1985-06-27

Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, we have had consultations with respect to the agenda for today. The first item of business would be Bill C-53, the legislation relating to the Northern Transportation Company Limited. You will understand that under the rules, report stage of the Bill coming from committee normally requires 48 hours' notice on the Order Paper. However, I think you will find there is unanimous consent to let that Bill proceed at this time, notwithstanding the fact that we are some minutes short of the 48-hour requirement. We would then proceed with report stage and on to third reading.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I was consulting with a colleague here, so I would ask the Government House Leader to repeat his last few sentences. I think the idea is to start with the Northern Transportation Company Bill but I would like him to repeat the comments he made after that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, just to summarize what I said, given unanimous consent we will proceed to report stage of Bill C-53 at this time. Once that is concluded I think there would be a disposition to move directly to third reading of that Bill. That is all I indicated.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are always willing to co-operate when there is a good basis for doing so. With respect to Bill C-53, we are certainly ready to give our consent.


Mr. Speaker:: There is consent.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-53, an Act to authorize the disposal of the Northern Transportation Company Limited and the forgiveness of its debt to Her Majesty and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as
reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Speaker:: There are four motions on Bill C-53 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I have had the opportunity to examine the motions and they all appear to be procedurally in order. Therefore, Motions Nos. 1 and 3 will be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 2 and 4 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 2 will also apply to Motion No. 4.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, regarding the grouping of Motions Nos. 2 and 4, Motion No. 2 applies after the fact, after the sale is completed. Motion No. 4 applies prior to that. They are similar in terminology, but each applies in an entirely different situation. I am not arguing about it.
O)


Mr. Speaker:: We grouped them because in both cases the amendments indicate that the intention is to require publication in the Canada Gazette. Therefore, they seem to be the same thing and the assumption is that it would be desirable. If it is not, we assume it would not be in the second case, and the same vote would apply to the second motion as the principle behind the two motions is the same.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I agree that they should be debated together, but since they are two entirely different situations there may be a mood to accept one and not the other. Because they are entirely different situations, perhaps there should be separate votes.


Mr. Speaker:: The principle of grouping for debate was important, but if Members would prefer separate votes, that is a simple matter. The two matters will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-53, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 17 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"the Minister in trust for Her Majesty, to the Inuvialuit Development
Corporation and Nunasi Corporation".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment, on which I found a large degree of agreement from the Government and the Minister, is to specify in the legislation to whom the Northern Transportation Company Limited is being sold, if for no other reason than to ensure that no one else moves in at the eleventh hour and fouls up the deal. We are in agreement with the legislation only because the company is being sold to the peoples of the North, more particularly, the Inuit. We want that specified in the legislation. Until this Bill passes

June 27, 1985
Northern Transportation Company the two Inuit organizations and the Minister cannot sign the agreement for sale. That is the reason we want the legislation amended in this way. There have been discussions between both sides of the House on the issue.
In the event that something happened at the eleventh hour to cause the deal to fall through, another examination of the sale would have to be made by the Government. When the Government seeks to sell a Crown corporation, to which we are generally opposed on principle but not in this specific instance, Parliament should act only to sell to specific persons, corporations, companies or organizations. I believe the Minister agrees with this principle. I think he agrees that it fits in with the principle of the legislation since he announced publicly and told us in committee that the purpose of this legislation is to make it possible to meet the terms and conditions of the sale and to sign the agreement of sale.
I believe you will find, Mr. Speaker, that there is a mood in the House to accept this amendment. The Minister has told the committee that he certainly has no problem with it.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this amendment, I simply want to reiterate the approval that our Party gave to it during the course of the committee hearings. I would remind Members of the House that in the major reform of the Crown Corporations Bill that our Government brought in a year ago, one of the primary objectives was to ensure that there would be parliamentary scrutiny of any sale or disposition of a Crown corporation in order to maintain accountability and a sense of review and assessment about specific proposals made by a Government.
We established that principle on the grounds that this would ensure that Crown corporations were not sold without public interest being properly defended or recognized. Had the original measures in the present Bill been allowed to go through without such an amendment, the Government could essentially short circuit that principle because it would have the right to sell to anyone it chose rather than designating a particular buyer.
When I was the Minister of Transport we had very specifically put forward the idea, as a terms of reference of sale, that it should be sold to native Canadians, particularly in northern Canada. The whole purpose of putting the Northern Transportation Company Limited up for sale was to provide an incentive for economic development and economic self-sufficiency on behalf of native people. That was part of the basic criteria by which any sale would be measured.
If there is no specific enunciation as to who the purchaser would be-as provided in the original Bill-theoretically the vendor, the Government of Canada in this case, would have the right simply to cancel the proposed deal with the two native organizations and sell, as it previously intended, to Northern Industrial Carriers, which had no native participation at all. I am not saying that we mistrust it, but it is very
important in this case to establish the precedent by which we deal with the sale of Crown corporations.
Who knows, some day the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), may get around to selling some of those Crown corporations that he promised to sell six months ago. Therefore, it is a very important principle that any Bill dealing with the sale of a Crown corporation should in fact enunciate and specify who is the purchaser and at least what kind of criteria will be established to determine who the purchaser will be.
I suggest it makes good sense for the Bill to provide for the specifics of who the purchase is limited to, and we strongly endorse the notion that this amendment be adopted at this point in time. We think it would not only make the intention of the Government much more clear-cut and entrenched in the statutes, it would also establish an important precedent for future sales of Crown corporations.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I should correct the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). He said that it was the intention of the Minister at some point in time to sell Northern Transportation Company Limited to Northern Industrial Carriers with no northern or native participation. That is the very reason why that deal fell through, because NIC could not get that participation. It was never the intention of the Government to sell NTCL without northern native participation in the ownership. Therefore, that remark is not quite true.
I want to speak against what I see as an unnecessary restriction being imposed on the Minister, were this amendment to carry. We should note that all these amendments were dealt with in committee, turned down in the committee, and have since reappeared on the Order Paper.
The intention of the Bill at second reading was that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) should have authority to sell NTCL without putting any restriction as to whom it should be sold to. That was the principle of the Bill as passed on second reading.
Certainly, it was the case that we were told by the Minister that he has a deal, with the Inuvialuit Development Corpora-tion-Nunasi ready to proceed and it just needed a few "i's" dotted and some "t's" crossed. It is his every intention to sell it to that particular consortium. I think it would be unnecessary to bind the hands of the Minister just because something might happen at the last stage. The supposed purchasers might at the very last minute back out of the deal and then the Government would want to be free, and I would want to see the Government free, to make some other kind of deals without waiting until next September, October or November when a similar Act can again be brought before Parliament.
We were advised by the Minister that these ongoing negotiations between the Inuvialuit Development Corporation, Nunasi and other organizations, other firms, that were interested in participating in the ownership of NTCL, the Denen-
June 27, 1985

deh Development Corporation for one. There is a reasonable chance that some agreement might be made in the last few days where, for example, the Denendeh Development Corporation might be brought in as a partner in the sales agreement. Were we to adopt this recommendation, it would prevent that from happening.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) himself when he spoke at second reading debate said it would be a good idea if we could broaden the ownership of NTCL after it is privatized into the whole of the service area instead of just part of the service area where ownership is now to reside, unless other arrangements are made.
It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to reject this proposed amendment. In so doing, we would enable the Minister of Transport to make the best possible deals for all concerned.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That cannot be done unless there is unanimous consent of the House. I gather the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is asking for unanimous consent to ask a question of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson)?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the Hon. Member whether it is not correct that once the sale is completed to the two Inuit organizations, they then become the sole owners and operators of the company with full control over its operations and assets. There is then absolutely nothing to prevent them, subsequent to taking over full ownership and operations of the company, from bringing in any new partners, such as one or more Dene organizations. This amendment in no way prevents that from happening. Once the agreement of sale has been signed by the Minister and the two Inuit organizations, there is nothing to prevent them from taking in one or more other organizations as partners and a certain share of the ownership of the company. Is that not right?


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, that would be my assumption. I have not seen the sales agreement, neither has the Hon. Member for Regina West nor anyone else except for the Minister of Transport. I do not know whether there are any restrictive covenants in that agreement. I would hope there are not, but there might be. That is why I cannot give a definitive answer.
Even if that is the case, it might very well be that you would not want to enter into that further agreement after the sale but, rather, would do so before the sale. There is a distinct possibility that that would happen, and if that is what people want, why should we, by accepting this amendment, stop that from happening?
Northern Transportation Company


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) on debate.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Government has listened with interest to the proposed amendment. It is very clear that what the Member is looking for is an assurance, I think quite reasonably, on behalf of the native groups that would be involved that the outcome of the efforts to sell the Northern Transportation Company would be in the best interests of the area and of the native people there. I think Hon. Members understand his intention, but we can assure him by public press releases that this is clearly the intention of the Government.
Also, it has been made abundantly clear that in trying to tie the Bill in a very specific way, we may in fact limit its eventual positive outcome on behalf of native people and limit the efforts of the Government to dispose of this particular company in a proper manner. With full sympathy for the reasonable intentions of the Hon. Member, it is not possible for us to confine ourselves as suggested in his amendment, so we must refuse it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned about the statements of the Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I gather the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is rising on a point of order, as he has already spoken on the motion. Or, is he seeking unanimous consent to speak again?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Basically I want to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary, because I presume he is speaking for the Government. The whole purpose of having Parliament consider a Bill authorizing the sale of a Crown corporation is to provide some certainty as to the conditions of sale, who is buying it and what kind of deal the Government has entered into. That was the intention under the Crown corporations legislation which was brought in last year. We felt that it was a very important matter of public policy. An organization is being taken out of the public sector and moved into the private sector. There has to be a rationale, especially when the criteria have been set. In this case it happens to be a preferred sale to native organizations in northern Canada. However, we are equally concerned about the precedent set by this Bill. For example, let us say for the sake of argument that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) comes in with a Bill to sell off de Havilland or Canadair and says that he will sell it to anybody. It could be Americans, Afghans or whoever, but the point is that he has been given carte blanche. If we allow this Bill to go through, I am concerned that we will have established a very dangerous precedent. If it is simply ministerial discretion, why bother with legislation? They should say that they do not want to have Parliament reviewing it. All we are saying is, simply, that there has to be something to review.

June 27, 1985
Northern Transportation Company
The Minister has indicated that he will sell this corporation to two native organizations. We take that on face value. If that is the case, what is wrong with having it in the legislation? Let us say the Bill is passed today. In that event the Minister could say tomorrow morning: "Oops, I'm sorry, I cannot make a deal with those two organizations. I am going to sell it to some firm in northern Ontario". Bingo, it is gone. I know the Minister would not do that because he is honest, a man of integrity. However, who knows? In Parliament we are not dealing in the area of tea and sympathy; we are dealing in the area of certainty.
The crux of the matter is that in a sense they are making a mockery of the process of bringing in legislation, if they are not prepared to say who will buy it. I think it is particularly important in this case. Members of the committee agreed with the Minister's concern that we should not try to pinpoint it because he had not as yet signed the deal. He said that he could not tell us how much would be paid for it or the conditions of the sale, that we had to take him at his word. That is okay, as long as we have some assurance as to who will buy it. Frankly, I do not know why the Government is objecting to an amendment which makes good sense in this particular case and is very important in terms of any future initiatives taken on the sale of Crown corporations.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I intervene in this debate only for the purpose of trying to provide some background perspective and to see whether I can address the matters and concerns which have been raised by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).
This particular Bill received consideration on the floor of the House of Commons. It also had a fairly good hearing in committee. The Minister was able to answer questions and discuss the matter with both Hon. Members who act as transport critics for their respective Parties. As I understand it, this matter was discussed in committee and there were some procedural difficulties in presenting the amendment, but it has been presented on the floor of the House. That is an interesting observation in itself. However, the matter was discussed and I think the Hon. member for Regina West would be the first to acknowledge that.
The difficulty is that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), for good and valid reasons that are understood by all, is meeting with ICAO now with respect to matters of air flight security, very important issues. He is a parliamentarian who understands that his priority is to be in the House. However, as a result of this very tragic event, I think all of us understand his not being in the House today.
I address this from the point of view of what has transpired with respect to discussions. The point was debated backward and forward. According to my information, the discussion left off on the basis that while the Hon. Member for Regina West believed his amendment was a good one-and I think it is a
good amendment, I am not taking issue with the merits of the case-after discussion with the Minister of Transport the impression was left that the Hon. Member, although somewhat reluctant, was satisfied with this matter not going ahead, not being put in the Bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There was a recorded vote in committee last night.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes, but I understood there had been discussions. I simply want to get this clarified. I understood, and even went to the extent of indicating it to the Minister, that this particular motion would not be moved today. I simply rise for the purpose of explaining our reason for opposing it. We had understood that there had been a clear discussion about the matter and that the Minister had indicated quite clearly and unequivocally his preference against this amendment going forward. I am sure there will be, as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry pointed out, full consultation with Hon. Members with respect to this isolated sale transaction so that there will be full disclosure of the matter which will be done to the satisfaction, not only of the people involved in the area, but also of the opposition Parties.
I do not want this, especially in these last days of June, to develop into a recorded division. I had hoped that we could have this matter go to a voice vote, and I am sure that in the fine tradition of the Minister of Transport, who has shown himself to be straightforward, honest and forthcoming, he will in fact, on his return, engage in discussions with the Hon. Members who are the critics for their Parties to make sure that their concerns in this area are adequately addressed.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy)-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I just point out to the Hon. Member that he has already spoken on the motion and it would require unanimous consent for him to speak again.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gary Michael Gurbin: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, was that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry had unanimous consent to ask a question, to which I am trying to respond directly. In so far as the precedent is concerned, I think he raises an important aspect, and I can understand where he is coming from and why he would be concerned about that. There is a reasonable argument and reasonable logic in suggesting, particularly in this case, that in fact no precedent at all is being set, or if there is, it is a good precedent. There has been a press release and an open discussion has occurred. The Minister has described the clear intention of the Bill in the press release, with good arguments for not wanting to tie as had been made by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), that this in fact has not created a dangerous precedent, that there is full sympathy for the kind of disclosure and clear understanding of any disposal of Crown corporations intended by the Crown Corporations Act. This Bill has demonstrated that we clearly intend to try to give the kind of
June 27, 1985

confidence and assurance and openness that the Member speaks of, and that we have in no way denied that by not accepting this particular amendment for the good reasons that have been established. There is sympathy for the point, but I clearly do not accept the arguments that have been made that we are denying what was originally intended or creating dangerous precedents.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next motion is Motion No. 3, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), which will be debated and voted on separately.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-53, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 19 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"Governor in Council, so long as fair value is received."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I guess you could call Motion No. 3 a private enterprise type of motion. It would ensure that the present owners, namely the people of Canada, get value for what they own. Fair value is a common business term and I am sure my colleagues in the Conservative and Liberal Parties know that. Lawyers always use the term "reasonable man" and everyone seems to know what that means, and the term "consideration" refers to getting some money or other value in exchange for something. The term "fair value" simply means what it says. We get what it is worth.
I am sure, I am hoping and I am reasonably confident that the Government would want to get fair value and would work at getting that unless it does not believe in fair value for anything that the Crown owns and is selling. If it believes that, that is a double standard. It might believe that fair value was fine in the private sector but if it is something the Crown is
Northern Transportation Company selling, fair value is not okay. Surely no one, and particularly no member of the Conservative Party, would believe that.
Since this is the first sale of a Crown corporation requiring legislation in this Parliament, it seems to me that we should not allow this legislation as it is presently worded to be a model for the sale of other Crown corporations or government assets of any other kind. That is the reason I moved the first amendment and Motion No. 3.1 did that because the Bill is so vague that it could serve as a model for the sale of any or all Crown corporations and assets simply by changing the names. Surely we do not want the legislation to be so loose that any Minister could use it. It is not very likely that the Minister of Transport would use it, but I cannot say the same thing about some of the other Ministers. However, any Minister can do almost anything he wants regarding the disposition of Crown corporations or other Crown assets using this legislation.
I think that this Bill as it is presently worded sets a bad precedent. That is why I said at the outset that I had very mixed feelings about it. We are going along with it in this specific instance only because the corporation is being sold to people of the North. If it were not, then as a matter of general principle we would be opposing it right down the line and the Government sure as hell would not get the Bill through by the end of this month. Because it is an exceptional case, we are prepared to agree to it. However, if the Government insists on keeping the Bill as vague as it is now, then it will have a problem.
I hope that no one in this House will disagree with the proposition that the taxpayers who are the owners of the corporation should get fair value for what they own. I would hope that this amendment will meet with the approval of the Government. I hope members will not want to get involved in a long series of rabbit trails regarding the definition of fair value. That would be totally unproductive; it would probably be counterproductive. Fair value in the context of what is reasonable is arrived at by agreement and it ends up in an agreement for sale. What is wrong with putting, in the legislation that allows the Minister to proceed with the sale, the definition of fair value for those assets? If, as and when we are faced with such legislation in the months ahead, I hope that this Bill will not be used as a model for the sale of other Crown corporations or Crown assets.
I hope that my colleagues on all sides would agree that this is a reasonable proposal and that it fits in with the tenets of private enterprise. This agreement is one between the Crown and two native organizations which belong to the private sector, so surely the same principles that apply to the private sector should apply here. I am hoping that this amendment will find acceptance from Members on all sides of the House.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member has demonstrated a reasonable attitude. There is no question that we would want to have any sale conducted in a reasonable way and for a fair market price. I believe that this Government
80168. 51

June 27, 1985
Northern Transportation Company
would have that perspective as opposed to a great many other Governments, both in the purchase and the sale of corporations.
A fair price is inherent in the entire proposition. It is unnecessary additional wording. It is something that is implicit in the intention of the Government when it deals with this sale in a fair and reasonable way on behalf of both the purchasers and the taxpayers of Canada. We find no reason to support this amendment.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as we proceed with the debate this morning, I am reminded of the comment that was made by Alice in Wonderland who said that the world is getting curiouser and curiouser. Every time the Parliamentary Secretary rises to shed the sweet light of reasonableness on this Bill, he compounds the problem and raises even more apprehension than existed before.
It is beginning to sound as though the Government were saying that we are supposed to operate through some kind of good cheer and that we are supposed to take the Government as being implicitly trustworthy. It seems to me that that flies in the face of some thousands of years of parliamentary tradition, a tradition which indicates that it is important to put things in law so that we do not rely upon the whims and caprices of individual Governments and individual Ministers. The whole purpose of spending innumerable hours in this Chamber and in committee trying to put the proper words together is so that we will have some continuity in the future.
I would like to give the Parliamentary Secretary and other members of his caucus a little history lesson. The sale of the Northern Transportation Company Limited was initiated by our Government in 1983.


Mr. Crombie:: Without insisting on northern participation.


