time, Mr. Speaker, an application was made not only by the participants in the

September 28, 1983
Sports Franchises
project in Saskatchewan, but it was supported wholeheartedly and financially by the City of Saskatoon and the Government of the Province of Saskatchewan. This was an application to the National Hockey League which was given-as I anticipated at the time, and I have not had any change in my estimation since-the overwhelming support of the people of Saskatchewan and, indeed, of people across Canada.
Unfortunately, the treatment which the applicants received from the National Hockey League was, as I have indicated, unsatisfactory. It was arbitrary. The hearing which was held on behalf of the Saskatchewan application was a charade. It raised a level of indignation not only in Saskatchewan but across the country, which is manifest in the fact, as I understand it, that there was support not only from this Party but from the New Democratic Party and the Government represented by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs at that time was good enough, at my suggestion, to initiate an investigation under the provisions of this Act. On reviewing the provisions of the Act, it occurred to me that the situation in Canada today is far less strict with respect to the provisions of anti-trust legislation than in the United States. What we have in Canada today is a situation where the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act are excluded as they relate to professional sports leagues. In other words, whereas any other business in Canada is subject to the Combines Investigation Act, professional sports leagues are not, and are specifically exempt from the application of the provisions of this Act. They can, in fact, carry on business in combination with each other, arbitrarily set prices, involve themselves in the whole question of player drafts. They have enormous power, enormous ability, by virtue of the exemption granted by the Parliament of Canada, with respect to the operation of their league.
Let me say at the outset that I understand this exemption. 1 understand it because I know there are particular exigencies in terms of professional sports, particularly in this country, and I feel the vast majority of Canadians would agree to the exemption from the provisions of the Act. But this does not mean that the governors of any professional sport can deal in an arbitrary way with legitimate applications without a fair hearing. The point of my Bill is simply to send a message to the governors of the National Hockey League to let them know that, even though they have been used to running things their own way for a long period of time, legislators in Canada have the ability to remind them that they have a responsibility, a public trust, regarding legitimate applications received from Canadian sources.
1 ask Members of this House to consider the legitimacy of the Province of Saskatchewan's application to be part of the National Hockey League in terms of national unity. Also, were it not for the Province of Saskatchewan a lot of the owners of the NHL would not be making the kind of profits they are today. What would the NHL be today without the likes of Gordie Howe? Or the Bentley brothers from my
constituency? The Metz brothers, Bob Bourne from my constituency, or Bryan Trottier, just to name a few of the great hockey players who have come from Saskatchewan.
1 am not suggesting that anyone should have the right to come forward and say that because they come from Saskatchewan, or any part of Canada, they have a right by virtue of that fact to have a franchise. The reason I am so anxious to have this Bill go before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is that the Bill simply says that if there is a legitimate application, the applicant must receive a fair hearing from any professional league. There must be legitimate reasons given for the denial of a franchise. I do not think that is asking too much. 1 want the governors of the NHL to come before the Committee to find out what it is like to get a fair hearing. I am prepared to give them a fair hearing and hear their side of the story, unlike the treatment they gave the Saskatchewan people. They were allowed something like an hour or an hour and a half and the NHL had made up its mind in advance about the whole matter. That hearing was a charade. But when they come before a committee of this House, I can assure them, and I know I speak for all Members, that they will have a fair hearing and we will look at the merits of this matter.
I simply ask the forbearance of Members of this House to have this matter go through to Committee. I realize there are pros and cons to this particular proposal, but this matter has received support from all sides of the House. In Saskatchewan it is a matter of some concern. The people of that Province are watching this debate because they want to see right now whether the Prime Minister and his Party are going to allow this matter to go to Committee. I can assure the House that if it appears to the people of Saskatchewan that this matter is talked out, that will be a message that what was said by the Government at the time of the rejection of the Saskatchewan application was mere words. I say to Members of this House that it is important to let this Bill go forward to the Committee, which is not now seized with any other matter, and to give urgent attention to this matter.
I understand some of the questions which will be raised about my proposal. Fine; we can amend the proposal and cut the cloth to make the suit. If there is any concern by any professional sports league in Canada about the implications of my proposal, if we are concerned about our ability to keep the Canadian Football League Canadian, I can assure Members of the House that myself and Members of my Party will support any appropriate amendment which might be brought forward.
I am not going to speak very long because I know this matter will be given a fair and reasonable hearing, Mr. Speaker. It has already received the endorsement of all Parties in this House. I know the Government Party will allow this matter to go to Committee so we can have a full hearing concerning the implications of my suggestion and send a message to professional sport that, where there are legitimate applications, regardless of where they come from in Canada, all we as legislators want is that a fair hearing be given. Coming as I do from Saskatoon where there are very deeply
September 28, 1983

