1984-05-25

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to bring to the attention of the House the problem faced by Prince Edward Island fishermen in obtaining crab licences. The crab fishery was established off the coast of Prince Edward Island in the early 1970s, but over the years Island fishermen lost their right to hold licences for crab. The P.E.I. fishermen and the provincial Department of Fisheries have tried, in vain, to obtain crab licences from the federal Department of Fisheries.
One month ago the Department of Fisheries on Prince Edward Island sent a telex to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asking whether Prince Edward Island could receive inshore licences for Zone 7 off the coast of eastern P.E.I. should it be closed to the offshore crab fishery. They have not received a reply from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, nor have they received an acknowledgement of their telex.
On May 15 the federal Government announced its management plan for the offshore crab fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Under this plan it did close Zone 7 to the offshore crab fishery. P.E.I. fishermen are hoping that they will now be able to obtain inshore crab licences. It is certainly the right of Island fishermen to have the opportunity to fish crab, as the crab fishery was established on Prince Edward Island.
I urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to realize the frustrations the Island fishermen feel, as fishermen from other provinces fish crab within eyesight of the shores of P.E.I., have good catches, land them on P.E.I. docks, load them onto their trucks, and transport them to other provinces for processing. Mr. Speaker, I insist that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans award crab licences to Prince Edward Island fishermen.


THE MAGNA CARTA
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the occasion of the first display in Canada, at McMaster University art gallery in Hamilton, of one of the four handwritten copies of the Magna Carta, and the only one with King John's seal, provokes some thoughtful reflections. It was in 1215, almost 770 years ago, that King John signed the document that granted the King's subjects certain liberties, and which restrained the powers of the King himself within well defined limits.
The passage of the Magna Carta was a watershed event in the recognition of human rights. It originated at a time when the land was ruled by a feudal aristocracy. This document has become the most important single document in the development of constitutional and legal freedoms, not only in Britain but in many countries of the Commonwealth, and in the United States.
This great Charter of English liberties, granted under threat of civil war, is a symbol and a battle cry opposing oppression. Each successive generation has, in it, a protection of its own civil liberties. For this reason I would like to express the great honour which all Hamiltonians feel in being entrusted with this historic document for a period of two weeks.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, there is a move afoot by the bleeding hearts to amend the Canada Elections Act to permit prisoners in federal correctional institutions to vote.
Right now prisoners have a better life than hundreds of Canadians who are paying taxes. They have better food than those living on welfare, and even more choice than the workers in the below poverty jobs.
They have special trailers for conjugal visits of wives and even common-law wives, and now there is a rumour this will be extended to girl friends.
They have free medical and dental care, and access to guidance counsellors. They enjoy the best of pool tables, gymnasiums, and sports equipment. Scores of taxpayers do not enjoy such facilities and services. However, the bleeding hearts

May 25, 1984
want more privileges, including the vote. If this keeps up, the old concept of punishment will disappear entirely.
No one wants to go back to bread and water diets, or to breaking rocks, and everyone wants to encourage rehabilitation. However, reform does not come from catering to those who break the law but rather from a desire within the individual to live within the law.
Can you picture prisoners who broke the Elections Act, or who are in for treason, or rape and murder, making demands on the candidates? Would candidates in ridings with an institution population that could sway the vote have to go from cell to cell making promises?
The bleeding hearts had better give this matter much more consideration. After all, our correctional institutions must be places of punishment and not houses of pleasure.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, on May 1 some 2,500 students were kept out of schools on four Manitoba reserves to protest the very sorry state of affairs at those schools. Over 600 of those students have yet to return.
Whether or not one agrees with the tactics, there is no denying that, when compared to provincial schools, reserve schools are seriously underfunded. Unfortunately, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) has not been giving this issue serious attention despite his nice sounding platitudes.
At the beginning of May the Minister agreed that their complaint was valid and promised to do something about it. He urged the chiefs to be patient and said that he would take their case to Cabinet as soon as possible. Three weeks passed, with no action.
Last Monday in Winnipeg, at a meeting with the four chiefs involved, the Minister gave his word to the chiefs that the submission for funding would go to Treasury Board on Tuesday. As of this morning that submission was still on the Minister's desk awaiting his approval before it could go to Treasury Board.
Indian students cannot wait for the Minister to squeeze their concerns into his leadership campaign schedule. If he cannot find the time to address these concerns he should resign and turn the Ministry over to someone with both the time and inclination to give Indian concerns the urgent attention they need.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, some months ago a Cabinet document prepared by the Department of National Defence came into my possession. This document clearly indicated that, given the state of the equipment available to Canada's Armed Forces and the funding levels projected by the Government, it would soon be, if it is not already, impossible for Canada to fulfill the stated defence policy objectives of the Government including, of course, our obligations under NATO.
It is an unflattering comment on the media in Canada that, when this document was released some weeks ago in Calgary, it attracted very little media attention, but when it was released in Washington, D.C., last Wednesday, it immediately became a matter of significant media attention in Canada. That, however, is an aside to my main point.
Questions based on this Cabinet document were put in the House yesterday by myself and my colleague, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). It was quite evident that the thrust of our concern was that the Government was not honouring our commitment to NATO. One such commitment, for example, is our obligation to provide 20 warships to NATO, ten within 48 hours' notice. The Minister's own document indicates that we will have a 12-ship navy by 1990 and therefore would be unable to fulfill that NATO obligation.
It is hypocrisy to claim that we are fulfilling our obligation when we are not. Hypocrisy is the worst of all alternatives.
Canada is extremely well served by our Armed Forces whose excellence is proven each year through competitions with our NATO Allies. However, in this modern era it is essential that we provide these Forces with the necessary capital equipment to enable them to do the job that needs to be done. I repeat that we are committed to NATO. We are proud of the quality of the Canadian Armed Forces. We are disappointed and angry at the Government's failure to provide our Armed Services personnel with the equipment necessary for them to do the jobs asked of them.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, on May 16 the federal Government was asked to impose a temporary surtax on imported European beef and to consider a countervailing duty on this heavily subsidized product in order to protect Canadian farmers and meat workers in plants across the country.
The documentation is clear, and it is beyond dispute that the subsidized imports are doing material damage to the beef industry. Yet the Government is laying unreasonable obstacles
May 25, 1984

in the path of the Canadian beef industry. For example, the manner in which Revenue Canada officials seek to employ the GATT Agreement is retarding expeditious action. Provisions under the Agreement require the beef industry to prove that an export subsidy exists, and they must establish that there is injury to the industry. But the Government is not willing to help collect data on which to base a claim for countervailing duty. The Government is making this industry jump through unreasonable hoops to prove their case, when it is so evident that there is damage being done.
Why does the Government not introduce the appropriate countervailing duty immediately? If we were the Government we would not be dallying and twiddling our thumbs. We would be doing something about our once thriving beef industry in order that it can compete with the European Community.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Saskatoon are very much afraid that the National Film Board office which has been there for the last 25 years or more is in danger of being closed this fall. The National Film Board has given excellent service to the city of Saskatoon as well as to all parts of northern Saskatchewan that are served from that city, including about 500,000 people. This office also serves the University of Saskatchewan, the school boards and senior citizens. A particular program has now been introduced by the National Film Board to help new Canadians become assimilated, to learn the language, and to find out about the country of Canada. It has had excellent success.

About a year ago the same fear arose that the office would close. At that time thousands of Saskatoon citizens by petitions, by letters, and by whatever means a citizen can use, appealed to the Minister to continue the centre. Fortunately the request was accepted and the office was given a one-year extension, but again the same fear is present. Therefore I am asking, in the name of the people of our region of Saskatoon and northern Saskatchewan, that the Minister seriously look at this again and that any extension not be limited but that there be a permanent commitment to have a National Film Board library in Saskatoon.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTIONS


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for whichever Minister is speaking for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport in the House today. [Translation]
Today, the newspaper La Presse reported that the Canada Sports Pool Corporation gave advertising contracts to two agencies with very close links to the Liberal Party. MacLaren Advertising in Toronto was awarded the English contract and Planicom PNMD in Montreal or, more specifically, Mr. Jean Prevost, Vice-President of the Liberal Party, was awarded the French contract.
Mr. Speaker, lest we forget, Mr. Prevost is an old friend of the Minister of Finance and is also in charge of campaign advertising for John Turner, who said he was against the sports pool.
Are we supposed to believe this is another coincidence? Is the Government finally going to admit that the Canada Sports Pool Corporation is a hot bed of patronage?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to take the Hon. Member's questions as notice and submit them to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can accept the Hon. Member's suggestion that we are not hiring competent people. Of course, it is competence that attracts orders in the private sector, and in the circumstances, I do not think politics has anything to do with it.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TABLE LIST OF APPOINTMENTS
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister who just replied, or for the Prime Minister if he cares to get involved in this important matter. The Government keeps defending its appointments on the basis of competency. May I ask the Government therefore whether it is aware that Mr. John Serres, who has been appointed regional general manager for New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, was fired by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation for reasons of incompetency- the same gentleman the federal Government has now hired?
I also ask the Government to answer the question we asked yesterday. Will the Government table the entire list of everybody who has been employed to date by the Corporation so that we can see just how deeply this patronage goes.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, again I will be happy to draw my hon. friend's

May 25, 1984
Oral Questions
question to the attention of the Minister who, I am sure, will give it serious consideration.


Mr. Nielsen:: What have you to hide?


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I can see that patronage questions do not interest the opposite benches very much.


Erik Nielsen: They should.


John William Bosley: They are so used to them.


REQUEST THAT EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS BE TABLED
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question, and perhaps I could ask the Prime Minister again whether he would like to get involved. I ask the Government not only to table the list of the appointments that have been made, but also to table immediately the contracts that have been made with those who have been hired, and for this reason, Mr. Speaker. We note that Miss Bastien and Mr. Larsen, who worked in the Prime Minister's office, have been taken on by this Corporation and that their contracts, for some reason, contain severance clauses that would grant them two years' severance pay should somebody in future decide to change the arrangements. These are supposed to be temporary jobs, as we were told yesterday. I think the House is entitled to a full explanation and a full disclosure of the appointments and the contracts. What, in goodness name, does the Government have to hide on this one?
[DOT] (M20)


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, again I will be very happy to draw my hon. friend's questions to the attention of the Minister. However, I would be interested in having it confirmed that when the present Leader of the Opposition was campaigning for the leadership of his party he said publicly-and I think it was reported in the press-words to the effect that, if he became Prime Minister, only Conservatives would be appointed to anything and everything, and that Liberals would be considered only after every living, breathing Conservative had been taken care of. I think my recollection is correct. If that is the case, my hon. friend should look at his Party's circumstances and at its own plans, instead of reflecting upon a program which has been approved by the Parliament of Canada and is aimed at supporting important institutions like the Olympics in Calgary.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. A report has been handed down by the Canadian Bar Association in conjunction with the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. It is a slashing
indictment of the operations of Revenue Canada. Among other things the committee, in reporting, pointed out that many of the powers now being exercised by Revenue Canada are in contravention of the provisions of the Charter of Rights.
Will the Prime Minister exercise some direction in terms of Revenue Canada and its relationship with the average Canadian? Will he give instructions to his Minister so that there will be an immediate reduction of the Department's reliance on search and seizure techniques, on fishing expeditions, to bring about a procedural fairness with respect to its activities and interrelationship with the average citizen which the people of Canada should be entitled to expect?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the Hon. Member that in my Budget of February 15 of this year, I proposed a number of amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Excise Act, amendments that were aimed at ensuring that all provisions of the Act would, in all cases, be in accordance with the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would urge my hon. friend to read them carefully, and he will realize that many of these measures are the result of consultations I had personally with the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. We have been, and are, working together very closely, to ensure that the legal provisions concerning taxation in every way respect the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Minister of Finance will understand that the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants share the same view as the majority of Canadians with respect to the Minister's Budget, that it is simply not sufficient nor adequate in the least instance to deal with the outrageous way in which Revenue Canada has been treating the citizens of Canada.


DEPARTMENT'S INTERNAL ORGANIZATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister not exercise some direction and instruct his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, who apparently has no control over his Department, to take steps to alleviate the situation to which I referred with respect to search and seizure and fishing expeditions, and particularly to change the situation in Revenue Canada were its assessment people are being interchanged with the appeals branch? There is a relationship of friendship where in the public gets no fairness or equity in the appeals system within the Department. These are things which the Minister could do now. Let us see what he can do to make things better for the country before he leaves politics.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if there is a fishing expedition, it is the one we have just seen,
May 25, 1984

and I would say that it is a pretty poor fishing expedition at that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have only got you on the hook. What do you expect?
Oral Questions
issue. We are working with the Province of Quebec to see what steps would be reasonable and satisfactory at the present time.


GOVERNMENT PLANS
Marc Lalonde: Contrary to what the Hon. Member has said, I challenge him. He has not met recently with the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants jointly. I bet him that he has not met with them. I have met with them.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Look at our task force.


Marc Lalonde: I am sorry he has made a statement about their views. I have met with them repeatedly, before and since the Budget. They have endorsed fully the measures contained in the Budget aimed at reforming income tax and excise tax.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Are you calling those people liars?


Mr. Trudeau:: Are you? You're the liar.


Marc Lalonde: They have endorsed the proposals that were contained in the Budget, so my friend had better acquaint himself with the facts before standing in the House and making such statements.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It deals with the proposed closure of the Petromont petrochemical plant, the loss of approximately 235 jobs in that plant, and the threatening of the downstream jobs, which comes to a total of about 750 jobs in the City of Montreal. This situation appears to have come about because the Government refuses to get involved in incentive pricing for petroleum and natural gas, and refuses to provide adequate assistance to those companies to revamp their plants and assist them with liquid natural gas. Will the Prime Minister, as one of the representatives from that area, indicate his willingness to inquire into this matter and see whether his Government might be prepared to save those jobs?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been examining this issue very carefully over the last several months. The Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion has received the report of the special task force on this subject. I recently discussed this issue extensively with the Quebec Minister of Finance. Both the Quebec Government and the federal Government are in contact to see what steps will be required in that regard. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is also involved. I assure my hon. friend that the Government is very much on top of this


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is well known throughout the affected area that the Government task force report is such that the recommendations are going to put the industry under in that area. There is substantial concern in the Sarnia area that Polysar and, in particular, Petrosar, will be in serious difficulty if the Government is not prepared to get involved in incentive pricing.
The task force recommendations are such in terms of financing the conversion to gas liquids that we will probably see that company with continuing losses, cutting back its production, and creating a very difficult situation.
Is the Minister stating to this House that the Government does not have a game plan at this point to save the jobs at Petromont, the roughly 700 jobs affected there, and the 2,000 jobs in the combination of Petrosar and Polysar? Is the Minister stating that at this time the Government does not have an effective mechanism to assist a very viable petrochemical industry in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. The best evidence is that some steps have already been taken, or at least have been discussed with the Province of Alberta. The Minister of Energy recently said that there were discussions with the Government of Alberta concerning the possibility of a special incentive price for additional sales of natural gas in Canada. A number of other steps are being examined and considered. We are indeed concerned about the future of the industry both in Sarnia and the Montreal area. We have been meeting with the spokesmen for those industries, repeatedly. As I indicated, I have had discussions with the Minister of Finance of Quebec. I believe that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has also had discussions with the Government of Ontario on this issue.


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE REQUIRED
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the question did not deal with Alberta. It did not deal with the Government's rather disjointed incentive program. We are talking about Eastern Canada, the Province of Quebec, and the City of Montreal. We are talking about thousands of jobs, hundreds of millions of dollars in exports, and service to a very large domestic market in Ontario, the eastern-based petrochemical industries, those in danger of going down the drain. It is unfortunate that the Minister has sidestepped this very important situation. The other point is that the Government's task force is letting them sink as well. The Minister knows that.
Is the Government prepared to have this very important industry go down the drain? This is because it is not prepared to give adequate financial assistance to convert to liquid gas

May 25, 1984
Oral Questions
components, and it is not prepared to give incentive pricing on the very small percentage of petroleum products it uses.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is extremely misinformed, to say the least. He claims that the Government task force is letting the industry go under. Perhaps I might remind him that the task force included representatives from the industry. In fact, in discussions I have had with representatives of various industries, I have never heard any complaints about the recommendations in the report prepared by the task force.
Perhaps my hon. friend should first find out what the petrochemical industry's attitude really is to the task force report. As I pointed out, we have already taken a number of measures. The Hon. Member is asking whether we are very interested in this sector. I would remind him that as recently as last year, the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada set aside $50 million for Petromont. That is a lot of money, considering the fact that it is being spent on only one of many companies that are experiencing a number of problems at the present time.
The Canadian Government has demonstrated its interest in this sector, and we have already taken a number of measures. However, as in other areas, the Hon. Member should realize that there is a limit to the amount of public money that can be allocated to a given sector.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Farmers are reeling from negative indicators this year, including the one mentioned earlier today regarding subsidized beef from the European Community, lower initial prices for prairie grains, and high taxes, including those on farm fuels. Now the Farm Credit Corporation is saying that it will raise its interest rates again in the very near future. Can the Minister state whether or not he is prepared to intervene regarding these extraordinarily high increases in interest rates to 14.5 per cent and 15.5 per cent respectively by a Corporation that is intended to be the farmers' lender of last resort? Can he tell the House why the Government is trying to milk every cent from the farmers' pockets this year?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first, if there has been an increase in fuel taxes, my friend would have to address that question to the Government of his own province. There has been no increase at all in the federal taxes on farm fuels. As a matter of fact, as the Hon. Member knows, we reduced the tax on natural gas to zero last year,
thus cutting down the taxes paid by the Canadian consumer by $800 million. My friend should know that that is what we have done.
As far as the Farm Credit Corporation is concerned, the Hon. Member also knows that the Corporation knew a significant loss last year. The Farm Credit Corporation is supposed at least to break even, and it did not succeed in doing so last year. It may not succeed in doing so this year either. However, the mandate of the Farm Credit Corporation is to try to help the farmers obtain loans by offering them the best possible prices that can be obtained on the market. However, the Farm Credit Corporation must lend money on the basis of the price it pays for the money it borrows, with a very small additional margin to pay for its operating costs. That is helping the farmers, not hurting them.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, there is also a significant loss created when farmers are forced off their farms.


FARMERS' ABILITY TO REPAY LOANS
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, last year the accounts of the Farm Credit Corporation were in arrears to the tune of 11 per cent, and those arrears are expected to be well over 12 per cent this year. Considering the world commodity price indicators, can the Minister state whether any farmer will have the capacity to pay back the loans that he will be faced with for five years to 20 years, at interest rates of 14.5 per cent to 15.5 per cent? Given these indicators, can the Minister offer these farmers any hope as they face these kinds of escalating interest rates in the near future?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated repeatedly here in the House, throughout the country, and abroad, that we are very concerned about the increase in interest rates that is taking place in the international markets these days. The Hon. Member knows about our interdependence with the United States in particular, concerning interest rates.
If the Hon. Member has any doubts about the Farm Credit Corporation, the farmers do not seem to share his doubts since the loans made by the Farm Credit Corporation over the past two years have gone from something like $500 million a year to over $800 million a year. Farmers recognize that the Farm Credit Corporation is an institution that is at their service, and they are ready and willing to make use of it because they find that it is in their best interest to do so.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND ENERGY COSTS-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister
May 25, 1984

will know that electrical costs in Prince Edward Island are the highest in the country. In fact its electrical costs are twice those of even the neighbouring Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Last week the Minister of Energy stated that he opposed any federal subsidy to Prince Edward Island to deal with the problem because he was opposed to energy subsidies in principle. Could the Minister of Finance tell the House whether the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was speaking for the Government of Canada, or whether he was merely speaking as a Liberal leadership candidate? What is the Government's policy on this important issue?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Government in that regard has been made very clear and is well known. One of the reasons why the cost of energy, and particularly electrical energy, is so high in Prince Edward Island is because of the decision made by a Conservative provincial Government of that province to refuse the electricity that was offered by New Brunswick from its Lepreau nuclear plant because it was afraid of getting nuclear electricity out of its light bulbs.
At that time the then Premier of Prince Edward Island campaigned on the basis that he would never accept nuclear generated electricity from New Brunswick. The net result is that the province ended up buying more expensive fuel generated electricity from New Brunswick. That is one of the reasons why the price of electricity in Prince Edward Island today is higher than it should be. It was the decision of the Conservative provincial Government of that province that led to that situation.
If the Hon. Member would like to know what we are doing for Prince Edward Island, I would remind him that the federal Government, through joint agreements under regional expansion programs, is providing subsidies or help to the Province of Prince Edward Island to the tune of $1,200 per capita. That amount is several times higher by far than the amount provided to any other province. We have been doing this consistently over the years. I would invite my hon. friend to look at the portion of the provincial Budget that comes from the federal Government. He will then realize how much support we are giving to the people of Prince Edward Island.