Lloyd Axworthy: No, that is absolutely wrong. The Minister does not know what he is talking about. That was clearly in the criteria. The Minister is being silly again and he should know better. I challenge him to change the record.
The criterion we established was that the sale of this particular Crown corporation was justified on the grounds that it would provide new economic opportunities for native people. Even more important than that, we felt that because of the new Crown corporation legislation we passed, it was very important that this be the first sale that would take place under those rules. We felt that it would be a Bill that would establish the guidelines and precedents that other sales would follow.
Frankly, the Government has really screwed this legislation up. It has not treated it as an important guidepost for future sales but has treated it in an ad hoc, sloppy manner without giving it the kind of attention it deserves. Now the Parliamentary Secretary is saying that it is okay because they are good guys and we should take them at their word.
There are some questions related to this sale. There is an outstanding liability to the Crown of some $24.5 million. We have to know if those liabilities will be recovered and if there
will be some return made upon them. We do not know that. In committee, the Minister told us that he could not say what the exact sale price would be because he had not finished his negotiations. There is a certain quandary that faces any sale of a Crown corporation, and that is, that we need the legislation before the sale can be made but Parliament cannot be told about the full details of the sale until it is finalized. It is a dilemma. I would have thought that Cabinet would have spent some time trying to figure out how it could be done in a proper manner, as we are now getting into far more complicated sales.
Earlier, I used the examples of de Havilland and Canadair. I would like now to use the example of Teleglobe. It is a major money-making corporation. It had a profit of approximately $70 million last year. However, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion said that he would like to sell that corporation. At the same time, the Minister is trying to put deals together which would give foreign buyers a profitable company if they also took a couple of losers. We know about that kind of financial shenanigans. We saw the interesting manipulations of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion in the case of the Bank of Western Canada. I will not take that Minister at face value. There are many westerners who are still trying to recover from that peculiar form of financial gymnastics in which he engaged a few years ago. When it concerns that Minister, we want exactly what he intends to do put down in writing. No one in western Canada will take that Minister at face value when it concerns a relationship of trust or integrity.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are speaking from personal experience.


Lloyd Axworthy: I know enough people who have had that personal experience. I am glad the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is here. He is the House master.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: House servant.


Lloyd Axworthy: not being done with the clear understanding that the Bill will establish a stare decisis.
A correction is at hand. I am not saying that the amendment of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is perfect, but it attempts to clarify the matter. In establishing fair value, it attempts to place a test on the Government as to what is expected of it with respect to the sale. It may be easy to give some assurances with respect to the sale of this Crown corporation because it is reasonably simple. When the Liberal Government decided to go ahead with the sale of this Crown corporation, it decided to use it as a test case. The previous Government decided to use it as a way in which to give proper form, content and procedure which could be followed through the entire process.
There are continuing inconsistencies. When the sale of NTCL was announced last year, the Liberal Government commissioned First Boston to do a major financial evaluation. First Boston had been working with NTCL for a number of years. The evaluation was designed to provide a proper financial view so that the taxpayer had some sense of what would be the real value of the corporation. The Minister said that he could not table that financial study until he had closed the deal. I am not sure that is the right procedure. I am not sure that Parliament should agree to the sale of a Crown corporation until it has had a proper financial accounting of the value of the corporation in order to determine whether the sale price represents a proper deal. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has a list of approximately 10 corporations which he will put on the auction block. We are not sure about the fair value which he will be asking, because he is motivated by ideological reasons to get rid of those corporations rather than making judgments case by case upon market and public interest value. It is important that we get it right the first time.


Gary Michael Gurbin: What was the fair value of Petrofina?


Lloyd Axworthy: I agree with the Hon. Member. The reason for which the Crown corporation legislation was introduced last year was to avoid a repetition of cases such as that of Petrofina. That legislation attempted to establish the requirement of accountability to Parliament. Now we have a Government which wants to establish the way Parliament should deal with it. I must say that the Government has not succeeded in that test as this is not a very good piece of legislation.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that Clause 4 does not really deal with the sale of the shares of NTCL. It deals with the authorization which would be given to the Minister by Parliament to direct NTCL to divest itself of certain assets prior to the sale of the shares to new purchasers. It dwells on an aspect slightly similar to that of which the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry spoke.
I agree with the Hon. Member in that whenever any kind of authority is given to a Minister of the Crown there is a potential for abuse. That is a fact of human nature. If we examine the record of the previous Government, time after time we can see instances in which that type of authority was
Northern Transportation Company badly abused. Petrofina was one example of that abuse. However, there must be an assumption that the Minister and the Governor in Council will act in the best interests of the nation and will obtain fair value with respect to the sale of certain assets. If a Minister or the Government of the day consistently abuses the power which has been given to them by Parliament, avenues for redress are available. The Opposition can rise every day and ask questions in the House of Commons. Once every four or five years the people of Canada have the opportunity to pass judgment on the Government. The people of Canada did that on September 4. They knew of the abuses which had taken place under the previous Government and they turfed it out. That was the ultimate recourse of the public of Canada against a Government which had abused the powers which had been given to it by Parliament.
I have every confidence that the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) will not abuse the authority which has been given to him in this legislation. If he does, those avenues for redress will be available. I would not want to tie him down to fuzzy wording. Who knows what fair value means? Fair value means one thing to one set of people and something else to another set of people. There is no absolute definition. For instance, one can talk about SI million and everyone knows exactly what that is, but "fair value" is a pretty nebulous concept at best. If we were to adopt the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), I worry about what would happen if a certain asset is sold today for a sum of money which to everyone today would seem to be quite reasonable, but three days later, due to some circumstance, those assets increased in value. The person who received that asset would then have his title clouded because someone would be able to take him to court because he felt he did not get fair value. There can be differences of opinion as to whether or not it is fair value. Under those circumstances, who would want to buy any of the assets contemplated for sale?
My final point, Mr. Speaker, is that there may be occasions when the public interest is best served by disposing of an asset not at fair market value. I can give you illustrations, Mr. Speaker, where voluntary organizations engaged in charitable pursuits have been able to buy a government building for $1. And everyone agreed it was a great deal. The organization is doing something useful for the public and the Government should help it out by selling it a surplus building for a dollar. So there are very good reasons why, on occasion, the Government would want to dispose of an asset belonging to the Crown, either directly or through a Crown corporation, for something less than fair value, but that would be precluded were we to adopt the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) began his speech by giving us a history lesson. Perhaps I might give him, through you, Mr. Speaker, my version of that history

June 27, 1985
Northern Transportation Company lesson because I have followed this corporation for some time. As I remember, it was the Clark Government in 1979 which isolated NTCL as a corporation which it was not totally in the public interest for the Government to own. It thought that we ought to investigate whether it should be sold to the private sector. It was the Clark Government which engaged First Boston as the group which would undertake to evaluate the assets, but when the Trudeau Government returned, the then Minister of Transport sat on this advice. However, after many questions were raised about the management of the company, the Minister decided, in the last few months, that it was in the best interests of his Government to begin the sale of that company. He then used the information which was obtained by the Clark Government. I asked the then Minister of Transport at that time a number of questions regarding the management of that company. I put a number of questions on the Order Paper, none of which were ever answered. Some time went on.
The present Minister of Transport, after taking over his position, continued the work he had started in 1979 which was to isolate this corporation for sale. In the meantime, the former Minister of Transport had allowed the Athabasca operation to be discontinued and the transfer of barges across the land from the Athabasca River into the Mackenzie River, which was subsequently charged back to the Athabasca River. He also allowed the figures to be so presented to the CTC in such a manner as to disallow that service. It became very clear that this company was not operating in the public interest of the people who happened to live in that area. The management of the day was doing many things to see if it could put itself in a position perhaps to take over that company. That concerned me a great deal.
When we look at the depreciated value of assets and the suggested amendment of "fair market value", we can ask what the fair market value is of the barges tied up in the Athabasca area right now. As the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) said, it may be only a dollar because they are sitting there rusting. However, if they were put into another position, they may become a very valuable asset. Tying the Minister down to making a decision on that nebulous word "fair value" is not fair. I believe that any Minister, given the authority by this Parliament to act, must use that authority in the best interests of this country. The assumption is that he will get the best possible value for NTCL, I have faith that in fact this will happen. As I said, I had a little difficulty as I listened to the history lesson given to us by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 4 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-53, be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 11 at page 2 the following:
"(4) The terms and conditions of the sale shall be made public through
publication in the Canada Gazette and by tabling in Parliament".
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-53, be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 30 at page 2 the following:
"(4) The terms and conditions of the sale or disposition are to be made
public through publication in the Canada Gazette."
He said: Mr. Speaker, both of these motions have to do with making public certain information regarding the sale. Motion No. 2 would take effect after the sale has been completed, signed, sealed and delivered, at which time the Minister would table in the House the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale. In fact, he would table the agreement of sale as well as publish it in the Canada Gazette. I hope all Hon. Members will agree that the public who owned the assets in the first place have a right to know the terms and conditions of the disposition of their asset.
Motion No. 4 provides that the terms and conditions of the sale only at the time of, or prior to, the signing of the agreement of sale by both Parties would be published in the Canada Gazette. We do not ask and we do not expect the Minister to make all of those confidential details available now. That is not the practice. Although we asked the Minister to let us know what those details were at an earlier stage of the Bill, he persuaded us that it would not be appropriate to make those details known at that point. I have accepted that, but the right of the people is implicit in both amendments. I do not know, it may be possible to get it under the Freedom of Information Act, although I am advised there is some question about that. So I do not want to take any chances.
I do not want this legislation, unless it is more specific than it presently is, being used as a model for every other instance of this kind which may come up in this Parliament. I recall questions and answers and debate in this House regarding Petrofina and the attempts by members of the Conservative Party and the NDP to get information and details on that, and
June 27, 1985

we were totally unsuccessful. I think we still do not have all the details about that deal. Therefore, we should learn a lesson from that. I am not for one minute accusing the Government or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) of trying to withhold or hide information. I find this Minister to be a lot more forthcoming with Members of the House on all sides than the previous six Ministers of Transport with whom I have had to deal in this place. And I doubt he would want to withhold information. But again, Sir, I cannot have the same confidence in some of his colleagues. I do not mean to cast aspersions on any of them, individually or collectively. But I do know this Minister and I have some confidence in him. Even though I may disagree with him on a lot of things, I have a great deal of respect for him and his integrity. So this is not in any way meant to be nor is it in fact a slight on the Minister himself. But it does incorporate in legislation something which should be there.
I think that the criteria laid down here would serve as an example for every Department and Crown corporation. I wish it could serve as an example for the private sector. I am sure that if a lot of the deals which have been made privately were made known even to the shareholders, there would be some very distraught and upset shareholders in many different corporations in the private sector. Quite often the shareholder is the last one to find out what happened to the assets of which he was part owner. Certainly that should not be the case in the public sector and it is incumbent upon all of us to see that that does not happen to assets owned by the people of Canada. They should have a right to know, and I think that right to know in these amendments is being applied in a reasonable manner. We are not demanding disclosure at this stage; it is a confidential matter between the buyer and the seller. But as the deal is completed, the terms and conditions should be published in the Canada Gazette. Once the deal is fully completed, signed, sealed and delivered, all the "t's" have been crossed and all the "i's" dotted, then the Minister should table that information in the House and again publish it in the Canada Gazette. The reason I differentiate between the two is that during the course of the signing there may be some last minute detailed changes of terms and conditions which were first published in the Canada Gazette. Therefore, once it is finally signed, sealed and delivered it should be again published in the Canada Gazette and also tabled in Parliament so that we and the public can examine whether or not there are any differences between the first instance and the second instance. If there are differences and they are reasonable, probably nothing will be said. But just in case there are some major and significant differences, not only the public has the right to know but Members of Parliament have the right to know so that we can in turn question the Minister and his officials on why the changes were made. Certainly that is only reasonable and fitting with regard to our ability to do our job better.
Again, Sir, I hope this will find approval on all sides because it meets what should be a basic criterion in this legislation. It meets the even broader principle of disclosure regarding the
Northern Transportation Company
disposal of assets owned by the people of Canada. This is the place where we should be told and the people should be told at least in the Canada Gazette. I could have asked for advertising in every weekly and daily paper in Canada and that sort of thing, but I am trying to be reasonable. This will be sufficient. It will give the public the opportunity, should they want to find out, either by reading Hansard or by reading the Canada Gazette. They have that right. These amendments ensure that they can exercise that right should they choose to do so.


Dave Nickerson: This may come as a complete shock to the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) but in principle I am in complete agreement with him on this one. I think these things ought to be disclosed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Maybe I did something wrong.


Dave Nickerson: The public should know what type of deal has been consummated. I believe the Minister also feels that way because he has already given us his undertaking that he will do precisely that, make the details of this deal known. Presumably he will table the memorandum of sale in the House of Commons or otherwise make it available to the public.
I have some difficulty with the wording of the two proposed amendments. Why we would want to table it in the House of Commons and publish it in the Gazette at the same time, 1 do not know. If you look at Motion No. 4, I think the Department of Justice could phrase it in somewhat better language. I do not fancy that the chances of the Hon. Member being successful in this attempt are great, but I think it brings to light a very important point. In ensuing legislation dealing with the disposition of other Crown corporations we might very well put such a clause in place to make sure the terms and conditions of the sale are published in a formal sort of manner and to make it mandatory rather than to rely upon the good will of the Minister concerned.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it may come as a surprise to the Hon. Member but I agree with his agreement. I find it quite curious that the Government is proceeding without following the good judgment and assessment of its own members, to say nothing of that of Members of this side of the House. If it makes good sense and better legislation, why are we not doing it? If everyone thinks it is a good idea to have better disclosure and better precedent, why does the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Dick) not suggest to his Minister that it may be useful to proceed with another piece of legislation while consulting with the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Mazankowski), and then bring this legislation back to have the amendment accepted?
I do not think we should have to be predetermined by rigid scheduling. If all sides of the House agree to an eminently good amendment, we should not ignore it simply for the sake of meeting the parliamentary timetable. There would certainly

June 27, 1985
Northern Transportation Company
be a disposition on the part of the Official Opposition, and I am sure there would be no problem with members of the NDP caucus, to agree to complete report stage this afternoon after there has been consultation. That makes sense.
Two or three of these amendments have been improvements to the Bill. That is, after all, the purpose of Parliament. It is not only to engage in partisan exchange, but also to improve legislation. The whole thrust of the committee chaired by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), which reported last week, was to achieve this purpose. Why do we not take advantage of it?
I believe, as do the two previous speakers, that the establishment of the proper steps to be followed by Parliament when considering the sale of a Crown corporation will be very vital in establishing future practices. If we get it right the first time, we will not have to argue about it a second or third time. I suggest that the government Member who is vitally interested in this Bill should indicate that he believes this to be a vitally important amendment. As always when the Government is trying to do something useful, the Opposition is prepared to co-operate. I therefore urge the Parliamentary Secretary to contact his Minister in an effort to gain acceptance for this amendment and a few others which make good sense. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to take that into consideration.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I will not accuse the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) of having selective hearing, but the Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) in fact indicated that he could easily support this type of proposal in future legislation and that information surrounding any negotiated settlement in the sale of Crown corporations should be public knowledge.
This Bill guarantees in very clear terms in Clause 5(3) that:
Any debt, obligation, or claim forgiven and written off pursuant to this section in a fiscal year shall be reported, in such form as the Treasury Board may determine in the Public Accounts for that year.
There is some absolute disclosure there, Mr. Speaker.
The second point which is important to note is that there is an absolute guarantee that this information can be available through access to information. There is quite a difference between the fiasco surrounding Petrofina, which was the acquisition of assets by a Crown corporation, and what we are discussing here, which is the first sale of a Crown corporation.
While we are sympathetic with the principle of full disclosure, we feel that the two amendments suggested by the Member are unnecessary due to the clear indication on public record by the Minister that there will be disclosure of the information.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West
(Mr. Benjamin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed, please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11) the recorded division on this proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-53. The first vote will be on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of Mr. Benjamin.
Call in the Members.
The House divided on Motion No. 1 (Mr. Benjamin), which was negatived on the following division.
	(Division No. 106)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Althouse	Epp	GuilbaultAngus	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	(Saint-JAxworthy	Finestone	HeapBaker	(Mrs.)	HopkinsBenjamin	Fulton	HovdeboBlackburn	Gagliano	Johnston(Brant)	Gauthier	(Saint-IBlaikie	Gray	KaplanCopps (Ms.) de Jong	(Windsor West)	Keeper
June 27, 1985

Killens (Mrs.)
Langdon
Lapierrc
MacLcllan
Marchi
McCurdy
McDonald
(Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
Messrs. Mitchell (Ms.) Nicholson (Miss) (Trinity) Nunziata Orlikow Parry
Pepin (Mrs.) Prud'homme
++NAYS
Cook Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean) Crofton Crombie Crouse Dantzer Darling de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Dick Duguay Duplessis
(Mrs.)
Edwards
Ellis
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Fraleigh
Fraser
Fretz
Gagnon
Gass
Jardine
Jelinek
Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity-Conception) Jourdenais Kelleher Kempling Kindy King
Ladouceur Landry (Mrs.) Lanthier Lawrence Layton
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
Riis
Robinson
Rossi
Skelly
Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Tobin-42.
Attewell	Gervais	MerrithewBelsher	Gormley	MinakerBernier	Gottselig	MitgesBertrand (Mrs.)	Gray	MooreBlackburn	(Bonaventure-lles-de-	Nicholson(Jonquierc)	la-Madeleine)	(Niagara F;Blais	Greenaway	NickersonBlenkarn	Guilbault	NielsenBouchard	(Drummond)	NowlanBourgault (Mrs.)	Gurbin	OostromBoyer	Gustafson	PaproskiBrightwell	Halliday	PennockBrowes (Mrs.)	Hamilton	PetersonCadieux	Hawkes	PietzCaldwell	Hicks	PlourdeCardiff	Hnatyshyn	PorterChampagne (Mrs.)	Hockin	Ravis(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Holtmann	ReidClark	Howie	Reimer(Yellowhead)	Hudon	RicardClifford	Jacques	RomanCochrane	(Mrs.)	St-JulienCollins (Mrs.)	James	Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Sparrow (Mrs.)
Stackhouse Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor Thacker Towers Turner
Winegard Wise-134.
Northern Transportation Company


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: As much as we like to have opportunities to vote against the Government on these particular votes, for the sake of those Hon. Members who have had their lunchtime digestion interrupted, we are prepared to agree with his proposal.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the thoughtfulness of the Opposition occasionally surprises me. However, it is a good idea. In response to the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), there is probably more possibility of people in his Party changing their vote than there is in our Party.


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate that for the last two votes I vote with this side.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore the vote will be recorded in the same way, except that the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin), the Hon. Member for Langelier (Mr. Cote) and the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) will be added as voting in the same manner as the people on their right and left.
The next vote is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are three other motions on which to be voted. We are prepared to agree that the vote, which has just been taken on Motion No. 1, be applied and recorded as separate votes for the remaining motions, with the understanding, of course, that if one or more Hon. Members want to vote in a different way on the other motions, they will be able to rise in their places and say so, for the benefit of the recording of votes in Hansard.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly associate myself with the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Finestone (Mrs.)
Fulton
Gagliano
Gauthier
Attewell
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.) Blackburn (Jonquidre) Blais Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.) Boyer Brightwell
Messrs.
Gray
(Windsor West)
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Heap
Hopkins
Hovdebo
Johnston
(Saint-Henri-Westmount)
Kaplan
Keeper
Killens (Mrs.)
Langdon
Lapierre
MacLellan
Marchi
McCurdy
++NAYS
Messrs.
Browes (Mrs.)
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clifford Cochrane Collins (Mrs.)
Cook
McDonald
(Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood) Mitchell (Ms.)
Nicholson (Miss)
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Orlikow
Parry
Pepin (Mrs.)
Prud'homme
Riis
Robinson
Rossi
Skelly
Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Tobin-42.
Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Cdte
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cote
(Langelier)
Crofton
Crombie
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Attewell
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand (Mrs.)
Blackburn
(Jonquiire)
Blais Blenkarn Bouchard Bourgault (Mrs.)
Boyer Brightwell Browes (Mrs.)
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Champagne (Mrs.)
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot) Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clifford Cochrane Collins (Mrs.)
Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Cdte
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
C6te
(Langelier)
Crofton Crombie Crouse Dantzer Darling de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Dick Duguay Duplessis (Mrs.)
Edwards
Ellis
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Fraleigh
Fraser
Fretz
Messrs.
Gagnon
Gass
Gerin
Gervais
Gormley
Gottselig
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-dela-Madeleine)
Greenaway
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
(Mrs.)
James
Jardine
Jelinek
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Jourdenais
Kelleher
Kempling
Kindy
King
Ladouceur Landry (Mrs.)
Lanthier
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
Mailly (Mrs.)
Malone
Marin
Martin (Mrs.)
Masse
McCain
McCrossan
McCuish
McKenzie
McKinnon McKnight Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Nowlan Oostrom Paproski Pennock Peterson Pietz Plourde Porter Ravis Reid Reimer Ricard Roman St-Julien Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scowen
Sparrow
(Mrs.)
Speyer Stackhouse Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Vankoughnet V6zina (Mrs.)
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Winegard Wise-138.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time?