held feelings with respect to the way in which we were treated,
1 can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that is not asking very much.
1 ask Members of the House to support this matter to the extent of letting it go to Committee so we may have full opportunity to examine its implications.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset 1 would like to say to the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that I for one do support his proposal. 1 will go further and say it is my belief that, because of the nature of sport, hockey specifically, notwithstanding the fact we say that lacrosse is our national sport, I think it is well known that every Canadian boy from about the age of two or three is probably as much at home on a pair of skates as he is with a pair of shoes. 1 would be in favour not only of having a team from Saskatoon, but I believe it should be considered that virtually every capital of every Province in Canada have their own representative team.
What we are dealing with here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-690 is, of course, an attempt to deal with a very specific case. 1 believe the Hon. Member's point is well taken in introducing this Bill to amend certain provisions of the Combines Investigation Act as it relates to professional sports.
For my own benefit and the benefit of the House I would like to try and put into perspective exactly what this Bill would do in the over-all Act and perhaps raise a couple of questions, which I know cannot be dealt with extensively here but perhaps some of my other colleagues could address themselves to them in their interventions this afternoon.
We are all aware that the Hon. Member's concern in this matter arises from the decision taken in May of this year by the NHL to not permit a group in Saskatoon to purchase the St. Louis Blues hockey team and move it to the new coliseum which they intended to build in the city. Of course, they wanted hockey there; it is good for the city. In my opinion it would be good for business and I think that Saskatoon could not help but be the winners in this particular instance.
I know a great many people in Saskatchewan and elsewhere were very disappointed, myself included. In fact, some of them were incensed by what they felt to be an arbitrary and high-handed act by the League. Many people, mainly from Saskatchewan but also from other parts of Canada, wrote to the previous Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs expressing their concern that our national sport would be completely in the hands of a small group of people who could decide what the ciizens of a Province-which has produced many of the game's greatest stars, as the Hon. Member pointed out-would not be allowed to watch and support their onw NHL team.
Clearly, concentrations of power which may be used to the detriment of the public or some part of it should be dealt with by the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. My colleague, as far as I can make out, is not opposed to that particular proposition. That is precisely what the Act is for and why Parliament, as long ago as 1889, considered that legislation dealing with monopolies and other restrictions on
Sports Franchises
competition is required. The Present Act does permit the investigation of such situations and, specifically, the action of the NHL in this instance.
The Director of Investigation and Research, who, under the Act, has the responsibility for conducting inquiries, determined that an inquiry is warranted and has acted accordingly. The inquiry which he initiated is being conducted under Section 33 of the Act, and the Hon. Member is nodding his head, which is the Section that relates to monopolies. The Act defines a monopoly as:
-a situation where one or more persons either substantially or completely control throughout Canada or any area thereof the class or species of business in which they are engaged and have operated such business or are likely to operate it to the detriment or against the interest of the public-
The Director is, of course, still conducting his inquiry, and he must determine, after he has gathered all his evidence, whether that evidence proves that the actions of the National Hockey League violate that provision relating to monopolies. If that is the conclusion which he comes to, he can then refer the evidence to the Attorney-General to decide whether the League should be taken to court in a prosecution. At this stage, of course, we cannot know what the outcome of the inquiry will be, but it is clear that the present Act does permit an investigation of this action by the NHL which concerns the Hon. Member and so many other Members of this House.
1 might point out as well that the amendment which the Hon. Member proposes would do nothing to alter the situation with respect to the Saskatoon proposal, or the present inquiry. The reason is very simple. The law cannot be amended to apply retroactively. The actions of the League in May in rejecting the Saskatoon application for a franchise were either legal or illegal under the present Act. That will be determined by the inquiry now under way. Any amendment which this House may make now will not, in my opinion, have any bearing on that.
I am sure the Hon. Member hopes that the amendments which he proposes we make to the Act will ensure that in future the National Hockey League, or any other professional sports league considering an application for a franchise, will realise that their actions are subject to the law. However, it is not at all clear, Madam Speaker, that the proposed amendments would have that result. Let me explain my reasoning.
The Section of the present Act which relates specifically to professional sport in Section 32.3. The part of that Section which creates an offence reads:
32.3(1) Every one who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with another person
(a)	to limit unreasonably the opportunities for any other person to participate, as a player or competitor, in professional sport or to impose unreasonable terms or conditions on those persons who so participate,
or
(b)	to limit unreasonably the opportunity for any other person to negotiate with and, if agreement is reached, to play for the team or club of his choice in a professional league.

September 28, 1983
Sports Franchises
Clearly, this Section relates to agreements which place unreasonable restrictions on the opportunities of players. It does not deal with restrictions on teams or franchises. The problem which the Hon. Member has pointed out, and which his proposal seeks to correct, lies in Subsection (3) of Section
32.3.	That Subsection reads:
(3) This section applies, and section 32 does not apply, to agreements and arrangements and to provisions of agreements and arrangements between or among teams and clubs engaged in professional sport as members of the same league and between or among directors, officers or employees of such teams and clubs where such agreements, arrangements and provisions relate exclusively to matters described in subsection (I) or to the granting and operation of franchise in the league, and section 32 applies and this section does not apply to all other agreements, arrangements and provisions thereof between or among such teams, clubs and persons. 1974-75-76, c. 76, s. 15.
I suppose we can all pretty well get lost in this legalese. However, I guess one could say, in just common sense English, that the Subsection therefore states that Section 32, the general conspiracy provision of the Act, will not apply to arrangements relating to the granting and operation of franchises but that Section 32.3 will apply. However, that Section does not deal with franchises at all. It only deals with restrictions on the opportunities of players to participate in the sport. The amendment which the Hon. Member proposes would delete the words "or to the granting and operation of franchises in the league". The Bill would also add a new Subsection to the present Section 32, making it clear that that Section, and not Section
32.3,	would apply to arrangements concerning franchises. These agreements would then have to be tested against the main conspiracy provisions contained in Section 32 in order to determine their legality. That is the problem that I set out to clarify for myself, as to whether what was being done was legal or illegal.
Section 32 deals, first of all, with agreements or arrangements. Clearly, teams in professional sport agree among themselves on many things-rules, schedules, and so on. They may also agree among themselves on how the revenues obtained from the games they play against each other are distributed. Most importantly, however, the teams must agree to play against each other. That is, if they are organized into a league, they must agree on what other teams will be permitted to join the league. Therefore, any decision a league makes concerning the award of a franchise will have that element of "agreement" which is required by Section 32.
There are also four Subsections to Section 32(1), each of which describes what it is which makes certain agreements illegal. The main Subsection, the one under which most combines conspiracy cases are brought, is Section 32(1 )(c). That is the Section which makes illegal agreements "to prevent or lessen unduly, competition in the production or supply of a product".
There may arise certain circumstances under which a league's decision on whether to award a franchise might come under that provision, if the Hon. Member's proposal is adopted. I am thinking particularly of territorial restrictions, where one team is given an exclusive right, or a monopoly, in a certain metropolitan area. A league's refusal to permit another team to establish itself and join the league in the same city or
area as an existing team, without financially compensating the existing team, could possibly be illegal under the Act if this Bill is adopted. And, perhaps it should be. But it is important that this House should not pass too hastily a Bill which may have this result.
What about a situation, such as the recent Saskatoon case, where a league denies a franchise to a city which does not already have one? Would that situation come under Section 32(1 )(c)? Would it "prevent or lessen unduly competition"? The answer is not at all clear. A court would have to decide, first of all, what the product is in which competition has been lessened. If the product in question is the exhibition of games in a certain sport, or even professional sports in general, would the denial of a franchise lessen competition if there were no professional sports franchises in that city to begin with? Would it do so to an "undue extent"?
These questions must be addressed. I do not want to attempt to answer these questions here and I will not. 1 hope, merely by asking them, to point out to the House that the bill proposed by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West does little to clarify the Act as it applies to the granting of professional sports franchises.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Doug Richardson will be very unhappy with that.


Gilbert Parent: Is Mr. Richardson your friend? I have never met the man but I am sure that if he is your friend he must be a very nice fellow.
I very seriously doubt whether the National Hockey League would have acted in any different fashion if the Hon. Member's amendments had been in place last May. I am afraid that not only does this Bill attempt to slam the barn door after the horses have left, but it does not even slam it effectively.
For a number of years now there has been talk of amending our competition laws. Many proposals have been put forward; few have been adopted. In light of that history, it would be ironic if the House should pass a bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act which is so specific in what it seeks to deal with and yet so limited in what it would accomplish.
It may be that the Combines Investigation Act does require amendment in order to deal more effectively with the way professional sports franchises are awarded. When the Act was amended in 1976 and Section 32.3(3) was incorporated into it, it was felt that professional sport had unique characteristics which required that it not be dealt with under the general conspiracy provisions of Section 32. However, as the Hon. Member pointed out in proposing the Bill, Section 32.3 let the question of franchises fall between the cracks.
Perhaps when this House considers proposals for more general amendments, including amendments to the provisions concerning monopolies and mergers, it might also look again at Section 32.3. We could then ensure that a single section, Section 32.3, would contain the entire competition law relating to professional sport. I hope that when this House does set
September 28, 1983