IMPACT OF NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the irate Minister of Finance. If the federal Government is opposed in principle to any direct energy subsidies to Prince Edward Island except those subsidies relating to the nuclear industry, why is the National Energy Program replete with energy subsidies for other purposes unrelated to nuclear energy, as far as Prince Edward Island is concerned, and as far as any other province is concerned.
For example, the National Energy Program is keeping natural gas prices at 65 per cent of the price of oil, and is
Oral Questions
subsidizing the extension of natural gas pipelines. Is the Government now proposing to dismantle the National Energy Program in respect to the subsidies I have just mentioned, or does the federal Government have one standard for the rest of Canada and a completely different standard for Prince Edward Island?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am not irate. I think the Hon. Member is getting funnier and funnier, and more and more irresponsible.
I must remind the Hon. Member that, under the National Energy Program, there are special programs for Prince Edward Island dealing with conservation of energy. For the people of that province, we made special arrangements for programs in that province, as well as in one or two other maritime provinces, that were not made available anywhere else in Canada. The Hon. Member should know that. If he does not know that, I invite him to look up the facts. He will find that in the area of energy we have taken special steps in his particular province because we knew that it would not have access to natural gas as easily as some other provinces would. We have taken steps in that regard so that we might take special care of Prince Edward Island.
I might also remind the Hon. Member again that, if he looked at the federal contribution under the regional economic expansion programs, he would see that no other province in the country has received as much per capita as the Province of Prince Edward Island. I am not talking about a difference of $2 or $3, or even a difference of $20 or $30. I am talking about a difference of hundreds of dollars per capita. We are paying more to P.E.I. than to any other province. My friend should get the facts straight.


SOCIAL WELFARE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister, since the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in the House.
In Canada, the unemployment rate among young people is twice as high as for the population in general. At this very moment, a group of young people is occupying the Welfare Office in Montreal. I see the Minister is in the House. As I was saying-

The Minister may need the translation.


An Hon. Member:: It's pretty good Spanish.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 25, 1984
Oral Questions


Ian Gardiner Waddell: At this very moment, a group of young people is occupying the Welfare Office in Montreal. Does the Minister intend to meet this group in order to discuss the role of the federal Government and to help these people?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member, who made a special effort to put the question in French for Quebec listeners, will appreciate my answer.
We do not make a habit of intervening in areas that fall under provincial jurisdiction, especially when a demonstration has just started. Quebecers know perfectly well that although we reimburse 50 cents for every dollar spent on welfare and social services, including local community service centres, the province still decides how much is spent and on which programs. We intervene only to reimburse. That is why people have to go through officials channels to approach us, otherwise we would be meddling in provincial matters.


NATIONAL WELFARE STANDARD SUGGESTED
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister must be aware that in Quebec you have single unemployable people under 30 on welfare who get about $ 150 a month, whereas if you are over 30 you get about $400. This is happening in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and so on. Has the Minister vetted the question of whether this is constitutional, especially after the anti-discrimination parts of the Constitution come into effect next year? In addition, would she agree with me that perhaps we have to look at a national standard which can be applied across the country? We cannot really discriminate against young people like this, especially when they are twice as likely to be unemployed as older people.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is not aware of the situation in Quebec and of what is being done under the Canada Assistance Plan for young people in Quebec. For the Government of Canada, I have approved and put my signature on a pilot project, under the welfare program, for young people on welfare. The project is supposed to help them in a number of areas and in a very specific way. While the basic rule is that the project is not compulsory, they are given an opportunity to receive additional benefits as they upgrade their training and apprenticeship and if they work in various industries or community services.
Therefore, we are very involved. Let us say that whenever a province has a good idea, we help bring it to fruition.
The second part of the Hon. Member's question refers to the level of welfare payments.

The answer to that is, yes, I wish there were national standards discussed and decided by the whole country. Every province has welfare benefits below the poverty line. I think it is crystal clear, and we have said it often. We have made the public as aware as we can of that most unfortunate fact. But, again, I cannot negate the Constitution. It is there to help Canada function, has served us very well, and it is the provinces which must decide on the rates, and then we give them back 50 cents on the dollar.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Norman Kelly (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister responsible for the status of women. Next year there will be a world conference to celebrate the end of the United Nations decade for women. Can the Minister tell us if Canada is participating in this conference and what we are doing to prepare for it?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre has brought up this matter today. I am very pleased to say that on May 23, in New York, at the spring session of the Economic and Social Council, Canada was re-elected to the United Nations Status of Women Commission. I might add that we were the only incumbent nation to be re-elected. It is especially important we remain on the Commission because we are deep into preparations for the 1985 Conference in Nairobi. This, of course, ensures that we will have a very real part to play in the Nairobi Conference.


REMOVAL OF ONTARIO RADIOACTIVE WASTE
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for whatever Minister is responding for the Minister of Energy. On November 3, 1983, the Minister of Energy, on behalf of the Government of Canada, put his signature to a contract with the Government of Ontario for the temporary removal and storage of low level radioactive waste from the Malvern subdivision in Scarborough to an area in Scarborough on Reesor Road, close to the border of York North.
Clause I of that contract indicates that the federal Government assumes responsibility, to use the words of the contract, to remove and permanently dispose of the Malvern waste. Having regard to that clause, why did the federal Government participate in the removal, and temporary storage in what amounts to a large plastic bag, of low level radioactive waste on a two acre site close to the border of York North?
May 25, 1984


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire as to the exact facts resulting from this particular agreement with the Government of Ontario. If I remember well, there were extensive discussions at that time between all the parties concerned, the municipality, the Government of Ontario and the federal Government. The joint conclusion was that the best site to dispose of the products was the site that was chosen. I will inquire of the Minister of Energy when he returns but, as far as I can recall, the facts of the case are that the decision was taken after extensive consultations with all concerned, and there was a joint agreement that this would be the best solution at the present time.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR PERMANENT STORAGE
John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that it was decided to do what is being done. The fact of the matter is that in two places in this contract the Government of Canada acknowledges that it has responsibility for the permanent storage of this radioactive waste. Having regard to the acknowledgement of that responsibility, why does the federal Government not assume that responsibility and store this radioactive waste in a permanent location, rather than in a temporary storage site in a plastic container?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I remember that at that time a site had been found for permanent disposal and there had been very strong lobbying activities by Conservatives in the area. Also, the Leader of the Opposition at that time was involved in that discussion and intervened to prevent a permanent site being found and used for that particular purpose. Because of the agitation by Conservatives in that area in particular, it was concluded, between the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada, that the best site was the one that was finally chosen. The Hon. Member might ask his friend, the former Leader of the Opposition, to inform him as to what exactly his role was at that time.


AIRPORTS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to whomever is responding for the Minister of Transport. At the Ottawa airport there is an area on the tarmac just west of the Department of Transport hangar that has traditionally been used for general aircraft parking, dropping off passengers, and staying for perhaps two or three hours. We are told now, Mr. Speaker, that that area is much too important for general aircraft and that people who work for the Department of Transport will be allowed to use it for parking. That gives us some idea of how important general aircraft are in the mind of the Government.
Oral Questions
I see my good friend, the former Minister of Transport making notes. I assume he is going to answer. Will whoever is answering look into the matter and give me an answer as to whether we could not reasonably use that area for general aircraft?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I consider that to be the most important thing I have to do today. I assure my hon. friend that he will have his answer, either at four o'clock today or nine o'clock sharp on Monday morning.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed the most important thing the Minister will have to do. I look forward to the answer.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. The Labour Adjustment Benefits Program for laid-off older workers has only designated industries in central and eastern Canada, except for a very narrow designation for forestry workers in Port Alberni, a designation which ignores the well-known mobility of forest workers.
The entire forest industry in British Columbia is going through a very difficult transition stage at the present time. Many long-term workers who have little or no hope of ever finding permanent employment again, are being laid off. Would the Minister designate the entire British Columbia forest industry for benefits under the program?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of criteria for designating, one consideration being the availability of alternative employment in the area itself or an adjacent area. I realize that the industry referred to by the Hon. Member is going through a very difficult time. The Cabinet Committee that will be considering designations of other regions or industries will certainly take the Hon. Member's representation into account but will also have to consider all the factors that come into play when deciding whether a region or industry is to be designated.


EARLY RETIREMENT BENEFITS PROGRAM
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. The Minister should be aware that the long-term outlook, or at least the medium-term outlook, for British Columbia and Alberta is not good. The forest industry is going through a very difficult time. In the Cowichan valley alone over 1,000

May 25, 1984
Oral Questions
jobs have been lost. Of 540 jobs that have disappeared from the Chemainus Mill, over 186 were of workers 54 years of age or older.
What plans does the Minister have to ensure that workers in western Canada, and in British Columbia in particular, will not be discriminated against under the terms of the program, but rather will be able to take advantage of a program that is meant for Canadians in all parts of Canada?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Labour Adjustment Program is one program which is applicable all across Canada. It is not a plan that should discriminate against some regions. I want to assure the Hon. Member that this program is a national program and will be used all across Canada, and in particular in British Columbia.
With regard to further designation, I want to assure the Hon. Member that this is a last resort initiative by the Government. Clearly, putting people on pre-retirement is not the ultimate goal of the Government. The Government is more interested in creating good, stable, and permanent jobs. It is only when there is no other alternative that we resort to this last initiative, that is, to allow the labour adjustment benefits to permit someone to leave the labour market at an earlier age.
Through consultations with the Department of Manpower and Immigration we are seeking other alternatives for the workers of British Columbia. I think it is more important to create jobs than to put people on retirement.


FISHERIES
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
I have met with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a number of times to find out whether it would be possible to settle the dispute between Mr. Garon and the fishermen on the middle and lower North Shore. Last year, the Minister announced that about $10 million would be invested. However, Quebec has always refused to provide land where the fishermen could build their salting sheds or ice machines, on the middle and lower North Shore. I wish to ask the Minister whether he has finally succeeded in finding a way to help the fishermen directly, without affecting the fishing season which will soon be open, and also, when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans intends to get in touch directly with the fishermen to confirm the method to be used, so that the fishermen can at least be satisfied with what this Government is doing and we can then let the province of Quebec do what it likes about the fisheries in Quebec.


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that was one of the big disappointments last year, after the federal Government had made funds available to our fishermen on the Quebec North Shore so that they could salt their own fish. The funds were approved by Cabinet, and we then asked the fishermen to find suitable sites to build these facilities. Up to now, despite pressure from the fishermen, the Government of Quebec has refused to provide land to build these facilities, which will belong to the fishermen. Because of the Quebec Government's stubborn attitude, all I can do is give the money directly to the fishermen, provided of course they can become owners of the land. We can only hope the Government of Quebec will realize it would be petty to take it out on the fishermen by refusing to give them a piece of land where they could build these facilities.


ESTIMATES
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of External Relations. Last Friday when he was the Acting Prime Minister he undertook that his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, would be available this week for committees. That is reported at page 3865 of Hansard. As he knows, the Minister never was available for committees, in spite of our many efforts, and has not carried out his duties to defend his Estimates prior to May 31. Can the Minister explain why his undertaking was not lived up to?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I also read Hansard when I happen not to be present, and I saw that the Prime Minister did answer the question. He did take the subject up with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. My information is that the Minister of State for Mines made himself available to meet the committee.


FISHERIES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. A week ago Members of the House from all Parties, including myself and the Members for Kenora-Rainy River, Skeena and Caribou-Chil-cotin, met with four American Senators to discuss the breakdown of talks on the West Coast fishing treaty. It has been reported to the Minister that the consensus at that meeting was that the Senators from Alaska and Washington, and the Members of Parliament, felt that it would be to the advantage of both countries to get the talks started again, and that
May 25, 1984

Canada should appoint a special official, as the Americans have done, to facilitate those negotiations. Can the Minister report to the House what action he is prepared to take?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I was very happy with the report made to me by this delegation that represented all Parties in the House. I have met with the Hon. Member and other Members. I have already had a meeting with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister. We will certainly appoint a representative also, and hopefully the representatives of Alaska will remove their opposition and allow the treaty that has been negotiated by our two countries to be ratified as quickly as possible by our two Governments.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question would normally be directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but I am sure someone will answer for them. It concerns the rejection by FIRA of an application by Petro-Canada to enter into a joint venture agreement with a Japanese firm to develop its northeast coal deposits. I find this situation incredible, particularly in light of the fact that $3 billion of public money, including significant amounts of federal money, have been spent on infrastructure to deliver this coal to world markets. Why has FIRA taken this position, and is the Cabinet prepared to intervene and overturn this decision?


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the question and make sure that the Hon. Member receives an answer in the very near future.


POINT OF ORDER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time with respect to some words uttered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who is now conferring with a member of the NDP. I will not question what they are discussing but it may be that the Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) was unjustly maligned and it was the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).
The fact of the matter is that it is a very serious point of order in terms of the order of the House. During the course of Question Period-I would like to have the opportunity of checking the "blues", as I am sure you will, Mr. Speaker-I heard the Prime Minister referring to me as a liar. I think that
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn word is unparliamentary. I know that the Prime Minister, who is the Prime Minister of Canada, would not want to have such ungentlemanly words attributed to him in the course of deliberations on the floor of the House of Commons.
I have had to take him to task on other occasions with respect to blasphemy on the floor of the House. He has done the proper thing on those occasions and withdrawn categorically those words. I hope that if in fact there was any such language the Prime Minister would stand in his place and demonstrate the fact that he appreciates this institution and is a person who understands the importance of Parliament and will withdraw those unparliamentary words.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as on previous occasions, I let my heart speak out in this place when perhaps I should not have. I heard the Hon. Member distinctly shout to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) words to the effect that he was saying that accountants and lawyers were liars. I think that is a very unparliamentary statement on the part of the Hon. Member.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It was telling the truth.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member says that it is the truth.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Whereas he was accusing them of untruths.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And the Hon. Member was saying that he was accusing them of being liars. That is very unparliamentary, to ascribe intentions to the Minister of Finance. I believe if you look at the rules, Mr. Speaker-obviously I do not have to tell you to look at the rules, Sir, because you know them so well- it is unparliamentary for any Member to impute motives to another Member.
As a good example to the Hon. Member, I will withdraw the use of the term "liar" as applied to him. I would like to make it conditional on his righting his own unparliamentary conduct when he imputed motives to the Minister of Finance. My withdrawal is conditional, Mr. Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I can clearly say that, as far as anybody on this side of the House is concerned, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has no discernible motives.
I simply say that that is not sufficient. I say that it is unparliamentary language. The Prime Minister has an obligation to this institution, and if it is going to be conditional, I do not think that that is a proper position for the Prime Minister to take.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair did not hear the exchange. The Chair will have to examine the record of Hansard and will rule on the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) after having examined the "blues".
4048

May 25, 1984
Introduction of Bills PETITIONS


TABLING OF REPORTS OF CLERK OF PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, May 24, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and responsibility to present a petition on behalf of the citizens of my riding of Fraser Valley West. The nature of this petition is to express concern at the number of delays in court proceedings in which children are involved.
In view of the trauma of children as victims of conflict and the additional trauma of long and drawn out court proceedings that could further this trauma, the purpose of the petition is to ask the federal Government to ensure that court proceedings commence within six months of the date of criminal charges being laid and that these proceedings should be completed within a six-month maximum period thereafter.


PENITENTIARY ACT AND PAROLE ACT
Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-35, an Act to amend the Penitentiary Act, the Parole Act and certain other Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


INTEREST ACT
Hon. Yvon Pinard (for the Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Interest Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the house?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-37, an Act to amend the National Housing Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 610, 631 and 720.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Was any bilateral aid given by the Canadian International Development Agency to each of anglophone and francophone African countries and, if so, in each case what (a) percentage (b) number of countries received such aid?
2.	Is the Agency responsible for contracting for provision of goods and services to developing countries in the form of tied-aid, and, if so, what percentage of such contracts were awarded in each Province?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. (a) and (b) Yes. The Canadian International Development Agency, during the period from April 1, 1977 to March 31, 1983, provided bilateral aid to 82 per cent of the Anglophone and 89 per cent of the Francophone countries in Africa, which percentages

May 25, 1984

include 23 Anglophone countries and 28 Francophone countries.
2. Yes. CIDA-Service contracts-April 1, 1977 to December 31, 1983
% per province: 3.9	Alberta
9.1	British Columbia
3.0	Manitoba
2.4	New Brunswick
0 ($124,977.)	Newfoundland
0.6	Nova Scotia
34.8	Ontario
0 ($343,825.)	Prince Edward Island
45.4	Quebec
.8	Saskatchewan
CIDA-Goods contracts-April 1, 1977	to March 31, 1983
% per province: 6	Alberta
3	British Columbia
2	Manitoba
1	New Brunswick
0 ($1.2 M)	Newfoundland
5	Nova Scotia
47	Ontario
0 ($30,000.)	Prince Edward Island
34	Quebec
2	Saskatchewan
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Are any exempt staff employed by the Department of the Secretary of State and, if so, what are their (a) titles (b) positions (c) names?
2.	Do any of the staff mentioned in part I receive income, financial assistance or other benefits related to their employment from sources other than the ministerial budget and, if so (a) which members (b) what are the details of the income, financial assistance or other benefits?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: No. The Secretary of State employs exempt staff as follows:
1.	(a) and (b)	(c)
Executive Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Private Secretary 2. No.
Saint-Onge, Maurice Monast, Madeleine Meilleur, Denise Laporte, Francois Pilon, Daniele O'Sullivan, John Borsanyi, Francine


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a Beaufort Sea Community Advisory Committee and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	During the fiscal year 1982-83, did the Committee meet and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The Beaufort Sea Community Advisory Committee was organized in 1976 by Dome Petroleum Limited in order to provide an effective communication link between the industry operator and the affected communities. The communities of Aklavik, Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk, Paulatuk, Holman, Sacks Harbour, each named two members to the committee. The members of the committee were northerners of wide experience within their communities and knowledgeable about local concerns. During its effective life 1976-1983, the committee was supported by the Dome Petroleum/Canadi-an Marine group and no government funds were provided for remuneration or travel. The funding provided by the company enabled the group to visit other countries and to investigate industry practices in Alaska, the North Sea, and other areas in order that the Beaufort Sea operations could be better assessed. The committee operated as an independent body setting its own meetings and agendas.
In the fall of 1983, the Beaufort Sea Community Advisory Committee disbanded as other more broadly-based initiatives such as the Development Impact Zone Societies sponsored by the Government of the Northwest Territories seemed to limit the effectiveness of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 292 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	By Province, what public funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund were allocated for events of one kind or another in celebration of July 1, 1983?
2.	What agency of Government made provision in the budget to have these funds made available?
3.	Of the amount allocated to British Columbia, what distribution was made, by event and by locality?
4.	Who, or what agency, in each locality requested funds to mark each of the events listed in the answer to part 3 and, in the case of an agency, who requested the funds?
5.	What procedures are in place to account for the expenditures made under this budgetary item?
Return tabled.


John Leslie Evans: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 25, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill C-33, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I had the great privilege, honour and pleasure of piloting amendments to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act through this House, and I want to thank Members who were kind enough at the time to give the Government second and third readings on a single day.
I am afraid Members will not be as generous today. I do not blame them. The Bill I am about to introduce is a rather complex one. I can easily understand that Members will want to debate it for some time, for a few hours or a few days, in committee. The Bill I am introducing is Bill C-33, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act.
I speak on behalf of three Ministers. I have become their Boy Friday! I speak on behalf of the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board who has primary responsibility for the stabilization policy; for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) whose Department administers the program; and for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) who presented this Bill to the House.


Mr. Gustafson:: And you who are reading it.


André Ouellet: And myself who will listen to it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thank my distinguished audience for being present.
As Members are well aware, the Government in its Throne Speech indicated that:
Amendments will be introduced to the Western Grain Stabilization Act to make it more responsive to the needs of producers.
That is, the grain producers. As we will see, the major amendment proposed in Bill C-33, amendments which benefit from the experience gained since 1976, which is the date of birth of this Act, will accomplish this objective. The purpose of my speech is to try and demonstrate that.
[ Translation]
The effect of the amendments in Bill C-33 will be:
First, to incorporate an additional payment trigger mechanism based on net cash flow per unit of eligible marketings- all this will get a little clearer as we go along-to make the program more sensitive to price and cost variations during periods of increasing marketing volumes;
Second, to change the measurement of receipts under the program from a calendar year to a crop year basis, that is,
instead of being from January 1 to December 31, it would be from August 1 to July 31 of the following year;
Third, to make spouses eligible for multiple participant status under the Act if they meet the other requirements prescribed for joint holders of permit books. All this will become quite clear as we go along.
Fourth, to give participants, once every ten years, the option of leaving the program. Those are the four amendments I gave in French.

Understandably there has been increasing concern in recent years on the part of prairie grain producers as to whether the Western Grain Stabilization Program was doing the job it was intended to do. For example, I am told the Program was a major item for discussion at farm meetings throughout the Prairies over the past several months. Many producers indicated that they were dissatisfied with the level of support provided by the program. The Government remains committed to the view that the main federal program protecting the incomes of prairie grain farmers is this one, namely, the Western Grain Stabilization Program. It is clear from the very high rate of producer participation-77 per cent, if my memory serves me well-that they too are committed to the program. If one can judge the acceptance of a program by the participation into it, this is one. As we will see in a moment, it is a voluntary participation.


Leonard J. Gustafson: They all want out.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If that is so, we can stop now and that will make our job rather easier. But it is not so. I do not agree with the comment of the Hon. Member. If 77 per cent of farmers belong to a voluntary program, it must have a great degree of acceptance.


Leonard J. Gustafson: They are locked in.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We will see shortly that they will be unlocked.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: The basic concept of the program, the "net cash flow concept"-and more on that later-is sound. However, the changing character of the grains industry has made it necessary to improve the pay-out mechanism in order that the program will provide assistance for prairie grain producers in time of real need.
The business or professional life of the western grain farmer is not an easy one. He, more than almost anyone else in the country, is dependent upon factors outside his control. First, he is dependent on weather conditions. Too little or too much rain, or rain at the wrong time of the year, can be devastating, as I learned in 1969.
Second, the western grain farmer is dependent on world markets for his volumes and for his prices. This is a factor over which he has no control and which reacts primarily to the size of harvests around the world.
May 25, 1984

Third, the western grain farmer faces constantly high input costs for seed, fertilizer and machinery which he, unlike most people, cannot pass on to his customers.
Finally, the western grain farmer depends on the grain companies, the railways, the dock workers, and the Wheat Board to market and move his product, and problems at any stage of that process can seriously affect his income. He lives dangerously and that is recognized even if he is not the only one; we all live dangerously, but some live more dangerously than others.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Something like the Liberal Government.