Some Hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On debate, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Regina West.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Was the motion carried? If there is to be debate, I should like to say a few words on the matter at third reading.


Some Hon. Members:: It was carried.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If it was carried, I will not-


Mr. Speaker:: I was not clear whether the Hon. Member for Regina West was rising to indicate "on division" or to debate. The Hon. Member for Regina West wishes to debate at third reading.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: It was carried.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. The Hon. Member for Regina West rose, and I thought it was to indicate "on division". It was my fault. Therefore we are on debate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I appreciate the co-operation shown in the House, and I understand that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) wants to address this matter at third reading.
At the outset I should like to indicate that I appreciate the co-operation which has been extended by the Opposition to get the enabling legislation through to allow the sale of this corporation to proceed.
As I indicated earlier, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) would have been here to deal with this legislation. However, he asked me to extend his apologies to Hon. Members. He is attending important meetings in Montreal with respect to air travel safety, which I think he announced on the floor of the House. Accordingly, he asked me to, on his behalf, extend words of thanks and appreciation for the work and the speed which Members of Parliament in all Parties have given to this important item, to the extent of evening sittings, long hours, and leading to having the report considered technically before the time normally permitted under our rules for consideration of this legislation. I simply extend those thanks to the Opposition as well.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, on division?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief on third reading. I just want to say that I am somewhat disappointed. In addition to the mixed feelings that I had at the outset of the debate and second reading on this Bill, I now have to add disappointment because the legislation as presented by the Minister is so general and vague as to provide pretty well a blank cheque for the Minister to do

June 27, 1985
Northern Transportation Company
anything he wants in the disposal of assets owned by the people of Canada.
We attempted in committee and again at report stage to get the Government to accept a very few amendments. We could have moved a lot more, but we held them to a minimum-I think a total of six yesterday, only four today-to try to get the Government to at least put some basic fundamental changes in the legislation because, while I have great respect for the honesty and forthrightness and integrity of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), I do not feel that way about the rest of the Cabinet. This will not be the last occasion in this Parliament when we get legislation for the so-called privatization of assets of Crown corporations on which the taxpayers of Canada have invested billions of dollars, and I doubt if they will get their money back.
The problem we face is that this legislation that we are dealing with now can serve as a model for each subsequent time. I want to say to the Members of the Government right now that as and when that happens they need not look for the kind of co-operation on those occasions that they got from the Opposition on this one. I repeat, Sir, we make an exception to our basic fundamental disagreement with the sale of a Crown asset properly owned by the taxpayers, and particularly when it is a winner and making a profit. The taxpayer, like any other private individual investor, is just as much entitled to an opportunity for a return on that investment as are others in the private sector. The selling off of the winners denies the taxpayer getting back some, if not, all, of the investment he made.
We make the exception in this Bill because it is being sold to the right kind of people. It is being sold to two Inuit organizations in northern Canada. They will have direct say and responsibility not only in the ownership, but in the operations of the Northern Transportation Company Limited and in the provision of adequate and reasonable transportation services in the North.
On behalf of my colleagues, I wish those two Inuit organizations well in their endeavours. I think I can say for all Members that they will have the full support and assistance whenever possible from Members of the House of Commons. We hope the Government will continue to be of assistance, even though it no longer has any ownership in the corporation, in any way it can so that those two organizations can improve upon the operations of the company and even enlarge on the services that are presently being supplied.
The Northern Transportation Company has been and is now an excellent example of what can be done for people in a region of Canada by all the people of Canada. It served as an excellent example of how they are not discriminated against by insufficient or extremely high cost transportation just because of where they happen to live. In the years of start up and development it lost money, but the people of the nation as a whole shared in the costs. If it had had to be paid for only by the people of the North, they would never have started it. That is a good example of where it is perfectly logical to have a publicly-owned Crown corporation in an area that provides an
essential service, meets a public need and serves the national interest.
If it was logical to have all kinds of competition in areas that are an essential public service it would be, I suppose, logical to have competing sewer and water systems, competing highways, competing sidewalks, competing telephone lines-and we are faced with that prospect as well-or competing power lines. If the private enterprise principle was carried to a logical conclusion that is what would be attempted to be done, but if anybody tried to do that they would be locked up, I hope.
There are some areas in our economy where it is proper for the public, through the Crown, to own and operate an essential public service, particularly in areas that are, in practice, natural monopolies. In those sectors of the economy it must be a publicly-owned Crown corporation or it could be a joint ownership of the Crown and the co-operative movement, for example. It could be a joint ownership between the Crown and in this instance, for example, the two Inuit organizations in northern Canada. This is why we suggested at an earlier stage in this debate that we thought it would be good if the Crown kept 10, 15 or 20 per cent interest in the company because then it would be able to provide assistance as and when the need is shown. It would have been able to provide access to the kinds of technological change and whatnot the Government is able to get much easier than a small company. However, the Government chose to sell the complete Company. So be it.
I hope that the Government will keep in mind that it cannot have just a mindless, total opposition as a general principle to having Crown corporations, that there should not be any at all. Decades ago the Government of Canada started getting into public ownership, not because it believed in it but because the private sector either failed or would not or could not provide something that was an essential public need in the national interest. Too often the Crown went into ownership of a private sector corporation not because it was right in principle to have it a Crown corporation owned by the people of Canada, but to bail out the investors who were going to lose, in one classic case the formation of the Canadian National Railways, something in the order of one and one half billion dollars on five bankrupt railroads. Canadian national was formed to make sure that the banks, trust companies and bond holders got their money. That was the main reason, but as well, it was in the national interest to keep the railways going. That is not the case in this instance.
As I said earlier, the only reason we are agreeing to this sale is because it is being sold to the people most directly concerned. I hope that the new owners of Northern Transportation Company Limited will be able to meet, negotiate and enter into agreements with one or more Dene organizations and will be able to join with them in partnership in the ownership and expansion of the company. That would go a long way toward creating more co-operation among the aboriginals in northern Canada.

In closing, I would say that we wish the new owners well when the agreement is signed, sealed and delivered. However,
I would like to tell the government House Leader that the next time this happens, the Government had better word the Bill a little better. If it does not, it is going to have a problem.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise primarily to congratulate the Government for having the good sense to follow through on a major initiative of the previous Government. It is always good to see that even as government Members stumble and fumble around in Budget manipulations, they have some modicum of good sense as indicated by the continuation of initiatives that we began.
I am pleased to see that the basic objective we established over a year ago when putting the Northern Transportation Company Limited up for privatization will be followed as it relates to native organizations in the North. Parenthetically, for Tory Members who are again trying to re-write history, when the Clark administration considered this legislation in 1979, no mention was made of ensuring that the Crown corporation would be sold to native people. It was simply to be put on the block. I would ask government Members to read their history books with an eye for accuracy as opposed to an eye for fantasy.
It is important to ask how we go about dealing with the privatization of Crown corporations. It should not be done in the obsessive, ideological way in which the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) pursues things. It should be done because it is clearly in the public interest. Crown corporations were originally established to serve a public purpose. However, conditions have changed. Public purposes have become altered. It is becoming more important to put these public services back in private hands rather than maintaining them in the public sector.
There were two primary reasons for putting NTCL up for sale. One was that any future expansion of the company would require more equity. In order for NTCL to remain a healthy economic organization, it was going to have to diversify into trucking and other forms of commercial enterprises which really did not justify public investment. To maintain public control and ownership of the company would have meant that it would have stagnated.
In order to provide for the continuation of a healthy transportation unit in northern Canada, the company needed to complement its activities with other forms of economic interests. Therefore, to acquire new forms of equity capital, it had to go on the public market. At the same time, though, it seemed to us that this was a unique opportunity for us to sell a viable, operating company to native people who are now trying to establish their own form of economic development and entrepreneurship. That is why when we announced the proposed sale we stated that preference would go to northerners and native organizations.
Last December, we were deeply concerned when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) announced that the original sale arrangement was with a company from southern
Northern Transportation Company Canada which at that time was not involved with native people. We raised several questions about that, and we are glad to see that the decision has been reversed.
The greatest regret I have about this Bill is that it is a lost opportunity. This Government uses the language of privatization with great frequency. It is one of the hallmarks of the new economic regime. Unfortunately, the Government failed at the first opportunity it had to privatize a company in a reasonably effective and proper way. The Government did not seize the opportunity offered by the sale of NTCL to sell a Crown corporation in a fiscally accountable way. The Bill is sloppy and ramshackled. The Government lost the opportunity to establish proper guidelines and precedents for future sales.
All of the questions that we have been raising over the last several months regarding the intentions of the Government when it comes to privatization have not been answered. Here was a great opportunity for the Government to clearly demonstrate how it would deal with Parliament and the public when coming to grips with the sale of Crown corporations. That is a matter of no small import because we know that there are a number of other Crown corporations, some of great magnitude, that are also being offered for sale.
Many times we asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion how they intend to privatize companies and we received no answers. Here was a chance for the Government to put privatization into practical application. However, the Government did everything wrong.
To begin with, the Government totally ignored the board of directors. The board of directors of a Crown corporation has a very important fiduciary relationship with the corporation. Boards of directors are established not simply to provide room for appointments for friends but to provide a very real policymaking role in the running of Crown corporations, yet the Minister of Transport totally evaded any involvement on the part of the board of directors of this Crown corporation. I would suggest that it would be a serious mistake if that practice was followed in future sales.
Second, the Government almost deliberately short circuited what we believed to be a very important step to take before the sale of any Crown corporation, and that was to do a proper financial evaluation and have that evaluation made public so that the Government could put a proper value on what it was selling. Again, the Minister explained that things have been rushed and that there have been renegotiations, but the kind of study that we commissioned last spring has not been brought forward. An Hon. Member said that there was a study made in 1980, but that had nothing to do with it. We commissioned a specific financial evaluation last spring from First Boston, a financial evaluation which has not been produced.
Third, the Government failed on the question of ensuring that there would be proper disclosure and information requirements in the legislation so that when the sale was finalized, there would be a complete accounting before Parliament and the taxpayers. In part, we have been dealing with this Bill under a large haze and the Government has camouflaged what

June 27, 1985
Northern Transportation Company
is really going on. I think it is a credit to the Minister of Transport that we would take his word on these matters. However, I am not sure that that is the proper way to do business. To repeat the words of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), we certainly do not intend to do that when the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion brings something forward because he is a Minister of a very different kind. We think that now is the time for the regulations and procedures to be properly established.
We support the Bill, as it was our initiative in the first place. I am glad to see that it has come to fruition. We are pleased that native organizations in northern Canada will have an opportunity to manage a good company. We believe that it is good for public policy purposes. However, we deeply regret the way in which it has been done. We had a chance to establish a very important guide-post for the future. That has been lost. Maybe it is a symptomatic sign from the Government. Where managing public business is concerned, the Government still has a great deal to learn. We hope that it will learn.


An Hon. Member:: You never learned.


Lloyd Axworthy: The evidence exists. Tory members do not like to hear that, but the evidence exists. The Government has not done a very good job on this legislation. Even its Members have said that the Bill could have been better. The Government still has some time to show that it can do a better job. As always, we will be around to help.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments regarding the privatization of NTCL. I would like to extend my thanks to the Liberal and NDP members who have been involved in the legislation. For a short time they have set aside their ideological preoccupations and have seen reason. In fact, it was the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) who initiated the process, even though Liberal candidates in the 1980 election ran on the platform of maintaining NTCL as a Crown corporation. That was the Liberal promise of the time. However the Liberals changed their minds, as they often do. This time the change is for the better.
I would like to compliment the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) on the continuing interest which he has shown in the matter. His task is now all but accomplished. There have been many difficulties involved in the process of privatization. It is my hope that those who were involved, and those who are likely to be involved again, will have learned from the mistakes which have been made in the case of NTCL.
I would like to comment briefly on the tendering process. It became apparent during the course of the debate that it had already been established that the majority shareholding of NTCL would be sold to a native corporation. There were other people who placed bids and did a lot of work in compiling their proposals. I have some doubt as to whether those people were given proper consideration. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a formal native organization such as IDC, DDC or others
becoming involved, but the normal type of business firm which is made up of people of all ethnic origins, who are not ethnically restricted, should also have been given a fair deal on the bidding. I suspect that did not happen and that the deal was weighed in favour of one particular type of organization from the beginning. Some of the firms which I know were interested were owned by native people and not collective organizations. If that arrangement could be known beforehand, in the future it could be made public in order that people would not waste their time bidding on something for which they do not stand a chance of being successful.
I look forward to a new regime in the Mackenzie waterways, the Beaufort Sea and the waterways on the Arctic coast. We are moving away from the idea of a Crown corporation monopoly on certain types of services. We are moving toward a competitive system in which each shipping firm will be given the same type of opportunity. They will be awarded water licences by the WTC on the basis of free competition. Hopefully, we will move away from the system of having to obtain licences from the WTC to a deregulated system.
I would like to wish the new owners of NTCL all possible success. I hope their venture will be profitable. I know that my friend from Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) wished them all the best. I imagine it is difficult for him to hope that the enterprise will be profitable. However, on this side of the House we have no hesitation in hoping that the business will prove to be very profitable in private hands. The best way for it to be profitable is to provide good service throughout the entirety of its service area.
I would like to be associated with the remarks of the Hon. Member for Regina West concerning the possibility of extended ownership. I hope the new owners of NTCL will be able to properly manage the corporation. They have embarked upon a risky venture. The health of NTCL is dependent upon the health of the northern oil and gas industry and the decisions which will have a great bearing on that industry. Those decisions are as likely to be made in Abu Dhabi with an association of Arab oil ministers as they are in Canada or elsewhere. The owners have certainly involved themselves in a risky venture. It is not expected that they will ask the Government to bail them out if they are not successful. They have made their bed and they must lie in it. I hope they will be profitable, and that people will be properly serviced. I hope that the taxpayers will not be asked in the future to become involved again in the shipping business.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On division.
June 27, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.


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

Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, just before I begin my remarks on Bill C-25, I would like to again thank all Hon. Members of the House, particularly Hon. Members opposite, for their co-operation yesterday in dealing with Bill C-58, an Act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act. I would also like to thank Hon. Members for the co-operation they extended to me on behalf of the agricultural industry of the country the day before yesterday when we passed through the House in all stages another piece of agricultural legislation which extended for an 18-month period, the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
During discussion of both those pieces of legislation, I had in my possession some material which was extremely useful to all Hon. Members of the House. I gave an undertaking at that time, with reference to the information I had regarding advance payments for crops, to make it available to the House and to the Table so that the detailed information I had could be printed and appended to Hansard. I also gave an undertaking to provide the same type of detailed information, which 1 had in my hand at that time, with respect to those provinces and those banks which participated under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I indicated that I was not an expert in House matters or procedures and was not exactly sure just what the procedure was. Since that time I have been advised-and I appreciate the advice I received from the Table-that it is necessary for me to seek unanimous consent of the House so that it will be possible for me to fulfil my desire to make this information available.
Therefore, I am asking for unanimous consent of the House to make available the information with respect to advance payments for crops legislation. I requested that the information which deals with the report and the information with respect to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I do not have it at the moment, but I should have it here very shortly. I am seeking unanimous consent of the House that both those documents be appended to Hansard.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question just before we give the Minister unanimous consent to table those documents. Several weeks ago the Minister promised the members of the committee the week by week levels of imports of red meat from various countries into Canada during 1984. I wonder if he would be able to meet that commitment and provide that documentation to the members of the committee who were working at that time on the red meat stabilization program?
Agricultural Stabilization Act


John Wise: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as always, when we make a commitment to deliver information, we want to make certain we fulfil those commitments. I believe yesterday, but perhaps it might have been the day before, I had this information sent to my office. I asked that the information be made available to committee members. I think we are talking about two different things here. I am asking that these two pieces of information be appended to Hansard. I hope we can get consent for that. With respect to the Hon. Member's request, I think that Hon. Members would agree that it would be sufficient that this information be sent to members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Minister to append to Hansard the documents to which he has referred?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For above-mentioned documents, see Appendix.)