about the overdue task of amending a number of the major provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, the Hon. Member and others on his side of the House will continue their interest in the subject of competition law and will support its reform.
We have heard a good deal about the outpouring of support from the people of Saskatoon and indeed the people of all Saskatchewan for the proposal to bring a National Hockey League franchise to that city. They, in turn, have been supported by a good many Canadians from all over the country, including my area of the Niagara Peninsula. 1 am certain that all Members of the House wish them success in their continuing efforts to bring a professional hockey team to Saskatoon. In my opinion it would be good for the city and good for professional hockey.
A fair bit has been written about the National Hockey League and the way it has handled this matter. Not only is the League under inquiry by the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act in this country, but it has also been sued for $60 million in a private action in the United States by the Ralston-Purina Company. Because their actions are under inquiry at this time, it would be improper for me to comment on them now. I believe, though, that we should all regret the fact that the situation has developed to the point of protracted litigation in both countries.
I understand that the Director's inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act has been slowed down substantially by a series of court actions taken by the National Hockey League to block the inquiry. Back in June, on application by the Director, the Chairman of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission issued subpoenas to the members of the board of governors of the League and its senior officials requiring them to appear to give evidence in the inquiry. At that time it was announced in the press that the League intended to co-operate fully with the Director's inquiry.
What has happened? Since then the League has tried to stop the inquiry or throw roadblocks in its way. During the summer, the Federal Court of Canada threw out the League's argument that the subpoenas issued were unconstitutional as being contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. More recently, the court rejected their application to delay the proceedings further pending their appeal of the first decision.
I have a number of other things I wanted to say in this particular debate, but suffice it to say that 1 believe my colleague for Saskatoon West is wise in bringing this matter to our attention. Like him, I look forward to the time when we can debate it in committee.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today and speak in support of the Bill of my colleague from Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Let me go on record as saying that my colleague from Saskatoon West wisely lives in Saskatoon East and is one of our more distinguished members of the constituency. Whenever he is away on trips, 1 always make sure he has little flags and other things to
Sports Franchises
hand out. He is looking after those matters very well, I understand.
However, today 1 would like to go on record with him in proclaiming that what happened in Saskatoon this spring was very much against what the people in Saskatoon wanted. Something should be done to see that the wishes of the people in that Province are fulfilled and that Saskatoon will get a major league hockey team.
1 accept the fact that the debate up to this point has been in what we would call legalese. It has been strictly on legal terms.
I would begin by simply saying that, not being a lawyer, 1 do not feel competent to speak to the matter in that particular respect.
However, when these matters arise, I can relate to what was said by Robert Service in "The Shooting of Dan McGrew''. Let me reflect on how it would relate to lawyers. 1 am misquoting, but he said: "1 am not as wise as those lawyer guys, but strictly between us two, it is between you and me and the rest of us that we will maybe save the Blues". That is not exactly how he said it but it is in that manner that all Parties, as my hon. friend for Saskatoon West indicated, will have to find a way in which this particular problem can be solved.
A group of people in Saskatoon who were extremely interested in hockey, the city and the Province, had put together a financial package to buy the St. Louis Blues. When they finally made their proposition to the NHL they were treated like children and as if they should not be there. In effect, they were simply discarded. There must be a way to resolve this problem in an adult manner.
During the negotiations between Saskatoon and the National Hockey League this past year, I would say that 1 probably received more mail on this particular subject than anything else. That points very directly to the fact that hockey is part and parcel of life in that Province. As my colleague for Saskatoon West indicated, that area has been looked upon by the NHL over the years as one of the factories of hockey players. Many fans in that area are related to or familiar with National Hockey League players and want to see them playing hockey in Saskatoon.
A friend of mine, Tom Bentley, whose name relates very closely to one of the great hockey families in Saskatoon, is a senior hockey player now, as are many old Saskatchewan people who keep playing hockey years after they should have known enough to stop. He lives in Clavet now. He said that it would be important to have a team in Saskatoon because they are real fans in that city. They understand, are knowledgeable and know who is good and who is not. Since they play the game themselves, they know which players are skilful. This is quite different from other NHL cities where the fans want to see violence or something else. They do not go to see the skills that these players have gained while playing this sport.
1 would like to say a word to the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent) who indicated that he supported the general idea of NHL teams all across the country. I would point out to him that Saskatoon is not the capital of Saskatchewan yet. I hope

September 28, 1983
Sports Franchises
that if his motion to have a team in all the capitals of Canada passes we will get one in Saskatoon before Regina.
The Hon. Member indicated that the proposed Bill may not solve the problem, but it is extremely important to find a solution down the road. Hopefully a Bill will be introduced and Saskatoon will have its team. Perhaps it will not be this Bill, but I hope it does go to committee.
When the debate began last spring, people had gut feelings that Saskatoon would have a team. I was nervous that their expectations were too high. The local fans believed that the matter would be easily handled. I have had experience in other parts of the world dealing with multinational corporations. I really felt for the fans because I knew they would probably be let down. This is what happened: they were let down.
The NHL, which is big business in a sense, is out to make a profit. The dimension of the people at the bottom who make it work, the fans, is forgotten. If it happens to be a fruit company in Central America or a sugar company in Brazil, the people at the bottom make it work, but they are frequently the ones who are left out or do not have a say in what goes on. When all this was taking place in Saskatoon last spring, I constantly had the feeling that I was experiencing something I had lived through before in other parts of the world. I felt nobody who would listen to the people at the bottom, the fans or the families of the players. If it were not for these people there would not be a National Hockey League, but I knew that the League would be thinking of other things, such as a bigger drawing centre or more sure profits.
There is a special breed of person in Saskatchewan. They are people who really believe in the game. They are willing to go to great sacrifices to see that this comes about. We in the House of Commons have a duty to see that that is respected. We must find a way to change the law or introduce whatever piece of legislation is necessary to ensure that the National Hockey League cannot step in and say that Saskatchewan cannot have a team, even though the base is there, the money is there and everything is in place to make it operate. We, as Members of Parliament, have a responsibility.
I am very happy that all three Parties were in accord. Last spring the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wrote a letter to the National Hockey League. The Progressive Conservative Party supported the idea of a franchise in Saskatoon. The New Democratic Party supported the idea. It appeared to be a unanimous decision of the House, but unfortunately the franchise was not given to Saskatoon and in a sense we are still out in the cold.
We support morally and in every way we can the Motion of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West. I trust the Government will see that the matter gets to committee and that it will be studied there. The National Hockey League will be able to appear and give its point of view. The League could be questioned. Basically there is nothing to hide. If it has a good reason, let us hear it. If it does not have a good reason, let us ask why. It is simple. It is the way the country runs. It is the
way committees are set up. It is what Parliament is about. I trust the Government will let this Bill go to committee and that there will be a positive result for all people in Saskatchewan who want a professional hockey team in Saskatoon.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I assure the House that my comments with respect to this Bill will be relatively short. I come from Cambridge. My family has had a considerable amount of history in hockey; this is what really prompts me to speak. My father played in the National Hockey League. Although I do not have the abilities of the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), 1 certainly love the sport.
Quite frankly, I was shocked by what 1 thought was shabby treatment of the application of Saskatoon last spring. I know from watching all professional sports what great fans are the people of Saskatchewan and 1 know what a great contribution that sport makes to the Province of Saskatchewan. It is unbelievable that people will drive 300 or 400 miles to watch a Roughriders game. That Province has an incredible amount of spirit, it richly deserves a National Hockey League franchise.
There may be good reasons which have not been indicated why the application was turned down, but certainly the manner in which the NHL dealt with the matter does not satisfy me. 1 think there has to be some accountability of all professional sports teams. In that regard I think of hockey as one of our national treasures. It is one of the sports, like football, which helped to unite the nation. It gives us a real sense of competition. We all care very much about our professional teams. That being the case, there is really a public trust involved. Because this is so, I think there is an obligation on the part of the NHL to be very frank and to indicate why the franchise was turned down.
I remember the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), perhaps it was last June, indicating in a public release that he would see whether there was some way in which he could use his good offices to influence the president of the National Hockey League in the matter. The Prime Minister made a promise to all Canadians; he made a promise in the House that he would use his good offices to see whether or not the Saskatoon application might be accepted. What better way could there be than by referring this matter to committee?
I listened with a great degree of interest to the representations of the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent) who professed to care about this subject matter but said that the Bill was unsatisfactory. I would like to put the Government side to the test because 1 believe that the subject matter ought to be investigated by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of the House of Commons. Everyone in the House knows that at this particular point in time there is no reason that it cannot be immediately referred to that committee for a full hearing.
Accordingly, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
September 28, 1983