Jean-Luc Pepin: My hon. friend is not in a kind mood today, Mr. Speaker. I have presented the House with some extremely favourable Bills the last two Fridays. My friend should at least be complimentary, gentle and sweet when he gets Bills of this kind, and he should reserve his bilious nature for other circumstances. Be that as it may, the farmers need all the help they can reasonably get. The protection offered by the Western Grain Stabilization Act is very significant to them and on that I am sure we all agree.
The net cash flow concept of stabilization, the concept to which I have already referred, stabilizes the difference between over-all cash receipts from the sale of western grain and over-all related costs of producing it. It was developed in the early 1970s in recognition that prairie grain producers, because of their dependence upon the export market, were subject to very volatile prices and volume changes as well as to cost increases in their production inputs. That concept was considered a major advance from previously proposed programs which would have provided only price support, as is the case in other agricultural stabilization programs. I look at some of my friends on the other side because I know they understand all that extremely well, as well as I do, which is very, very well.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is true. I understand these things very, very well. I paid the price to learn because I was, as everyone knows, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce responsible for the Wheat Board in the late 1960s.


An Hon. Member:: You forgot it when you were Minister of Transport.


Jean-Luc Pepin: And I got it double-barrelled when I was Minister of Transport.


An Hon. Member:: And then they fired you.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Then they sent me to greener pastures.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: We do that to the best horses!
Western Grain Stabilization Act
In the early 1970s, export volumes had fallen off from the levels reached in the mid-1960s and farmers were faced with large grain stocks. Because of the difficulty in sales, price support alone would not have helped producers at that time. They could not obtain their price on goods which had not been sold. This was the situation in those dreadful years which I remember so well. Price support only helps if they can sell their product. It does not help when sales are weak. The Hon. Otto Lang, a distinguished gentleman if I know one-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: -recognized this problem and was determined to find a way to help producers through the bad times and try to reduce the historic boom-bust cycle of prairie farmers' incomes.
The existing Western Grain Stabilization Program, after extensive debate and consultation, came into effect on April 1, 1976. The other day when I said that the advance payment came into effect on a certain date, the Official Opposition, also called the Royal Opposition by the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), was keen to remind me that this had been done during the Diefenbaker years. I am just "tit-for-tatting" when I say that this was done under a Liberal regime by my friend, Mr. Otto Lang.
The original Bill came into effect on April 1, 1976. I repeat that the principal objective of the program was to protect grain producers in the so-called Canadian Wheat Board area against unexpected declines in net returns due to short-term price fluctuations, reduced marketings and increased production costs. These are the three factors most often at work in these changes.
I should like to remind the House, because it could be useful for later reference, about the main features of the existing program. The amendments will be clear if the public-that crowd up there and down here-knows what the Bill is at this moment. Obviously the amendments are to the present Bill, and I will refer to its main features.
First, the program covers seven major grains and oilseeds grown in the Canadian Wheat Board area, the seven being wheat, barley, oats, rye, flaxseed, canola and mustard seed.
Second, the program runs on the calendar year-from January 1 to December 31. That is the way it runs now; we will see in a moment how that will be changed.
Third, stabilization payments are made to farmers for any calendar year in which the total cash flow-the basic concept-of all grain producers in the Wheat Board area is less than the average cash flow in the previous five years. That is the basis of it all at this point. It is a global concept. We will make a change to that, as the House will see in a moment.
Fourth, participation is voluntary for producers. They may opt out of the program during the first three years after opting in. For the first three years, if producers do not like it, they can get out. If a producer has not opted out during those three years, however, he remains a full participant permanently.


Mr. Malone:: They will not.

May 25, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, sir.


Arnold John Malone: They will not stay.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Fifth, since January 1, 1984, participating producers pay a levy of 1.5 per cent of their grain sales proceeds into the Western Grain Stabilization Fund, up to a maximum of $900. Previously the levy rate was 2 per cent. I just want to add that producers have contributed up to March, 1984, $365 million to the fund.
Sixth, the federal Government now contributes 3.5 per cent of grain sales proceeds of participants to the fund. So participants, 1.5 per cent; the Government, 3.5 per cent. Prior to January 1, 1984 that contribution was 4 per cent of grain sales proceeds. Between 1976 and the end of March, 1984 the federal Government contributed about $720 million to the fund. I see Hon. Members opposite making notes. I compliment them on their sense of responsibility.


Mr. Neil:: They are all farmers.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The federal Government pays interest on the balance left, after pay-outs, in the Western Grain Stabilization Fund. Between 1976 and the end of March, 1984 the Government paid about $244 million in interest into the fund. Hon. Members will notice the relatively generous federal contribution to this fund.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Nine per cent.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am talking hundreds of millions, not chicken
feed.
The Western Grain Stabilization Program paid out substantial amounts in 1977 and 1978. Together they amounted to $365 million. This was primarily because the average value per tonne of sales had fallen in those years from considerably higher levels in 1974, 1975 and 1976. However, grain prices recovered after 1978 and the incomes of grain producers improved. For example, in 1981 gross grain receipts to the prairie grain sector were a record $6.2 billion, with an average value per tonne of sales of $209 on total marketings of 29.6 million tonnes. In those circumstances there was no pay-out from the fund.
Now I should like to deal with the present more dramatic situation. It will justify the amendments about which I will speak. From 1981 to 1983, the average value of the seven grains covered by the program dropped by 20 per cent to $168 per tonne. Hon. Members will recall that in 1981 it was $209 per tonne. On the other hand, the volume of marketings by prairie grain farmers increased by 24 per cent to 36.7 million tonnes in 1983. We see a drop in price and a very great increase in volume. The very desirable increase in marketings of grain, which by the way is evidence of the commendable job which the Canadian Wheat Board and the grain industry in general are doing in selling and moving prairie grain, has had the effect of masking the negative impact of lower prices and of limiting the responsiveness of the Western Grain Stabilization Program to price declines. The fact that we have had a
large increase in our exports has been masking or preventing a greater sensitivity of the program.
Similarly, the strong increase in volume helped offset the impact on net cash flow of increases in cost of production experienced in recent years. Consequently, although total receipts and, therefore, total cash flow have been at a high level in the past three years because of the record volume, farmers are nevertheless feeling some financial difficulty because of lower prices and higher costs.
Let me say it again slightly differently. Because the prairie grain sector is receiving more money due to increases in volume of sales, the total net cash flow has not dropped below the previous Five-year average and there is, therefore, no justification under the Bill as it is for a pay-out, although there are serious problems in the grain sector due to price declines and cost of production increases. Clear? I was expecting applause, and that is why I paused. The conclusion is that the existing Western Grain Stabilization Program is not as sensitive to the Financial situation of farmers as it should be. That is the reason for these changes I announce to-day.
The Government is cognizant of that difFicult financial situation and the financial position of many grain producers is being squeezed, as we know, in that money left over after cash costs are met has declined over the last decade both in terms of purchasing power and as a proportion of the total receipts. One indicator of that is the number of farm bankruptcies, which have been increasing. I have all the numbers but I will not include them in my text.
Outstanding farm debt has also increased considerably in recent years. Total farm credit outstanding now exceeds $20 billion, 50 per cent of that in the west. As the Canadian Federation of Agriculture workshop on farm credit in the spring of 1983 noted, it is generally agreed that some 10 to 15 per cent of farmers were "in financial difficulty because of farm debt".
As no stabilization pay-out for the calendar year ending December 31, 1983 would be triggered under the existing program, it was therefore clear to the Government that amendments were required to make the program more responsive to the farmers' financial situation. The Government assessed very carefully the factors that seemed to be limiting the effectiveness and responsiveness of the program.
The major factor limiting the program's responsiveness has been the increasing volume of grain marketing in relation to the changes in selling prices and production costs. Even though prices had declined for two years in a row and are at relatively low levels compared to 1980-81 levels, a pay-out under the Western Grain Stabilization Act was not triggered for 1983. That situation is going to continue unless changes are made. The grain industry has generally accepted an export target of 36 million tonnes of grains and oilseeds by 1990. We have already reached total grain exports of 29.5 million tonnes in 1982-83, and in the current crop year exports are running slightly ahead of last year. This phenomenon of high volume is
May 25, 1984

most probably, God willing, here to stay. Therefore we have to adjust the stabilization program to this new reality. This implies that grain marketings will continue to increase gradually and this trend in volume of marketings will continue to reduce the sensitivity of the program to price declines and to cost increases.
In light of these changing circumstances, adjustments to the plan are now needed. This is the reason for the major amendment which is being proposed to the program, that is, the incorporation of an additional payment trigger mechanism based on net cash flow per tonne of eligible marketings to make the program more sensitive to price and cost variations during periods of increasing marketing volumes. I say "additional" because the existing payment trigger mechanism based on aggregate net cash flow, taking into account changes in prices, costs and volumes, will be retained as it could still be needed to provide income protection should volumes stabilize or decline. We will have a double mechanism, each adjusted to different circumstances.
There are three other changes being proposed in the program at this time. A second factor which has limited the ability of the Western Grain Stabilization Program to respond quickly is the fact that the Program operated and still operates on a calendar year basis. Under the existing Program, it is not possible to finalize pay-outs until October, ten months after the end of the stabilization year on December 31, since costs are obtained by survey made in June/July, after farmers have completed their previous year's accounts for tax purposes, and more time is required for computation of aggregate costs. Changing to a crop year will have the advantage of reducing the lag between the time when a farmer markets his crop and the time when calculation of whether there will be a stabilization pay-out for a year can be completed and a pay-out issued, if warranted.
Additionally, measurement of gross receipts on a crop-year basis would provide a closer relationship of receipts generated by the sale of a crop to the costs of producing that crop. With the amendment to change measurement of receipts to a crop year, it is expected that stabilization payments would be made within three to four months, that is October/November, after the end of the stabilization year on July 31, as opposed to ten months as has been the case up until now. Presumably computers make some of these improvements possible.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Also an election.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Possibly a combination of the two.
The third change is necessary because producers have expressed concern that they are, as we just heard from a distinguished Member of the Opposition, locked into the program if they do not withdraw during the first three years. Indeed, although participation in the program is voluntary initially, it becomes compulsory after three years and this feature has limited producers' flexibility to decide whether the program was still meeting their individual needs. The Government has responded to many requests by proposing an amendments that will permit some additional flexibility of participa-
Western Grain Stabilization Act tion. Producers will be given an option on the tenth anniversary of the Program-1976, consequently 1986-and each tenth year thereafter.
As a fourth amendment, the Government is also proposing to remove the restriction which prohibited participation by spouses if they were both members of a corporation, partnership or farm co-operative. This change will make the Western Grain Stabilization Program compatible with proposed amendments to other legislation currently before Parliament, one of them last week, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. The net effect of this change will be an increased ability of producers to participate and some increase in producer and Government contributions to the Program. This change recognizes the importance of the family farm and the role played by both partners in a farm family.
It is clear that the Government is responding in a major way to changes in the grain industry and particularly in the financial situation of prairie grain producers. Without the proposed amendments to the program which afe contained in Bill C-33, there would be no pay-out under the Western Grain Stabilization Act during 1984 for calendar year 1983. It is expected that a pay-out would have been triggered for the 1984 calendar year but it could be paid only in 1985 under the existing Western Grain Stabilization Act.
The Government has assessed other options for change which have been proposed and none of those other options increased the short-term responsiveness of the program while at the same time representing a significant long-term improvement to the Western Grain Stabilization Program. We must combine the short-term advantage with the long-term advantage. Some of the propositions that have been made offer short-term gains without longer term gains. This Bill purports to introduce a fine combination of the two. The proposed amendment to the additional pay-out triggering mechanism in Bill C-33 will result in total pay-outs over a several years period in an amount that would about double the pay-outs under the existing program over the same period, yet the Western Grain Stabilization Fund will remain actuarially sound with the proposed changes.
The Government has assessed the proposal put forth by the Standing Committee on Agriculture which is to use a three-year average of net cash flow as the support level. The Committee studied the inclusion of additional costs and particularly the costs of interest on machinery. In my notes there follow two or three pages dealing with this subject. I will not impose those pages on my hon. friends who are listening so gently and kindly because this subject would be easier to study with a map and with charts than to express in words.
Those two questions in particular are very, very complex. In both cases a great deal of calculating was done to determine the plan which would be most beneficial to producers. It is our belief that the plan being presented in the Bill is the best one for producers over the short and longer terms. However, I am sure Hon. Members will want to raise some questions regard-

May 25, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act
ing some of the other options which have been proposed and I hope that they will do so at committee stage.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me clear up some of the confusion unfortunately caused by some Hon. Members of the House regarding the amount of money that producers have received from the Western Grain Stabilization Program relative to the amount of money they have contributed by way of levies. Total pay-outs to producers since the inception of the program have been $368 million, although as of today the fund reached $900 million because of government contributions plus interest, as I already indicated. The total levies paid to producers from 1976 until the end of the first quarter of 1984 have totalled about $365 million. A pay-out of $300 million for 1983-84 under the proposed amendments would mean that producers will be about $300 million ahead in terms of pay-outs relative to levies since the start of the program in 1976. While the fund will still have over $600 million in it, and I hope Hon. Members followed all of those numbers which were quite simple-


Douglas Charles Neil: You did not talk about interest on their money.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, the interest is included. I remember referring to an amount of $224 million. Let me emphasize, as I have said before, that interest is being paid on the producers' levies and on the Government's contributions.
I have an additional announcement to make. My friends are waiting for that one, Mr. Speaker. The Government recognizes the serious cash shortage currently faced by farmers. There is no doubt that the approximately $300 million will be welcomed by producers when it is paid. I have already indicated that under the new system it would be paid some time at the end of fall and perhaps in November. However, we have no doubt that the pay-out will occur, and while several factors like space available, quotas, etc., will affect the ultimate size of that pay-out, we want to get money into the producers' hands as soon as possible. Therefore, at report stage the Minister of Transport will present an amendment providing for an interim payment prior to July 31.


Douglas Charles Neil: Does that mean an early election?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No one knows when the election will take place.


Arnold John Malone: You want to bet?


Jean-Luc Pepin: If my hon. friend knows when the election will be, I would gladly receive his confidential information. However, it would be a one-way street because I could not tell him when the election will take place.


Arnold John Malone: Right after the pay-out.


Jean-Luc Pepin: There are so many factors involved. Therefore, the Minister of Transport will bring in this amendment at report stage. This will be a one-time provision intended to deal with the fact that no payment has occurred for a number of years and to recognize the producers' immediate need for cash. While I cannot tell Hon. Members the exact amount today, it
is anticipated that approximately one-half of the total pay-out will be made this summer.
There it is, Mr. Speaker. The changes which the Government is proposing to the Western Grain Stabilization Act through this Bill will, in my view, make a sound contribution to the efficiency and sensitivity of the program, qualities which were lost to some extent because of changing circumstances. I explained those changing circumstances to my hon. friends in great depth and I am sure they are already quite well aware of those circumstances.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I was pleased to see the Hon. Minister, who is the former Minister of Transport, speaking so passionately on behalf of the farmers and also on behalf of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, who cannot be in this place. We did notice the absence of western Members on that side of the House. In fact, I suppose we did notice the absence of Members in general. In addition, the Minister said that he was speaking for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who is obviously out campaigning for the leadership of the Liberal Party. The expressions in the Minister's speech were well made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. It has been mentioned by the Chair previously that no reference should be made to the presence or absence of Hon. Members. The Chair let the general comment go but I would caution of the Hon. Member not to refer to the specific absence or presence of any Member in the House of Commons.


John William Bosley: Or general to those who are specifically absent.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was referring generally to the three Ministers who are not here who are responsible for this Bill and I was complimenting the former Minister of Transport because he has always occupied a sort of soft spot in the hearts of many farmers. This is particularly so, Mr. Speaker, regarding the Minister's work related to transportation. It is too bad that we cannot say the same thing for the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), who is not here to introduce this Bill and in fact is out campaigning for the hon. person from Bay Street who was just recently appointed director of the CPR and Seagram's. The farmers have a great deal of concern about whether, should he become the Prime Minister of Canada, he would fight for the best interests of western farmers or not. There is certainly a great deal of concern about that.
Bill C-33 has been of great concern to the Conservative Party. I am pleased to see that the Minister introduced today an interim payment, because the farmers certainly need the money. We called for that and I believe this Bill would not have been brought to the House if it were not for the Conservative Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.
May 25, 1984


Leonard J. Gustafson: I believe the Liberal Party has been playing politics with this Bill and in fact playing politics with the money which belongs to the farmers. Had it not been for the strong representation of western Members who are farmers, who understand the program and what it has not done, this Bill would not be before the House. We had drafted an amendment to provide for an interim payment. We are grateful for the interim payment. However, we do not like the fact that the Government is playing politics with farmers' money.
As early as last summer, the Conservative Party called for an interim payment and for a western grain stabilization payment for farmers. We have been doing that for over a year. The record will show that on September 16, I called for it in this House. On October 5 the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) called for it in the House. Again on October 7 we called for the western grain stabilization payment. On October 25, 1983 we again called for it. On November 17 the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who knows farming well, called for it. Yet it was not forthcoming. On December 8 the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer), who is the agricultural representative for this Party, called for it. The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) called for it on April 17. On April 18 again the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette called for it. The Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) has called for it, the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) has called for it, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) has called for it, and the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has called for it. The list goes on and on. The Conservative Party has been calling for it for over a year. But the Government has played politics with it.
I would like to read part of a news release which appeared in The Assiniboia Times. Last summer I said to the reporter: "Watch the Liberals; they will play politics with the farmers' money". He wrote an article on May 2, 1984.1 did not request him to write it. It reads:
I can remember very clearly at about this time last year when Conservative M.P. for Assiniboia Len Gustafson told me there would be "a flood of money" from the stabilization fund just before the next federal election. At that time, his words sounded extremely partisan. Although 1 never dismissed his prediction as just more politicking for his constituents, I did, however, feel that the federal Liberals would be a little more inventive or subtle in how they gave the farmers back their own money before an election.
That is exactly what has happened. When the program was designed in 1976 to meet the cash flow problems that farmers were facing, it was not designed to be a program for political propaganda. It was not designed to be a program to put the farmers' money into an account that the Government could use for the benefit of its political expendiency. It was meant to help meet the cash flow problems of farmers.
What was this program all about? In 1976 the Hon. Otto Lang introduced the program and said that it was to meet the cash flow problem of farmers. Let us look at the history of what has happened in the farming community and how western Canada has suffered neglect under this Government because of its failure to move. I have heard it said by senior Members who sit on this side that they did not believe the
Western Grain Stabilization Act program would work at the time it was introduced. The Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, who we remember so well for his contributions to Canada, said: "If there were two cow pies in the pasture, the Hon. Otto Lang would step in both of them".
I would like to say that grain stabilization has been one of them. There is no question about it: the program has not worked and I will show you, Mr. Speaker, how it has not worked.
Farmers have paid into the program since 1979. Members on this side, many of whom are farmers and permit-holders, understand the program well. Farmers initially paid $500 per year. Then it was increased to $900 per year. Then it was increased to $1200 per year. But since 1979, there has not been a payment to farmers. If a farmer began paying into the program in 1979, by now he would have paid the maximum of $5,700 and he has not received any return. The accumulated interest on that $5,700 amounts to over $8,000 of the farmer's own money. Do not let any Member or Minister on the Government side stand in his place and tell the farmers how much money the Government is paying to them. The Government is not returning the money which belongs to the farmers. Again and again the Minister of Agriculture stands in his place and indicates how much money the Government is putting into the program.
Due to the time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that we extend the sitting through the lunch hour because of the serious nature of this debate. We have a good deal more to say with respect to the Bill. It is important that it be passed quickly so that farmers can get their money. Therefore I move: That in accordance with Standing Order 8(4) (a) this House extend the sitting through the lunch hour for the purpose of considering second reading stage of Bill C-33.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member for Assiniboia has moved the motion, seconded by the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), that the sitting continue through the lunch hour for the purpose of considering second reading stage of Bill C-33. In accordance with the Standing Orders, it requires that 25 Members rise in their place to object to the motion. Are there any Members who object to the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There are no Members rising; therefore, I deem the motion to be carried.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) on a point of order.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment, on this occasion, that the Government is most willing to co-operate. That is why no one on this side of the House rose to object.

May 25, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act We hope that for other legislation, we shall occasionally have the support and co-operation of the Opposition parties.
The Minister responsible for the Bill has an appointment at one o'clock, but I shall remain in the House to listen to the speeches of our hon. friends.