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me today to speak to third reading of Bill C-25. This Bill has been a long time in coming and its passage will mark the beginning of a new era of farm income stabilization in this country.
The Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture on May 21 where it received a very careful and extensive review. The committee heard from officials and representatives of most provincial Governments, as well as from organizations whose members in some way could be affected by this legislation.
I would like to make a comment at this point. Yesterday during the debate on the report stage of Bill C-25, a number of speeches were made and there were some interesting observations made by a variety of Members. I am not going to dwell on the motions. I will try to keep my remarks consistent and to the point in dealing with the specific issue at hand. However, there were a number of charges made yesterday, some of which were quite off the mark and some of which were quite false.
With respect to one observation, I think the particular language used might lead people to believe there was some manoeuvring or some attempt to ensure that representations made by certain provincial Ministers or by provincial Departments of Agriculture were avoided. That is certainly not the case. It was very misleading and false to make charges which led people to believe that some attempt was made by the steering committee of the Standing Committee on Agriculture to avoid these representations. I want to assure Hon. Members that every provincial Government was given an opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture. As you know, Mr. Speaker, most of them utilized that opportunity. In some cases where word did not come back, it is my understanding that the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Agriculture made some special efforts to inquire as to whether or not it was the intention of provincial Ministers or provincial
______________________________________________COMMONS
Agricultural Stabilization Act
Departments of Agriculture to make a presentation. I just wanted to touch on that particular item at this point.
During the course of these hearings, myself and members of the committee learned a great deal about the wide scope of interests within the agricultural community. As a result, certain amendments were recommended. I would like to take a few moments now to explain these amendments, all of which I sponsored, so that Members representing all regions of Canada will understand them very clearly.
The first amendment is to Clause 8 which deals with preconditions to entering into agreements. This amendment addresses the very real concern expressed by certain commodity groups and provinces not only about top loading, but about bottom loading and side loading. The Province of Saskatchewan pointed out quite accurately that top loading is not the only issue. The amendment recognizes this concern by allowing the Minister of Agriculture to consider matters other than just top loading during the course of negotiating commodity agreements.
I believe we get distracted and confused when we start dealing with this piece of legislation because normally when the Government brings in a piece of legislation, the law changes tomorrow. Something happens. A new set of laws are imposed on a commodity group, a sector of the economy or of society. Of course, that interpretation is a wrong interpretation. However, it has caused us some concern and confusion. This Bill does change a number of very important things with respect to the way in which the Act will affect people after it receives third reading, but those are changes from which we can all benefit.
This Act does not impose plans on commodity groups at all. There seems to be a lot of misinterpretation of this legislation, particularly in the media and by certain farm leaders and individuals. Understanding that perhaps we are all to blame for that does not change the fact that we have to face the facts. The amendment, as I indicated, recognizes the expressed concern by allowing the Minister of Agriculture to consider matters other than just top loading during the course of negotiating commodity agreements. The Act provides the legal framework to do certain things that we have to do here in Canada, but it does not impose marketing plans. This clause also recognizes that no agreement resulting from negotiations with the provinces and producers should lead to over-production or have the effect of putting any one region in the position of having an advantage over another region.
The second amendment also reflects the fact that the committee listened carefully and responded to the representations of producers and provinces. Members of the committee found themselves constantly reminded that this program is intended for all commodity groups. It appears we were not only sidetracked by the Bill being a permissive Bill, one which simply involved enabling legislation because it does not establish plans and so on. We got side-tracked into thinking it is only a cow-calf program, or only for slaughter cattle or sheep, when
DEBATES__________________ June 27, 1985
in fact the broad framework of this enabling legislation will allow any commodity group to develop tri-party stabilization programs. I should clarify that by saying "any" is accurate enough. It is a safer word than "all" because it would not allow all commodity groups to form plans, most particularly those commodities dealt with under supply-management. Therefore, we do not have a problem there. Even though this particular clause in the Bill was found to be suitable for red meat, it was found to be too restrictive for horticultural products. Therefore, this amendment to Clause 8 provides greater flexibility for the negotiation of horticultural agreements.
The last three amendments all address essentially the same matter, that of monitoring, and they seek to clarify and broaden the term. The Province of Saskatchewan, along with several other groups, brought to our attention the need for amendments aimed at specifying our intentions for monitoring and administration. The point was well taken because the success of these agreements will depend to a considerable degree upon the quality of their administration. In addition, it was suggested that since each agreement will be unique, the administration agreement for each commodity should also be unique. Therefore, like the Bill itself which provides a framework to negotiate tri-party stabilization plans, these amendments will also establish a tri-party approach to administering those plans as well. They will allow the administrative committee the power to administer individual agreements as specified in each negotiated agreement.
Bill C-25 has been the subject of considerable discussion for a long period of time. It has been spoken to in this House and debated by members of the Standing Committee. The discussions began at the grass roots and evolved to the point where we are today. In fact, this legislation is based on a decade of discussion and the amended version before us today is a result of what we learned in committee. We listened and responded to what we heard.
The time has now come to put this long awaited legislation into effect. To me, this Bill means opportunity. It is the opportunity for us to sit down with the provinces and the commodity groups and hammer out made-to-measure tri-party stabilization programs. It is an opportunity for producers of all commodities to become involved in a comprehensive stabilization scheme. It is an opportunity for Canada to resolve some of its trade difficulties by implementing an insurance oriented stabilization scheme which will be viewed favourably by our trading partners. It is an opportunity to reduce inter-provincial rivarly and the confusing market signals given by the complex assortment of stabilization programs now in place. It is an opportunity to make our livestock industry more competitive. It is an opportunity to do just as the Bill's title implies, bring a greater measure of income stability to the farm sector so that the efficient producer prospers.
The last point is especially important because the agri-food industry directly employs 1.4 million Canadians and brings in more than $10 billion a year in export revenue. Last year it generated about $20 billion in cash receipts while retail sales
June 27, 1985

in the agri-food industry are in the neighbourhood of some $60 billion. Producers are heavily dependent on factors beyond their control, both with respect to natural hazards and market conditions. Crop insurance provides protection against hail, drought, floods and other natural hazards. Stabilization programs are farmers' protection against changing market conditions. That is why we have an obligation to offer producers the best stabilization package possible, and I believe Bill C-25 does exactly that.
I have listened carefully to what producers groups and provincial Governments have said about this legislation. As a result, amendments were brought in but I feel compelled to point out, as I have on previous occasions, that this legislation is only the framework for future agreements. Each plan for each commodity group will be put in place only as a result of negotiation with and consent by the federal Government, the provinces and the commodity group concerned. I am reminded of a statement by a spokesperson for the Canadian Cattlemen's Association when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture regarding this Bill. He said:
First, we will give our commitment that we will be at the bargaining table tomorrow if this government wants to take on all the programs, bottom and top-loading, or side-loading or underhand-loading or whatever you want to call them. We will be here to work on them.
This statement epitomizes the attitude that will make Bill C-25 work. 1 can guarantee the House that, given the opportunity to negotiate which this Bill provides for, we will go to the bargaining table and work out agreements to suit individual requirements of each province and each commodity group. I urge all Members of the House to give the Government, the provinces, the farm leaders, and the commodity groups across the country the opportunity which is so desperately needed at this point in time.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-25 which has been before the Committee on Agriculture for several months. It proposes important changes to the stabilization legislation which is available to farmers across the country. The Minister said that this Bill ushers in a new era in agricultural stabilization. That may be true if the legislation is actually utilized.
When this Bill was introduced, at least four groups supported the establishment of a tripartite red meat stabilization program for lamb, beef, and hogs. I am not sure whether any of the producers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or Ontario clearly understand what the amendments introduced last Thursday afternoon actually mean.
Yesterday I spoke with a senior representative of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. After examining the clause which prohibits provincial Governments from having stabilization programs and requiring that if they take part in a tripartite stabilization program they would have to phase out their existing provincial programs he said, "Producers are thoroughly confused as to what the amendment means and
Agricultural Stabilization Act
won't support it because they don't know what it means". He said that the Cattlemen's Association and hog boards of all four provinces had the same feeling.
When representatives of those provincial Governments appeared before the committee, they made it very clear that they did not want any substantive changes to the legislation but wanted it passed as it was. They also wanted to ensure that the tripartite red meat stabilization program would be administered jointly by the three parties to any agreement; the federal Government, the provincial Governments, and the producer groups. Everyone is trying to figure out exactly what the amendment introduced by the Minister last Thursday means, but it clearly puts the Minister in the position of judging what level of stabilization is being provided by the various producer groups involved.
My colleagues and the solicitor for the Canadian Cattlemen's Association also concluded that this amendment allows the Minister to judge whether the stabilization provided actually gives additional benefit to those provided by other bi-partite stabilization programs in any of the provinces not participating. They suggest that the benefits from a tri-partite stabilization program must not be greater than those provided to any producers not party to the agreement.
There is a great deal of confusion on the part of those provinces which did not consent to the original agreement and were not party to it. The Minister has not made proposals or recommendations to resolve their concerns. For instance, the four Maritime provinces were requesting a grain transportation program to be coupled with a program for Maritime Canada which would allow them to operate on an equal basis. We have had no commitment from the Minister that he is willing to do that. Therefore, the concerns of the Maritime provinces have not been resolved. As well, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have requested that potatoes be designated as a named commodity under the legislation. 1 put forward such an amendment in committee but it was voted down. That certainly indicates the support which exists for the Atlantic region.
The confusion which has developed in this area leaves the possibility of a red meat stabilization program unresolved. The amendment moved by the Minister did not meet the requirements of the producers in Quebec. Not only has this Bill created great confusion for the hog and beef producers in the four participating provinces, it has also not met the demands of Atlantic Canada, Quebec, or British Columbia which did not originally take part in the proposed agreement.
The Minister's consideration of the representations made to the committee have not met the requirement to have a national program. It is clear that this is enabling legislation, but there is a great need and demand in the country now for a proper national tripartite red meat stabilization program. That certainly has not been accomplished. That is why I find the Minister's comment that this is a new era in agriculture stabilization rather hollow. I do not think it will be fulfilled.

June 27, 1985
I understand that it is time for Question Period to begin, Mr. Speaker. Therefore I will complete my remarks after Question Period.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) tabled the long-awaited report by Rabbi Plaut on refugee determination. Two long months after the report was handed over to the Government, it was tabled in the House. Was the delay intentional, to prepare the report for a first-class burial, since summer is ideal for that? I certainly hope not.
The Plaut Report was well received in circles concerned with immigration. Rabbi Plaut states that receiving refugee status is not a privilege but a right. That is fundamental, and will, I hope, form the basis for the entire process.
Agencies and lawyers whose concern is immigration are looking forward to the consultation promised by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, so that we can finally have a refugee determination procedure that is fair, humane and efficient. I therefore suggest that the Minister of Employment and Immigration make her announcement on when and how consultation will take place as soon as possible. I sincerely hope that the summer recess will not be used to bury the Plaut Report. Immigration lawyers and agencies expect the Government to do better than that-the ball is now definitely in your court!



SOCIAL SERVICES


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada is a positive, healthy influence in society. This organization promotes responsible human sexuality through information and education.
I have received 243 letters from informed, concerned citizens including individuals, volunteers, professionals and organizations,. stating their support for the valuable work that the Planned Parenthood Federation does, and their hope that the Government will make it possible through continued funding for this organization to continue to serve Canadians. Many of
these letters, which were addressed in good faith to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), apparently have fallen upon deaf ears. We are four months into the fiscal year and Planned Parenthood has received no indication from the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the status of its funding.
Overhelming numbers of Canadians believe that they have the right to determine the number and spacing of their children. Planned Parenthood organizations throughout Canada believe that information, education, and services should be available to assist individuals to exercise that right in an informed, responsible manner.
Lack of information about funding contradicts the spirit of the 1969 amendment to the Criminal Code which recognized that dissemination of birth control information was a basic human right and guaranteed all Canadians universal access to family planning.
Teenage women are at great risk today.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret I must inform the Hon. Member that her time has expired.



DISASTERS


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I know that all Hon. Members share the grief of the many Canadian families who lost loved ones aboard the Air-India flight which crashed while flying from Canada. To all those people we extend our deepest sympathy and, in my case in particular, to the family of Mrs. Barsa Kelly, a friend of mine from Guelph for many years.
Also aboard that flight was a most distinguished citizen of India, Dr. Yelavarthy Nayudamma, a scientist of such towering international reputation that his advice was sought by people from all over the world, including fellow scientists.
Dr. Nayudamma was returning to India from Canada where he had been attending one of the regular meetings of the Board of Governors of the International Development Research Centre. He was one of ten non Canadians, all of the highest scientific rank, who served diligently on the board of this remarkable institution, one which is regarded within developing countries as a superb example of Canada's aid program but which, sadly, is less well known in Canada.
A week ago tonight I had dinner with Dr. Nayudamma. It pains me to know that he is no longer available to the developing world and to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



June 27, 1985



FOLKLORE


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to invite my fellow MPs and all Canadians to come to the riding of Drummond this summer for the World Festival of Folklore. The festival has something for everyone. There will be folklore groups from everywhere in the world, all keen to show us their traditional way of life through dance, music, and song. Last year the third of these festivals attracted 400,000 people, which gives an idea of how successful is the event.

The World Folklore Festival in Drummondville is being held for the forth time, and this year about half a million people are expected to attend between July 5 and July 15.
Twenty folk dance groups from all over the world, including the United States, France, the Soviet Union and also Canadian participants from Quebec, Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia, will come together for ten days of folk dancing and folklore.
There will be all kinds of activities connected with the festival, including shows in restaurants, an international mass, the Folkotheque and parades during the day and evening. In addition, Radio-Canada will be giving a live broadcast of the impressive opening ceremonies.
Next week, Drummondville will be bursting with sound and colour, and I invite everyone to come and discover our own traditions and those of other countries.



THE BUDGET


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Tory Government has betrayed elderly Canadians, and they never expected such treatment. The May 23 federal Budget attacks the well-being of elderly Canadians living on fixed incomes. It increases the cost of living for senior citizens through hidden and regressive taxes on food, drugs, and on personal tax tables which cut future purchasing power of old age benefits.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Tory candidates said that they were committed to full pension reform to eliminate poverty amongst retired Canadians and to improve their standard of living. What was the reality? Through deindexing, elderly Canadians will be especially hard hit, losing almost $2 a day of disposable income by 1990.
At the present time 635,000 elderly people live below the poverty line; 450,000 are single and 80 per cent of these are women. Over the next five years the deindexing of Old Age
Security alone will add over 100,000 elderly to the poverty statistics.
The Tory Government has tried to justify the unjustifiable-the cutting of old age pensions. Hundreds of Mount Royal constituents have directed me to call upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) today to restore full indexation of pensions now so that our senior citizens can maintain their purchasing power and have peace of mind to enjoy this summer.




Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Budget was not welcome news to Canadians in the tourist industry. Almost no consideration was given to the effects of budget measures such as gas increases, liquor tax increases, and other taxes on tourism.
The most recent figures show Canada continuing to fall behind in the international tourist trade. Tourism is a major job creator, but the Budget did not take this into consideration.
Now the Government has decided to remove the $30 ceiling on the domestic air transportation tax, which will take an extra $90 million a year from Canadian travellers, hurting the travel and the hospitality segments of the tourist industry.
Given that the Government has not taken one positive measure yet to assist the tourist industry, other than the signing of agreements to provide funds already budgeted, and has instead used this industry alternately as a punchbag, a doormat, and a milch-cow, the Minister should do the sensible and honest thing by resigning and recommending the dissolution of this obviously ineffective Department. It would appear that we can now hypothesize that there is a "Wilson's law"- those industries that the Government wishes to neglect, it first establishes a ministry for.



CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that most Members of the House are aware of the Canadian Human Rights Commission as well as its functions.
According to Chief Commissioner Fairweather, the Commission has received 31,473 inquiries, conducted 1,000 preliminary investigations, and investigated 400 cases that were jurisdictionally sound.
In addition, the Commission has an operating budget of $9 million, which some members of the NDP and the Liberal Parties in the House believe is too low. Even so, of these 400 cases that were completed, each carries a price tag of $22,500, with only a success rate of 31 per cent. With this in mind, I

June 27, 1985
feel the time has come for the Government to give the Human Rights Commission, as it functions now, a second look. Furthermore, it would seem that 400 investigations out of a population of 24.5 million would suggest that major human rights violations in Canada are very minimal.
[DOT] (U10)
Canada can be proud of its record on human rights and should serve as an example of tolerance to other countries.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, 200 years ago the first Mennonites came to Canada. The Mennonite community of Virgil-Niagara, with the assistance of Multiculturalism Canada, has published an informative historical documentary textbook commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the first Mennonite settlement in Niagara.
The social, economic, religious, and cultural influence of the Mennonite people in Niagara is deeply woven into the fabric of the whole community, and their contributions are numerous. They have firmly established themselves in every walk of life.
Two members of the Niagara Mennonite community, Mr. Jake Froese and Mr. Bill Andres, served with distinction as Members of Parliament.
This photo-journal is a testimonial to how a people, although simple in lifestyle, yet industrious in nature and committed to strong principles, helped to build our country.
In a world in which whole races of people are persecuted for religious beliefs, oppressed, and even annihilated for the colour of their skin, the world can indeed learn a lesson from the Mennonite community's belief in peace and brotherhood. It is based on the teachings of Christ from the Sermon on the Mount, when he said: "If possible as far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men".
I am proud to be able to make this presentation of "Memoirs: 50 years of the Virgil-Niagara Mennonite Community" to the Library of the Parliament of Canada.



ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I asked how the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) could possibly keep a commitment that he made to my constituents and to the employees of the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory, in particular that:
"A P.C. Government will not only maintain this facility it will consider providing additional funds to allow greater involvement".
My question asked how could the Prime Minister honour this commitment to the science community of Canada, and to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, when his Government has stated in the Budget that it will cut $100 million, or 50 per cent of the Government's research and development funding, from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The Prime Minister's Government has also taken $70 million of the company's earned savings which were to be used to pay for other AECL debts or accounts. Obviously, no one was answering for the Prime Minister because, for a moment, no one got up to offer a reply. We, and all Canadians, can understand why anyone would hesitate to answer for the Prime Minister's credibility on the floor of this House.
We know that this immediate cut was forced on Atomic Energy of Canada by this Government. We know that AECL asked to be left alone for two years to put its plans for additional revenue in place in order to accommodate the cuts, but nobody was listening. The Prime Minister has proven once again that his level of credibility to the nation is the lowest of any Prime Minister in Canada's history.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, for years groups of citizens around British Columbia, across Canada, and around the world have been calling on Canada to move and set aside the South Moresby area of the Queen Charlottes as an area of land and marine parks to have a true world heritage park there. It is now urgent that negotiations take place between the Council of the Haida Nations and the two levels of government to achieve this goal.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) is on the record as wishing to set this area aside from further industrial development. The Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) on June 29, 1984, as the P.C. spokesperson on environment and parks, stated:
In short, the federal Progressive Conservative Party, if in a position to do so following a federal election, would be prepared to actively participate with the B.C. Government in the establishment of a park at South Moresby.
As a member of the recently established National Committee for the Preservation of South Moresby, I join with Pierre Berton, Dr. David Suzuki, Charles Caccia, Robert Bateman, Freeman Patterson, Andy Russell, Bristol Foster, Gregg Sheehy, Farley Mowatt, and hundress of thousands of Canadians, in saying now is the time to act; the election is over.
The decision on South Moresby is expected from Victoria in the next few days. Inaction, and a lack of political vision by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premier of British Columbia, mean, to paraphrase Jacques Cousteau: "It will be Canada's Galapagos Lost."
June 27, 1985



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance who is expected to make a statement later this afternoon, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether the Minister of Finance is going to reinstate full indexation, not only for Old Age Security pensions but also for family allowance, and when is his Minister of Finance going to stop his hidden attacks on low-income families?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the comments made by my right hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition. If I am not mistaken, he was advised that the Minister of Finance would make a statement at three o'clock, as agreed, and the statement will deal with the question raised just now. Perhaps I may recall that, as far as I know, the only time the needy in our society suffered a cut in income was when the Liberal Government introduced its 6 and 5 program which cut Old Age Security pensions.
I know the Liberals would rather not hear this, but it is a fact. You would prefer Canadians to forget, but they are going to remember this for a long time!
As for the point raised by my right hon. friend, I think the Minister will make his statement at three o'clock, as agreed.


THE BUDGET
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will force me to deal with that particular issue when the Minister of Finance makes a statement. I want to assure him, however, that in no way were the old age pensioners affected in a similar fashion-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: No way.
-because, Mr. Speaker, the inflation rate during the those two years was almost identical to the 6 and 5 program. They were not affected in any way whatever.


Mr. Chretien:: It was less than that.


John Napier Turner: Let me tell the Prime Minister, in case he is under any false impressions that what-
Oral Questions
ever his Minister says this afternoon will in any way dilute our criticism of his Budget, that he should be stimulating consumer demand.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Andre:: Where is the money coming from?


John Napier Turner: He has taken $4.4 billion out of the domestic Canadian economy.
Why would the Prime Minister terminate the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan which enables young Canadians to purchase a home for the first time-and I know the Prime Minister believes, as 1 do, in home ownership for every Canadian-when at the same time he has given money to the wealthy investors who can take a $125,000 cash lifetime bonanza as a result of the capital gains exemption? Why did he do that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the best protection that any Government can grant to those seeking to purchase homes is to reduce interest rates by almost three points, which we have done since we came to power.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is the way to build prosperity and homes.
My right hon. friend says that the elderly were not affected in a similar manner as under the 6 and 5 program. He is quite right. The 6 and 5 program cut back on the elderly, and this Government has not cut back one single cent, not a penny.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: You cut back on what went to the elderly people. You are the ones.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTENSION OF SALES TAX
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a faulty recollection of the facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Charlie Brown.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A supplementary question?