"Bill C-690, an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act (sports franchises), be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice ands Legal Affairs."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It has been moved by Mr. Speyer, seconded by Mr. Kilgour:
That Bill C-690, an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act (sports franchises) be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I just want to say that I agree.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Accordingly, the Order is discharged, the Bill is withdrawn and the subject matter thereof is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to know exactly what it is we are agreeing to. If the purpose of the amendment would be to change the Bill and therefore to refer its subject matter to committee without ending the present debate, perhaps it is something to which we could agree. The question is whether the debate is ended on the motion being proposed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I should make it very clear to the House that the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) was agreed to. That motion had the effect of having the Bill not now read a second time, but that the Order read earlier be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The House agreed to that motion. Therefore, there is nothing before the House at this time. The Order was discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
We will now proceed with the next item of Private Members' Business.
Agricultural Subsidies


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall all items listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions (Papers) preceding item No. 113 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East) moved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all studies, documents, research papers and reports done by or for any department or agency comparing Canadian government agricultural subsidies and United States government agricultural subsidies.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when I placed my question on the Order Paper on July 23, 1982, I wanted to know what research the Government might have undertaken to compare the subsidies Canadian farmers receive and the subsidies that farmers in countries such as the United States receive. I was interested because at that time the Government had already made plain that it was going to change the historic Crownsnest Pass Agreement.
Such changes will directly affect a large number of my constituents who are engaged in grain farming. The increase in the freight rates will diminish their ability to compete against grain growers in other countries, particularly their chief competitor, the United States grain grower.
Many Government members and other proponents for this change in the Crow have argued that it is an unfair subsidy to our grain farmers, that our grain farmers should pay a much higher rate for moving their grain and that the subsidies they supposedly are receiving under the Crow gives them an unfair advantage. Therefore, I wanted to know how direct or indirect subsidies which the Canadian farmers receive compare to those received by their major competitor, the U.S. grain farmer.
To say that I was shocked when I received the response from the Government earlier this year is putting it mildly. The response was: "The Minister of Agriculture is not aware of the existence of the documents requested. I therefore ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion". In other words, the Government does not have any studies, documents, research papers or reports on agricultural subsidies. Agriculture is one of Canada's major industries. It is one of our major export items. We are in direct competition with the United States, the European Common Market, Australia and Argentina, all of which give various subsidies and various forms of support.
Through Bill C-155, this Government will drastically change the economics of farming in western Canada yet this Government reports to the House that it has no studies, documents or reports on the subsidies that our wheat farmers receive compared to farmers in other countries. It has done no

September 28, 1983
Agricultural Subsidies
study to determine what effect this legislation will have on the competitive position of our farmers. I find this very hard to believe.
The Government must either be lying or be damned fools. Would a Government bring in massive changes to western agriculture without first considering the competitive position in which it would leave our farmers? Do our negotiators to GATT and other international conferences go without any idea what subsidies agriculture in other countries receives? I cannot believe we are that stupid or that naive. Either the Government are lying or they are damned fools.
Perhaps in answer the Government is deliberately misleading the House. Of course, it has studies comparing agricultural subsidies but it does not want to make them public. It does not want to acknowledge the fact that Canadian agriculture, parti-clarly grain farming, is the least subsidized in the world. It does not want to acknowledge that fact because it would show the economic folly of what the Government is doing with a Bill to change the Crowsnest Pass Agreement.
The Government owes this House and the Canadian public some straight answers. 1 hope that the Government spokesperson who will be speaking today on this motion will give us some answers. 1 hope he will answer whether anybody in International Trade and Commerce, External Affairs, Agriculture or Transport monitors subsidies in agriculture in Canada and in other countries. Surely such people exist and surely such studies are done. I hope that the Government spokesperson who speaks today will tell the House, yes or no, that we do have these people or we do not have these people.
It is amazing that the Government while in the midst of such massive changes to agriculture in western Canada should come to this House and admit that it has done no studies on the subsidies that the chief competitors receive. Is this possible? I am so flabbergasted that I have difficulty trying to find the words to define how I feel. That is most unusual for a politican.
With massive resources at its disposal, economists and specialists filling tower after tower of highrises in this city, the Government admits that it does not have any studies on the subsidies that agriculture in the United States receives or on the subsidies that farmers in the European Economic Community, Argentina and Australia receive. Does the Government mean to tell me that it actually does not know? If the Government does not know, how dare it proceed with Bill C-155?
If you plan major moves in agriculture, Mr. Speaker, you have to consider the subsidies that are received by farmers throughout the world. Not to do so is ultimate stupidity. Why has the Government not done those studies? Is it afraid to do those studies? Is it afraid to table them for the public to see? I think the latter is the case. I would not tend to think that the Government, with its massive bureaucracy, is that stupid but that the figures, studies and reports are there. The Hon. Member opposite shakes his head no. Is he admitting that the Government is so stupid it does not do any studies on agricultural subsidies in other countries? Is that what the Government member is admitting? In either case, Mr. Speaker, the Government stands condemned as either being a liar or being damned naive and stupid.
I urge the House to pass the motion and force the Government to make these relevant documents public so that Members of the House and the Canadian public can take a good, honest look at the type of competition our grain farmers will be facing in the years ahead.