Leonard J. Gustafson: money is coming from when fuel is crossing the border at 78 cents a gallon. It is coming right out of the co-operative refineries at Regina and as many as 15 truckloads a day are crossing the border.
I would like to have the record set straight as to how farmers and the rest of the people of Canada are being dealt with by the Government. We have had Liberal promise after Liberal promise. In the area of agriculture the Liberal Government has given us this kind of promise again and again. I fought in two elections in the Assiniboia riding. Long before I got actively involved in running for office the Liberals promised that they were going to remove the capital gains tax. They do a little here and a little there but it never comes about for farmers.
There was a clear indication by the Government that there was to be $16 billion spent on the development and upgrading of transportation. What are we getting? In my riding we just received a letter saying that another rail line will be abandoned from Big Beaver to Coronach. We hear reports that people working on the railroads are being laid off. The amount of money which was to be spent from 1976 to 1992 has been cut back by the Government from $16 billion to $12 billion. The Government continues to promise the people that it is going to double-track and rebuild.
You will hear all kinds of these promises in the next few months, Mr. Speaker. They will be making promises about the capital gains tax. I ask the people of Canada and the Members of the House to reconsider and to think about the 18-cent tax on fuel when they hear some of the promises that will be made. It is clear that promises which deal with agriculture or farmers are never meant to be kept. All one has to do is look at the slate of leadership candidates and the direction they have taken. How can a leader of the country fight for the best interests of farmers when his directives come from a different area and a different perspective?
I do not want to take a great deal more time, Mr. Speaker, because there are other western Members who would like very much to speak on this Bill to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act. However, one most important area is left out of this Bill. We agree with this Bill and certainly want quick passage of it. We are happy that the farmers will get some money, even if it is at the expense of playing politics. However, the area which is left out is the level of payment. For months we have been asking for a retroactive payment to be made to farmers. That would increase the level of payment.
Yesterday I had farmers from Alberta and Saskatchewan in my office. They told me that they are going through bankruptcies. They told me that they are facing the most severe financial cash flow problems that have been faced in the Prairies in their lifetimes. It is reminiscent of the 1930s when farmers lost their farms through bankruptcies. They lost their farms because they could not meet their financial obligations. A program was put in place to address this problem and we failed to use it when it was needed most. That is serious neglect on the part of the Government. The level of payment
Western Grain Stabilization Act should be increased significantly. The money is there and the Government has been using it.
If the Government makes a pay-out on the basis it says it will, it will be returning only a portion of what the farmers have paid in. That will include no major government contribution whatsoever. There should be a government contribution to that fund at this time. The Minister of Agriculture stands in his place and says that it is $2 for $1. That is another Liberal promise. The farmers' money is barely being returned. On paper it indicates that the Government should pay $2 for every $1 contributed by the farmers. That is not so, Mr. Speaker. That is not happening.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I ask what the alternative is to this kind of handling of a program which could have been a good program if the Government had put the priority where it should be. Quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, there is only one alternative. We have a tired Government on our hands. Someone indicated to me that giving the Liberal Party a new leader is not the solution. He said that you can paint and repaint an old car, but unless you change the motor and the transmission and clean up the situation, nothing is going to change. I am suggesting that in the best interests of agriculture, those concerned about grain and farmers across the country, the country needs a Progressive Conservative Government with representation in agriculture and a leader who is sensitive to the needs of the farmers and the economic development of the country. Then you will see a Canada that will be built with the help of the farmers in the best interests of all Canadians.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on the western grain stabilization Bill today. I am pleased also that the Minister, who is absent at the moment, did suggest an amendment which may make it possible to have an immediate pay-out under the western stabilization plan.
However, I want to deal with the purpose of the Western Grain Stabilization Act, what it does and does not do. I would like to begin by comparing the rigidity of the Western Grain Stabilization Act to the much more flexible Agricultural Stabilization Act. I can do this by citing three examples of how the flexible Agricultural Stabilization Act has enabled farmer to receive help when they needed it much more quickly than provided for by the Western Grain Stabilization Act, which has not given a pay-out for the last five years.
On December 21, 1981 there was a payment under the Agricultural Stabilization Act of $66.8 million for eight commodities. With respect to winter wheat in Ontario, which comes under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, a change was made to that Act within a few weeks because of the vomitoxin emergency. As a result of that vomitoxin situation, the payments were increased from the 90 per cent which the Act allows to 100 per cent in a very short time. We are unable to get a pay-out at all in the case of western stabilization plan, let alone a significant increase.

May 25, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act
My second example relates to a period during the late months of 1982 when there was an announcement under the Agricultural Stabilization Plan that there would be no payment for corn during that particular year. However, on Feb-raury 1, 1982 that decision was changed with the announcement that there would be a payment of $4.48 per tonne for corn. The reason given for that change was that the Stabilization Board received new statistics from Statistics Canada and the recalculation allowed a new payment. This example shows the flexibility of this stabilization plan compared to the Western Grain Stabilization Plan, which has no flexibility at all and no mechanism through which a minister or a government can make a payment at any time.
The third example of the flexibility of the Agricultural Stabilization Plan concerns the payment to apple growers in eastern Canada last year who suffered frost damage. Frost damage on grains in particular areas of western Canada is a common and almost yearly occurrence. However, we have never been able to convince any government that it constitutes a disaster for which a payment should be made.
One would think that when the Government decided to amend this Act, it would do so on a broad basis. In fact, the Government has its own report on this which, for the record, is the Canada Grains Council Report: A Strategy for Expanding Grain Production in Western Canada. It was published in Winnipeg in April, 1983. This government agency report deals with grain generally. However, Chapter IV deals with the income stability of grain farmers. That chapter points out a number of very interesting facts. For instance, financial instability is characteristic of agriculture. This fact has been recognized for many years by most people who work in agriculture. This report suggests that solutions should be found to this financial instability since it constantly destabilizes the agricultural industry as a whole and its production sector in particular.
It also points out that this financial instability is detrimental to the latecomers in agriculture who have the least equity in their operation because they cannot tolerate a drop in their cash flow in order to pay bills that are immediately due. I was pleased that the Minister recognized the fact that those who have high debt loads in agriculture are faced with a situation which prevents them from having a viable operation. The Western Grain Stabilization Act was established to counter the variation in cash flow to some extent. Obviously, any business will be unstable if it cannot predict its cash flow.
I must commend the Canada Grains Council for this report. It shows that there is a need for a means of providing income stability as far as farmers are concerned. At least some agencies of the Government recognize this need. In light of this recognition, the Canada Grains Council reviewed the Western Grain Stabilization Act and suggested changes to it. It suggested a number of reasons why this Act is inadequate. Let me put some of those reasons on the record. I repeat that this is a government agency document.
The first shortcoming pointed out of the Western Grain Stabilization Act is that it is not producer-specific. The
individual financial situation of a particular farmer cannot be affected by the total Western Grain Stabilization Program. Therefore, the new farmer or one who has accrued a lot of debt in order to begin operations cannot be targeted as a receiver of funds under the Western Grain Stabilization Program. However, one would think that this particular group would be a target for this program. It is this group which is most in need of the money and a stable cash flow, but that is not recognized in the Act that is before us. It is not being addressed by the amendments that are being put before the House today.
Second, it is not region-specific. A poor financial or market condition can affect one area of the production region with which we are concerned but not affect another. For example, a couple of years ago the whole area of southern Manitoba did not have a crop at all because of floods from heavy spring rains. Although those producers needed a stabilization payment that year, they did not receive it because the remainder of the region, Saskatchewan and Alberta, had a bumper crop with high quality wheat and high prices. Therefore, since the production of the other two prairie provinces was balanced against Manitoba, it prevented a pay-out. Consequently Manitoba farmers at that time did not get a pay-out when they needed it. We do not have the regional coverage. This is not in the new Bill nor in the amendments.
I know every farmer who hears this debate can tell us about a particular area that is affected. For instance, the Peace River country of British Columbia and northern Alberta quite often gets caught in a situation of not having a crop when the rest of the Prairies has. In the last couple of years Hudson Bay, in the northeast part of Saskatchewan, has had three successive crop failures. This area should have received some help from the stabilization plant but could not because of the structure of the plan.
The third shortcoming which this document points out is that the Bill is not grain-specific. There are many farmers in the west who are very specialized. They produce flax, canola, or one particular grain. If the bottom falls out of the flax market, then all flax producers get a very small return. If the weather is bad in a particular year, the flax crop is affected and the same thing happens. There is no provision in this Bill or in the amendments which would allow those farmers to collect under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. This shortcoming was recognized by the Canada Grains Council.
Fourth, the program only operates with respect to cash income. It makes no provision for the appropriateness of actual returns, the operator's labour, management, or fixed investment. Producers who face restricted delivery opportunities may benefit from the stabilization payment, but this will relate to the small, inadequate volume of deliveries. In other words, there are many other factors that will stop the stabilization payment. But the fact that a farmer is unable to pay some of the input costs is not really affected by the stabilization plan.
May 25, 1984

Fifth, the maximum coverage available under the plan limits its usefulness to medium and large-scale grain producers. If you are a small operator, the chances are even, if there is a pay-out under the Western Grain Stabilization Plan, that it will not pay a small operator proportionately as much as the large operator. One of the factors we should be looking at in all stabilization plans is to keep as many farmers on the land as possible. All three Parties in this House espouse a position of support for the family farm. The family farm is a farm where the people within the family are involved in production. Quite often it is a very small farm, but because of the structure of the Western Stabilization Plan, the small farm will not get a proportional payment even if a payment is made relative to what the small farm paid in. There is a maximum payment into the plan. If you are a large farmer you can pay only so much in, but that large farmer can get money out in greater proportion. If you sell over $60,000 worth of product, the chances are you will get twice as much out as what you paid in than the fellow who paid in less than $60,000. That is a figure I have taken from the report of the Canada Grains Council.
I am not going to spend much more time on this issue, but I do want to put on the record some factors which were brought before the Government by an agency of the Government which were not taken into consideration when the amendments were made to this Bill.
There are two more shortcomings to the Western Grain Stabilization Act on which the Grains Council commented. Sixth, since the pay-out from this program is after the fact, the farmer does not get the money when he really needs it. The Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) took up this factor and other Members have taken it up over the last few months in our discussion about western grain stabilization. When the farmer needs money the most, it is not available to him. He has to prove that he needs the money before he can get it. Quite often it is obvious that during a particularly productive period he is going to get it and he should be able to get it. This situation is not going to be helped a great deal. It is helped a little by the change from the calendar year to the crop year, but not as much as it could be. Even the suggestion made by the Minister that the Government this year will put in a once only interim payment proposition does not significantly affect the idea that the money should be paid as quickly as possible to the farmer in those years when he needs money. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Grains Council has done a very thorough job.
Seventh, the way the current program is constructed, payouts are based on producer contributions under the program. Again, a small farmer will not get back what he needs at the time of a crop failure or a bad market, whereas the larger farmer might get the return.
Those are positions the Government had available to it when it drafted these amendments, but the Government ignored them. None of the deficiencies which were articulated by the Grains Council were taken into consideration when the Government drafted the amendments before us today. It would seem that a government responsible for the planning and the
Western Grain Stabilization Act viability of a total industry like agriculture, especially when dealing with the part of it which earns probably 70 per cent of our foreign exchange, would be sure, having identified the shortcomings, to take those shortcomings and make them part of the restructuring of the Bill.
It is not as if the agricultural community does not know what is going on. I have here a telegram from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. At the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool's 1983 annual meeting a resolution was passed. Before I read it into the record, let me digress for a moment. In the agricultural community we have known that the Western Grain Stabilization Plan has not been working and does not work. We have known that for a good number of years. In 1981 approaches were made to suggest that perhaps we should look at the grain stabilization triggering mechanism. Payments were made in 1977 and 1978. In 1979 we experienced the lowest operating margin ever. In that year there was no triggering of the payments. We knew a year after the last payment that the mechanism in the Act did not work. We have brought that to the attention of the Government many times.
However, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool indicated the following:
That the federal Government undertake serious examination and review of the Western Grain Stabilization Plan which would consider the following: indexing previous year's income and expenses, indexing for changed volumes of grain sold, inclusion of depreciation and all interest expenses, pay-out on a regional basis, provision for an opting out clause, reducing the averaging period from five years to three years, changing the year-end of the plan from calendar to crop year, and allowing producers to pay a levy on farm fed grain. Such examination to consider the actuarial soundness of the plan and its responsiveness to producers' needs.
That was passed at the 1983 annual meeting of the Pool. The proposed amendments take into consideration a number of these proposals; however, the Wheat Pool went on to indicate:
The proposed amendments while a step in the right direction fall short of meeting our organization's policy objectives, particularly with respect to the inclusion of depreciation and all interest expenses and allowing producers to pay a levy on farm feed grain. We would urge serious consideration of these provisions in the comprehensive review of grain stabilization policy for the prairie region.
The board of directors also stress that upon early passage of legislation there is a need for an immediate interim payment to provide critically needed cash flow to producers.
This communication was signed by J. O. Wright, Corporate Secretary, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
Farm organizations have a very clear understanding of the need for income security and how it would be possible. It cannot be accomplished by price controls; it has to be done in a method which is relative to costs of operation. Before resuming my seat, I want to spend a few minutes dealing with the suggestions of the New Democratic Party as part of the whole process of stabilization for farmers, especially grain growers and particularly in terms of the Bill with which we are dealing today.
The premise upon which the agricultural industry operates is that over a long period of time average returns from the

May 25, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act market should be sufficient to cover the cost of operations. In some years they make a little more money; in others they make a little less. However, on average they should receive a sufficient return from the market to pay their operating costs and to make a living. That is the basis of the whole idea of income stabilization.
Since we are confined to the grain area of farming in this particular Bill, we suggest that a number of the recommendations of the Canada Grains Council which have been put before the Government should be included in the Bill at this time while it is open and before us. I am sure Hon. Members of the Official Opposition would go along with the idea of bringing in a number of other amendments which could be discussed during the committee process.
The Minister suggested that he was willing to bring in an amendment concerning the interim payment at report stage. This bothers me somewhat because I would rather see it introduced at the committee stage, which has been the case with other Bills. There seems to be a certain amount of blackmail in that procedure. If it is brought in at committee stage, we can discuss it and improve upon it. However, the Minister has indicated that it will be brought in at report stage and that we should get the Bill out of committee and into report stage. I abhor that kind of blackmail. We should try to convince the Minister to bring in all his amendments as quickly as possible so that we can deal with them in committee.
We in the NDP suggest that some regionalization must be established because it is very important to the viability of the grain producing area of the west. I gave a good example of the Hudson Bay area of Saskatchewan which has experienced three consecutive crop failures. If we look at the Western Producer, we find a couple of hundred advertisements for the sale of land in that particular area. As well, many farmers are ready to rent their land at rock-bottom prices. The crop failures for three years have almost eliminated farmers who were dependent upon cash flow, they have no cash flow and they are being eliminated by that fact. They could have been saved by a regional payment from the stabilization plan.
Also we feel that the triggering mechanism should be looked at, not on the basis of whether it will pay out $250 million right now or as quickly as possible, but upon the basis of what is best for farmers over a long period of time. Instead of sitting in a back room calculating what formula will pay out $250 million this year, we should be looking in committee stage at the formula and asking whether it will be effective from now on. We should ask whether it will have the same impact or effect we want it to have over the next few years.
We would also suggest some sort of averaging factor. The idea of moving from five years to three years is an improvement, but it still leaves the basis of the payments of income up to the volume of sales. There should be an averaging factor which would allow for the cost of production. Of course, that varies each year as well. We must take into consideration what happens to a particular farmer in a particular area.
Another averaging factor could be used in the case of crop failure in an area for more than one year. There should be a recognition of the fact that the need for stabilization payments in that event is greater.
I have tried to suggest that there is a need for more flexibility, that we need to take a look at the shortcomings of the plan and improve upon them now rather than trying to improve them next year or the year after. We should do the best we can now.
If you look back at the debates in 1978, Mr. Speaker, you find that at that time both Opposition Parties put before the Government very good suggestions which, had they been accepted at that time, would not have us in the situation we are today. We would not need this Bill. We are improving the Act, but not as much as we could.
I put before the House the NDP position on what we think should be the over-all approach to income stabilization for the grain farmer in Canada. I have one further point I want to make because the Minister made so much of it when speaking today. He suggested that the return to the farmer has been the amount of money he has put in. In 1977-78, the farmers were paid $368 million. It must be recognized that the deal that was made was that that $368 million was to be made up of $123 million from the farmer and $246 million from the Government. That was the deal when we passed the Bill in 1976. You have to start then and look at the $900 million that is now there and recognize that one-third of that money is the farmers'. It is there either because the farmers put it in directly or because the money was there and collected interest; but one-third of the money is farmers' money. Any suggestion that we are getting more back from the $900 million than what was put in by the farmers is wrong.
I hope that what I have been able to do is put before the Government the kind of approach we should be putting before it and which the Government should be taking to change the whole idea of income security for agriculture. Agriculture is our most important industry. If we do not keep the farmers viable, we will suffer for it, as will the rest of the world.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to say how pleased I am that the Minister for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) is piloting this Bill through the House. I believe the Minister has more credibility among the farming population in western Canada than any other member of the Cabinet. I am pleased that he is here today and is participating because he has an understanding. He gained that understanding when he was involved in the Crow Bill. Unfortunately there was a change of Ministers during the process of the Crow Bill because he had a feeling for the farmers. He was sympathetic. I think he still has that same feeling for the western farm producers.
Last night I re-read in Hansard the speech of the then Minister of Justice, the Hon. Otto Lang, when he spoke at second reading on the original western grain stabilization Bill
May 25, 1984

on April 28, 1975. I wish to quote briefly from his remarks in that debate. At page 5272 of Hansard he said:
We recognized that the income of the farmer was our fundamental objective in dealing with the problem in the grain industry.
At page 5273 he said:
As the pattern of past income levels has shown, these amounts will be paid out to the prairie farmer in such a way that he will receive the money he needs in the years he needs it most.
I would emphasize the last phrase "in the years he needs it most". He further said:
In this bill we have introduced the protection of the prairie region grain farmers on the basis of net cash flow. Net cash flow is the cash remaining when the gross receipts for grain have had substracted from them the cash costs of producing grain in that year. This means that the plan will be sensitive to changes in the cost of production as well as changes in receipts where based on volume.
Finally, at page 5274 he said:
We have in this program, and in the others to which I referred earlier, added forms of assistance to those farmers, to help assure them that their incomes may be adequate. We have done this as part of the Government's over-all policy of attempting to make sure that farm incomes are adequate. We want to ensure that the farmer obtains a reasonable return for his labour in agriculture from two sources, from the marketplace, and from the Treasury where required, because we are convinced that our agricultural production is important at home and abroad.
To summarize what the Minister said, this Bill is based on income being the fundamental objective, pay-out in the years when it was needed most, and that the farmer would receive a reasonable return for his labour.
This program has been in place for some nine years. It has not served the purpose for which it was set up. Despite the pay-out in 1978-79, producers, and I think the majority of them, have been unhappy. As I talked to the producers in my constituency, I would say that the vast majority of them, if given the opportunity, would opt out.
Why are the producers unhappy? I would suggest it is because this Act has not served the purpose for which it was designed. At the present time grain producers in western Canada are in very serious trouble. Grain prices are depressed, have been for two or three years, and there is no relief in sight. Input costs, whether it is for interest, farm fuel, fertilizer or farm machinery, have increased to such an extent that the farmer has little, if any, money in his pocket.
No payment has been triggered under this Act since 1979. The argument made by the Government, and by the two Ministers who presumably are responsible for this Bill, is that the formula in the Act has been such that it would not trigger a payment. There is no question about that. That is correct, because there is a formula that is used and the formula has not triggered a payment. The Government and the Minister responsible have known this for several years.
We on this side of the House have been telling the Minister and the Government, week after week, month after month, year after year, that changes have to be made in the formula. But our pleas have fallen on deaf ears. The Government was too busy spending its time developing legislation to get rid of the Crow rate, increasing further the input costs of the farm-
Western Grain Stabilization Act ers. Government Members were busy dealing with the national energy policy that caused massive increases in the price of farm fuel and fertilizer. Of course, Mr. Speaker, few if any Members on the Government side understand or appreciate prairie agriculture.
I suppose that in the back of the minds of the Cabinet Ministers was the following: "We do not have any seats from the Prairies, they have not voted for us; therefore we will punish those people on the Prairies. We will not change the Act". Over the last two or three years many of my constituents have asked me when I thought that a payment would be made under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. I answered them by saying: "You tell me when there will be an election and I will tell you when there will be a payment," and that is precisely what has happened. An election is in the offing and the Government has said to itself: "We have dealt badly with those people in western Canada over the years but if we put some money in their pockets now, they might forget what we have done in the past and suddenly vote for us". That, Mr. Speaker, will not happen. They cannot pull the wool over the eyes of the western grain producers.
The Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) recited at length the questions that have been put to the Minister over the past couple of years regarding changes to the Western Grain Stabilization Act. It was interesting to hear that recital because, despite the pressure that was put on Government Members, it was not until the Speech from the Throne which was given on December 7, 1983 that the Government made any mention of making any amendments to the Bill. What the Speech from the Throne said was this, and I shall read briefly:
The maximum for advance payments for grain will be increased. Amendments will be introduced to the Western Grain Stabilization Act to make it more responsive to the needs of the producers.
That was merely a teaser, Mr. Speaker. Nothing happened. Amendments to the Act were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne but the election was not quite close enough. Members on this side of the House continued to prod the Government. We got another teaser on April 25 of this year when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of State for the Wheat Board from the other place held a joint press conference in Winnipeg. They said that they were going to bring in amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act to do certain things, one of which was to ensure that there would be a payment to the prairie farmers this year.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: We asked them to bring on the Bill but where was the Bill?