John Napier Turner: In his statement on Canada Day, July 1, will the Prime Minister explain to elderly Canadians why the sales tax has been extended to include hygenic products, medical aid products, band-aids and aspirins? Why is it that this regressive sales tax will be imposed very directly on our older people? Will he devote a portion of

June 27, 1985
Oral Questions
his Canada Day speech to explaining that to our older citizens?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I considered including that in my Canada Day speech, but inasmuch as the problem focuses on the Liberal deficit, it would have taken up the whole day.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My right hon. friend knows full well, as the father of the modern day deficit in Canada, that I would have had to spend the rest of the day dealing with his deficit. He would not want me to do that on such a nice day.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Yesterday, when I asked him if special favours had been granted since last September to individuals because of their PC Party association, in the granting of fishing licences, he replied that no licences were granted except where there were proper circumstances. Will the Minister tell the House what were the proper circumstances which led him to overrule established departmental policy and transfer a fishing licence to Mr. Ulf Snarby?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the circumstances were that Mr. Snarby had a vessel which was not fit for use. He applied to use another vessel for an interim period of time. The conditions set on the use of that vessel were consistent with the guidelines which have been laid down, and were expressed in the telex sent to him. It was a matter of ministerial discretion. The purpose was to put him in business, to employ Canadians and to get on with the job.


ROLE OF GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL
George Roland Henderson: Will the Minister verify that a meeting between himself and Mr. Snarby was arranged by a consulting firm, Government Consultants International? Some of its shareholders are Mr. Frank Moores, former Conservative Premier of Newfoundland, and his partner is reported to be Mr. Doucet, a brother of the former chief of staff in the office of the Prime Minister? When was he made aware that a fee was being charged for arranging the meeting?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Snarby asked to see me, as can any Canadian. As a consequence a meeting was arranged. With respect to the latter part of the Hon. Member's question, I heard sometime after the meeting, and after my decision, that there was some suggestion that Mr. Snarby had paid a fee or a charge to a consulting company. I immediately took this information to
my officials and made it clear that, under no circumstances, should any Canadian, fisherman, processor, or otherwise, feel that he or she had to engage the services of a consulting company in order to obtain an appointment with me. As the Hon. Member well knows, I have probably seen more people in the last eight or nine months than has any Minister in the last eight or nine years.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the budget changes which will be made. It was interesting to hear the Prime Minister debate with the Leader of the Opposition on who was treating pensioners worse, Liberals or Conservatives. We could flip a coin.
Considering that we are about to hear of the great retreat at 3.15 o'clock of the Minister of Finance on the pension issue, and considering that the effects of the Budget by 1990 will result in the poorest of Canadian families, those earning $15,000 or less, paying $650 more in taxes, while those at the upper end of the scale, for example a $200,000 family, will pay $4,500 less, would the Prime Minister acknowledge that that too is unfair-not only the treatment of pensioners-and take steps to make a change in that part of the Budget?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the Minister of Finance will be making a statement at three o'clock. I hope my hon. friend will agree that it is a helpful one. However, as I listened to him I could understand why his former research director, Jim Laxer, described his economics as a hodgepodge of nonsense going nowhere.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: It is not that I want to give undue influence to the authority, but the Prime Minister ought to have heard what he said about him.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am sure; I am sure.


CONCEPT OF FAIRNESS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, always, when the Prime Minister has a question of substance before him, he likes to reduce the argument to some form of rhetoric or abuse. Would he break his tradition and deal with substance at this point in the Question Period?
He called for fairness as a test of the Budget. Given that a family with two children, earning $15,000, will pay $650 more
June 27, 1985

in taxes within five years, and that a $200,000 per year family will pay several thousands of dollars a year less in taxes, is that the Prime Minister's concept of fairness?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, why does my hon. friend not wait for the statement of the Minister of Finance? I know he is in a hurry to get out of here; he has to attend a convention to celebrate another defeat. It will be a big convention; it was a big defeat.


John Edward Broadbent: It was not my Party which dropped 9 percentage points in the polls.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You couldn't; you would fall off the end of the scale.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Oshawa on a supplementary question.


IMPACT ON RICH AND POOR
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, again I ask the Prime Minister to stop the comedy routine and answer the question. Last summer he went around the country talking about the rich needing to pay their fair share. The Budget does the opposite. Does he think that a Budget which reduces taxes on the rich and increases poverty for the poor is a fair one? That is the issue.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, nothing is less becoming than an old specialist in rhetoric indulging in false and specious rhetoric again. The Budget does no such thing. The Budget introduces, for the first time, significant measures of fairness designed to place surtaxes on corporations, taxed on the equity capital of banks, taxes on large corporations, and taxes on the rich. This is the First time that has ever been done. The Hon. Member should stand up and applaud those measures.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dick:: Come on over, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: There are limits.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is Question Period.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Surely he realizes that his decision with respect to Mr. Snarby and the vessel Osprey will lead Fishermen to only one conclusion, rightly or wrongly, about his Department-it
Oral Questions
is not what you know but who you know and how much you are prepared to pay that get results.
In light of the fact that everyone in the Minister's Department, including the Deputy Minister, the Assistant Deputy Minister for Atlantic Canada, and the licensing section, all refused Mr. Snarby's request for a licence, whose advice, either inside or outside the Govenrment, did the Minister follow in granting Mr. Snarby an unheard of 40-foot extension on his fishing vessel, an unheard of restricted licence, and a 2,180-tonne enterprise allocation which previously did not exist? Whose advice did he follow in making his decision, in that his officials rejected it?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend said that Fishermen, rightly or wrongly, may assume influence. I just want to make it clear to my hon. friend that if they assume that, they are assuming it wrongly.
With respect to the application that I dealt with, on the day that I indicated approval the terms of that application had not been turned down by the Department. It was a modiFied application from earlier ones that were put in.


TERMS OF LICENCE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says anybody can see him, but the fact remains that, after months of trying, a meeting was arranged within days after this man hired Mr. Moores' company. Is the Minister aware that Mr. Snarby's vessel Osprey, contrary to the terms and conditions that the Minister himself laid down in granting the licence, has sailed across the Atlantic with a shipment of hull-frozen cod for sale directly into the United Kingdom? He has already broken the terms and conditions of an extraordinary licence that has been issued by the Minister. Has the Minister cancelled the licence, is he contemplating cancelling the licence, or is legal action going to be taken?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend gives me information which I have heard by rumour and which has not been received ofFicially within my Department or on my desk. If the information that my hon. friend has is correct and reaches me appropriately, I will certainly take cognizance of what my friend represents and I will consider what action should properly be taken.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. The track record of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not very good on the patronage issue because of the dismissal of wharFmgers on the say-so of Tory back-benchers, the granting of a MILAP program worth $5 million to prominent Conservative organizers, and now the move by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

June 27, 1985
Oral Questions
in granting this licence. Would the Prime Minister undertake an investigation of the office and operation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in this matter, and would be further table in this House a list of people who have been referred to the Prime Minister, or to any other Cabinet Minister, by the firm operated by Moores and Doucet?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Comox-Powell River talks about the MILAP Program and his complaint is that it has met with overwhelming support in his own riding, including the support of many who worked for him in his campaign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: My friend refers to wharfingers. I have already told him that if he is not satisfied with the harbour masters or wharfingers in his home riding that he, as the Member of Parliament, can come and see me.
With respect to who has been referred to me by whom, what happens in my office is that requests come in for appointments, and they go in my appointment list. The Hon. Member is quite free to look through my entire diaries since September 17, if he has the time. It is a longer list than any other Fisheries Minister can point to, in seeing Canadians about matters that concern them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REFERRALS BY CONSULTING FIRM
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would ask to see that diary at the Minister's earliest convenience, but my question again is to the Prime Minister. The firm of Moores and Doucet obviously has connections into the Prime Minister's office. They obviously have a friend in the Prime Minister, and I would like to ask again would the Prime Minister table in this House a list of the people who have been referred to him, or to any other Cabinet Minister, by the firm of Doucet, giving this House the nature of business and the outcome?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have invited the Hon. Member to have lunch with me tomorrow to discuss a number of matters of importance to his riding. I am quite prepared to discuss this matter further with him, but the suggestion that in some way or other all these hundreds of people whom I have seen in the last number of months have been referred by one firm or another is preposterous. I would remind my hon. friend that every time a lawyer or a union representative, or a Member of Parliament, wants to see me about some matter of fisheries, that, according to my friend, is perfectly legitimate. I see my hon. friend has already left the Chamber, so there is no use in my continuing the answer.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question, like the previous one, is for the Prime Minister as well. Earlier in the Question Period he heard his Minister of Fisheries and Oceans confirm that a close personal friend of his, and the brother of another close personal friend, are selling instant access to Ministers, in this case the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he considers that a proper role for his close friends to play in his Government.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can see that the Leader of the Opposition is keeping his applause down for that question. If the Member keeps this up, he is going to give McCarthyism a bad name.
There have been no suggestions of impropriety or any evidence of impropriety at any time, or in any circumstances, related to representations made to me or people associated with me. There is no such evidence whatsoever, because none exists.


CRIMINAL CODE INQUIRY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my supplementary to the Minister of Justice on the question of impropriety, and ask him if he has been following these events and if he has examined Section 110.( 1 )(d) of the Criminal Code to see whether there is a matter that should be referred to the RCMP or, if he has not, whether he will refer it.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat unusual to have the hon. gentleman address a question to me when 1 am in the House. I have heard the allegations here and what is in the newspaper, and there is nothing to be investigated that I can see whatsoever. I suggest to the hon. gentleman, if he has a charge to lay against any member of the administration, that he lay the charge and put his seat on the line as he should do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: He should put his seat where his mouth is.


Lloyd Axworthy: Then he would look like you.


John Carnell Crosbie: In your case they are both in the same place.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All the yelling back and forth does not help. Order, please.
June 27, 1985


THE BUDGET
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that all the statistics quoted by my Leader a short while ago regarding the impact of the Budget on the poor, namely, the taking from the needy to give to the greedy, came from the study by the Canadian Council on Social Development. Is the Prime Minister saying that the Canadian Council on Social Development impact study is specious and, if not, he is willing now to admit that his Budget is patently and blatantly unfair?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member quotes from his Leader. I did not see Mr. Peterson around today. I am sorry I missed that. The Leader of the NDP, if this is the gentleman you referred to, was predicting a loss of 100,000 or 150,000 jobs last November, and what has happened is the opposite. Two hundred and seventy-one thousand new jobs have been created. That is the way to deal with the immediate impact.


REQUEST THAT STUDIES BE TABLED
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Prime Minister went to help Frank Miller, and we all know where Frank Miller is today.
My supplementary question again is directed to the Prime Minister. If in fact the statistics that we have been quoting with respect to the impact of the Budget on the poor are so off the mark, is the Prime Minister prepared to table in the House the Government's budget impact studies?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I must acknowledge that the Hon. Member is right. I went to help Frank Miller, and what happened? He won more seats than the Liberals and the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: But the voice of the people was not good enough for the Liberals and the NDP, so they got married. That is what happened.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We might try to stay away from too much politics in Question Period.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. There have been nothing but statesmanlike comments coming from the other side.
The question of my hon. friend was in two instances prefaced very clearly as being hypothetical. I suspect it has the same credence as the observations made by his Leader in November.
Oral Questions FINANCE


APPLICATION OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX EXEMPTION
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of State for Finance. I would like some clarification regarding the application of the $500,000 lifetime capital gains tax exemption which was included in the May 23 Budget. Will the Minister please clear up the confusion which exists as to whether the proposal applies only to residents of Canada or also to non-residents?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the proposed capital gains tax exemption applies only to individuals resident in Canada. It is not designed to apply to non-residents. It is designed to encourage Canadian individuals to take risks with their capital and invest in enterprises that create jobs.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it concerns the Moores-Doucet case and the patronage that is going on in government in general. How much longer is the Prime Minister going to allow the continuation of government by cronyism, in which friends and relatives get special treatment from the Government and provide special access to the Government? Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he said last July 9: "We are going to reform this instrument of our national life"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's statement is absolutely misleading and unworthy, as have been most of the interventions he has made in the House of Commons since he set foot here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nunziata:: The truth hurts, Brian, and you know it.


Don Boudria: Not even I would have said that the Prime Minister's statements of last summer were unworthy.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister leading the people of Canada to believe that had the senior citizens of the country hired Frank Moores and Mr. Doucet, their case would have been over a month ago rather than today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would not have thought that it was possible for my hon. friend to sink any lower, but he has indeed done so today.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: He will reach you soon.

June 27, 1985
Oral Questions


Ms. Copps:: He's getting to your level.


Some Hon. Members:: Shush!


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is nothing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


MEETINGS WITH MINISTERS-PAYMENTS TO CONSULTANTS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and involves the Moores-Dou-cet "meet with the Minister for cash" routine. My question is very simple. Does the Prime Minister think it appropriate that Canadians should have to pay consultants money in order to arrange meetings with members of the Cabinet?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the answers to questions put to me earlier indicate quite clearly that it is not appropriate and it is not necessary.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister, because it is about something that I think Canadians would like to know. Does the Prime Minister think it appropriate that Canadians should have to pay consultants in order to arrange meetings with members of the Cabinet?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member has asked if it is appropriate that consultants be paid to seek meetings with Ministers. The answer is absolutely not. Under no circumstances is that appropriate.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and before he gives me his answer, I would remind him that Mrs. Denis, who addressed him in no uncertain terms here on the Hill the other day, is here again today to see whether he is going to give the House an intellectually honest answer.
Mr. Prime Minister, could you explain why your Budget, contrary to what the Government promised in its Blue Paper, is taking $15 million in 1985-86 and $40 million in 1986-87 from low- and middle-income families and using the family allowance to reduce the deficit? Why did you do that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, one of the objectives of the Budget was to create jobs, and that is part of the story. I think my hon. friend will agree that job creation is the most important instrument we have to preserve the dignity of our families, especially those on low incomes, and I may add that the 60,000 jobs, that were created in Quebec in just two months, in April and May, are a record for Quebec. I think it is important to recognize this as a landmark achievement. The Budget is part of a comprehensive whole which includes economic recovery and increased assistance to the needy in our society, which is our main objective.


CHILD TAX CREDIT AND FAMILY ALLOWANCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary, still in connection with the commitment made by the Government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who should resign if no action is taken.
Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why poor families will lose 6 per cent of the increase in child benefits, namely, 3 per cent on family allowance and 3 per cent on the child tax credit? Why should the neediest families lose 6 per cent, while the Prime Minister's family will lose only 3 per cent of the family allowance increase?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member has retrieved the consultation paper. If he were to look at the Budget Papers he would notice that families with incomes of up to approximately $28,000 per year will see their child benefits increased between 1985 and 1989. Some 325,000 families with incomes below $10,000 per year, many of them single-parent families, will be better off by 1990-91.
I would ask the Hon. Member if he remembers at all the debate we had when we said we wanted to target the child tax credit to those in the lower-income levels. That has been done. If the Hon. Member were to recheck the figures, he would find that that has been achieved. He should applaud that, because he asked for that previously, both in committee and in the House. I would suggest that he return to making his original statements.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I questioned him a week ago about Halifax Industries Limited in which as many as 700 jobs are threatened by the failure of the Government to assist in resolving financial difficulties. Although I urged speedy action, a week has passed
June 27, 1985

without any announcement about this matter of vital concern to the people of Halifax and Nova Scotia. When will the Minister tell us when he intends to act and whether he intends to do anything to ensure that hundreds of jobs are saved for people who are working on government icebreakers?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will hear an answer to his question very soon.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, people working in the shipbuilding industry from coast to coast are waiting for a response to their problems in general. Does the Minister plan to let months and months more pass before he does something about an industry which is in distress and is baffled by the failure of the Government to act on promises it made during the last election campaign?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it concerns the visit of the Secretary General of the Arab League to Canada. He was invited in 1983, and reinvited by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs in January. Now we hear that the visit has been postponed. Would he explain to the House why it has been postponed?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it is correct that I have reiterated the invitation to the Secretary General of the Arab League. We are trying to work out mutually acceptable dates. So far that has not been done. If we cannot do it before our mutual attendance at the United Nations General Assembly, I look forward to having a meeting with him there.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Shh.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You people can shush all you want because you are not going to shush me up.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Last May the Prime Minister and several officials flew to Quebec City to attend an NHL play-off game-


Some Hon. Members:: Shh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Neither the catcalls, the clapping, nor the shushing is appropriate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Prime Minister and several officials flew to Quebec City to attend an NHL play-off game involving the Quebec Nordiques and the Philadelphia Flyers, at a reported cost of approximately $2,600. It appears from press reports that the cost was paid for by someone other than the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister prepared to disclose the name or names of the person or persons who paid for the trip?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was invited by Mr. Marcel Aubut, President of the Quebec Nordiques, to one of the playoff games between Philadelphia and Quebec. It was an important event for Quebec City. I accepted the invitation, I went there and my expenses were paid by my party.


MINISTERIAL GUIDELINES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Prime Minister has provided the information in the House. I cannot help but ask whether his office had such shoddy practices that, contrary to his own-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the Hon. Member has a supplementary question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I understood the Prime Minister to say that the Progressive Conservative Party had paid for the trip. Is that what the Prime Minister said? I am glad he said it in the House. I am sorry that he has violated the guidelines-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Is the Prime Minister aware that, inadvertently or otherwise, he has violated the guidelines by failing to disclose in the public registry within 30 days of the trip any personal gift or benefit of a value exceeding $200 which is received from any person not connected with him by blood relationship, marriage or adoption, together with the name and the address of the donor? My information this afternoon, from the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, is that the Prime Minister has not disclosed this gift. I would ask him to get his

June 27, 1985
Oral Questions
office practices up to scratch and to stop violating the guidelines.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am married to the Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Just two more days. Order. [Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: We are not just living together, we are properly married. I can inform the Hon. Member that I was invited by the President of the Quebec Nordiques. I went there to represent the federal Government at an important event in the City of Quebec. As my predecessors did on several occasions, I let the Progressive Conservative Party pay my expenses, although I did spend some time with organizers of the subscription campaign for Laval University, of which I am Honorary President. I also spent some time with Quebec businessmen who were interested in our recovery programs for Metropolitan Quebec. And although this was important work I was doing for the Government of Canada, I felt that the Progressive Conservative Party should pay the bill, and that is what happened.


TREASURY BOARD
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board and concerns cost overruns and large sums of money spent on consultants' contracts in connection with the Place Guy-Fav-reau project in Montreal. Could the Minister inform the House why he decided to proceed with an audit of this project?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has already answered his question. Delays and major cost overruns led the Treasury Board to ask for a project audit, and we are awaiting the findings of the consulting auditors.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He is aware of the case involving the CIA funding of brainwashing operations in Canada which did very severe damage to nine Canadians? I have written twice to the Prime Minister about this matter.
Considering the intervention on the part of the Secretary of State for External Affairs with U.S. Secretary of State Shultz, appealing for something other than the insulting $25,000 settlement that was proposed by the U.S. and which was rebuffed by the Secretary of State of the United States, will the Prime Minister directly contact the President of the United States and urge that corrective action be taken by the American Government?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is wrong in his facts. We have not yet received a response from the Secretary of State of the United States. I am seeking that response. The Secretary of State knows the urgency with which I and my colleagues in the Government regard the matter.