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the world food situation is a matter of concern for many prominent figures in political and economic circles, as it is for people in many countries, for purely humanitarian reasons. That being said, Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) ought to know that there is not a single country, and I am mainly thinking of the industrialized countries with widely differing policies, that is going to divulge exactly the kind of subsidies it grants, either directly or indirectly, to agriculture. I think it is hard to see, what with unilateral, bilateral, multilateral agreements, what kind of direct or indirect subsidies are being granted, considering that production differs from country to country.
The present rate of population growth is such that we can expect an increase in the world demand for food that exceeds the projected growth in food production. For many years, people have been talking about a world food crisis. At a time when demand is expected to continue to increase, when certain developing countries are showing signs of positive economic growth, and we are seeing a growing trend towards consumer societies of the kind that exist in most western countries, it was to be expected that countries that are major exporters of food commodities would compete and will continue to compete most actively for a large share of these lucrative markets.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I am convinced that the countries engaged in this very competitive exercise will not divulge their secrets and tell us how they are subsidizing certain commodities, either directly or indirectly. They are attracted by very substantial economic benefits, for their balance of payments and domestic income, and this is particularly true of western countries that are not yet out of the economic recession. Will this lead to a trade war in the agro-food sector, in the form of fierce competition on export markets and increased protectionist measures on the respective domestic markets of the countries and groups of countries concerned?
1 would not go so far as to say that such a war has already started, but the issues being raised today and the concerns that have been expressed with respect to developments in trade relations over the last few years already give some indication of what the foreign trade situation may be in the not so distant future. I have just mentioned that current forecasts indicate
September 28, 1983

that export markets are expanding. We feel that we have the necessary potential to develop our farm production to benefit from these expanding markets. In my opinion, this is a worthy and legitimate objective. Yet, it is not new. Is it not the very same objective which federal and provincial departments of agriculture have sought from the very beginning in endeavouring to help our agro-food industry meet the needs of our domestic market primarily, and of foreign markets secondly, by producing healthy high quality food at reasonable costs, while providing producers with equitable incomes in line with their efforts and investments?
We shall probably be hearing today this list of objectives for the nth time. It is with these objectives in mind that the government has created and continues to create assistance programs, financial or otherwise, for farm producers and other contributors to the agro-food industry? These assistance programs have sometimes appeared in the form of food production, transport, processing and marketing subsidies. What the Hon. Member for Regina East does not understand when he blames the Government, is why it does not have any study or accurate figures from various countries about the type of subsidies for each particular kind of product. It is simply because these come under various programs. It all depends on the type of assistance. Is the assistance program aimed at production, transportation or marketing boards? In my opinion, this is rather difficult to accurately determine and if, because of the various programs we were to stop tomorrow morning giving this matter special attention, Mr. Speaker, it is almost certain that many agreements would be cancelled.
These programs were designed and implemented to promote the development of the Canadian industry with due consideration being given to Canadian realities and very often Canadian needs. If we want to increase the effectiveness and profitability of the Canadian agricultural food products industry, it is first of all because it is in the interests of Canadian consumers. Canadians now spend 15.8 per cent of their disposable income on food products. Only the Americans use a lower percentage of their income for food. This is now the case in Canada.
How do my comments relate to today's debate? I do not want to be simplistic in my approach, but 1 want to place my remarks in a more realistic context than has been done until now.
Government agricultural subsidies, whether federal or provincial, were first aimed at ensuring the profitability and efficiency of the Canadian industry. If assistance programs have allowed our farm producers and agricultural food products industry to become more competitive, so much the better since it benefits further our economy! Of course, reference can be made to cases where subsidies seem to benefit other people, outside Canada, for instance. In such cases, the government is expected to subsidize exports, and therefore, Canadian taxpayers are expected to subsidize the consumers in other countries. One can look at it that way. However, 1 believe there are other
Agricultural Subsidies
ways to look at it. In my opinion, the subsidies which seem to benefit others allow us in fact to maintain our production capacity, to remain effective and preserve the markets sometimes acquired by our producers through relentless and patient efforts.
In the short term, some types of financial assistance can be considered as an export subsidy, but in the long run, the very survival of our industry is at stake. What is involved is our capacity to meet the needs of the Canadian people. Can we afford to abandon some of our agricultural sectors because of temporary problems in which case we would become completely dependent on foreign supplies to meet the demands of the Canadian market? There is an important moral and political choice to be made. Once again, the needs of consumers are involved. Canadians could benefit from short term price reductions, but in the long run, if we no longer have the capacity to produce, we shall have to purchase where we can and at a price dictated by others. This is one aspect of the matter.
From another point of view, many financial assistance or subsidy programs were implemented, not to enable Canadian producers to keep on supplying foreign markets in order to protect our production capacity, but simply to protect our domestic markets which belong to our producers against foreign products which are sometimes subsidized. If we look at the purchasing programs of the Agricultural Products Board these last few years, we can see that in each case its involvement was aimed at supporting our Canadian industry when it was threatened by low-priced imports.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind the House that when the Canadian Government decided to buy canned tomatoes in Ontario, it was precisely to maintain the production which had been disrupted by imports of foreign produce. I think that nobody in the House could have claimed then with any degree of certainty whether such imported produce had been subsidized, because there are very subtle ways of doing that nowadays, even though we cannot say so openly since we must abide by multilateral agreements.
All kinds of arguments are defensible in light of current trends on the international market. In that respect, I firmly believe that we can take a wide variety of approaches, including outright protectionism through heavily subsidized markets, both domestic and foreign, in the hope that we will eventually run our competitors into the ground and be left with highly lucrative markets. Then again, on the strength of economic theories and in keeping with absolute principles of free trade, any subsidy program which, one way or another, would protect our existing markets or industries could be opposed.
I think that extreme measures seldom reflect a balanced economy, and the policy we have followed so far is the best: first and foremost, we want our food producers to earn a decent living and to be efficient, so we are prepared to help

September 28, 1983
Agricultural Subsidies
them achieve their full potential. Later on, we will be in a better position to determine which resources we might allocate to maintain the lead we will have gained over our competitors through this positive and constructive investment. The fierce fight and competition on the export markets will be all the more beneficial to us if we are on solid ground to defend our positions.


Mr.   de Jong@: Would the Hon. Member allow a question, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member had time left from his allocated time.
[ Translation]
Would the Parliamentary Secretary entertain a question?


Marcel Dionne: No, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I am sorry, the answer is no.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, I am rather disappointed that the last speaker would not accept a question. It seemed to me that he is in favour of passage of this motion. I wish that could be determined, because if he is in favour of it-I ask that question but I also want to address the subject matter and I do not want to get the two confused-then there is very little reason for our continuing debate. If he is so prepared and Hon. Members on your right are prepared to have the motion pass, I am sure that Members on this side are prepared to support it and debate could be ended forthwith. I hope I might make that as a point of order to be followed by my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: This is an unusual situation. 1 am not sure what the Hon. Member seeks to achieve.