Douglas Charles Neil: As my hon. friend said, we asked them to bring on the Bill. They said they had those amendments so the Bill must have been ready. We did not see the Bill at that time and it was not until May 11 that we finally saw first reading of the Bill, and it is not until today, May 25, that we are seeing second reading. In the meantime the Government said: "We have a lot of other Bills that we want passed and we want

May 25, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act those Bills passed without debate. If you will not pass those Bills without debate, we will not deal with the Western Grain Stabilization Act." That is an absolute blackmail of the farmers and producers of western Canada. Therefore, we agreed to limited debate because we were concerned for the western grain producers who needed the money.
I will not read from the press release put out in Winnipeg by the two Ministers as I have intended because the Hon. Minister who introduced the Bill has indicated that it is now the Government's intention to make an interim payment shortly after July 31. That is something for which we on this side of the House have been asking for months, because the farmer needs the money now. We welcome the statement of the Minister that a payment will be made.
While looking at the press release to which I referred and listening to the Minister who introduced the Bill, it was interesting to note that the Government is talking about a payment totalling approximately $300 million or, as is indicated on page 3 of the press release, a payment of more than $5,000 to a participating producer who has contributed the maximum levies in the past three years. However, it was also said that there would be an average amount paid of about $2,500.
There is almost $1 billion in the fund, Mr. Speaker. The maximum contribution of the producers over the past number of years has amounted to $1,200 a year. As the Hon. Member for Assiniboia pointed out, if a producer took the contributions of $1,200 a year that he has made to the fund since the last pay-out in 1979, added them all together and worked out the bank interest, the producer would find that if he had put that money into a bank account, he would now have close to $8,000. What is the Government proposing? It is proposing a pay-out of approximately $5,000. The producer is not even receving back what he himself contributed.
It is a little unusual that this is so because the program under the Western Grain Stabilization Act is one of the few that is contributory. The producer contributes to the fund. Most programs are paid for by the Government only. For example, the Agricultural Stabilization Act which refers to products other than those handled by the Wheat Board has a very simple formula for payment out. There is no contribution to that fund by the producer; the payments come from the Treasury. The Agricultural Stabilization Act results in an annual pay-out to the dairy, fruit and vegetable industries in eastern Canada of over $350 million. There are no contributions to the fund by the producers.
The farmer in western Canada is happy to contribute to a plan if that plan is one which will pay him money at a time when he needs it. He needs that money now because he is putting in his crop and he has expenses for fuel, fertilizer, seed and repairs. We cannot expect the merchants in the small towns to finance the producers when they put in their crops because the small businessmen who supply fuel and fertilizer to the producers are just as strapped as the farmers. Those businessmen must borrow money from the bank at interest rates of 15 per cent, 16 per cent or maybe even 20 per cent.
As I have said, the pay-out is needed now. While I am pleased to hear the Minister say that there will be a pay-out by around the end of July, I feel that that is a little bit late for the producer and the small businessman. We on this side of the House asked that that payment be made, as did all of the farm organizations and farm leaders across the country. Although we welcome this amendment, it is unfortunate that the payment was not made a month ago.
When the Bill was originally brought in by the Hon. Otto Lang, he said that it was a Bill which would trigger a payment early in the spring before the producer put in his crop. That did not happen. I could give you the reasons why that did not happen; however, my time is running out.
We on this side of the House support the Bill, but we may have one or two amendments which we would like to put forward. The whole question of stabilization should be examined. It should be discussed co-operatively with the farm organizations and the producers. The producers want and need a stabilization program. I would suggest that they do not want hand-outs. They would prefer a program which is actuarially sound. Unless such a program is developed, I can visualize that by 1986, with the opting out provisions, many of the farmers today who are participants in the plan will opt out. There will be very few farmers left in the plan.
However, there is one bright light in the future-an election is imminent. This, I suggest, will result in a change of government. It will be a government which will be sensitive to the needs and problems of the agricultural community. It will be a government that will co-operate with producers and farm organizations and will develop a program that will effectively deal with the serious problems in agriculture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for question and comments. Are Members rising to put questions? If not, for continuing debate, the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers).


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, one of the first things which I would like to say is that I appreciate the efforts of the Minister for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) who has sat in this House for the second Friday in a row attempting to pass Bills through the House which will be of some assistance to prairie grain producers. When the Minister mentioned that he was standing in for the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board as well as for the Minister responsible for Agriculture, I am glad that he did not say that he was standing in for a responsible Minister, because neither one of them is responsible to prairie farmers. They have proven beyond reasonable doubt that this Government, with its succession of Ministers who have represented western agriculture, has not fulfilled the commission which is required.
We appreciate the Minister for External Relations and the efforts that he has gone to in attempting to assist western grain growers. He said earlier that he understands their problems and I believe he does. Certainly he did an excellent job during
May 25, 1984

the Crow debate until he was derailed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) from his position. He told us at that time that he would have gone with the consensus in western Canada if a consensus could have been worked out. If the Prime Minister had left the Minister for External Relations in his position as Minister of Transport in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, a consensus could have been reached. He would have gone out to western Canada and spoken to the various groups that were deeply involved in that process. The producers, while they may have different ideas as to how the system should work, are all very, very intelligent people. They know what is required and they also recognize that their fellow being has to survive in an economic environment that will be of benefit to all concerned. I think it has been one of the greatest disasters, as far as the Liberal Government is concerned, in having the Minister taken-as I said "derailed"-from that position.
The Government then brought in the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). What did he do? He made promises. He promised western farmers, Members in the House and members of the committee that there would be $16 billion going to western Canada to provide a facility that would be of benefit to all western Canadians-in fact, to all of Canada. Any of the income which is derived from the use of that rail is usually as a result of export products that help defray our deficit balance of trade payments. Outside of lumber, the grain industry is one of the major components that assists Canada in establishing a favourable balance of trade on the world market.
The Minister said that western Canada would get $16 billion and 375,000 jobs. He is now saying that western Canada will only receive $12 billion. That represents a 25 per cent cut. There is a consensus among some people in western Canada who feel that if that figure is being allocated as a result of a lesser cost factor in what has to be done, they could accept that. But they cannot accept the fact that the job allocation will be cut from 375,000 jobs to 155,000 jobs. That is a misleading statement on the part of the Minister of Transport.
The Minister for External Relations played a fair and honest role. He was recognized for his honesty in western Canada. But the present Minister of Transport, in misleading western Canadians as he has, will never be trusted. That is probably one of the reasons he will not return to the House of Commons. The same thing will happen to him that happened to the Hon. Otto Lang. He made promises in western Canada which were not fulfilled and he is not in the House of Commons today. You cannot promise something to western Canadians and then not fulfil that promise. If you do that, you create your own demise.
It is unfortunate that western Canadians are caught in the dilemma of receiving a payment once every five years. We must have an election in order to get a payment. There was a payment in 1979 just prior to the election, but in all the intervening years when the situation gradually became worse and worse as the months went by, was there any suggestion of a pay-out? No, not once. Even the Minister of Agriculture
Western Grain Stabilization Act (Mr. Whelan) told us that the earliest a payment could be made without breaking the law was in October. What do we hear today? The Minister of Transport, of all people, will bring in an amendment and have a pay-out by the end of July. That means-


Leonard J. Gustafson: -an August election.


Thomas Gordon Towers: As my colleague from Assiniboia says, it means an August election.
Who is the Minister of Transport? He is the western organizer for the Hon. John Turner. If there is anything that western Canada detests, it is the manipulation of a system by politicians. It is detestable that they would even think of doing that because they are playing with the well-being of their fellow westerners. It is not acceptable and they will discover the consequences.
We told the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Otto Lang, when he brought this Bill in, that it would not work. But he would not listen. Now, eight years later, other members of the governing Party have decided that it cannot and will not work. They are taking action to correct some of the problems we tried to tell the Minister and the Government about at the time the Bill was proposed eight years ago. It is terribly frustrating to take eight years to correct a problem. When you can recognize it in the making. It is totally frustrating and makes all of us on this side of the House awfully angry.
Today I made some glowing comments about the Minister of State for External Relations. I meant them, but he is misleading the House somewhat when he says that after this year there will be $600 million still left in the fund. What the Minister has forgotten to consider are the payments that producers are now making and will continue to make this crop year, with the result that the fund will grow by approximately $150 million. Instead of having a fund of $600 million at the end of the year, it will be $750 million. My colleagues have pointed out that the money that the Government is paying out is farmers' own money. Big deal! The farmers are just getting back what they have paid in.
Let me impress upon this House one fact that seems to have been missed by a considerable number of Members. The Government is trying to make a big thing about having paid interest on the money in this fund. But are the farmers not entitled to a return on their investment? Certainly the return does not measure up to what the farmers could have made had they invested that money in their own way. On top of that, we must not overlook the fact that a lot of this money had to be replaced through borrowing. The Government spent the money and I was flabbergasted when I found out this money was going to find its way into the general revenues of the Government. The Government has spent it and now it has to be requisitioned through the estimates in order to pay it back. Had the money been invested at the high rates of interest we have recently experienced, then the fund would be greater. Instead the money was put into the general revenues of the

May 25, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act
Government and in return the farmers have received federal Government interest rates. You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that during these past several years farmers have been paying up to 20 per cent and 22 per cent interest on their money. In turn they were probably getting about 10 per cent or 11 per cent from the Government. It is not a very fair way of treating farmers.
Another thing I would remind you of, Mr. Speaker, is that when the Minister of Transport brought this Bill in, the Government was obligated to put in $2 for every $1 that the producer put in. But what happened? The Government did not put the money in. It was just a paper figure. The Minister once more broke faith with the western Canadian producers. Well, you can only do that for so long. No matter what you do now, you are not going ever to redeem yourself in the eyes of the western Canadian farmer. They will not accept it. Therefore, Government Members should understand why there are not going to be any Liberal Members from western Canada after the next election. Regardless of the promises John Turner makes, regardless of what will happen, the voters will not be dissuaded from what they are about to do. They are just not interested, especially now with this $650 million going into the coffers of the railroad. That is just a great gift for the railroad.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is not a gift; it moves grain.


Thomas Gordon Towers: A great thing for the latest director appointed to Canadian Pacific. Just a great gift. The shares of CP went up and why wouldn't they? How many shares do directors have given to them because of this gift? The Canadian taxpayer picks up the tab as well as the western grain producer. The producers are losing on both ends. Not only is it costing them more to move grain-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Because of volume.


Thomas Gordon Towers: -a 50 per cent increase by August 1 in the price of moving grain, but at the same time the price of grain is coming down. I realize the Minister for External Relations, however great a guy he is, when he listens to some of his colleagues does get some wrong figures. It was not a personal criticism of him when I said that some of those figures were misleading.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Which ones?


Thomas Gordon Towers: You were not here when I mentioned that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I must insist that remarks be addressed to the Chair.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I apologize because I do not want to insult either you or the Minister. He is too nice a guy. Nevertheless, it is going to be about $750 million at the end of the year. I mentioned this earlier and the Minister was not around to hear it; that is why I reiterated that statement.
The real problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the federal Government is trying to take too much out of the system, especially as far as western agriculture is concerned. Consider that about 69
cents on every gallon of fuel the western farmer uses in the production of grain goes right into federal coffers. If the Government were to cut that tax, then I could understand it being well received in western Canada. They would love that.
Why can we not cut our cost of production in Canada? That is one area in which no other country, including the United States, can criticize us. The fact is that we are cutting our cost of production and it can never be construed as a subsidy. We have tried to tell the Government of ways and means to correct the economic problems of western Canadians, especially the grain producers. If no one is listening, nothing will happen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There will follow a 10 minute period for questions or comments. If there are no questions, the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellen-berger) continuing debate.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoy following the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) in this debate. It is a difficult thing to do because he is so precise that he almost steals all of one's thunder. I do not want to repeat the excellent messages that he and my colleagues from Moose Jaw and Assiniboia have given the House.
I would like to begin by saying that we offered the Government the opportunity to have this Bill passed quickly. We even offered to pass a number of Budget Bills very quickly in order to have this Bill passed. Of course, the Bill was not ready. We caught them off guard. It took from April until the middle of May to produce the Bill. The press conference in Winnipeg was really a bit of a facade. However, both of the individuals at the press conference were considering running for the leadership and they needed a bit of visibility in the Prairies. Therefore, I can understand the timing of the press conference.
When we offered to pass this Bill quickly the Government decided that perhaps it was not such a bad idea to have one day of debate at second reading stage and then go to committee. That seemed odd at the time. I could not understand that, Mr. Speaker. Today, however, it becomes clear. It is because of the pressure that the farm groups in western Canada, supported by the Members of the Progressive Party, were putting on the Government to come forward with an interim payment which is so essential at this time. The western grain stabilization pool is really the only pool of capital that western farmers can draw upon, and they desperately need the money now to pay their costs. Today the Minister stood in his place and said that they have now seen the light and are producing the amendments. Of course the only time an amendment can be passed, Mr. Speaker, is at committee or report stage. Therefore we are now going to see the amendment brought forward to offer the Canadian farmer an interim payment from this fund. There is no argument about that. We accept that and are happy that our logic, lobbying and pressure have been successful. The only thing I lament is that they did not accept that pressure sooner. The crops are being put in the ground now. The farm retail operators who sell fertilizer and
May 25, 1984

fuel would appreciate those funds now rather than at the end of July. Farmers are going to have to pay interest on that money until this payment is received by them.
The changes to the Act will allow it to perform much better. When the situation changed regarding the volumes of grain that we were shipping, we were very pleased. When the inflation rate increased much more rapidly than we had anticipated in 1975 and 1976, it became obvious to us that the Bill which was passed by the House at that time was not performing according to the basis upon which it was passed. It was meant to stabilize the cash flow of the Prairie economy. When the cash flow decreased stabilization payments were to be made in order to allow the Prairie economy to perform more adequately. That happened. It began in 1981 with rapid inflation and high costs of production as a result and world prices of commodities stabilizing and decreasing. It continued through 1982 and 1983 and into this year.
Yet, because of the complex formula which was put in place to trigger this Bill, stabilization payments were not being made. Farmers were asking their Members of Parliament why they were not receiving payments when they had contributed to this fund with the good faith that it would assist them when financial difficulties were being experienced in the Prairies. We told them why. We also told them that it could only be changed through legislation. It was the law of the land that the formula which was in place in the Bill in 1976 was still in place. It had to be followed until it was changed by the House of Commons. Until today we could not persuade the Government to bring forward this Bill. That is why we had meetings on the Prairies. That is why we exerted pressure in the House to have the Bill brought forward.
I looked back at the speeches that were made in 1976, and I even found one that I had made at that time. I enjoyed reading them. I also noted the points that were made by the Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) and the Member for Red Deer. They have both already spoken on this Bill. At that time they were looking into the future as they do so well. They were seeing that these difficulties were possible. They were concerned about them. They said that maybe we should amend this Bill to make it closer to a kind of insurance stabilization Act so that the whole Prairies would not be affected. If there was a drought in southern Saskatchewan and the rest of the Prairies had a bumper crop, they wanted the Act to be applied. That seemed like a reasonable suggestion. They asked that the Committee travel to learn the experiences of farmers. That was accepted. They also asked that the legislation be placed under the control of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). That has never been accepted. It seems that the growing of wheat and the sale of that wheat is being placed in the hands of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). That is why we had the interesting Crow legislation brought into the House by the Minister of Transport.
What happens now that the grain farmers recognize the complexities of this Bill? They are recognizing that the cost of transportation of grain will be a great addition to their cost of production this year. The one thing which Prairie farmers
Western Grain Stabilization Act
knew was a constant in the production of grain was the cost of transportation. It remained the same. They could count on that. Today that constant has been removed. As of this August the cost of moving grain on the Prairies will be 58 per cent higher than last August. Yet when the Minister of Transport pushed this Bill through the House he said that we have a safety net. He said that we would protect the Prairie farmers from large increases in freight costs. It is 10 per cent of the cost of transportation. In small print it was suggested that that was the average of six grains, and it was based on the volume of the shipment of those grains. It is now evident that as freight rates increase 58 per cent for the price of moving the grains that do not bring as much money as canola, for example, they can pay 58 per cent more than last year and the safety net does not even come into effect. That is a lot of protection for the farmers of western Canada.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the pressure is on Members of all Parties in the House to pass this Bill. The reason is that as farmers scramble to find cash to stay alive in the difficult economic times, the only pool of money available to them is that money which they have contributed to the Western Grain Stabilization Fund. When they look to another source, the indicators are not very good.
We talked about farm fuels as one of those negative indicators, as noted by the Hon. Member for Red Deer. There is an increase of some 50 cents to 68 cents per gallon in the cost of farm fuels that is taken by the federal Government. We have called for the removal of that for well over two years to assist farmers and to put a positive indicator before them instead of a negative one. That would assist in the production of grains which brings so much capital to this country.
Today in Question Period I pointed out that the Farm Credit Corporation is again increasing the interest rates for loans to farmers. That increase is at least one per cent to 1.5 per cent above what farmers can obtain from chartered banks. The Farm Credit Corporation is supposed to be the lending institution to which farmers can go as a last resort to obtain loans to continue farming or expand their operations. Again, this is another negative indicator from the Government.
Members of the House have introduced Private Members' Bills in an attempt to alleviate the situation, by promoting the removal of the sales tax on farm fuels and the use of agribonds to help in lowering interest rates for farmers. These attempts were stalled in committee by the Government because it is not prepared to deal with these issues. It is finally starting to move ahead slowly, but the Finance committee is smothered with budget bills.
In western Canada Wheat Board sells the farmers' grain and is responsible, with the assistance of the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board, for establishing the initial price which farmers will receive when they deliver their grain to the elevator. There is no encouragement from the federal Government here.

May 25, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act
The Minister does not say that the Government will support the farmer this time by not lowering the initial price below what it was last year because the cost of production has gone up. He will not say that the federal treasury will stand behind the Wheat Board if necessary because grain prices do not increase in the international market. Again, there is nothing from the federal Government. In fact, there was a lowering of initial prices to the farmers. Many farmers are beginning to wonder how they can continue to produce as they continue to get negative indicators from the international community and their own national government.
In addition to all of this, there is an increase in the freight rate which they must pay to get their commodity to the market. This increase which they must pay to the railways, because there are very few options, will increase by 35 per cent to August 1, and 58 per cent after that all in this one year. The Government will allow the addition of $25 million to that freight bill as the cost of shipping higher volumes of grain than forecast from August 1, 1983, to December 1, 1983. This cost will not be borne by the Government-the Bill was not even passed until the end of the year-but will be added to the freight rate costs.
Furthermore, the railroads have made a submission to the Canadian Transportation Commission asking for revisions to the cost of capital formula. They were offered $100 million as the cost of capital for moving grain. Now that the Bill is passed and they have the $651 million in their possession, they are going before the Transport Commission asking to boost that cost of capital to $250 million. I hope the CTC does not allow that because, if it does, that will add an additional cost to the transporting of grain of $3 a metric tonne.
I recently read an interview with Mr. Lawless of the CNR which appeared in the Western Producer. I could hardly believe what I read. He was lamenting the fact that there were no incentives to the railroad to improve service to the farmers. He said that this money just meets their cost of production and that there is no incentive to change the system at the ports to put a looping in the tracks so that cars could continuously unload, or to install unit trains which would assist farmers in the Prairies. He said that there was no incentive to do that. The complaint was that the railways must load the grain from all of these prairie elevators and that there is no money there to somehow assist supporting the tracks to those Prairie elevators.
As I read that interview, it seemed that the President of the CNR was saying that after the Crow Bill was passed, giving the railroads the costs for moving grain, there was still no incentive to increase their efficiency in moving the farmers' grain. I want to say to him that if $300 million is not sufficient to provide the efficiencies that are needed on the Prairies and to keep the costs to the farmers down, then I do not know what is.
I am only sorry that the Minister who is bringing this Bill to the House today, who was the Minister of Transport at that time, was not allowed to remain in that portfolio. I am convinced that western farmers would have received a better
deal if he had been allowed to stay. I am convinced that he understood what the commissioner who was appointed at that time was saying about what was needed on the Prairies to move grain. I am convinced that he would have fought, with our support, for at least a partial payment to the producers to keep the railroads efficient. I am convinced that the Agricultural Stabilization Fund of $204 million, which he put in that Bill, would have been in place now to assist farmers with the extra transportation costs.
He was being very kind today when he said that they put the good animals out to greener pastures. I had hoped that the Government would keep him on and let him pilot this Bill through, because I think we would have had a better deal. However, we have a Minister from Western Canada, and what do we have? There is a great deal for the railroads; and we can see why because we know who he is supporting.
I want to conclude by saying that we are prepared to do everything possible to pass this Bill. We want to allow the Government to make the interim payment which we indicated was essential. The amendments to this Bill will receive our quick scrutiny in committee. We hope that this Bill will pass and allow western farmers some money to put their crops in the ground; that nature will assist those farmers and world prices will not be depressed so that they can look to a bright future. They are the basis upon which the western economy grows.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten minute period for questions or comments. Continuing debate. The Hon. Member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments for the record on second reading of Bill C-33, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act. It is with some interest that I noticed the introduction of the debate today by the Minister for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) who was Minister of Transport when the abolition of the statutory Crow rate took place. I must say that in the Minsiter's speech today he portrayed a great deal of understanding about the plight of the western Canadian grain farmers and the desperate situation in which some of them find themselves today. I only wish he had shown that kind of understanding and empathy for the western Canadian grain farmer when he pushed the abolition of the statutory Crow rate through the House of Commons, one of the last few subsidies our grain farmers had.
Beyond that, it is even more surprising to me that many speeches delivered by Conservative Members have criticized the Liberal Government for allowing the Crow rate to be dismantled. I remind them that if we had had the adequate support we called for from all Opposition Members of the House I do not think the Liberals would have been able to put through Bill C-155 which changed the statutory Crow rate and which has put farmers in an ever worsening economic situation in western Canada.
May 25, 1984