SUGGESTED RECOURSE TO INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I can say quite categorically that that reply is encouraging. It means that there is still some hope that there will be constructive action. Given the seriousness of the matter and the justice which all Canadians and all Members of the House desire for the Canadians who are affected, if the United States does not take corrective action will the Government of Canada consider taking this important matter to the International Court of Justice at The Hague?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think we would prefer to take this question one step at a time. In our judgment, the representations which have been made to the Government of the United States have not yet been fully or adequately responded to, and we have some hope that they will be.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It has now been two weeks since the Supreme Court made a very historic decision related to the question of Manitoba language rights. At that time I asked a question in the House about what was the intention of the federal Government when it came to making its submission in the Supreme Court in terms of the question of the minimum time which would be allowed for the translation of statutes. Has the Government now decided to join the Province of Manitoba in making a submission to the Supreme Court concerning the minimum time, or is the Government also prepared to consider the question of a constitutional amendment, in consultation with the Government of Manitoba and the Official Opposition in Manitoba, in order to save the tens of millions of dollars which this particular ruling will cost?
June 27, 1985


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this matter with the Province of Manitoba. Representatives of the Province and the Department of Justice have met to discuss the next steps with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada in order that we will have a proper procedure for the application which has to be made within 120 days. Manitoba will be making such an application. There is general agreement on how that should be done. We intend to make representations at the same time. If we agree with the facts and the representations which Manitoba presents to the court, we will support them. If we have some reason not to agree, we will make our separate position clear as to what time may be needed. I believe that in the course of this procedure we will discover just how immense the task of translation might be and just what is meant in the court's judgment.
With respect to the latter part of the hon. gentleman's question, we have not as yet discussed any constitutional amendment. I believe that that ball is really in the court of the Government of Manitoba. But we are prepared to discuss that with the Government of Manitoba at any time it might wish to take the initiative-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is potentially becoming a Statement under Motions.


PROVISION OF TRANSLATION ASSISTANCE
Lloyd Axworthy: I have a very short supplementary question which I would like to direct to the Minister of Justice. In the May, 1983, accord the whole question of providing assistance to Manitoba on translation was tied to the question of services in the two languages. Is it still the position of this Government that such help in translation is still tied to the question of services?


John Carnell Crosbie: 
CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of several, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, June 26, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Committee Reports
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), the Hon. Member for York-South Weston (Mr. Nunziata), the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry), the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), and certain petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud), do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) and the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James), by filing with the Clerk of the House, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration concerning the detention of immigrants. In accordance with Standing Order 69(13) I request that the Government make a comprehensive response to the fourth report.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Third Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS-FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and if the House will give its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.


TRANSPORT-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for (Annapolis-Hants) (Mr. Nowlan).


Mr. Nowlan:: Annapolis Valley-Hants, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Excuse me.

June 27, 1985
Tabling of Documents


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I know I have not been too vocal so far this session so I can understand your mental amnesia.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Transport.
[Editor's Note: For above reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Speaker:: Some day the Hon. Member may inform me of what other kinds there are.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 69(13) and 46(2), I have the honour to lay upon the Table, in both official languages, copies of the comprehensive response to the second report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I have the honour to lay upon the Table, in both official languages, two copies of the Report to Parliament on the review of Future Directions for Immigration Levels.
This report contains as well the Government's response to the second report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration requested by that committee pursuant to Standing Order 69(13).


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Charles Joseph Clark: Pursuant to Standing Order 46(2) I have the honour to lay upon the Table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the Royal Society of Canada's Report on the Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War.


SECURITY INTELLIGENCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Solicitor General, and pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I have the honour to lay upon the Table, in both official languages, the first annual report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee.
I ask that this report be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs pursuant to Standing Order 46(4).


THE BUDGET
Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -on May 23 I had the honour of presenting this Government's first Budget to this House. It was a comprehensive strategy designed to end the greatest social injustice in this country, the tragic lack of meaningful jobs. It introduced measures to encourage the economic growth we need to finance social and cultural progress. It outlined a balanced and realistic plan to regain control of our spiralling debt, a compounding debt which threatens government programs in the future.
During the past month my colleagues and I have had the opportunity to discuss the budgetary strategy with many Canadians. I am pleased to report that our plan of action has been generally well received.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Canadians agree that economic renewal requires job creating investment, private initiative and fiscal responsibility. However, it has become clear that a great dead of confusion and anxiety has arisen over our proposals regarding elderly benefits. The purpose of this statement is to outline the position of the Government concerning benefits for the elderly.
Last November, in the document Agenda for Economic Renewal, the Government stated its belief that social programs must be improved based on the twin tests of social and fiscal responsibility.

Social responsibility demands that limited resources be channelled first of all to those in greatest need, so as to
June 27, 1985

maintain a minimum level of adequate income support at all times for all Canadians.
This is a fundamental right that must be protected.

Fiscal responsibility implies that job and wealth creation is necessary to finance social progress and that control of the spiralling national debt is essential if we are to avoid threatening our ability to support social programs in the future. Since November the Government has acted on a number of fronts to lay the foundation for social progress. First, we broadened the social safety net to ensure greater fairness and to promote social justice. We have expanded the eligibility for the spouse's allowance, benefiting 85,000 younger widows and widowers who had previously not qualified for benefits.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Veterans' benefits have been improved for some 140,000 Canadians. Tax assistance has been extended to 185,000 disabled Canadians, many of them senior citizens. As proposed in the Budget, survivor benefit rules in private pension plans will be improved. Measures have been taken which will ensure social justice for native women. Additional equalization payments have been extended to less advantaged provinces to assist them in maintaining their social programs. New training initiatives have been implemented to address the tragedy of youth unemployment in the recognition that the best income security for our younger Canadians is a job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is a record of this Government's action and it is a record of which I am very proud.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The cost of these new initiatives will total $2.8 billion over the next two years. Total social spending will rise by $4 billion to $46.7 billion over the same period, close to half of total government spending. The evidence is clear: This Government's emphasis on social programs is increasing, helping those who need it most.
The second part of the strategy was to implement major reforms to the private pension system to ensure that Canadians have a fair and equal opportunity to save for their own retirement.
The third part is to put the Canada Pension Plan on a sound financial basis. 1 have commenced discussions on this subject with provincial Ministers of Finance, and we will be discussing this important issue again this fall.
The fourth and critical element is to regain control of our spiralling national debt. As I have stated on many occasions, the financial position of the Government of Canada has worsened at an accelerating rate over the past decade, particularly
Statements by Ministers
over the past two years. Previous Government decisions have created a structural budgetary imbalance which has contributed to ever-growing annual deficits and a compounding national debt.

It is important that all Canadians realize the size and urgency of our financial problem and understand why we have taken measures to deal with it in the Budget. Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot repeat this often enough.

It took 100 years for successive Canadian Governments to accumulate a debt of almost $20 billion. Less than two decades later our debt is now $200 billion and it is doubling every five years. The reason for this rapidly growing debt is simple. The Government is borrowing additional funds each year to cover the interest charges on past debt.
Let us look at these figures carefully. In the early 1970s our annual interest payments on the debt were about $2 billion. In the late 1970s those interest charges had risen to $8 billion. This year they will total $26 billion, and if we fail to change our ways, interest charges at the end of this decade could approach $50 billion per year. Some Canadians have asked what harm deficits do to them. Well, there is harm. The growing interest charges to finance those deficits are crowding out worth-while programs, programs which benefit many of us. We have to take control of our debt or those interest payments will simply overwhelm us.
There is another aspect which directly affects our senior citizens. Over the past 15 years, high inflation caused by rising deficits and mounting debt literally wiped out the savings of our sernior citizens. That was a time when there was real cause for concern among our seniors.
[ Translation]
It is our concern for the future of Government programs and for Canadians that led us to take action in the Budget and in my November economic message, in order to cut back spending in all Government programs and all departments.

We started at the top. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and all Ministers took a cut in pay. Within weeks of being sworn in we launched the most comprehensive review of government programs ever undertaken in this country. This ministerial task force on program review is identifying areas for eliminating waste and inefficiency, which could lead to significant savings.

We proposed changes in the automatic indexing of pensions of public service employees and Members of Parliament. We proposed a surtax that would affect Canadians with high incomes and large corporations. We also proposed a new tax on large banks and trust companies, and elimination of a number of tax loopholes.

June 27, 1985
Statements by Ministers

We are imposing a minimum tax on wealthy Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: When?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It will be effective January 1, 1986.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


An Hon. Member:: Displays in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure Hon. Members in the back row know that such displays are entirely out of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Throw him out.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Could I ask the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) to please show this House the respect it deserves.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: What about their heckling Sheila?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is the same respect-Order! It is the same respect to which the Hon. Member for York South-Weston is entitled. May I therefore ask the Hon. Member to refrain from any further displays. I make it very clear what will happen should another one occur.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


An Hon. Member:: Throw the bum out.


Mr. Speaker:: I am left no option but to name the Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Out! Out!


Mr. Mazankowski:: Sleaze.


Some Hon. Members:: Where is the Leader of the Liberals? Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Turner set it up.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as required by the traditions of this House I have to move a motion in this regard. It is disappointing but I have to inform you that I have to keep a number of copies of this motion in my desk to take care of Members of the Liberal Party. I would have thought the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) would have some control over his Members. This is disgraceful! Disgraceful! It's a disgrace to this House. I therefore move:
That the Hon. Member for York South-Weston be suspended from the service of this House for the remainder of today's sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on a point of order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to draw to the attention of the Speaker that the Member named in the motion has withdrawn from the House. I respectfully suggest that, therefore, the motion is not necessary.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Deans:: Let's finish the statement.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no point of order.


Mr. Ouellet:: What do you mean?


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, we all realize it is the end of the session and I am positive that we could get unanimous consent to proceed as is since the Member has withdrawn. The Member will not come back. Therefore, I do not think it necessary to put the motion to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Nothing further is achieved by further noise. Order, please. When the motion is put the Member will find that he has a way of achieving what he seeks.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I have heard the point raised by the House Leader for the Official Opposition. I think we can resolve this by simply passing the motion without any further debate and without having you read the motion. We could then carry on with the proceedings and get back to business.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Hnatyshyn) agreed to.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue, after that atrocious display from the other side of the House, with a little bit more respect in this place.


André Ouellet: Get to the point.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Get to the point.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will get to the point if I can have a little respect from the other side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 27, 1985


Lloyd Axworthy: Earn that respect. You earn it. You have lost the respect of this country. You are a lousy Minister, so earn that respect.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have taken action across the board because we must save money wherever we can in the 1980s in order to save programs in the 1990s. In the Budget we committed ourselves to increase payments to those elderly citizens who have inadequate pensions as resources permit and in light of future circumstances. At that time I was confident that the Government would gain additional resources in the future so that it could indeed increase payments to the elderly. The recent performance of the economy has strengthened my conviction.
More than 271,000 jobs have been created since the Government came to office. Consumer confidence has been strengthened. Interest rates have fallen. Economic growth in the first quarter of this year was much higher than generally expected. Investment intentions have also risen dramatically. These trends, coupled with the investment initiatives in the Budget, should give us all confidence that we are on the road to economic renewal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Despite our confidence, both then and now, that government initiatives and economic growth would result in increased resources, it has become clear that our commitment to increase payments as resources permit has not allayed the concerns of senior citizens, particularly those with low incomes. I realize that the concern is real and I know that I speak on behalf of all my caucus colleagues when I say that we have recognized the anxieties which have been raised.
We have met with many senior citizens. We have listened carefully to their views on this matter. I know I speak for all my Cabinet and caucus colleagues when I say that we have been impressed by the concerns they have expressed. It was not the intention of the Government to cause uncertainty for anyone, least of all those who most need assistance. Several options have been proposed to us. The guiding principle of the Government is to act responsibly and fairly and, above all, in a manner that is responsive to the genuine concerns of Canadians. I have considered these options carefully over the past few weeks and I have proposed changes to my Cabinet colleagues which they have accepted.
Therefore, I am announcing today that Old Age Security payments will remain fully indexed to the Consumer Price Index.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As a result of this decision, the deficit projections contained in the May 23 Budget would be increased by $15 million this year and $245 million next year. However, we cannot allow these additional costs to be financed with still more borrowed money. This decision in no way lessens our determination to reduce our annual deficit and
Statements by Ministers
control our national debt. The threat to economic growth, to employment, and to future social programs remains. We must deal firmly with that threat.
Accordingly, I am announcing two actions today in order to offset the increased costs in the next two fiscal years. As a first step I am announcing today a change in the budgetary proposal to place a deficit-reduction surtax on large corporations. The term of the surtax will be extended from 12 to 18 months.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This surtax will now match the surtax on high income individuals. The measure will yield an additional $200 million next year.
To help meet the continuing cost of fully indexing old age pensions, I propose to increase the excise taxes on gasoline and other motive fuels by an additional 1 cent per litre effective January 1, 1987.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This measure will yield an additional $450 million annually. In my Budget I brought forward a clear and realistic medium-term plan to control our debt. It is a plan which requires strong actions, including both expenditure reductions and tax increases. It is a plan that will reduce the annual deficit by $20 billion by the end of the decade and cut a total of $75 billion from the projected increase in the public debt.
That plan is maintained. The additional money required to finance old age pensions later in the decade must and will be found. I will be announcing, in future Budgets, details of measures that will ensure that the dangerous trend of rising debt will be controlled.
Canadian society faces a major challenge in the future as our population ages. We must all, Governments and individual Canadians alike, plan today so that we can meet that challenge tomorrow. Our senior citizens can only be truly secure if we have a financially responsible Government and a healthy expanding economy.
I would like to table Notices of Ways and Means covering the measures that I have announced today.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I regret at the outset that the Minister did not give me and, I presume, the Leader of the NDP, the usual courtesy-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You were offered it. You turned it down.


John Napier Turner: The House Leader says we were offered it-only if we were not allowed the usual courtesy of putting questions to the Minister on a ministerial statement. This is the first time that I can recall on a statement of this importance that the Opposition was not given the courtesy of an advance copy.

June 27, 1985
Statements by Ministers
I might also say, while dealing with procedural matters, that when the Minister announced some additional taxes, he did so when the markets across this country are still open. I find that to be a highly unusual budgetary precedent. We will examine in due course what the effects of that may or may not be.


An Hon. Member:: Thirty minutes.


John Napier Turner: Thirty minutes is enough to make or lose a lot of money on the stock exchange. I draw that to the attention of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I will ask all Members to show the proper courtesy to another Member when the Right Hon. Member is making his speech.


John Napier Turner: In case the hon. lady does not know, the markets on the West Coast are open for a number of hours yet.
Mr. Speaker, only the Conservative Party would applaud a Minister of Finance who has just put senior citizens through anxiety, sleepless nights and personal torture for over a month because he failed to come to this decision as soon as he and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) realized that they had made a fundamental mistake in this Budget.
The senior citizens of this country will not forget that it was the intention of the Minister and the Prime Minister to reduce their purchasing power over a period of years in a clandestine, secret, sneaky and hidden fashion, by way of a massive tax increase and reductions of 3 per cent a year so that if this measure had been left intact, by 1989 every old age pensioner in the country would have received $30 less per month.
I do not know why Members on the government benches are applauding the reversal of a decision that never should have been taken in the first place. The Prime Minister apparently took a very intimate personal interest in this Budget, which involved two very strong commitments made by the Leader of the Government during the last election campaign. The first, made in Sherbrooke on July 17, last year, was that old age pensioners would be fully protected against the ravages of inflation by full indexation. We have read that statement over and over here in the House of Commons. It was categorical, it was clear, and it was an absolutely unqualified commitment.
Of course, the other commitment was the universality of our social programs and their delivery. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is unfortunate that this statement has taken so long when the error was pointed out so quickly to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance after the Budget was delivered.
I have heard that feeble, economic justification for the reversal of the decision. The Budget was presented only a month or so ago. Either the Minister's projections are out of date one month later or the projections are not worth much. In any event, those projections and that economic excuse will not impress the country. Everyone in Canada will know that the
Minister was searching for some flimsy hook upon which to attach an absolute retreat from an unfortunate mistake.
Let us look at the taxes which the Minister has imposed. He is extending the corporate surtax, which puts it into proper synchronization with the personal surtax. There is an increase in the excise tax on gas as of January 1 of one cent a litre, or five cents a gallon. He has not told us, but that item is worth about a billion dollars a year. We would like to see the full impact of that because it is another tax on the consumer. There is two cents, beginning September 3 and another one cent on January 1, hitting at the Canadian consumer and the tourist industry.


Robert René de Cotret: 1987.


John Napier Turner: It is a tax right on the farmer. I point out to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) that every farmer in this country burns 14,000 litres of gas a year, which adds another $180 a year to the farmer's bill. Every fisherman uses 4,800 litres of gas a year, which is approximately another $90 a year for every fisherman that has been added today.
We need not repeat here what we have tried to say to Your Honour, to the House and to the country over the past month. The scheme to attack the most defenceless in our society- those who are retired, cannot rearrange their income, cannot recoup wages and those who cannot scale by way of bargaining with their employers any protection against inflation were left defenceless in the Budget. We said on Budget night that it was harsh, cruel and sneaky, massive and hidden.

-there are 1,700,000 seniors who live on the poverty line or even below. Our senior citizens are entitled to a better treatment from the Government. Once this matter is resolved, the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) personally will have lost some of their credibility and the confidence of the public.
Why did the Prime Minister appear prepared to disregard his promise in the first place?

The action taken today in no way comes close to salvaging this Budget. Those promises of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance made in September and November in the House were clear and categorical: old age pensioners were not to be touched; indexing was to be left alone and sacrosanct. Those promises were broken. The fact that they are now repaired is not only the result of the efforts of this Party and the efforts of this side of the House but because public opinion from business communities, from the professional community from one coast to the other and three million senior citizens said no, we will not lie dead and take it. They rose up from one end of the country to the other in protest.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we told the Minister on several occasions that we understood his desire to
June 27, 1985

reduce the public debt and the annual deficit of the country. However, we asked him why he should do it on the backs of the aged, the backs of those least able to protect themselves, the backs of the unemployed, the backs of the handicapped and the backs of the outlying regions of the country. Why do it that way? I suggest that he has recognized part of that situation.
I hold in my hand the Budget that I brought forward in the House of Commons when I had the honour in 1972 of holding the portfolio which the Minister holds. We indexed old age pensions because we believed that our pensioners had a social contract with this country. Having paid taxes and having worked a lifetime, they were entitled to have the increment fixed in that Budget.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: In 1973 I had the honour to present another Budget in which we indexed the brackets in the Income Tax Act as well as the deductions. We protected the average family in this country. We protected the average taxpayer from the erosion and the interaction of the progressive tax system and inflation so that only real increases in income were taxed at higher rates, not inflationary increases. Yet the Minister of Finance has withdrawn that protection from inflation for every family in this country by 3 per cent a year. He has withdrawn the protection to family allowances by 3 per cent a year as well as every deduction under that statute.
That Budget was supported on this particular item wholeheartedly by the Prime Minister's predecessor, Robert Lawrence Stanfield, and the rest of the Conservative Party at that time in 1973.
It is our opinion that this Budget continues to be incompetent and irresponsible. In the way the taxes were imposed through deindexing, they were hidden, delayed and clandestine. The hon. gentleman may not understand that word, but I will give him a good Anglo-Saxon word for it that dates back a thousand years. The word is "sneaky". It was a sneaky, sneaky Budget.
We still have the deindexation of family allowances; we still have the deindexation of the tax brackets; we still have the sales tax on health and hygiene products. We still have the elimination of the Registered Home Ownership Saving Plan, and the Budget remains an unbelievable singular attack on the middle-class in this country. The Budget is unfair because it taxes the average Canadian family from $350 to $500 a year all told and it gives a cash bonanza as a result of the capital gains exemption-not targeted to Canadian small business, not targeted to businesses owned by Canadians listed on Canadian stock exchanges-to anyone who wants to invest in Florida real estate, in a hotel in Hong Kong or in European art.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Or horses.