Fred Alward McCain: Is he ready to let the motion go through?


Mr. Daudlin:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might speak to this point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Let it be understood that I recognized the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) to make a speech. If he now sits down, I presume he has terminated his remarks and I would have to go to another Hon. Member.


Fred Alward McCain: I sat down out of respect for your rising, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I am still standing and the Hon. Member is addressing the Chair.
Let me clear the situation up. I respect the fact that the Hon. Member was trying to make a suggestion by way of a point of order. Normally the Chair is prepared to recognize that and allow the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity to
respond if he so pleases; if not, 1 would invite the Hon. Member to continue his remarks if he wishes.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I have to take that as a suggestion that the Government is not prepared to put these papers on the desk.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I would have risen to respond to the point of order had my hon. friend wanted to speak to that. There might have been some substantive reason for doing so, but instead he got himself into difficulty about whether he wanted to continue his speech. He has chosen to continue.
I now rise on a point of order which I think is valid, because he now imputes motives to Members on your right by reason of the fact that neither the Hon. Member nor anyone else on this side has risen to respond to a point of order that was never raised. If he chooses to do so, I respectfully suggest to the Chair that it would be contrary to the rules of order of the House and ought not to be permitted. We cannot have imputed motives. He may have made a judgment in his own mind of what may or may not be meant by a certain action but I suggest it cannot be expressed in those terms here.


Mr.   de Jong@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.
I recognize the difficulty the Chair is in. A suggestion was made by the Hon. Member from the Official Opposition that if Members of the Government were in favour, the item be allowed to go to a vote. Your Honour could not allow debate and discussion on that point. Perhaps the way out of the difficulty is for Government Members to nod their heads indicating yes or no. In this way we would get the necessary indication and could allow the Member of the Official Opposition to proceed with his speech or allow the question to go to a vote. If Hon. Members opposite would just nod their heads, we could proceed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: We do not proceed in this House by nodding our heads; there has to be an audible yes or no or some remark.
First of all, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte did not make a formal motion which was duly seconded. He rose on a point of order, which is perfectly legitimate, at the beginning of his remarks. The Parliamentary Secretary chose not to respond. At that point I thought I had made myself very clear, that either the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte continue his remarks or I see another Member from any side of the House who wanted to speak.
I accept the point raised by the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin) at face value. Unfortunately, the Chair did not hear the remarks uttered by the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte. At this point I would respectfully suggest that, of course, tradition forbids an Hon. Member from imputing motive.
1 think debate should be allowed to continue at this point and I invite the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte to do so.
September 28, 1983


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I am at your disposal and I appreciate your position.
A certain coincidence makes this motion extremely timely, Mr. Speaker. The information requested is pertinent and is important to a situation which exists in relation to a recent ruling of the Department of Commerce in the United States on a surcharge on the entry of potatoes from Canada to that country. The information requested would be extremely valuable to those who are trying to prepare the case because unquestionably there is an element of subsidy on agricultural products in the United States. In the last ten years this subsidy has increased from $2 billion per year to an estimated $20 billion for this crop year.
The products involved are entering our market directly or indirectly. Whether they enter as corn or meat, as wine or canned products, or however they enter this country, we must ask whether they are receiving the benefit of that subsidy. I sumbit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this information is vital.
1 have no intention of trying to talk this Bill out. I submit that if the Garrison Dam project goes forward, it will incorporate more subsidy for the farmers of the irrigated area than all the agricultural subsidies paid in Canada. Yet part of the ruling with respect to the surcharge on potatoes going into the United States is that there might be some subsidies in Canada.
1 suppose you might say it is the case of the pot calling the kettle black, but our agricultural budget in no way approaches $20 billion, which will be theirs in this year. I do not want to impute, and 1 did not mean to do so; 1 had to draw a conclusion. There was nothing else which I could do a few moments ago under the circumstances. I heard nothing from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Dionne) which indicated an objection to tabling these figures. These figures are important to Canada.
Not too long ago it was my pleasure to be in Europe and to discuss the movement of agricultural products. I have repeated, perhaps not in this House but many times to my friends on this side of the House, that 500,000 tonnes of barley was exported from the European Economic Community, and that the subsidy paid on that export exceeded the price paid by the Canadian Wheat Board to the Canadian farmer. That is the extent to which Canadian farmers are competing with subsidies given by other countries in the world market. Not too long ago we received grape concentrates from France at little more than the cost of freight and container. This concentrate arrived in this nation of ours in competition with our wine industry on that basis and without the application of additional duty.
1 submit that this motion is indeed timely and that we should get every single aspect of subsidy, direct and indirect, which is paid by the Government of the United States of America to its agricultural producers. It should, for instance, include the benefits which accrue to farmers through the FHA because they get loans and second loans and third loans through the FHA and those farmers are not closed out. They are given a chance to recover, a chance which our Farm Credit
Agricultural Subsidies
Corporation, because of its underfinancing, has been absolutely and utterly unable to do.
When we are talking about a country imposing surcharge of duty on us, I would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the potato is the subject matter of today. I want to point out to every Hon. Member of this House, and 1 ask them to listen carefully, that there are at the present time agricultural organizations in the United States, commodity by commodity, looking at what will be the ultimate outcome of the potato ruling. Anyone in this nation who is interested in agriculture, and who thinks that this process is going to stop with the consideration of the potato application from the State of Maine, has to be blinding himself to the realities which exist in the area of trade in the United States, and for which protection is being sought in every way possible.
It would be a tremendous bonus to the case of Canadian agriculture to be able to present a totally knowledgeable presentation outlining the subsidies which are paid by the Government of the United States, directly or indirectly, to its farmers.
I am not going to take any more time, Mr. Speaker, because 1 want this motion to pass. 1 want that information this week because, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, "We have it". Then why not put it on the Table so it might help all of our agriculture all across Canada? Whether it be meat, grain, fruit, or vegetables, nothing is immune to a regional application from any commodity group anywhere in the United States to the Department of Commerce of the United States. I am deeply concerned. Let us please have that information.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, 1, like the Hon. Member who has just spoken, have experienced first hand the effect of the discussions surrounding Maine potatoes and the eastern Canada potato issue. The Hon. Member will know that we have just come from deliberations with respect to tomato imports which so drastically affected production during the 1982 crop and threw into complete disarray Canadian marketing of canned tomatoes. When put together with the production which took place in the 1982 crop year, which was exceptional, this exacerbated the entire problem and put us into a situation where we have our already struggling canning industry going into a tailspin.
I must confess that 1 did not have the opportunity to hear in their complete form the remarks addressed to the House by the Parliamentary Secretary. However, I would find it difficult to believe that we are able at this point to respond to what is obviously a very difficult request at best, if not impossible, to delineate all the subsidies, direct or indirect, there might be on agricultural products. 1 wonder if we would not end up comparing apples and oranges, or comparing indirect subsidies involved in putting an agricultural student through a Canadian university with, say, the value to farmers of a major irrigation project the likes of which were referred to by the Hon. Member.