The Western Grain Stabilization plan was introduced in 1976. At that time the New Democratic Party, from their speeches I have looked at, warned that there were several factors which would not allow the plan to meet farmers' expectations, mainly because the formula was based on market price rather than cost of production. It included the entire Prairie area. It also used the calendar year rather than the crop year, and it ignored the greater grain volumes on gross incomes. The plan failed to make a pay-out when needed. That is basically the bottom line.
Many farmers in my area were quite enthusiastic about the Western Grain Stabilization Plan when it was first introduced. As the Minister of the day said, it would be designed so that if there were a bad crop year, payments would be made in the spring to assist farmers with spring operations, seeding and the associated higher costs at that time of the year. For almost five years there have been no pay-outs made under the Act, even when large numbers of farmers have been in dire straits.
Economic conditions are not looking that good for Western farmers. This is the same for people right across Canada, but I am more familiar with the situation of grain farmers in areas like The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. Part of the reason is that the cost of grain production has gone up dramatically. Just take a look at fuel costs, interest rates, machinery prices, fertilizer costs and chemical costs, Mr. Speaker. Then there is the cost of harvesting. All of these costs have gone up astronomically over the past number of years, while at the same time the average price of all grains over the past few years has gone down continually. On many occasions farmers are caught in a situation whre they do not get back even their cost of production because of the economics of grain farming. That does not take into account the possibility of not having rain at the proper time, a too early frost, or too wet a spring. These are the difficult situations faced by grain farmers.
Because many places have been producing more, many parts of the Prairies have felt that the Western Grain Stabilization fund should have triggered a pay-out. Their net income has not increased; in fact it is dropping. But because of increased production,-more sales I suppose is a more accurate way of putting it-a payment under this program has not been triggered and that is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. Farmers are being penalized under this program for their efficiency in growing greater volumes of grain. They see their work is not being rewarded because they do not get the economic return they deserve.
In the four or five years during which there has been no payment from the fund, the fund has continued to increase. Every farmer that is registered, and that is about 75 per cent of the grain producers in western Canada, pays a percentage of all grain sales into the fund. That payment used to be, I believe, 2 per cent. For the last year it has been 1.5 per cent. For every dollar generated by this checkoff the Government has a responsibility under the present Western Grain Stabilization Act of putting $2 of public revenue into the fund. Farmers have contributed a little over $300 million. This means the Government has put in over $600 million, and there
Western Grain Stabilization Act
is now a net amount in the fund of between $900 million and $1 billion. That is a lot of money, Mr. Speaker. Farmers have a hard time understanding, now that they are in bad economic straits, why they cannot get money out of the program.
We are very happy in the New Democratic Party to see this Bill in the House to change the Western Grain Stabilization Act. We think the Bill has some pitfalls. We feel there should be some further action taken now that the Bill is before the House. Our intention is to see the Bill move rapidly into committee where we can make amendments in addition to those which the Government has already indicated it is willing to accept to change the Bill. I believe there is one further amendment which the Minister spoke of when he introduced the Bill this morning.
Farmers do not just need the money now; they needed that money a couple of months ago. Opposition members pushed the Government very hard to bring in the Bill. I do not know whether the Bill was not drafted, or whether there was not enough room on the Order Paper, but farmers needed that money before, not sometime in the future.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Everything is either too early or too late. It is never right.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Nevertheless we are happy to see the Bill in the House now. We want to see an immediate payment go out to the western Canadian grain farmers. There are some amendments we feel should be made to this Bill. I hope they will receive the support of the Official Opposition as well as the support of the Government. First, we would like to see payments retroactive to 1983. Second, we would like to see an interim pay-out for the 1983 crop year. I think the Minister said in his introduction this morning that the Government had in mind an amendment for the 1983-84 year. I hope that comes to pass. Third, we would like to see some recognition of the regional discrepancies within the Western Grain Stabilization plan. We have been calling for recognition of crop discrepancies as well as regional discrepancies. Finally, there should be some recognition of the net incomes of farmers in the pay-out under the Western Grain Stabilization Program. We feel, as we felt back in 1976 when the plan was introduced, that there should be a tie-in with the cost of production. There should be recognition of the fact that the cost of production is a major factor in any stabilization program. Also we are recommending that there be immediate pay-out guarantees.
Hopefully we will get the Bill through the House today and into committee, and hopefully there will be some debate in good faith on the amendments to which we would like to obtain the agreement of the Government and the Official Opposition. If we cannot accomplish that, so be it. I think we have put forth the true feelings of grain farmers in western Canada. If the other Parties will not go for it, at least we in the NDP know that we have made adequate representations on behalf of western grain farmers.

May 25, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act
In the Bill the time period over which averages are taken has been reduced from five years to three years. This is something for which Hon. Members, such as the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) and the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), have pushed many times during debates in the House of Commons. They have pushed for changes to the Western Grain Stabilization Act.
Some three months ago the New Democratic Party released a policy paper on agriculture which contained what we consider to be alternate proposals for grain income stabilization. We agree with the Canada Grains Council that a plan amalgamated with crop insurance should be tailored to individual needs, sensitive to individual income fluctuations and to regional discrepancies. That is the best way to proceed. We still feel that is the best way after much discussion within our own caucus and with farming people across the country. Unfortunately the Government does not agree. I hope it will give consideration to some of the amendments we will put forth in committee and that we have speedy passage of this Bill.
In terms of an income insurance plan, we would like it to be actuarially sound, voluntary and attractive. It should be attractive so that all farmers, whether big or small, involved in co-operative or partnership farming, or whatever, become involved and see it as a benefit. If we opened up the Western Grain Stabilization Program and allowed people to leave it, I am sure there would be a mass exodus, unless some of the changes we have recommended in the House of Commons today and in previous debates are implemented. Although I recognize that the changes of the Government are an improvement, they are certainly not tailored to the needs of western Canadian grain farmers. There would be an exodus of people from that plan unless it is tailored to meet their needs.
Another feature of the program could be participation by producers, the federal and provincial Governments. The income insurance plan would be as integrated as possible with the existing crop insurance program to avoid duplication in the recordkeeping and administrative services necessary to carry out an adequate program of this magnitude, especially in terms of its impact upon the western economy and upon the Canadian economy in general.
The federal contribution would be in the form of reduced premiums that people would have to pay for the program. The provincial contribution would be primarily to expand the crop insurance administrative capability to meet the requirements of an income insurance plan. It would generate a greater volume of work for those who administer the plan at the present time. I would like to see the federal Government talking with the provincial governments about crop insurance programs to see if they would be willing to take on a greater responsibility to meet the needs of farmers within their respective provinces.
Finally, we recommend that farmers be able to insure for both volumes shipped and market price. A variety of insured price levels would be offered with appropriate premium levels to reflect the wide variation in production costs.
Those are a few examples of what we in the New Democratic Party think should be in place as an alternative to the Western Grain Stabilization Program. In fact, we would be very happy if Hon. Members of the Government and of the Official Opposition would at least debate and consider in committee the value of our suggestions, and our policy on agriculture as it pertains to the Western Grain Stabilization Act. If these suggestions were accepted, we would have a program much better tailored to the needs of western Canadian grain farmers than what we have had in the past.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate today. I hope government Members will take note of our suggestions, given as constructive criticism to improve the program and meet the needs of a sector of the economy about which we are very concerned. Hopefully Bill C-33 will move out of the House and into committee at the end of the debate today. Then we can look at some of the changes and, hopefully, give it speedy passage, so that farmers who need money to continue their operations will receive it as soon as is viably possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments relating to the Hon. Member's remarks? Debate.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that the Bill before us is both important and serious. However, the chance of giving a false impression with respect to it is dangerous. It is easy to conscience people who are following this debate on television, or will be reading it in Hansard or perhaps Members of the House of Commons, that we are debating a Bill which is aimed primarily or solely at western Canada. Although the primary emphasis of the Western Grain Stabilization Program is to feed money back to Canadian farm producers on the Prairies, this Bill will have an impact upon all Canadians-food consumers as well as industrialists who purchase western Canadian products. It must be seen in the light of its importance as a national Bill.
Bill C-33 gives too little too late; it is too pompous and too political. It is too little because it is less than the investment of farmers in the stabilization plan. It is too late because it comes considerably after the period of sowing crops, when cash flow was needed prior to seeding. It is too pompous because the Government stood on its pedestal and released a nine-page press release to the nation. It is too political because it comes on the eve of an election.
With nearly $1 billion in the Western Grain Stabilization Fund, farmers do not even get back their own money. They have contributed almost one-third of the investment in the fund today, but what will be given back to them will be in the neighbourhood of only $300 million.
Today different people have referred to the Minister as the Minister for External Relations or as the Minister for external affairs. I hope the Minister knows the difference between affairs and relations.
May 25, 1984


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is more of the same.


Arnold John Malone: I say to the Minister in all seriousness that it would have been better had the farmer taken his money and invested it elsewhere, even in bank savings. Had the farmers taken that amount of money they could have accumulated since 1979 somewhere in the neighbourhood of $8,000, had they invested it other than in the Western Grain Stabilization Fund. On the basis of that investment, they are being shortchanged by this Government. This Government would try to convince farmers that if they pulled their teeth without anaesthetic it would be good for them. This Bill is like building a three-wire fence to keep birds out. It does not offer the farmers the protection they believed they were buying in 1976.
It is important to talk about the philosophy of the Western Grain Stabilization Plan and the reason such stabilization is necessary today. Canadians know that farm producers have existed in this country since the very first person arrived on the North American continent. What is significantly different in the last half of this country's existence are the changes in the economic dynamics of agriculture, such that farmers today can no longer afford to have a crop loss.
As a Member of Parliament who was born and raised on a farm, and had some experience with the great depression years, I find it interesting that at that time, as in all previous times in history of the world up until the recent past, depressed times do not drive people off farms. In fact, the depression drove people to the farms. The pictures of people riding the boxcars in the thirties do not show people flooding to the cities. Those were city dwellers riding the boxcars back to the farm. On the farm their brother, uncle or some other relative had a cow, a chicken and a pig. Bessie gave milk, the chicken gave eggs, and the pig provided pork. They had a vegetable garden. Once the farmland was paid for, you could not starve them off it.
The nature of agriculture has significantly changed. We are into specialized industries, single commodity production. Input costs have risen so dramatically that agriculture today simply cannot afford a crop failure. We are still in the same cycle of boom and bust. We should not interfere with that cycle. It is the natural market forces at work. The farmers expected that the Western Grain Stabilization Plan would be a system of equalization so that in boom years they could put money aside and in the bust years they could draw upon that account and have some stability in their industry.
What do we have in 1983 and 1984? We have the absolute epitome of bust. What do we get from this Government? We get a year of delay in bringing about a system of payment. The Government has the cock-eyed notion that somehow the formula could not be changed sooner, even though it knew it had the support of the Opposition Parties. It would have been a simple one-day procedure to make that change. Instead, they bring it out on election eve for political gain. What a sinister fact to put before western grain farmers. As I said before, this is not just a farm issue. There is not a single person in this
Western Grain Stabilization Act country who does not eat daily. Farming today is not a lifestyle. These are business people in the business of food production.
We need to readdress the whole concept of agriculture. Looking at the world facts, there is no industry as important as farming. Four-fifths of the world population suffers from malnutrition, 70 million per year suffer permanent and irreversible brain damage from lack of protein and 40,000 children a day die of starvation. That was 40,000 children yesterday, 40,000 today and 40,000 tomorrow.
Against that background, there is not one nation in the world that gives top priority to agriculture. In this country, as in many other countries, ranking along the lowest priorities are agriculture, Fisheries and forestry. This world will one day wake up to the fact that it is not the industrial centres that make this country tick.
I know why we are in this kind of situation. Most farmers in Canada know why this is the case. In Canada there are more Members of Parliament from Montreal and Toronto than there are from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Northwest Territories, Yukon and British Columbia, excepting the Fraser Valley and City of Vancouver, combined. The people in two cities have more voting power as to how this country is run than those in 70 per cent of our land mass. They are nice people in Montreal and Toronto. You, Mr. Speaker, might be from that area.


Mr. Cosgrove:: Your leader comes from there.


Arnold John Malone: My Leader does come from there, but he is advantaged. One-third of his caucus comes from the Prairies and represent western farming. There are 21 Members of Parliament from Alberta. The Liberal Party of Canada has 21 Members in eight provinces and two territories. The balance are from Quebec and Ontario.
The Member says that my Leader comes from Montreal. However, he has the influence of Prairie people who feed people in Montreal and Toronto. He has respect for the Western Grain Stabilization Plan. That is why he stood in this House of Commons to raise the issue with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It became a national issue. It was only then that we got action on the Western Grain Stabilization Plan. The Hon. Member says that is right. My Leader has a sensitivity for the issue. Now it is being resolved, unfortunately a year and a half too late.
Farmers all across this country, not just in the west, are receiving commodity prices equal to those of 1973, but their input costs have increased since that time by 150 per cent. Agriculture Canada tells us that by 1988, just four years from now, they will go up another 110 per cent. What a devastating set of conditions. My friends to my far left, the NDP, would not allow any labour group to fall so far behind. However, the food producers who feed this whole country-and we should bear in mind there are only two sources of food, soil and water-have fallen behind with input costs increasing 150 per cent, and another 110 per cent projected by 1988, with virtually every commodity price falling. That is the devastating

May 25, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act background upon which this Government rests its case for agriculture.
There should be no interim payment. An interim payment is indicated for July. There should not be one. Full payment should have been made many months ago. Rather than an interim payment in July the whole payment should be made. All one need do is look at the accounts of the Farm Credit Corporation which show that farm bankruptcies are up well over 100 per cent from those of just a year ago when farm bankruptcies had greatly increased over the year preceding that. Those figures do not at all take into account those farmers who, out of pride, managed to get out of the farming business before they had to register for bankruptcy. They, Sir, comprise the larger number of persons. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the agricultural industry must be seen for what it is.
Canadair has received S3 billion and de Havilland has received $270 million. If that kind of money were given to the agricultural industry it would yield returns to the nation of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $9 billion to $10 billion. The multiplier factor in relation to agricultural dollars is 3.5, because we know for sure that farmers do not keep their money, they spend it. As soon as a farmer is finished buying his machinery, he buys a refrigerator. That is the reason this is an issue which affects all of Canada.
When a farmer buys a combine, a tractor or any farm implement, it is in all likelihood made in central Canada. If a farmer decides to buy a new car, and it is a Canadian car, it is in all likelihood made in central Canada. If he buys a new refrigerator for his wife's kitchen, it is in all likelihood made in central Canada. The agricultural dollar has the greatest multiplier effect of any dollar in any industry in the entire country. That dollar use will multiply 3.5 times. If some of the money that was spent for the protection of de Havilland and Canadair had been given to the farmers, I submit that this country would be better off.
Lest I be misinterpreted, I am not saying that those industries to which I have referred are not industries that ought to be supported. That is not the case I am laying before you, Mr. Speaker. The case I am laying before you, Mr. Speaker, is that we cannot justify such enormous support for industrial sectors while blindly eating food every day in the belief that we will forever more have cheap food on our tables, unless we as a nation give greater support to the agricultural industry. That support may take the form of higher prices or, alternatively, of lower input costs.
Farmers today require the ability to manage without having decade-old cash receipts along with input costs that are increasing by 150 per cent. I beg this nation to recognize that there is no country in the world, not even the United States of America, that enjoys less costly food than Canada. We spend less of our disposable income on food than any other nation in the world. The last time I studied that question, and I concede at the outset that that was a year or two ago, I found that Canadians were then spending 18 per cent of their disposable
income on food. I do know that Canadians spend less of their average take-home pay on food than Americans. That simply will not continue to be the case, and urban people will have to face the fact that they will have to pay more unless they recognize the agriculture is an industry and the farmer is a businessman who is in the business of food production.
The farmers paid into the Western Grain Stabilization Plan in order to even off boom and bust years. After procrastinating, and being prodded by the Opposition Parties for a year and a half, the Government has finally come through in its dying hour, just before Parliament is about to prorogue for an election, giving the farmers less than they invested, without giving back any of what the Government had contracted to give them. I tell you, Sir, that record is despicable. It is despicable to treat agriculture in such a devastating way.
The truth of the matter is that urban people as well as farmers need to know that the bill before us is one that affects all Canadians. Based upon that, Sir, I as a western Canadian find it both humorous and sad that every single candidate in the Liberal leadership race has shown up in western Canada saying that they will put a new face on western issues. They have all said: "We are out here to tell you that we will take into consideration your aspirations, your wants and your needs." We have heard that before, Mr. Speaker. We heard that during the 1968 leadership convention.
Whenever there is a Liberal leadership race, the candidates run all over every acre of our land telling us that we are wonderful people and that they need us. They do not need to tell us that, Sir. We know that they need us because they eat food every day and they need food products. However, we hate to be treated in the manner in which we are being treated. The farmers are paying into a fund which has accumulated nearly $1 billion while the Government procrastinates through years and years of bust. Then finally in the dying hours of the Government, right before the election, farmers are told that they will receive a portion of their money back. If anyone thinks for one moment that a farmer will walk over to a Liberal leadership candidate, kiss his ring and say: "Thank you, Sir, you have saved my farm," he is wrong, because that farmer has a tool out in his barnyard with three times that will express very well exactly what he thinks of such Liberal leadership candidates. Those candidates will become a part of the legacy of the great Otto Lang. I notice that there is a picture of Otto Lang's skull at the entrance to the Parliamentary Restaurant. There is a picture of all of the Liberals in western Canada there as well. There are pictures of them in the museum which is in the riding of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). They are called the dinosaur species and they are dinosaurs; not because they have cruel hearts but because the country has paid attention to the affairs of urban Canada without concern for the regions and without the realization that food is an industry the same as manufacturing is an industry. Those dinosaurs believed that food would always be there and that food would always be cheap.
The Western Grain Stabilization Plan must be made more sensitive on a continuing basis. It must make its pay-out now
May 25, 1984

because the need for it is now. There is no reason for the delay. I see that you are signalling that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. The issue is certainly not dead.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member who sits right beside me, although he is a member of the other Party.


Arnold John Malone: Thank goodness.


Jean-Luc Pepin: So close yet so far.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would like to say on the record that it is not true that I have had discussions about joining the Conservative Party. I know that the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has been leaking this news all over the country, but it is not true.
The Hon. Member who last spoke is a thoughtful and philosophical Member in spite of the fact that he is a member of the Conservative Party. It used to be that 40 per cent, 50 per cent or even 60 per cent of the people in the workforce were farmers. Now, after the great industrial revolution and continued technological change, I believe that 3 per cent, 2 per cent or even 1 per cent of the people are employed on the farms.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Five per cent.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is 5 per cent. A small percentage of the workers are working on the farm. The Hon. Member was complaining as I sometimes do about the influence of these bad easterners over here with all of their power who put it to the poor western farmers. I would like to ask the Hon. Member how he sees the western farmers having more power or even adequate power to take care of their own interests when they seem to comprise a declining percentage of the workforce in Canada.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I only got as far as page 2 of my notes, and I had about 12 pages I wanted to present. It is very simple. What we need is an elected Senate with equal representation from every province in the country. I am not saying that the Senate should have absolute legal power over the House of Commons. I recognize the principle of one person one vote. But the truth of the matter is that it is equally wrong today to have a situation in which Toronto and Montreal can out-vote 70 per cent of Canada's land mass.
If we had a magical chain-saw and could cut Toronto out and throw it away, the hinterland resources are such that within a decade we would build a new Toronto. If we cut the hinterland out-with its forestry, mineral rock, agricultural lands and fresh water-and threw it away, Toronto would be dead within a year. We need to bring into balance and perspective the management that takes place in our nation between the fewer people in the resource-based areas and those
Western Grain Stabilization Act who utilize the resources of the urban centres. An urban person does nothing except help manage resources. That is what the banks, the insurance companies and all the rest of the institutions are there for. It all relates back in some way or other to the resource base. If that was not there, the urban centres would not be there.
The prejudice and bias against farmers is there because of provincial governments. They will charge urban people $5, $6, or $7 for a private telephone line, while farmers who have to buy $100,000 combines have to share their telephone lines with four of their neighbours. This is evident in the postal system. Urban people can go out in their pyjamas on Sunday morning, reach around the corner and get their newspaper and letters. They can do that any day of the week. Farmers have the privilege of renting a postal box for $10 a year. This pertains to in communications and other areas.
I would simply say to my hon. friend from Vancouver-Kingsway that this country needs an elected Senate so that we can start to do as the American people do; to talk about "us" and "we" instead of being Canadians talking about "I" and "them". I would submit that there is more difference between a person from Texas and a person from Boston than there is between one from Toronto and one from Edmonton. Yet, the divisions of our country exist there because we have never brought the regions into balance. In answer to my hon. friend's question, we must bring some regional balance into the political system.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, I must take this occasion to rise on a question of privilege as I have been accused of being from Toronto by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone). I must point out that there are farmers in my constituency.
Second, I must ask whether the Hon. Member was speaking with tongue in cheek when he said there were no cities in western Canada and no people in cities in western Canada, or that the people who are in cities are nothings. Doe he mean that the people who live in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Saskatoon are nothings? Surely he has speaking with tongue in cheek when he said that.
Finally, did the Hon. Member seriously put forth the propo-sotion that those Ministers who have represented western Canada-Minister Olson, Minister Argue and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who is recognized for his reputation as being sensitive to farming interests-are not sensitive to western needs?