John Napier Turner: For $500 a year the average family sees those 4 per cent wealthy enough to qualify
Statements by Ministers
for a capital gains exemption untargeted, getting a lifetime cash bonanza of $125,000 a year. That is not fair.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


An Hon. Member:: That is Tory economics.


John Napier Turner: As for deindexation, and this is reinforced by the figures of the Department of Finance which neither the Department nor the Minister have denied as being valid-we can see that over five years the average family earning $15,000 a year gets a cumulative 36 per cent income tax increase; a family earning $30,000 a year an 11 per cent increase; a family earning $100,000 a year a 4 per cent increase; and a family earning $200,000 a year a 2 per cent increase. You add back that capital gains exemption so a family earning $200,000 a year is ahead 2 per cent, 3 per cent or 4 per cent. Is that a fair Budget, Mr. Speaker?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not at all.


John Napier Turner: That has not been changed today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Budget was unfair on the afternoon of May 23. It is still unfair, Mr. Speaker. The Budget was sneaky on the afternoon of May 23, and it is still sneaky and it is still a no jobs Budget. It takes $4.4 billion out of the economy. It will affect demand and the purchasing power of Canadians to enrich the prospects of every small Canadian-owned business in the country.
[ Translation]
From an economic standpoint, Mr. Speaker, raising taxes at this time is a stupid move. It is unacceptable that they should seek to reduce the deficit at the expense of the weak, the poor, the sick and the unemployed. It is shameful that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) would want to be congratulated for having given in under tremendous public pressure to stop attacking low income elderly Canadians.

I think, Mr. Speaker, and I submit it was an absolute disgrace which took almost a national outcry by a group of citizens who never were politicized before who always trusted their Government, who always thought that a social contract meant a social contract, who always were at ease with their Government because they thought the pension which they were guaranteed would remain a Pension and would remain protected against inflation. We had a national disgrace, and it took a public outcry and the work of the Opposition in Parliament to obtain this statement today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this announcement we have just heard by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) constitutes a triumph for the pensioners all across Canada.
80168 - 52

June 27, 1985
Statements by Ministers


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to say that 1 try to act without illusions in spite of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) may suggest from time to time. Notwithstanding the important efforts that have been made by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and by members of the Liberal Party in opposition, 1 will also say that on this issue I am under no illusion that the Government today would not be backing down on a grotesquely unfair proposition had not the pensioners of Canada got the message through.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In the past four weeks I have talked to a number of people, not simply the pensioners. One of the most moving exchanges I had on this very important question occurred in Saskatoon with high school students who were gathered from all over the province for a regional conference, interestingly enough on the subject of justice. What was very interesting about those young people, high school students, was the conversations they had. If I recall correctly, the motion they passed pointed out that as young Canadians they did not want to see our senior citizens so unfairly dealt with. That was very moving for me.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I do not want to take up a lot of time of the House today but 1 want to deal in a sense with two parts of what the Minister had to say. On the one hand he provided an elaborate justification for what he has just announced that really reflects the heart and soul of the Minister of Finance. He is a man with integrity, and as I understand him, a small "c" Conservative individual. What he said was a clear giveaway about the priorities of his Government. He said, and I took down the words, that before we could have social progress in our nation, before we could have change, there had to be growth in the economy, there had to be the sign that jobs were being created. Nothing could better distinguish a Conservative approach to politics from a social democratic approach than that notion.
We believe you must have justice, whether or not you are having growth in the economy.

For the benefit of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), I would emphasize that growth is desirable in the economic sector, there is no doubt about that. But at the same time there are poor people in this country, not only retired people, others whose income is not very high. Given that context, we must now have a fair Budget. That is the point, Mr. Speaker. [English]
Second, the Minister as part of his elaborate justification for introducing this one element of fairness in his Budget, referred to his fixation-I can only describe it that way-with the deficit problem. I am sure the Minister wakes up in the morning and goes to bed at night thinking of nothing but the
deficit. He talked about the growing deficit. I would like to point out to the Minister, and I suspect he knows his figure well, that the reason we have had a growth in the deficit in the last few years-not the only reason but the principal economic reason-is that a downturn in economic growth and a downturn in employment levels occurred. When that happens, even a Conservative Minister of Finance should know that revenues drop because people are not paying taxes. Instead, they collect unemployment insurance, and companies not making profits, do not pay taxes. I repeat, the reason we have had an increase in the deficit is that the economy has not been growing. The way to deal with that is not a short run preoccupation with the deficit now but to get the economy growing and deal with the deficit later.
I want to come now to the Minister's two proposals. The first was to get additional revenue. He said the surtax that has been applied to corporations is to be extended for another six months. I think that, to say the least, that is quite reasonable. We looked at the Budget, and the net effect of his Budget over five years showed that the corporate sector in Canada would be paying $2 billion less at the end of five years while taxes by ordinary individuals would be going up by over $4 billion. If the Minister is now going to extend that surtax by six months, let him not expect us to applaud a lot for this elementary introduction of another degree of fairness. I will not belabour the point, because we agree with it.
I do want to say to the Minister though that we do not agree with his other proposal, the 1 cent a litre increase in the price of gasoline in 1987, which is when I believe it will be applied. This means only one thing, that all Canadians will be affected, rich and poor alike. The Minister knows that that has a negative effect on the economy in terms of our competitive position. It also puts a regressive additional burden on everyone.
Since the Minister addressed the issue of alternative sources of funding, and since we will be dealing with Budget Bills when we return in the fall, we are hoping that this is not the only change of mind experienced by the Government on its Budget. We are pleased that the Government has changed its mind on this issue, but we will fight hard to get the Government to change its position on other unfair aspects of the Budget.
It was interesting to hear the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) talk about all the regressivity and tax unfairness in the Budget, as if it were not the Liberal Party which reduced taxes on the rich in 1982 by almost $2 billion. The Liberals are always good social democrats when they are in opposition, but they are Conservatives when they are in power. That is the problem with the Liberal Party of Canada.


An Hon. Member:: A pox on both their sides.


John Edward Broadbent: We will see about that. When we get around to debating the Budget Bills, we will have to look at alternative proposals. In terms of the part-time surtax on
June 27, 1985

incomes over $40,000 per year, people can avoid it because it is on federal taxable income. If they use the loopholes, as the Prime Minister knows well, they could end up not even paying it. I say rhetorically to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and to the Prime Minister: Why not restore taxation levels to upper income Canadians, the marginal tax rates, to what they were before the Liberals cut them in 1982? That would give them $1.7 billion, year in and year out, to redistribute downward to the poor people of Canada.
There were good aspects of the Western Accord on energy. We in this Party were pleased to see the producing provinces, particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan, obtain a larger share of the revenue. However, we saw no economic sense or economic justice in providing some $400 million to $500 million in additional revenue to multinational oil companies for oil which they had already discovered.


Mr. Orlikow:: And they want more.


John Edward Broadbent: They want more, that is correct. If the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are looking for additional sources of revenue, why impose a one-cent per litre tax on gasoline at the pumps which affects ordinary Canadians? Why do they not go after the multinational oil companies and get them to pay their fair share of taxes?
I want to conclude with two points. The first one concerns a very important question. The principle of universality was at stake in this issue. If we had gone the route of the Budget, and if we had followed the thinking of the vast majority of members of the Conservative Party, as I understood it and as it was expressed in the debate, we would have established a two-class system for pensioners, and a few years down the road the basic pension would have had marginal significance for the people of Canada. We on this side of the House are pleased, not simply with a political victory, although I think it was a political victory, but for the sake of the history of our country. For the last 30 years, we have been gradually building up- and we thought it was an accepted notion in the minds of members of all Parties-a social security system in this land of ours which says that everything is not a market-place commodity. When it comes to medical services, education and pensions, it does not matter if one is a doctor, a lawyer, a logger, a banker or a very poor person; eveyone is entitled to a basic program of that kind.
In conclusion, the Government backed down, not because of a newly perceived sense of fairness, but because there was opposition to a perceived unfairness in the Budget. I pay particular tribute to the older people of the country, from Halifax and St. John's in the east to Victoria in the west, who were not the passive creatures about whom some people like to write in modern society. They were men and women who perceived that the Government was going in the wrong direction and got their message through. We on this side of the House did our job. There is no doubt about that. It shows what can be done in a parliamentary system, even when the Government has a large majority.
Statements by Ministers
I conclude by expressing my appreciation to the pensioners of Canada for fighting their cause, for fighting a just cause and winning.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has dealt with the issue of fairness, but I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) with respect to the fundamental economic asssumptions upon which the Budget proceeds, especially with respect to the sales tax that will be imposed in some respects on July 1, and of course the additional gasoline tax about which we learned today.
Specifically, as the Minister knows, the Economic Council of Canada conducted simulation studies about two years ago which showed that a reduction in sales tax would decrease the rate of inflation, would increase consumer demand and would increase jobs. I think the Minister of Finance would agree that in the long term his deficit problem has to be resolved by growth, not through cuts in taxes. Next year alone he shows only a $1 billion reduction in the deficit. Has the Minister conducted simulation studies, not on the effect of increasing taxes, but on the effect of decreasing taxes? If he has done so, could he table them in the House so that we could compare them with the scenario presented to us in the Budget?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am always amused by these probing questions from the Liberal Party, the Party which says that it would control the deficit. When we look back and see what happened over the past 10 or 15 years, starting from the time when the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) held my portfolio, we know that all these questions are a lot of hot air. They do not have any idea what they would do. The Leader of the Opposition said that he would have cut the deficit by $15 billion if he had remained in the job of Prime Minister. I ask him and I ask the Financial critic of the Liberal Party: If they do not like the way in which we propose to cut the deficit, let us hear what they have to say. We will have four months of consultation in the fall of this year, leading up to the next Budget. I would be delighted to hear what they have to say about how we can get on top of the deficit problem.
When the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Finance, the spending of the Government rose 30 per cent in one year, and he says in a righteous way: "Show me the impact of what you have just done".
The impact of what I have just done is that we will maintain control of the fiscal problem, so that we will not have the runway deficits which we have experienced over the past four years, where deficits went from $14 billion, to $23 billion, to $30 billion, to $35 billion. That is what we have to stop. The sooner the Hon. Member gets that through his thick skull, the better this country will be.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I intended to pose my question in a serious way and tried to be helpful to the Minister of Finance. We recognize his dilemma and we recognize the

June 27, 1985
Statements by Ministers
dilemma faced in this Budget document when he shows us that, with all this pain and suffering, the deficit between 1985-86 and 1986-87 comes down by $1 billion, from $33.7 billion to $32.7 billion. Magically, by 1990-91, he tells us, it will be down by $20 billion. Would the Minister show us the calculations for those intervening years, which we have not received and which were not included in the Budget documents? That is one point.
My other question is in direct response to his question when he asked what we would do. Elas he considered the opposite scenario? If he has, can we see the simulation? He told us on March 1 that increased taxes would dampen demand and that there was room on the expenditure side. His seat-mate, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen), is chairing the committee looking at the expenditure side. We have not seen results of any concrete nature from that exercise. I say to the Minister of Finance: Let us look at this documentation in the course of the debate to see if there is a better way to go, because we believe that there is. This is not an expansionary Budget and expansion is required if this country is going to pull out of its deficit. It is not going to come about, I suggest to the Minister, by these kinds of taxes and these modest cuts that he has come forward with.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have heard this argument before: Let us hope for growth and growth will solve all our problems. Let me remind the Hon. Member that last year in the United States I think they had growth of 6.9 per cent, and what happened? The deficit went down $15 billion. In Canada we had growth of 5 per cent, a pretty good growth rate. What happened to the deficit in the country? It went up about $6 billion. This is the sort of thing that shows there is a little bit of hokum in the argument that the Hon. Member puts out on the floor of the House of Commons.
Let me just put the numbers back to him. We are spending this year $26 billion on interest costs; we are spending $9.4 billion on defence; $2.1 billion on overseas aid. Which of those does he think he can cut? We have major statutory programs, unemployment insurance, family allowance, benefits for the elderly, EPF, the Canada Assistance Program. We have $31.6 billion in all the programs of Government, apart from those. That is why we have to be looking at some other ways, as we have outlined in this Budget, to come to terms with the deficit problem.
I will go back to what the Leader of the NDP-probably he is more the Leader of the Opposition than the current one is- said, that we will have our social programs and then we will borrow money to pay for them. If we borrow $1,000 to pay for part of a social program, in seven years' time in today's earnings that will be $1,000 that we will have paid in interest costs and we will still not have paid the money back. That is the problem that we have to get over. I think the Hon. Member knows it but either he is not admitting it or what he is saying is, "I don't know how to solve the problem and I am very happy that I am in the Opposition". I say to him, we are
very happy he is too and all Canadians are happy because we cannot have any more of the type of runaway spending that we have had over the past 15 or 20 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, these questions are not mischievous. I have sympathy for the dilemma that faces the Minister of Finance and I know the numbers that he is faced with. I also know that he said on March 1 that taxes would have a dampening effect on the economy. He has told us in the past that taxes are not the way to go. He also said as recently as March 1 that there was room on the expenditure side.
Is he telling us today and did he tell us in the Budget, perhaps based on the advise that he received from his seat-mate, that he could find no room on the expenditure side and that he has decided that, notwithstanding the dampening effect of taxes, that is the way to get at the deficit? If that is the way to get at the deficit, how does he explain how the deficit is to be reduced by $20 billion by the year 1991 when it will only come down $1 billion, by his own numbers, by the year 1987?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Hon. Member to go back and read the Budget again, if he ever did read it. Seventy-five billion dollars is going to be reduced from the accumulated debt between now and 1990-91. That is in the Budget papers. Eighty per cent of that is on spending cuts. Only 15 per cent is going to be found through tax increases.
We have gone through all Departments of Government. My colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), as the Hon. Member points out, is the chairman of the task force looking at programs, and there will be more spending cuts, more efficiencies and less waste as we go through the process of this task force.
I remind him that 80 per cent of what we will be doing over the next five or six years will be found on the expenditure side. That demonstrates the amount of waste, the amount of inefficiencies, the lack of attention that the previous Government allowed to go on. If we could find that amount of money, surely they could have done a slightly better job when they were in power. That is the sort of difference we are facing here with this Government in power and not the previous Government.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I have three questions that I would like to put to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The Minister of Finance will be aware, as my Leader has pointed out, that one of the reasons, perhaps one of the major reasons why we have an increasing deficit today is that personal sales tax and corporate tax simply are not flowing in to Government as we had expected and experienced in the past, as a result of the economic downturn and the economic malaise. He will also know that it is sound business practice that to make money one has to invest money. In other words, to gather sales tax and corporate and personal income tax one has to invest to see that that happens. Would it not make sense in terms of deficit
June 27, 1985

reduction for the Minister of Finance to take steps to encourage economic development in a direct way? I will use two examples. The mayors of Canada indicated that there are $14 billion of necessary municipal works that must be conducted in the country. Can the Minister of Finance think of a better time to get those kinds of projects under way? Reforestation projects are needed in virtually every province in the country, much more than the rather small step that was taken as a result of some of the ERDA agreements that were recently signed.
I would like him to comment on that. In other words, if he is serious about economic development, why not take some stimulative steps to ensure that it takes place?
Second I want to ask the Minister of Finance what he thinks about the proposal put forward by my Leader in terms of deficit reduction when he said, why not return to the tax levels of 1982 that were changed in the MacEachen Liberal Budget. That would result today in an inflow of taxes of about $1.7 billion per year. Again, this is just a practical example. The Minister has indicated he wants to hear some specifics.
Third, I want to ask the Minister of Finance if he has confidence in his Budget, in his economic statement and the economic policies therein. When I asked him in the last two or three weeks to provide me, through the Access to Information Act, with the impact studies flowing from the Budget in terms of its impact on unemployment, on regional economic development and similar kinds of impacts, the Minister of Finance signed a letter to me saying that that information would not be available. If the Minister has confidence, why not provide that material? My Leader has indicated contrary evidence in terms of the impact of the Budget and has indicated some very negative results in terms of economic development and employment opportunities. If the Minister has faith in what he is doing, why would he not share this? Is he trying to keep it secret because he does not have confidence in what he is doing, or is he pulling some kind of a double-cross on the people of Canada and not providing them with that kind of fair information? What is he trying to hide?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Hon. Member what he meant by "a double-cross on the people of Canada" not giving him information that is provided as a Cabinet confidence to me. What sort of double-cross is he talking about?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Minister of Finance that there were two other questions.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You are not going to get an answer until you answer that one.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My question to him is this. The Minister says to the people of Canada that the measures in his Budget will create economic growth, reduce unemployment, reduce interest rates and the like. I say that his Department has information that measures the impact of his Budget. Can he think of a better way to generate confidence in the investment community, in the people of Canada generally, than to say, here it is,
Statements by Ministers
the best information possible to the people of Canada will be the impact of my Budget policies? When he refuses to share that with the people of Canada, how can we be confident in what he is doing if he is not prepared to share the impact of his own policies?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am waiting for the answer to the question, where is the double-cross to the people of Canada in my not giving the Hon. Member the informatian that is a Privy Council confidence?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the double-cross is simply this. He says this is going to happen. Virtually every other study that has been made public since the Budget was presented points out reactions to the contrary. The Minister is saying one thing, but is not prepared to demonstrate the realities of that. It is double-talk. He is saying one thing and doing something else. He tells us to have confidence in what he has done, but he is not prepared to share that confidence. What is he trying to hide? Why is he afraid to share this with the people of Canada?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Minister will be imposing a one-cent per litre gasoline tax in January, 1987. Yesterday in the House I asked him if he would give consideration to a tax exemption for agriculture and primary producers on the tax that will be imposed on September 3.
During the election campaign, the Conservative Party said that it would remove all excise taxes on farm fuels and primary-producer fuels. The two taxes that have already been announced go a long way toward reinstating full excise taxes for primary producers. In the spirit of the commitment that was made during the election campaign which the Minister fulfilled last fall in the economic statement, the Minister should consider his actions.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) made a speech at Inuvik about two months ago. At that time, she indicated that she would put in place a new petroleum incentive program to replace the PIP program. We have heard reports that the program which she plans to bring forward this fall regarding incentives for drilling, exploration and development of oil and gas in the Arctic areas and offshore will cost two cents a litre as well. I wonder if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) could comment on that and tell us whether or not there will in fact be an additional two cents per litre added later this fall or next winter to cover the incentive program for exploration and development.
As well, I wonder if the Minister would give consideration to providing tax exemptions for the primary producers and particularly for farmers who will be facing serious difficulties in the upcoming year.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that what the farmers have received from the Government has been demonstrated very, very clearly by my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). In November, we gave a

June 27, 1985
Statements by Ministers
fuel tax rebate on taxes that were levied at that time. We have reduced interest costs at the Farm Credit Corporation. We have gone off the metric system so that farmers are able to avoid the problems that they had measuring quantities of fertilizers. There are many ways that we have helped the farm community, and I think the farmers of this country realize that. Not the least of that help is the relief on capital gains tax which we promised and delivered.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct two questions to the Minister. The Minister talked about imposing a minimum income tax as of January 1 of next year. Could the Minister assure Hon. Members of the House that that tax will also apply to those over 250 people who had incomes of more than $200,000 and did not pay any income tax and to the 7,000 people who had incomes of over $50,000 per year and were able to avoid paying income tax because of the special measures in the present income tax law which permit them to make deductions and thus avoid paying all income tax?
Similarly, the Minister announced that he was extending the special tax on corporations. Surely the Minister knows that many of the large corporations have not paid any corporate taxes at all in recent years because the taxes they should have paid went into the deferred corporate tax column. Can the Minister assure us that when he brings in these measures, both wealthy individuals and large corporations will be required to pay taxes just like the small business people and individual Canadians who pay their fair share of income taxes?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the minimum tax that I have said will be put in place as of January 1 next year is a minimum tax-


David Orlikow: Will it be for everybody?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am sorry?