September 28, 1983
Agricultural Subsidies


Fred Alward McCain: Throw away the red herrings and let us get down to the nuts and bolts.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: One wonders just how you do these comparisons and whether we assist the situation by suggesting for the moment it is easy to do, that we can snap our fingers and get it, and whether at the end of the day it is not a real description that we give, whether we are not in fact clouding the issue as opposed to helping it.
I know the Hon. Member seeks, for very valid reasons and out of the depth of sincerity, the kind of clarity and information he is looking for to support the case for the producers he represents. But I ask him sincerely whether or not he is potentially putting us in a position where we might be doing them harm as opposed to good? I suppose we could include, for instance, as a subsidy such things as education, the roads which take farm goods to market, the inspection services performed on agrifood products, research, technology transfer programs, drainage, and export missions.


John Horton McDermid: You are reaching.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: As well as more obvious things like the Agricultural Stabilization Act, crop insurance, the western grain stabilization program and the dairy subsidy. Surely we expose ourselves to those considerations if we are going to have the kind of deliberations we are talking about. From any of these programs and services it would be nearly impossible to decide how much of the public expenditure was strictly speaking a farm subsidy and how much was a benefit to the whole of society. How many of us have stood in this place and argued how much better off we would be if the true cost of goods was being paid by the consumer as opposed to being partially borne by the taxpayer? How do we define that?
We would also have to consider, Mr. Speaker, all of the programs offered by the Provinces and then duplicate the entire process in the U.S., adding up all the federal and state programs which were of some assistance to farmers. Clearly, if not impossible, that is very, very difficult.
However, this is a good opportunity to discuss, as I think we should be, some of the aspects of agricultural policy in this country and the degree to which they constitute a subsidy to farmers. The place to start might be in the entire budget of Agriculture Canada, which Members will agree is approximately $1 billion. When you add in the spending on grain transportation, the grain and oil seed programs for Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the programs offered to farmers through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, you are talking about a grand total of roughly $1.7 billion in fiscal 1981-82. In the same fiscal year the total expenditures in agriculture by provincial Governments was something in the order of $1.1 billion.
Therefore, just by adding up those figures, $1.7 billion in the federal sphere and $1.1 billion provincially, we are already up to $2.8 billion. By comparison, if one takes that figure and
considers the farm cash receipts for 1981 of $18.6 billion, one could say that in the biggest, ball park terms, public expenditure on agriculture amounted to around 14 per cent of cash receipts.
Since we are also discussing subsidy levels in other countries, we should consider what was said by Claude Villain, Director General of the Commission of European Communities, in a speech to the University of Minnesota in April of last year. Hon. Members can appreciate that the major theme of his speech was to the effect that the United States should not be angry with the Community for the degree to which it subsidizes its producers and its exports. Surely we have heard the same sort of concerns expressed by our own producers here in Canada, not only producers of the primary products, but also secondary producers, the processors, people in transport and what-have-you. He said: "1 will simply say that if you compare budget spending on agriculture with the value added of the agriculture industry, you will find that in 1976 to 1978, the ratio in the European Economic Community was 39.2 per cent and in the United States it was 37.6 per cent". Today I do not have the data that went into that particular computation. However, in a general way, it shows that compared to the United States and the EEC, Canadian farmers receive considerably less subsidy than do their competitors in other countries. I do not know that that is a particular issue here today, but it is important to know.
Some, especially those connected with the Economic Council of Canada, might argue that the system of agricultural marketing boards in this country also constitutes a subsidy to farmers in that marketing boards in many cases guarantee farmers a decent return for products produced within a certain quota. The magic figure of a $1 billion subsidy was produced for the sake of headlines. It was derived by neatly adding up the value of the whole quota in the country. That was a patently ridiculous way of approaching the subject. If, in fact, all of the quota in the country was offered for sale at once, its value would have nothing like the value which it now attracts in the limited quantities in which it is traded.
I do not want to get into great marketing board debates at this particular time. This is neither the place nor the time when it should happen. Allow me, rather, to return to the general comparison of subsidy levels in the United States, the EEC and in Canada. I draw Your Honour's attention to a report in The Globe and Mail earlier this month in which subsidies on major grains were compared. The figures were taken from a study prepared by an Ottawa consulting company for the Manitoba Government. It showed that in the ten-year period ending in 1981-82, the level of subsidy to the Canadian grain producers was vastly less than their competitors in the Community and in the United States. In a ten-year period, wheat subsidies in Canada amounted to 4 per cent of the marketing price compared to 8.6 per cent in the United States and 10.5 per cent in the EEC. For barley, the figures were 5.7 per cent, 7.2 per cent and 20.8 per cent for Canada, the United States and the EEC respectively. I know that there are other subsidies that made the level of subsidy between
September 28, 1983

Canada and the United States more equal. Again, that recalls my introductory disclaimer about comparing apples and oranges.
The most highly subsidized aspect of all Canadian agriculture is the dairy industry. In all, the dairy program costs the federal Government about $300 million a year. That is $100 million more than Agriculture Canada will spend on research this year. But if we are going to be truthful, we must say the dairy subsidy is almost entirely a subsidy to consumers. If the farmers did not get the subsidy, the price to consumers would have to be higher and then one gets into that dilemma which I mentioned at the beginning of my short intervention: how do we keep track of this if we define, as we have done time and again, the subsidy to the dairy producer as being, in effect, a consumer subsidy? Is it one that should be taken into account when doing a comparison? Should it be discounted completely and removed from the figures? It becomes a problem of definition.
As it stands, the dairy subsidy, as an integral part of the dairy program, has brought large benefits to both producers and consumers. Our supply management system has kept dairy production running reasonably closely in line with market demand. Of course, there has been some overproduction in past years but it is nothing compared to the excesses in the EEC and the United States.
If one refers back only to the Question Period of this day and recalls the question asked and the answer made by the Minister, he referred to the milk powder surpluses that exist and the fact that the European Economic Community now has tremendous surpluses unlike anything we have ever seen in Canada. The Americans are also experiencing the same kind of surpluses, in Canada we have our powder sold until at least June of next year. One wonders whether the program should be criticized as it has been from some quarters.
As it stands, the dairy subsidy is an integral part of the dairy program and has brought large benefits to both producers and consumers.
The EEC now has a mountain of butter in storage amounting to approximately 650,000 tonnes. As of last April, as stated by the Minister, the United States had nearly 600,000 tonnes of skim milk powder and a quarter of a million tonnes of butter. Combined, the EEC and the U.S. will probably spend $8 billion in their dairy programs this year and 1 think that makes our $300 million program look pretty good.
Looking at the over-all stabilization program, in recent years we in Canada have paid out in the neighbourhood of $50 million a year in deficiency payments to farmers for times when their receipts fell below the trigger price. I can speak with some conviction and personal knowledge with respect to the stabilization payments. As I have already indicated to the House, 80 per cent of the greenhouse production in Canada finds itself in my riding. Without the stabilization program, I can say that it would be far below 80 per cent which I could represent in the House today. Even in the last two or three
Agricultural Subsidies
years they have had to have access time and again to the stabilization program when the markets have not provided the cost of production let alone a reasonable and decent profit.
This year the budget for stabilization is approximately $70 million. Is that the kind of program that our compatriots in the United States would look upon as a subsidy program, or is it, in effect, a social program that continues to have the agricultural sector alive and well and viable, or at the very least maintained in an effort to become viable in the following year?
We will also contribute about $140 million to the western grain stabilization fund, although it is not expected that a payment will be made. In comparison, the United States has spent $22 billion in farm supports so far, mostly for the PIK or Payment In Kind program. By some estimates it could go as high as $30 billion by the end of the year.
If the dairy subsidy is deducted, Canada has spent just over $1 billion in support payments since the Agricultural Stabilization Act was passed in 1957. In the past few years provincial Governments have become involved in various red meat stabilization programs. We estimate that they have spent about $500 million on these programs in the past eight years while we have spent about $214 million at the federal level.