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, if I had suggested that the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Crosgrove) was a Torontonian, I truly apologize to him. I did not mean in any way to do that to him.
On the other hand, with respect to the suggestion that I said that people in cities were nothings, I do not know if I said that. I cannot remember saying that. I will read Hansard. If I did say that, that was certainly not my intention. Every human being everywhere is important, is an important resource of the country. All people are somebodies. That is what we want to have in this country; people who are somebodies.

May 25, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act
With respect to the Ministers the Hon. Member claims are great Ministers, who are protecting western Canada-and he singled out as one example the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan)-he asked if I might have been submitting that thought tongue in cheek. If I was trying to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture was indeed protecting western Canada, my tongue would have been right through my cheek and half a dozen other cheeks. He is the person who wants market supply management for our beef industry. Even good old NDP Manitoba voted 80 per cent against that concept. I could tell the House about all the protection that has been provided to western Canada, but my time is used up and I cannot go on with this speech any longer. I will tell you flat out, Mr. Speaker, they would not stand a chance, with the philosophies they have about agriculture, of getting elected anywhere in any constituency west of the Manitoba-Ontario border by a group of farmers. Not a single one of them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: On debate, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in order to give Members opposite a chance to speak on this Bill. I would like to say a few words, however, as I was a member of the agriculture committee in the mid-seventies and travelled throughout western Canada.
I think that this Bill, which has been agreed to by all Parties, is indeed a good Bill. The amendments to the Bill are attempting to enforce what the original Bill intended. I think that is a fair statement. I will not go through all of the positive features of the Bill, although perhaps I should. Members opposite have not addressed their remarks entirely to the Bill, but have stayed somewhat to the intent of the Government in introducing the Bill. I agree with Members opposite that it should not take such a long time to bring in a Bill such as this. The previous speaker said that it should only take a day. Certainly, it should not take two months as one opposition Member suggested. If it took four months, it would be outrageous. If it took six months it would be more than outrageous. It should certainly not take eight months. But I am wondering what happened when the Conservative Party was in power for eight months. Why was something not done then if it could have been done in one day? That is point number one; to even out this argument about timing. No matter what is brought in by the Government-even if it is good legislation-the Opposition say there is something politically bad about it, and speeches are delivered in the House which take away from the general thrust and intent of the legislation.
There were three or four Members opposite who referred to other costs that primary producers have. Primary producers are the most important people in this country today. They are the people who keep the country alive and on a sound footing-the fishermen, farmers, people who work in the forests and people who work in the mines. But, whenever the subject is brought up it becomes entirely political.
For example, when Members discussed the costs to Canadians, one Member said that the people of Canada were led
astray with the 18-cent increase in the price of gasoline that the Opposition wanted to bring in and, of course, the dollar that they claimed the Liberals brought in. As a matter of record, the only difference between both major Parties in this country is that the Liberal Party was preaching 75 percent world prices and the Progressive Conservative Party was preaching 100 per cent. That is the only difference. For someone to say that such and such a person pays an extra 50 cents or 60 cents, directly or indirectly, in fuel taxes is not the question. The question is the total amount of money they pay for oil and gas in this country. I agree that the present taxes on oil and gas for primary producers should be eliminated. That is both provincial and federal taxes, and they vary from province to province.
At the same time let us recognize that it would be very strange to hear a Member from western Canada say that we should have lower oil and gas prices right across Canada. Go speak to the Premier of Alberta and ask him whether he agrees with that. For that matter, go to the Premier of my province, the poorest province in Canada, and ask him if he agrees with that. Every time the price of oil and gas rises $1, equalization payments from the federal Government shoot up $100 million. Therefore, when you talk about prices being paid by Canadians for oil and gas, it should be looked at in its totality and the Canadian people should not be mislead.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What Bill are we talking about, Mr. Speaker? There should be relevancy on both sides, not just this side.


George Baker: The other argument is that the timing is wrong. They say that the Liberal Government is bringing it in just prior to a federal election. There is not a farmer in western Canada, Mr. Speaker, who would say no, do not bring it in because there is an election coming up. He does not care if there is an election or not. What he wants is this Bill brought into the House. I could go on about that but I will not.
Another point of condemnation of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and members opposite seemed to be somewhat irate, was that the Minister is bringing in an amendment at committee stage to give the farmers a payment now. As I said, I do not know as much as I should know about farmers in this country, but on checking I understand that the Minister is not only bringing in this amendment, he is also attempting to have these payments made the first week in June, not the last of July as was mentioned in the Chamber. The Minister is bringing in this amendment, which Members opposite as well as farmers wanted and asked for, and he should be praised by Members opposite for doing so. Whether or not there is an election is totally immaterial. It will be absolutely ludicrous to follow that line of reasoning because, if you did, you would not bring in any good legislation at all prior to an anticipated election.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Wait until I make my fish speech, then you will be really impressed.
May 25, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Are you kidding? It is not worthy of questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Debate. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the only comment I have about the remarks of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) is that they are just a year and a half late. It took a year and a half for them to get it into their heads that the farmer needed money. Look how many farmers went bankrupt in 1983. They could have been on the land today had the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Government listened to the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) and our leader. They begged and entreated the Government to do something to save the farms of the West. But the Government took a year and a half to do it. Sometimes I think we should do a little more research on birds so that we could cross a homing pigeon with a woodpecker. We could use them here to send a message over to them and it could be pounded into their heads. They would not have to take a year and a half to do something while 400 farmers are going bankrupt.
This Government has stacked the cards against western Canada for years.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Come on.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, you have. I will give you a couple of instances. The farmers know it. You are not going to fool anyone out there. At least I do not think you are going to fool very many, if any, by giving them a payment of their own money just before the election.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We are not trying to do that at all.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is exactly what you have in mind. If there was not an election coming we would have to wait another year and another 400 farmers could go bankrupt. That is how much the Government cares about western Canada. We get the dirty end of the stick all the time. For years we have had the dirty end of the stick.
In this Bill the Minister says we are now going to let them opt out. I thought we had freedom of choice in this country. That is what the Charter says. Now the Government is going to give us permission to opt out every ten years. What is more, there is no provision to pay the money back when the farmer opts out. The Government is going to keep his money. Talk about Moscow! This Government is worse than Moscow. At least over there you know you are not going to get it back, but here you expect the Government to be democratic and pay it back when you opt out. What nonsense. How naive do you think farmers in western Canada are? They have paid $5,000 to $8,000 into this fund and they are just going to drop out and leave it in the pockets of the federal Government to spend in extravagant ways? Our farmers are not naive. They are well
Western Grain Stabilization Act educated people and when they want to opt out they want their money back, every red cent of it, and the interest it earned. If this Government has any morality at all-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Louder.


Gordon Edward Taylor: -any morality at all-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Louder!


Gordon Edward Taylor: The Minister says they have not. I believe that, but if there is any morality at all they will make an amendment and pay back the farmer the money the Government has taken from him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: If you pay something and you do not get the goods, the money is refunded. But here the Government has a new idea. It will keep the money. Let them opt out but they will not get their money back. It is getting worse and worse, Mr. Speaker. Talk about stacking the cards against the people of the West! The Government did it in the capital cost allowance. Look at what the budgets have done to western Canada.
Not only has the capital cost allowance provision put thousands of people out of work, it has forced farmers to keep their old antiquated equipment. One dealer alone had to cancel seven combines because the Government said it will not let the farmer have his capital cost allowance in the first year because be buys the machine in August. Who in the world is going to buy a combine in January when you do not use it until August or November? That is how the Government looks on western Canada. I wish some of the unemployed and some of the farm machinery companies in the East would wake up and know what is going on. This Government is responsible for a great number of them being unemployed through its policies, and the capital cost allowance is only one.
Talk about western Canada getting the dirty end of the stick. Look at the capital gains tax. The only pension a farmer has is his farm. Then the Government brings in the capital gains tax and taxes the farmer on half of the gain. He will no longer be able to go and buy a home in the city. If they could do that additional housing would be required. People would have to build houses and that would create employment.
We wonder why there are two million unemployed in the country. It is because of Government policy. How many people has the Government put out of work in these two instances alone? The capital gains tax is the only pension that farmers have. We make them stay on the farm when they would like to sell the farm. We even tax them on the inflated value of the farm. Of course the Government made a change for bond holders. The bond holder does not have to pay capital gains tax on the inflated value of his bonds. However, the poor farmer who lives in western Canada has to pay on the inflated value of his farm. That is money he has never had. This is another case,

May 25, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act Mr. Speaker, in which we are getting the dirty end of the stick. There are many such cases we could deal with today.
At the end of his speech today the Minister gave us a wonderful message. He said he is going to do what Progressive Conservative Members and the Leader of our Party have been asking him to do from the beginning. He is going to pay out the money so that it can be used for spring seeding. The money was needed for spring seeding. Some farmers have not seeded yet because they have run out of credit at the banks. They have no more land to put up for another loan. They are either getting their friends to seed it or are not seeding at all. In May he says he is going to make an interim payment before the end of July. Do Hon. Members on that side of the House realize that crops have to be seeded in May if they are going to be harvested before the frost in the fall? You cannot wait until the first of August to plant your crops because you will then have the money to do it. That is absolute nonsense.
They are not even going to bring this change in at committee. They are going to blackball the committee and bring it in at report stage so that it cannot be debated. There will be no people there to say what they think about it. That is a wonderful, smart idea. I wonder who stayed up all night to dream that up. Mr. Speaker? There is no reason why that change should not be made in committee where it can be debated so that we can get the payment as fast as possible, rather than after a tremendous delay.
The calendar year is going to help, Mr. Speaker, but it is not going to make a great deal of difference in the triggering of pay-outs. It is going to make some difference and we thank you for that little crumb.
Why were the other things we suggested not brought in, such as the cost of machinery and production? Why is every cost of production not considered rather than only the ones set out in the Act? Some of the biggest costs of production, such as inflation and interests, are not included. They say they are going to change the Act by using the calendar year. That is another crumb. This money belongs to the farmers, Mr. Speaker. They are not getting back even the amount they paid in. Do not try to kid the troops. We know what is going on. One-third of the total amount of $900 billion belongs to the farmers.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Indeed, one-third. You said it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Their interest is in that too. The total payment in 1978 was only $369 million. In those days the Government did have some honour. It said that $123 million came out of the farmers' pockets and they gave it back. The Government said it contributed $246 million and it would not give that amount back. The total was $369 million and they told the farmers that they were going to get $123 million plus the Government's share, including the interest they earned. Once it is put into that fund it is no longer government money. It belongs to the Western Grain Stabilization Fund which belongs to the farmers of western Canada. Do not try to kid the troops and tell us we are getting back more than we put into the fund. If you say that in western Canada you will be
driven out of the hall and tarred and feathered. The farmers will just not go for that kind of nonsense. Now the Government says the farmers may get $350 million out of the $900 million-almost $1 billion. That is not even one-third of the total amount, and we may not even get that.
It is no wonder that only one of a mast number of farmers who came to a meeting in Strathmore a few weeks ago would not opt out. The rest of the farmers wanted to opt out immediately, but they want their money back. They are not going to make a gift of their money to the Government. They should be getting their money back.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will say that if the Government does not have the morality to pay money back to a farmer when he opts out, then we have left democracy behind us and are at the bottom of the garbage pail. It is no wonder that the whole group of farmers at Strathmore wanted out. Now the Government is going to be very nice. It will let them out in 1986 but will not return their money. I hope that some of the reasonable minds on that side of the House will awaken and pay back the money when a farmer opts out, or change the Act so that it will do what it is supposed to do, stabilize the incomes of western Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) on debate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the clock and I see that only a very short period of time remains. I have had informal discussions with the Government House Leader. We had hoped to hear from a few speakers today, and we intend to have this Bill pass second reading today. I was wondering whether there could be a disposition to not see four o'clock, which would give me a few minutes to make a few concluding comments on behalf of my Party with respect to this particular legislation. If that were acceptable to everyone in the House, I would like to say a few words since this affects my district very seriously.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would agree to that provided that the House will adjourn at five o'clock in any case. Consequently, that will shorten the Private Member's Hour by the time required by the Hon. Member. If the private Member whose motion is to be discussed today is in agreement, that is fine. However, the decision would depend on that Member.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On behalf of the NDP I can say that we are prepared to agree. We trust that the Hon. Member will not be open-ended. We know he is loquacious and feels strongly about this matter. However, I hope he could finish in 10 minutes at the outside.


Yvon Pinard: It is very clear that it will only be matter of about 10 minutes. Provided the Hon. Member does not impute motives to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), we are in agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. As good as this agreement seems to be, I will have to ask for
May 25, 1984

unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for the proposal?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cuilbault):: Agreed. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate that. On Friday afternoon there is a sense of camaraderie and co-operation in this place which should possibly be observed more often. However, after I conclude my remarks that feeling of camaraderie may well leave the Chamber.
I would simply like to conclude by saying how disappointed we in this Party are that once again, with regard to legislation which deals with western Canada and the western producers in particular, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) has failed in his responsibility to be present in order to guide this legislation through the House. As the one elected Cabinet Minister representing western Canada, we had hoped that he would show some interest in western Canadian producers by at least staying in Ottawa and attending here.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What is wrong with me?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We appreciate the fact that the Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) has taken the opportunity of guiding us through. However, I suggest that when the Minister of Transport refuses to appear when we are discussing the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act amendments on this Friday, we in western Canada must wonder where his interests and duties lie.
I want to point out that in terms of this legislation, as pointed out by my colleagues, western Canadian producers are in a very serious financial position. There is a crisis in agriculture in western Canada. Production costs have risen dramatically. We have the prospect of increases in the cost of implements, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. There has been a steady increase over the course of the year in the cost of these important commodities for the western producer. At the same time we have seen prices for the seven grains that are covered under this particular Act drop some 20 per cent between 1981 and 1983.
Furthermore, the Government has introduced other legislation affecting the West with respect to the Crowsnest Pass rates. As far as western grain producers are concerned at the present time, from August 1 last year there has been an increase of 58 per cent in rates up to August 1, 1984. The railways are now applying to the Canadian Transportation Commission for a recalculation of the cost of capital in terms of the rates they charge to the western grain producer. If they are successful it will mean approximately another 30 per cent increase in terms of grain transportation costs to the farmer. Under present prospects, there is the possible situation where the amount of grain that will be delivered for export will probably exceed the cap levels shown in the Crowsnest Pass
Western Grain Stabilization Act
legislation by 1.5 million tonnes. All of this excess grain will travel at the full freight rate.
One can ask what are the Liberal Party's motives in terms of this legislation? They only brought it in because the Leader of our Party (Mr. Mulroney), the Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), the Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), the Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), the Member for Wetas-kiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and other members of our Party forced the Government to take action. It would not have taken action had it not been for the persistent efforts on the part of the Progressive Conservative Party, bringing pressure to bear that the Government could not resist. Even the Minister of Transport, who does not have the political sagacity to be in the House when western issues are raised for which he is responsible, could not resist the pressure.
Where is the Minister? I suppose that he is out, in terms of his responsibility, trying to justify the imposition of these increased rates for the transportation of grain to export points. I can say that the western Canadian farmers understand the great imposition-


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to indicate to the Hon. Member that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) is in western Canada today because of a previous engagement. He was unable to change that engagement. The Hon. Member should not reflect on the activities and responsibilities of the Minister of Transport.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair would just like to say that it is difficult to rule on such a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I can understand your difficulty. We have difficulty with that Government every day of the year. I simply want to make a point that the Minister of Transport is probably out in western Canada trying to scrape up votes for his candidate, Mr. John Turner, who has is own advice to western Canadians when he tries to woo them for the Liberal Party. He has his campaign manager, the Minister of Transport, who tells us that he will not increase the maximum level of grain under which the calculations are made on the Crowsnest Pass legislation. He tells us that he will not lower the safety net.
He is the campaign manager of John Turner who is promising everything. He says, "If I am Prime Minister, everything that the Minister of Transport has done I will rectify. I do not care how crazy the Minister of Transport has been in the past,
I will rectify it because this man knows not of which he does." That is what Mr. Turner is saying about his campaign manager. If I were you I would get him back from western Canada, because he will have to answer for.


André Ouellet: You are getting nervous.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is no nervousness because we know in western Canada that any candidate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) supports has serious difficulty with respect to credibility. If I had the Minister of Labour supporting me in any political contest I would be trembling in my boots. I would

May 25, 1984
Western Grain Stabilization Act be concerned because this leadership candidate for the Liberal Party, who I understand now has the support of a majority of the present Cabinet and who is trying to distance himself from the policies of the current administration, will have a hard time explaining why he has the majority of the current Cabinet on his side. I suggest that is the kind of inconsistency that people across Canada will understand.
I am very interested that this Bill has received such attention, and I wish to say in conclusion that I wondered why the Government was insisting that we give it quick disposition. The Progressive Conservative Party indicated that it did not like the Bill, and specified its objections to it. We want an immediate payment, and to have it retroactive. We thought that the level was not sufficient. However, we said that we are prepared to do everything to pass this legislation, imperfect as it is, in the course of one day. We would even agree that it not go to committee. My colleague, the Member for Assiniboia, consulted with the heads of various farm organizations across western Canada who said that they did not necessarily want to appear before the committee.
Therefore, I had to ask why the Government was anxious to have this matter go before committee? Now it comes out that it wants to bring it before committee because it realizes how vulnerable the Government is to the demands that have been made by our Party with respect to the whole question of interim payment. It wants to introduce an amendment which it says requires a royal address. It now wants to make amendments to its own legislation which it announced with such fanfare on April 25 of this year.
The Government had the member from the other place who is responsible for the Wheat Board, sitting, cheek by jowl, with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). Their picture was spread across the entire page of every newspaper because of the width of the people involved. I realize now that we are getting involved in a pre-election scenario. What the Liberal Party has in mind is not the interests of western farmers, but putting themselves in a posture of having the farmers' own money released to them at a pre-election time. I can say with some knowledge of the way western Canadians think in terms of political activity, that this age-old Liberal ruse will not work. This is not a question of beneficence from above, it is a question of equity. This is the farmers' money which they are entitled to get back. They made an investment and all they are asking now is to get some fair treatment from the Government.
I appreciate the fact that we have been able to force the Government to make this move and bring forth this legislation. Even with its defects, we will allow this matter to go through second reading, under the protest that there are some deficiencies in it. We will make our position known during the course of the committee hearings.
I can tell the Minister of State for External Relations that, although I appreciate very much his interest and that he stayed here during the course of this afternoon, the Minister of Transport has much to answer to western Canadian producers for taking no interest in legislation in his name. He is never here to pilot measures through, or to address them in Parliament. He will discover the consequences for his inactivity in the next election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Questions or comments?
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Pursuant to an Order of the House adopted earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper, provided that the House will adjourn at five o'clock today.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["Order. The time for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.\nIt being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday, May 28, 1984, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Monday, May 28, 1984']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 40 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
# * *



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, January 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Anguish, that Bill C-203, an Act to declare Canada a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly happy to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-203, an Act to declare Canada a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, not only because I fully support both the principle and the letter of the Bill before us, but also because my constituency of Kootenay-West has had on a number of occasions over the past year and a half the highest percentage totals on disarmament referenda within Canada, one of those votes for disarmament being as high as 99.7 per cent in one of our component electoral districts. Also, some half dozen cities and villages within Kootenay West's boundaries have declared themselves as nuclear free zones either by resolution or by

by-law. I am also particularly pleased to speak on this Bill because it is authored by my colleague, the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) from the Province of Saskatchewan. In addition, we share many strong common feelings on the Bill before us and on many other matters. It may be folksy to recollect, but my mother used to toboggan the hill down the coulee into his grandmother's backyard in Saskatchewan, and thus there is a personal connection, though not a direct one, that makes me happy to share this moment with him and to share his feelings and support for this proposition.
On previous occasions when Bills of a similar nature, whether presented by my colleague or by other Members of my Party, the NDP, numerous Members from other Parties have expressed particular misgivings about certain sections, most often because they stated that it would impinge on certain civilian uses of nuclear energy or medical uses of nuclear energy. I want to assure my colleagues that, having read this Bill, all pains have been taken to ensure that those kinds of misgivings may not legitimately be expressed with any degree of legitimacy upon the Bill before us. When Members of the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party rise to speak, for a change they will have to address the substance and the principle rather than finding nitpicking excuses, which I would not suggest is what they would do, but some people in this country from time to time are wont to do.
The Bill before us is short enough, and I intend to read it into the record, if the Speaker will consent. I will not read the penalty provisions because I do not think they are particularly germane to the matter under debate. Let me now read the Bill into the record.
1.	This Act may be cited as the Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Act.
2.	The sovereign nation of Canada, including the territorial coastal waters, inland bodies of water and airspace over which Canada has jurisdiction, is hereby declared to be a nuclear weapons free zone.
3.	(1) No person, corporation, government agency or association of any nature whatsoever shall develop, test, manufacture, import, transport or store any nuclear weapon, nuclear weapons system, nuclear weapons support system, or any components therefor, within Canada, its territorial coastal waters, its inland bodies of water or its airspace over which Canada has jurisdiction for any reason whatsoever, including the defence of Canada or any ally thereof.
The rest of the Bill gets into the penalty provisions and I will not read them at this time.
I think the intent of the Bill is crystal clear. The wording is crystal clear. There is no room for fudging and there is no room for misunderstanding. I hope the debate will have the same degree of clarity as does the Bill.
One of the impacts which such legislation, if it were to become law, would have, would be the cessation not only of the testing of the cruise missile within Canada but also preventing the manufacture of the guidance system or portions of it within Canada as well. In thinking about that subject, I cannot help but digress a little to think of the many times that Members of the Government, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) and the former Minister of National Defence have, in
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Act this House and elsewhere across this land, consistently gone on and on to say that we are testing the cruise missile in Canada because it is a commitment to NATO. They have said that on innumerable occasions and in innumerable ways. That is false. They know that assertion to be false because one or two of them have said on public occasions, I am not sure whether or not in this House, when cross-examined by reporters from the media, that the impression given by those statements was false. I think one can reach no other conclusion other than they have known what they have said. They have since said it repeatedly both in this Chamber and across the land, on television, on radio, at public meetings, and at seminars. It is regrettable that they have never admitted the facts. They know it to be true.
The basic reason we are testing the Cruise missile in Canada, other than for some kind of loyalty oath in a broad sense to the incumbent President of the United States, whatever that happens to be worth, and we all have our own feelings on that, is because this country wants a larger share of defence production in Canada. We are in it for the money. Tommy Douglas used to say-and it is one of the truest things the hon. gentleman ever said-that "Whenever they say it's not the money, it's the principle of the thing, you can always be sure it's the money". That is what cruise testing in Canada is about. Liberal Members know it, Conservative Members know it, and we know it. It is encumbent upon us if we want to disagree to have the intestinal fortitude to tell the public what the debate is about. If we think risking our credibility as a peace-seeking nation with fairly clean credentials is worth a few jobs and a few bucks that will accrue, particularly to Litton Industries, but perhaps to other companies as well, in defence sharing agreements with the United States and perhaps with some of our European allies, then that is a debate we can properly have. Let us debate the issue for what it is. Let us get the issue clear.
I found it galling, to come to more recent events, to watch the Minister of National Defence at a meeting of NATO ministers in Europe just a week ago, particularly considering some of the debate and circumstances which have come to light in this House in the last few days about Canada's willingness or ability to honour its own commitments whether or not we agree with them. He had the unmitigated gall to attend a NATO Ministers' meeting in Europe and blame one of our NATO allies, the Netherlands, for "betraying the NATO Alliance", because it has not yet agreed and it is still undecided,-it has not yet agreed to station U.S. Pershing and U.S. Cruise missiles on its soil. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
As I said, we may or may not agree on certain commitments that we have, but I think any Canadian who is a person of honour would say that if we have made a firm commitment, at least we ought to do our best to keep it. It ill behooves anyone who pretends or wants to be called honourable to pursue the kind of shameful course which the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) pursued in Europe just last week.