Mr.   de Jong@: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member would allow a short question.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer a question if time permits once I have completed my intervention. There are some items which I would like to have on record. If time permits, I would be delighted to-


Gordon Edward Taylor: You haven't said anything yet.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: It is unfortunate the Hon. Member across the way has been listening so inattentively. He has not heard much of what I put on the record. If in fact he concentrates a little, which I know he finds difficult, I would be delighted if he found even one item-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell us something other than a lot of baloney.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: It is unfortunate that one would classify information so vital to the agricultural sector as baloney. I thought the Hon. Member came from an agricultural area.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are full of baloney.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin) has the floor in order to make a speech. He should not be interrupted.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Let us look at crop insurance. This year the federal Government will provide about $140 million for this excellent program, matching the premiums paid by participating farmers. It is true that we subsidize crop insurance. The simple fact is that without our contribution the premiums would be too high for farmers to pay and we would see a

September 28, 1983
Agricultural Subsidies
situation in which hundreds or even thousands of farmers would be wiped out by one or two major crop losses.
The value of our program is reflected in the way in which the United States moved to adopt a similar program. There are those who contend that lending programs for farmers are actually subsidy programs which cost the Government money. In my view that is a fallacy. Anyone who would support that argument is obviously misinformed, at least as far as the federal Government of Canada is concerned.
Let us consider the Farm Credit Corporation. During the current fiscal year, between April 1 and September 15 the corporation approved 3,257 regular loans for a total of $406.5 million. During the same period, 60 loans valued at $1.8 million were approved by the corporation under the Farm Syndicates Act. In addition, the FCC approved 902 loans for a total value of $166.8 million under the corporation's Special Farm Financial Assistance Program.
However, the Farm Credit Corporation does not subsidize farmers. All of its costs are covered by the interest margins charged to farmers and it is in fact working toward a progressively larger return on the Government's capital. If one consults farmers in Ohio on the other side of the border of my constituency, one finds that they look upon the FCC as a subsidy arrangement of a kind and type that they deem should be counted when one determines whether or not a subsidy is being provided to our growers.
The Special Farm Financial Assistance Program is somewhat of an exception, because it is an interest rebate program. Between November, 1981 and the spring of 1984, the FCC expects to approve $345 million in loans under the special program. The way it works is that farmers who received loans under the first $45 million of the program will receive a 5 per cent interest rebate for the first two years of their loans. The interest rebate on loans approved out of the other $300 million is 4 per cent.
But let me stress that the corporation estimates that about $29 million in rebates will be paid out by the federal Government altogether. Let me re-emphasize that the Government will not be losing money on this program. Also I point out that in 1981-82 the FCC had $10.9 million in retained earnings. As well, in the three years prior to that the corporation actually made a profit. All in all it is extremely difficult to compare domestic programs, but perhaps we should look a bit longer at the export scene.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker in the remaining few minutes those on the Government side can contemplate whether this motion should be accepted.
The Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin) presented some information that causes us to wonder about the honesty of the response we are getting to this request to table studies having to do with the amount of subsidies which apply to different agricultural commodities. The Member clearly stated
the proportions of subsidy that exist for barley. On three or four other commodities, he went right down to the last decimal point on the proportions of subsidy that apply in the United States, Canada and in the European Economic Community. We do not understand how those figures can be arrived at when the Government can reply to my colleague from Regina East (Mr. de Jong) that it does not have such figures and, therefore, it cannot table them and make them public. The only way to arrive at a percentage or proportion is to have figures from which you can work. This gives a very clear indication that the studies have been done but, for reasons not made clear in this debate, the Government has chosen not to make them public.
I hope that Members opposite will see that there is no advantage in keeping this information from the Opposition and the public and that it will table the papers requested by my colleague for Regina East.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk out this motion. Therefore, at what time must I resume my seat?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair should inform the House that, in keeping with the order passed earlier by the House and in the spirit of that order, the debate will adjourn at 32 minutes past the hour.


Leonard J. Gustafson: suggests freezing the Bill until the year 1986 so that more of this research could be done.
1 am going to sit down, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that I do not talk this motion out. It is in the best interests of the Canadian farmer that research should be done to provide for what we in the country need to put agriculture in a better position.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like you to clarify once again exactly how much time I have left because 1 do not want to take more than a few minutes to say what I have to say. 1 wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you might tell me how much time 1 have.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The debate will be adjourned at 6.32 p.m.


Gilbert Parent: 1 thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank-the Hon. Member is trying to say something to me?


Gordon Edward Taylor: There is enough time for you to read the rest of your speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Hon. Members should not talk to each other across the aisle during debate. Remarks should be addressed to the Chair, please.


Gilbert Parent: Of course, Mr. Speaker. I understand that and I apologize for not speaking through you to the Hon. Member who just woke up.
Agricultural Subsidies
I would like to add my own few words to the debate. Hon. Members on this side of the House spoke earlier about the different problems we are having. All in all, it is extremely difficult to compare domestic problems, but let us look a little more closely at the export scene. The agricultural community throughout Canada, especially my area which produces 85 per cent of the grapes and therefore wine of Canada-and we do indeed import a great deal more of those products than we have in years gone by-are very much relieved to see that the so-called grain war between the United States and the EEC has cooled off in recent months. We believe that this is a forerunner of things that we wish would come in the days ahead. It has certainly threatened to have a disastrous effect on Canadian farmers over-all, and our farmers rely on exports for fully 50 per cent of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being past six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.32 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, September 29, 1983