May 25, 1984
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Act
They must be killing themselves laughing over there. The Russians will think that they have conquered Europe, and that everybody will be dead, they will have been laughing so hard. It really makes us wonder where their heads are at over there, in the government, not to mention their sense of honour.
The House of Representatives of the United States has gone on record favouring a nuclear freeze as a first step. Are they anti-American? The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence love to cast inuendoes over here from time to time suggesting that we are anti-American. Is the U.S. House of Representatives anti-American? No. That is always the answer of someone who has a weak case. All they can do is cast those kinds of insults across the way. It does not hold water any more because the world is slowing growing up and Canadians are growing up to the reality that they should rather not listen to what politicians say, when it is on the record here, on television, on the radio and in the newspapers, for them to see what politicians do.
The previous votes of politicians which have taken place in this House of Commons on the issues of a nuclear freeze, a disarmament referendum and on the testing of Cruise missiles in Canada are on the record. The record shows that 98 per cent of Liberal and Conservative Members have continuously said: "ready-aye-ready", to go along with whatever President Reagan, in his wildest flights of fancy, decides to call upon us to do out of some sheer blind loyalty. Sometimes he comes down to earth, but he has some really wierd flights at times too. And, I am not anti-American because I agree with the majority of the Members of the House of Representatives to the South of us.
I agree with many other institutions and organizations throughout the United States which know that in a world like ours we must be able to guarantee a future to our children and our children's children, so that they can decide for themselves what options they will take, whether to live or die, or whether to have a planet left in which to live.
It is beyond the kind of petty politics we have seen here. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and the former Minister of National Defence have lied to this House and they have lied to this nation continuously. They have deliberately misled this House. They have deliberately misled the Canadian people. They have been called "liars" by my colleagues both inside and outside the House of Commons, but they have not yet had the guts to stand up and admit it.
Let us debate the real issues. Let us debate whether or not risking our credibility and risking our lives is worth the few bucks and the few jobs which Litton Industries will provide. Let us debate that, because that is the issue. Let us make it clear to the Canadian people that the Cruise missile, which is being tested in Canada, with its kind of guidance system, is not for NATO use. It is not the same Cruise missile which will be deployed in Europe. It has nothing to do with it. Basically it is the same weapon, but its guidance system and the purposes for which it is intended are entirely different. The missile and guidance system which we are building and testing in Canada
are to be used directly-and it is being tested along a track which includes part of its testing field in the constituency of the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish)-so that an air-launched Cruise missile can fly from the Arctic Ocean and follow the tundra track to the industrial heartland of the Soviet Union. That guidance system or that kind of terrain has nothing to do with the method by which Cruise missiles currently being deployed in Europe are to be used or tested. It is a different weapon. We have been receiving false and phoney arguments. The Government does not want the public to know that the Prime Minister has lied, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has lied, that the Minister of National Defence has lied and that the former Minister of National Defence has lied in this House, and people who lie are liars.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair presumes that the Hon. Member has gone slightly beyond his thoughts by implying that Members of the House have lied. Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to reword what he just said.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I regret, on this occasion the evidence is so absolutely overwhelming and has been repeated so often that under no conditions, absolutely no condition, will I withdraw that allegation.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair has no choice but to ask the Hon. Member to withdraw. To call a Member a liar is definitely an unparliamentary expression. For the second time the Chair would like to ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the offensive word.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: With all respect to yourself, and your office, Sir, there is no way I could honourably do so, and I regret to say that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Would the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) please resume his seat? I think the Chair will first deal with the question before us.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have a point of order. Perhaps I could help the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I do not think the Chair needs any advice. The difficulty before us is that an Hon. Member has used unparliamentary language and must withdraw. For the third time the Chair will ask the Hon. Member to withdraw.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Excuse me, Sir, I will have to ask you to repeat the question as my colleague and I were having a discussion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I believe the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that if he does not withdraw the
May 25, 1984

offensive expression, the Chair will have no choice but to name him.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of that, but I do not think there is any way I could honourably do other than what I have done or say other than what I have said. I could change the words, but they would have exactly the same meaning. Whether it is deliberately misled or lied, the meaning is exactly the same; they are equally unparliamentary. However, the conduct of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and both the past and present Minister of National Defence gives me no other alternative but so to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Then the Chair will name Mr. Kristiansen.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Does it matter which door I go out?
And Mr. Kristiansen having withdrawn:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: On debate, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway cannot rise again in this debate; he has already spoken.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Were you indicating that I have already participated in the debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Perhaps the Hon. Member does not realize that we have resumed debate from a previous debate. At least according to the list provided to me, the Hon. Member has participated in the debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is of considerable value to us as Members of Parliament and to the public of Canada that this issue be debated in the House of Commons, albeit, at a late hour on Friday afternoon. The whole question of disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament, is of concern to all Members of Parliament as it is to all Canadians. No one wants war, let alone a nuclear war. I do not think there is one Member of this House who would take a differing view.
A considerable amount of thought has been given to this matter both by elected Members and within the bureaucracy, particularly the Department of External Affairs. When you are part and parcel of the operation of Parliament, you recognize that. Somebody who is not at home here, somebody from the outisde, so to speak, does not understand the amount of thought given to these matters and the amount of expertise that resides amongst the elected and non-elected people within Government in its widest sense. It is not readily apparent.
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Act
One of our jobs as Members of Parliament is to engage in public debate on these issues so that the people of Canada become aware of the various points of argument and can make up their own minds in these issues and possibly give us some direction. There has, however, been some reluctance, particularly on the Government side, to bring these matters forward. There is a very good reason for this.
First, there are no real specific solutions at this time. The NDP like to think they have specific solutions with instruments such as Private Member's Bill C-203, with which we are dealing this afternoon. However, any careful reflection will show that it is full of holes and rather doomed to failure when looking at a long-term solution to the problem of the arms race.
The Government is unable to put forward to this House specific matters for debate and resolution. It would feel rather foolish bringing something forward of a non-specific nature and, therefore, does not do that. If those who take a rational view of arms control matters take the long view and recognize the amount of hard work that would have to go into any solution, the negotiations that would take place on a continuing basis, they would feel that in the meantime something like to two-track approach as an option would have to be pursued in order to maintain Canada and NATO defence capabilities. These people are sometimes reluctant to engage in discussions on the peace issue because they might be accused of being against peace. Of course, none of us are.
Therefore, it is good on a Friday afternoon to have an opportunity to talk on these matters and try to come up with some potential solution. That is where we are at now. We are in the idea formulation stage rather than bringing forward specific formulae that will enable us, all people in the world, and not just Canada, to come to real solutions.
As I said before, the Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) at first blush seems in principle quite reasonable. Certainly he has his heart in the right place. However, when you examine it in detail, you find that it is rather naive and simplistic. It is the facile approach to the issue; kind of a quick-fix solution. In an earlier debate on a related subject, I went at some length into the "Outlawry of War" movement that was prevalent in North America and Europe in the 1920s and in the 1930s. That was another simplistic approach where every nation of the world would sign a treaty not to engage in war. Once they all had signed a solemn pledge, war would be outlawed. There would be no such thing. Of course, we know that that approach failed despite the sincere wishes of many people who thought that would be the solution. We should not make that mistake today. We should work harder to find real and lasting solutions.
What is the present policy of the Government of Canada on the issue of nuclear weapons in Canada? I listened carefully to no less an authority than our Prime Minister (Mr.Trudeau). If I interpret him correctly, it is his wish and early intention that there should not be nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. He does not want to do this because of legislation such as that before
4080

May 25, 1984
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Act
us, but rather by administrative choice in keeping with the wishes of the people of Canada. We are told that the nuclear weapons presently here will be removed as conventional arms are built up in Canada so that we are able to defend ourselves and keep our NATO commitment by conventional means rather than by nuclear means. This statement is supported by a responsible Opposition in this House.
In keeping with the latter point, we on this side have criticized the Government for some time for the deplorable state of our conventional military equipment. If we do not have sufficient conventional material, we become reliant on nuclear weapons. That is not a good state of affairs. Therefore, I hope that the armed forces of Canada can be properly equipped to counter any hostilities with conventional rather than nuclear weapons.
I do not know whether I should call this an NDP proposal. As far as I know, it reflects not only the individual's private thinking, but also the thinking of the Party he has the honour to represent in this House. If we adopt this proposal, what would be the result? I suspect that a couple of things would happen. First, it would bring about a false sense of security: We do not have nuclear weapons in this country, everybody is working to get rid of them all over the world and therefore we no longer have to worry about the situation. That is an argument that I cannot buy. All you have to do is look not at a map, because maps are usually arranged in an east-west direction laterally, but at a globe to see that Canada is strategically placed mid-way between the two super powers, the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. If there is a nuclear warhead-equipped rocket earmarked for the Port of Seattle, you can bet your life there is also one earmarked for the Port of Vancouver. Therefore, if we were to adopt this proposal, the sense of security it might engender would, in my opinion, be entirely false.
Another result of the proposal would be a reliance by Canada almost exclusively for its defence on the United States of America. We need only look back to the Second World War and the illustration of how Great Britain took over Iceland at that time. Iceland was neutral, doing nobody any harm, but it was in a strategic location. Because of the hostilities of the time, the British felt they should set up a military establishment in Iceland. Before that, I do not know whether Iceland had been independent or whether it had been a part of Denmark. However, that is what happened. In all probability, that would occur in Canada if we left ourselves naked and unable to contribute to our defence. In the case of hostilities, I am sure that the Americans would take the same attitude toward Canada as Great Britain took toward Iceland in the last war. I think it is better to retain our options in case hostilities should ever arise, and I think that this could be done within the NATO framework.
You must remember, Mr. Speaker, that NATO is probably one of the first successful peace organizations in the world. That might not become apparent until one really looks into the
matter. NATO was established with the maintenance of peace at heart, and it has been relatively successful. Since its establishment, there has been no major Atlantic conflict. It operates by bringing about peace through deterrence. In the final analysis, deterrence might not be the best way of establishing a lasting peace. However, it is probably better to have peace for several decades in this manner than not to have peace at all. I would encourage Members of the House to be supportive of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
I would suspect that Bill C-203 would be contrary to our treaty obligations regarding both NATO and NORAD. It deals with things like overflights of Canada by our allies and the testing and manufacture of equipment within Canada. We must remember that this Bill deals not only with nuclear weapons themselves, but with any support systems or components therefor. The Bill could conceivably apply to the manufacture in Canada of a half-ton truck if that half-ton truck were ever to be used for the transportation of a nuclear bomb. Perhaps a better example of this would be the aircraft guidance systems. We in Canada are pretty good at making those systems. These of course can be used for both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons systems, and at the same time can have many civil uses.
Another thing I would like to bring to the attention of the House is that in all probability this Bill would prohibit the civil use of nuclear explosives. Although it has not been used to any great extent to the present time, I am sure that nuclear explosives could likely be used in the future for the moving of earth and rock, the construction of canals and for certain mining applications. I understand that the gas-buggy project in the United States was fairly successful in enhancing the permeability of gas-bearing strata and could be used for increased gas supplies.
The dangers associated with radiation from underground use of nuclear explosives is not that great. I understand that with rocks with a fair silica content most of the ensuing radiation is contained in the glass which is created by the fusion of the silica, so there is no great danger of radiation involved. Canadas is one of the countries in the world where, because of large-scale projects which often take place in remote areas, the civil use of nuclear explosives might be of considerable advantage. I would not want to see that possibility jeopardized by the passage of this Bill.
When it comes to establishing nuclear free zones, there is one area of the world in which this might have some advantage at the present time, but only in a limited sense. It might be a practical suggestion for the countries in the Iron Curtain belt in Europe, where the NATO and Warsaw Pact powers are arranged against one another, to be declared a nuclear free zone for tactical nuclear weapons. Of course, strategic weapons with greater range would still be a hazard, but that might be a small step toward the stabilization of that area.
I would like to speak briefly on the second point dealt with in the Bill, which is the idea of a world referendum to be held under the auspices of the United Nations.
May 25, 1984

I see, Sir, that not one member of the New Democratic Party is here. They tend to be interested in these matters, but they simply do not stick around even when we are dealing with their Bills. It shows you, Mr. Speaker, what real interest members of the New Democratic Party take in these issues.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are members of the Party who are very interested, and if the Hon. Member only wants to make political gain out of something of such a serious nature I suggest that he let other Members who are more interested in this pressing concept which has been approved by the Interparliamentary Union speak on the issue.
I would also point out that there is one other member of the Hon. Member's Party present in the House. There are three Liberal Members present in the House. It is symptomatic of the institution, and I do not think that the Hon. Member should try to make a mockery out of an issue as important as this one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) has made his point. He is right in that it is not allowable to make reference to the presence or absence of Hon. Members in the House.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I see the that Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake made his point, and then immediately walked out of the House again. It just shows you the interest-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. Not only is the Hon. Member wrong, because the Member to which he is referring is sitting in the House, but he is again referring to the presence or absence of a Member in the House. May I ask him to stick to the rules?


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, he just came back and you know that full well. He is running in and out like a scared rabbit.
Is the referendum which is mentioned in the Bill meant to be a referendum in the true sense of the word, something that is usually taken to be binding, or is it meant to be a plebiscite, something which is usually construed as being an expression of public opinion? If this polling were to be conducted by the United Nations it could really only be a plebiscite, because the United Nations does not have the authority to order sovereign nations to give up arms or weaponry. If it is a plebiscite, what is its real use? We already know what public opinion is. Surely no one is in favour of a nuclear war. It is something everyone wants to avoid. If that is the case, such a plebiscite would be of extremely limited value. I really do not see what it would prove.
Perhaps members of the NDP are suggesting through this Bill that each country that is a participant in the United Nations should conduct some kind of binding referendum. I think it is the height of wishful thinking to assume that Warsaw Pact countries would take very much notice of a
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Act
referendum of that nature, even if they allowed such a referendum to take place. If those countries pretended to take any notice of such a referendum, I am sure they would not allow its verification by inspectors from other nations.
There are a great many more things to say about this Bill, Sir, but because, among other things, of the amount of time the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has taken away from me with his partisan comings and goings, there does not remain time for me to do so. It is an important subject, Sir, and one which we must address carefully. We must be prepared to work hard and diligently for a considerable period of time on this question. Quick-fix answers like those proposed by members of the New Democratic Party will simply not work.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Debate.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker,
I will only speak for a few minutes. I believe strongly that the motion is supportable and that we should have a nuclear free zone, but I do not think it will happen. I am not sure why we are devoting so much time to this particular problem because, even if we did agreed to it, it would not really change anything in terms of the kind of world in which we live.
I was a member of the NDP years ago. I left basically because I felt that in a political movement of any kind there is a thing called the idea. One gets an idea, one deals with it, and then speaks on it. The other point, which is far more important, is that one must do something to make the idea work. One of the difficulties that I have when I get into a debate on this subject with the NDP is that they have been in opposition for so long, and have been away from the possibility of power for so long, that they really do not understand how to change something or how to do something which is effective.
There is no question in my mind that we are in the most dangerous period in the history of mankind. The International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, England, which is a very conservative organization, made a statement in the last ten days which indicated that we are in nearly as dangerous a situation as we were during the Cuban crisis. There is a very grave danger that a war will occur. If we passed this motion today, it would not change anything. We are up against two superpowers who are not going to move. On our side, that is President Reagan and the administration of the United States. In my opinion, the situation is very, very dangerous in the sense that they are not going to put forward arms control measures that will be workable. The Arms Control Association in the United States,-which includes generals, admirals and people such as Paul Warnke-produced a paper in the last ten days listing five or six reasons why it is certain that the United States Government does not want arms control at this particular time. There is a whole background of information of this kind.
Motions put forward such as the one the NDP has put forward for no first use, no testing of the Cruise and so on are

May 25, 1984
Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Act
admirable, but as soon as they are placed before the Government of the United States the answer is no. As Canadians, how can we be effective in trying to lower the tensions that exist if we keep bringing forward motions which do not have any chance of being effective?
The six powers which have formed the Four Continent Group put forward a motion this week. It is a motion which I support very strongly. However, it was not out on the street for 20 minutes before it was turned down by the Reagan Administration.
It is absolutely essential that we find some way of bringing the Reagan Administration and the Soviet Government-and there is no question that the Soviet group is extremely difficult-together so that they will not make war with each other. The tensions at this stage in the game are beyond any question. We have to worry about the dangers of a war starting from a spark in the Middle East, for examples. I am suggesting one possibility: That we as a Government, with the support of the whole House, adopt a motion that includes the ten points which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has put forward. These ten points are ideas which the Prime Minister gleaned from talking to different countries, including the superpowers and the other three nuclear powers. They involve areas where there is a commonality and where there are common beliefs. We cannot negotiate using techniques which have been used before between the two superpowers. We must start with the common assumptions, which are important assumptions. Assumptions which indicate that we do not want to have insecure or destabilizing weapons. Assumptions, for examples that one side is not going to try and destroy the economy of the other side. These are the things which we must do.
Any motion or statement, however pure and great, will be rejected out of hand by one or the other of the superpowers. They are not going to do anything at this particular point. Therefore, I think the debate today should not be on this particular motion, no matter how well the motion is presented and how desirable it is, but on how we can break the impasse between the two superpowers. I suggest the way that can be done is by starting with the common ground created by the Prime Minister and working toward negotiation which can proceed in a realistic way.


Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I do not often rise in the House to speak, because there are not many issues
which are pertinent to Arctic people. However, this issue is pertinent because of the testing of the Cruise missile in the Northwest Territories. That is almost directly related to the motion put forward in Bill C-203.
Because of the time limitations, I would like to refer to two resolutions which were passed by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference in 1983 in Frobisher Bay, and previously in 1981 in Greenland. The resolutions deal with nuclear free zones in the Arctic, which is parallel to the motion put forward in Bill C-203.
The first resolution was passed in Greenland by Inuit from around the world. They included members from Alaska, Greenland, Denmark and Canada. Hopefully in the future members from the Soviet Union will participate.
The conference passed a resolution in 1981 which indicated that, whereas radioactive materials are a known hazard to human life and the environment; whereas the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions and particularly fragile ecosystems and environments vital to Inuit subsistence; whereas there are deposits of uranium, thorium, lithium and other materials related to the nuclear industry in the Inuit homeland contemplated for exportation by various southern economic interests; whereas radioactive fall out from nuclear devices more seriously affects the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions than other areas of the world; therefore, be it resolved that the Inuit Circumpolar Conference call upon the Governments of Canada, the United States and Denmark to halt present exploitation for an exportation of uranium, thorium and lithium and other materials related to the nuclear industry in the Inuit homeland; prevent disposal of radioactive waste and materials in the Inuit homeland and prevent testing of nuclear devices in the Inuit homeland.
I would like to refer to the second resolution which was passed in 1983 in Frobisher Bay, but time does not allow me to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. The time for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday, May 28, 1984, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 28, 1984