David Orlikow: The question I am asking, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not that tax will apply to all of those people who have been able to avoid paying income tax in the past just like the American tax system does.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, one of the proposals that is in the discussion paper was designed following the American system. I would encourage the Hon. Member to come to the meeting of the Finance Committee when this discussion paper will be the subject of its consideration to provide his view as they would be very much appreciated. We put forward three different proposals. We are trying to come up with the best proposal so that it will be fair to Canadians in its application.
The Hon. Member made reference to corporations not paying taxes. Some of those corporations are not paying taxes because they have been losing money. Surely the Hon. Member is not suggesting that we levy taxes on companies that have been losing money. That would be the fastest way to get those companies to lay off more people or even to go out of business. There has to be a balanced approach. What is needed is an understanding of the impact of taxation on these companies or else we will not be able to develop the government revenues required to support the social programs that both his Party and my Party are very anxious to see preserved.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for his courage, his determination and his sincerity in listening to the senior citizens of this country and particularly to his colleagues in caucus.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Does the Minister feel that the decision to eliminate the deindexation of Old Age Security payments from the Budget will contribute to the ever increasing levels of confidence that Canadians have in their country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is quite right. That is what this is intended to generate. I would like to draw the Hon. Member's attention to the last paragraph of my remarks in which I said that elderly Canadians can only feel secure if we have a financially responsible Government and a healthy, growing economy. That is the fundamental basis for the social programs on which elderly as well as disadvantaged Canadians rely.
The Leader of the New Democratic party said that he wanted to draw a very clear distinction between the policies and the philosophies of the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Government. I would agree very much with what the Leader of the New Democratic Party has said. We understand that it is essential that we have a healthy, growing economy to support the range of government services and programs that are in place today. The Leader of the New Democratic party is telling us to spend now and perhaps we will still have money later. He is asking for an act of faith. He is saying that sometime in the future the money will be in place. That was the policy followed by the previous Government for 15 or 20 years. It cannot go on. Surely the message must be getting through the members of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties that we cannot go on spending and borrowing at rates of interest of 10 per cent or 12 per cent while expecting that everything is going to be all right.
Let me draw to the attention of members of the Opposition the fact that each year, because of its structure, some 60 per cent to 65 per cent of our debt rolls over each year. The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has a big smile on his face. Let me remind him about what happened in 1981-82. Interest rates rose about 10 percentage points in that year. That 60 per cent of debt amounts this year to $120 billion and 10 per cent of that is $12 billion. Surely the Hon. Member can think of a better way of spending $12 billion than by giving it to the banks and other investors.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Government did not consult with senior citizens before this measure was introduced in the Budget in the first place.
June 27, 1985

1 would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. He said that he is looking for ways to reduce the deficit. There is one item in the Budget which outrages most Canadians. That item is the $500,000 capital gains exemption. It has created a tax shelter. There is no question that it is good as far as capital gains on family farms or homes are concerned, but, surely, the Minister can make provisions and restrictions to ensure that the speculative efforts of entrepreneurial Canadians do not escape the tax man. When it concerns speculative investment in art, horse racing, et cetera, surely it is not beyond the ability of the Government to set up a restrictive system in order that the tax shelter will not be used for that kind of wealth creation. Why could the Minister of Finance not tackle that? We are the only industrialized country in the western world which does not tax capital gains. The articles that I have read which were written by economists indicates that they doubt whether that tax provision will create jobs.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that economists said the November statement would result in the loss of between 50,000 and 100,000 jobs. The Hon. Member should realize that economists talk with one hand and they talk with the other hand. A year later, they choose the hand from which they want to speak. The point that I am making is that if the economists of the world were running government policy, we would be in a lot of trouble.


Mr. Lapierre:: What about your economists?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member would listened, he might learn something. The economists of the world are always saying: "I have got to see what the little black box tells me". They have to know what the econometric model says. That is not the way in which this country works. People respond to incentive and the motivation of an opportunity to make money for themselves so that they can give something to their kids which they did not have when they were younger. That is what makes the country tick. We are trying to motivate people to build for the country. That is what will create the jobs.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) one question. The Minister told the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) that the farmers of the country liked his Budget. Is the Minister aware of the resolution which was passed by the Glengarry, Prescott and Russell Federations of Agriculture which I read in the House a week ago? It reads in part:
Whereas Mr. Brian Mulroney during the last election campaign made a written promise to provide agriculture with long-term financing-
Whereas farm financing was not addressed in the recent Budget,... we, the members of the Glengarry, Prescott and Russell Federations of Agriculture jointly demand that the Prime Minister of Canada fulfil his campaign promises-
The resolution continues, but I will not read it in its entirety as it has been tabled in the House under Standing Order 21. Is the Minister aware of the resolution? If so, how can he say that the farmers of my constituency and others like his Budget
Statements by Ministers
when two out of the three most important promises were not fulfilled? Only one promise was partially fulfilled.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the Hon. Member would allow me to read a few things into the record. We said that we would abolish the imposition of capital gains tax. We have done that as far as farms are concerned, up to a lifetime maximum of $500,000. We said that we would reduce the price of farm fuels by not collecting the current excise tax. That was done in November. We said that we would extend the small business bond program. We did that in the Budget. The Hon. Member for Wetaskawin (Mr. Schellenberger) has a Private Members' Bill on the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which has been referred to the standing committee. The Farm Credit Corporations interest rate conversion program has helped 5,600 producers who were locked into high interest rates. Those interest rates have dropped from 16.75 per cent to 12.75 per cent. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has expanded the mandate of the Farm Credit Corporation appeal boards. The debt review boards which were set up by the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) are working successfully on a private sector basis with the banks. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) has dealt with the whole question of Section 31 in a way which improves the administration of that section. I think the Hon. Member realizes-


Don Boudria: 1 was on the committee.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member would listen, he might learn of the range of things which we have done to help farmers in his riding. I want him to know so that he can tell them that the Government is acting in the interests of the farmers of Canada and, in particular, the farmers of that riding.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Amendments to the Advance Payment for Crops Act are currently being drafted to double the size of loans for advance payments. The Western Grain Stabilization Act was amended earlier this spring to enable a $450 million interim payment for the 1984-85 crop year. On April 29, the Minister of Agriculture announced $6.5 million for renovations and construction of the Ontario Veterinary College at Guelph. A new animal pathology laboratory will be constructed near Guelph. A joint Canada-Saskatche-wan research program on raising beef cattle was extended for five years. Mr. Speaker, I could go on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important features of the statement which was made today was that in order to pay for the maintenance of senior citizens' pensions a tax of one cent a litre on gasoline was imposed as of 1987.

June 27, 1985
Statements by Ministers
Will the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) rule out any further tax breaks for oil companies? They have received a $5.6 billion PGRT tax break as a result of the Budget and the Western Accord. They also received some tax breaks for windfall profits. However, the newspapers today indicate that the oil companies want more money and more tax breaks.
First, will the Minister of Finance rule out any further tax breaks to oil companies? Second, given the fact that the major companies received approximately $400 million to $500 million as a result of windfalls from old oil going to world price, why would the Minister not put a windfall profits tax on that? I suggested a tax of 50 per cent. That would have represented $200 million and it would have paid for the indexing of the senior citizens' pensions. If he had done that he would not have had to place further taxes on gasoline. I am sure the Minister knows that the average price of gasoline in Canada right now is 51.5 cents a litre, which is about $2.34 a gallon. I am told that in the United States the smaller American gallon costs about $1.28. That is $1.71 in Canadian funds. There are growing discrepancies. We wonder how much more the motorists can pay at the pump. How much more in taxes are we going to put on?
To summarize my question, will the Minister rule out any further tax breaks for the oil companies? And why did the Minister not consider putting on a 50 per cent windfall profits tax where he could have raised $1 million and would not have had to levy that one cent a litre at the pump?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the Hon. Member's question in the same way I have responded to him before on this subject. If the Hon. Member goes back and compares the tax regime before the NEP and now, he will see that the oil companies in Canada are not as well off. I have never heard the Hon. Member acknowledge that. I have never heard him congratulate either myself or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) for doing this.
What we have tried to do is to provide a taxation regime for the oil industry which is comparable to tax regimes in other industries. The Hon. Member knows what happened in the industry because he and I were both energy critics at the same time. He knows what happened to the oil and gas industry in western Canada. He knows about the companies which were shut, the stores which were boarded up and the motels which went out of business because people were not travelling through the foothills of Alberta. What we are trying to do is to remove a discrimination which was hurting an industry in Alberta and also other parts of Canada where there are major suppliers to the oil and gas industry.
One cannot have it both ways on this whole question of taxation or economics. If we want to have jobs created, we have to provide the taxation regime and the economic environment to encourage people to go out and invest money in new projects and create jobs. If we take that away, if we remove that environment and develop a tax system in such a way that
it takes away from those companies, those jobs are not going to be created. Either the Hon. Member wants to put people out of jobs or he goes along with it.
Since September 4, 271,000 jobs have been created, so something must be going right. Something must be going right in this country if we are able to see that sort of performance here. That is what we want to try to reinforce.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that we have been talking about this problem for a month had a half, and it took him a month and a half to correct his injustice towards the elderly. I can appreciate that, from a human standpoint, it is difficult for the Minister to admit his mistake today.
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Minister that his Budget still contains an injustice concerning families and I dare hope he will not wait until we prove it to him by having families and children demonstrate against it on Parliament Hill.
With respect to the poorest families in Canada, I wish the Minister would tell us why he chose to cut 3 per cent off family allowances and the child tax credit, with the result that the poorest families are faced with a 6 per cent income loss, whereas well-to-do families have to cope with a mere 3 per cent reduction.
I wish the Minister of Finance would tell us just how much money he expects to recoup at the expense of Canada's poorest families with that 3 per cent reduction. Perhaps this time the Minister will have the honesty to admit that in 1982 the Liberal Government did not touch the child tax credit and maintained full indexation. I know that the Minister-and I will not hold it against him-has already answered a question I asked him. He told me that the tax credit was fully indexed.
I would urge the Minister of Finance to read page 47 of his document. I would like him to tell us whether he intends to change that part which is a direct attack against the poorest families.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question put by the Hon. Member is wrong. If the Hon. Member would look at page 44 of the Budget papers, he would see that right now if a family is earning $10,000, the family benefits amount to $1,484. If the family is earning $20,000, they amount to $1,673. If the family is earning $30,000, they amount to $1,621. Surely it is not fair that the low-income Canadians receive less in family benefits from the Government of Canada than those who are earning $20,000 and $30,000 a year. What we have done by enhancing the child tax credit over this period, is to bring up that $1,484 for the low-income Canadians to $1,812. For those families who are earning $30,000 we have essentially held that flat during that period. These are real figures. Surely the Hon. Member can see that these are real figures. That is what they will be paid in 1989.
June 27, 1985

They will receive $1,812 instead of $1,484. That is a very good increase.
I would ask the Hon. Member to give us a little credit and tell us that we have done the right thing by taking out that hump whereby the lower-income Canadians receive less than the $20,000 or $30,000 earners, so that in 1989 they will all receive the same. That is progress.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Minister. First, I did not hear him mention, nor have I heard many questions in the House, about all of the unpaid taxes which are owing in Canada. At one time, several years ago, people used to say that the outstanding taxes, particularly corporate taxes, were pretty close to the amount of the deficit. Could the Minister comment on what is the state of affairs in that respect? And why has the Minister not really stressed that as one pretty generous source of income?
My second question has to do with social policy and family allowances. Many, many senior groups to whom I have spoken-and I have been in many communities over the last two weeks-have told me that universality is really important in itself. They have worked for these programs over the years. When I raised as well the question of family allowances, they told me pretty unanimously that the same principle applies to children. Unfortunately, children do not have the same political clout as do senior citizens. They do not vote and they only receive the family allowance for a short period of time in their lives, and it is not a huge amount of money, not nearly as much as the cost of old age pensions. Why has the Minister not done something about reindexing family allowances? Because he has not, does that mean that he really does not believe in universal family allowances?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There are two questions there, Mr. Speaker, but let me respond to the first question which, I believe, would be more appropriately put to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty). I cannot give the Hon. Member the numbers off the top of my head-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: $24 billion.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) says $24 billion. That is totally wrong. It is quite a bit lower. However, the important thing is that the Minister of National Revenue has taken very clear action arising out of the November statement to encourage a faster payment of taxes, and that is starting to pay off. There is also an item in the Budget itself which protects the Crown in the event of a bankruptcy so that those taxes which have been withheld from employees would be paid to the Government of Canada. Previously, when a company went bankrupt, we lost those taxes. We believe that if this provision is passed, we will be able to gain access to those taxes.
The second point relates to family benefits.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Family allowances.
Statements by Ministers


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Family allowances. Certainly my children have never received the family allowance. My wife does, but the children do not. I do not know whether the children in Vancouver East get the family allowance but they certainly do not in the Toronto area, so she is wrong there.
Let me get to the substance of the question, which is whether what we are doing here is taking away from universality. Everyone will receive family allowance cheques.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It erodes it just the same.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member says what we have done will erode the family allowance cheques. I ask her to read page, I think it was 43 or 44, the one that I just read out in response to the previous question. Surely she understands that there are limited resources. Does she agree with that?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You do not have to take it off the backs of children and families.


Mr. Gottselig:: Drop that old line. Let it rest.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Spend, spend, spend, and instead of $200 billion worth of debt and $25 billion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The last question, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).


Miss Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I note that one of the measures the Minister is proposing to use to recover the revenue is increasing the excise taxe on gasoline.
He also made reference to the need to create employment, with which we all agree. There are some puzzling features in the Western Accord which gave billions of dollars to the oil industry. At the time and since, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) described the oil industry as an engine of growth. She gave us some very large figures concerning the expected number of jobs to be created. Subsequently we saw industry figures which were lower, and economists had figures which are lower still. Since there are a lot of people in this country who see the oil industry as capital rather than labour intensive and who see money invested in manufacturing as producing six times as many jobs as the same amount invested in the oil industry, will the Minister show us what he based this decision on? Will he show us the projections for job creation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me be brief on this because the Speaker apparently wants to move on to something else.


Jean-C. Lapierre: It is not the Speaker, it is the House.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The House wants to move on. You are slowing me down again.
If the Hon. Member will look at the investment intentions as shown in the April study by the Department of Industry, she will see that the oil and gas industry have increased their

June 27, 1985
Petitions
investment this year by 18.7 per cent. At the same time there is a substantial increase in investment intentions by the manufacturing industry, which she referred to, by some 33 per cent. I suggest that those two increases are closely linked because the acitvity in the oil and gas industry generated by the Western Accord is starting to spill over into increased activity in the manufacturing industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure we could go on all day with questions with regard to the Budget, but at some point I have to make a judgment that the matter has had a proper airing, and I do so now.


PETITIONS
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I now table some more petitions on the indexation of pensions. While the Minister has decided to come back to his senses, I am still very happy to have petitions from the people of Shefford, from over 1,000 people from Sherbrooke, from people in Brome-Missisquoi, where hundreds of people and many senior citizens club have signed these petitions, and from people in Saint-Elie-d'Orford, who did a very job and who even went as far as Magog. I have about 4,000 signatures and I am very happy that the Minister has reversed his stand because we would have had thousands more.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the wishes of my constituents and my duties as Member of Parliament require me to table on behalf of the residents of Green Valley, Manoir Fatima, Manoir MacDonald, Manoir Victoria, Russell Manor, Manoir Belanger, Queen Mary Court and Place Charlotte senior citizens' homes in my constituency a series of petitions which I hope will provide very strong support to the gesture made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) today and will give him the courage not to take such action in the future.


Ms. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table today before this honourable House the petition signed by the constituents and residents of the riding of Trois-Rivieres who ask this Government not to make any cutbacks in unemployment insurance.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition today signed by some 400 university professors, mainly from the University of Toronto. They beseech the Government to not enter into any agreement with the United States with respect to research into SDI.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions on two different subjects. The first one provides backing and reinforcement for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his statement today. It is signed by 90 some people from the City of Regina who petition the House of Commons and the Government to maintain full indexation of old age pensions.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition with over 400 names on it. It concerns the mothers' appeal for world peace from the Congree of Canadian Women, Edmonton Branch. I say with all due modesty that they humbly petition the House to enact Bill C-218, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons-free-zone, presented by Mr. Benjamin, MP for Regina West. I humbly pray as well.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table before this House a petition I received today and which is signed by about 100 senior citizens of my constituency. In this petition, they ask the Government to reverse its decision to de-index the Old Age Security Pension Plan. They deplore the fact that this decision would force the elderly to help restrict the federal deficit and that the weak would be victimized while the well-off are showered with gifts. I believe that it is very appropriate to table these petitions today.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 600 residents of my riding requesting that Parliament reinstate full indexation of old age pensions. Since the Minister's statement today, I have heard from some of these signatories who would still like the petition deposited in case the Minister's resolve should falter.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a number of petitions. I notice most of them are from the east end of Toronto and one of the streets is where I lived when I was-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that the opportunity here is to present a summary of the petition and the petition.
June 27, 1985


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the petitions are from the east of Toronto and they seek the end of deindexing of the old age pensions. I am sure they will be pleased the Government has announced that today.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a number of petitions concerning the deindexation issue. I will keep it short and just say that there are 600 signatures on one petition, 100 on another petition, and 200 on a third petition, all from groups in the riding of York West in Toronto. There are about 40 signatures from the riding of Brampton-George-town, 40 more from the City of East York, 35 signatures from the City of Etobicoke and signatures from members of the Club Anzioni, le Caravelle de Toronto. All of these petitioners are happy that the Government gave in to their requests to fully index their pensions.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions that I would like to present as well with regard to the indexation of pensions. 1 am sure that my constituents, who worked so hard, would want me to table them even after the announcement which was made today. There are 32 signators to this petition from the Club L'Ami-cale of L'Orignal, Ontario-

-the Club l'Amicale of l'Orignal, in Ontario. There is also a petition signed by the 52 residents of Hawkesbury, one signed by 63 residents of the Saint-Jacques home in Embrun and another one signed by 40 residents of Casselman, in Ontario. I am certain that these people will be pleased by the decision made by the Minister today.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, 1 too have a petition to present signed by 332 residents of the communities of Devlin, Dryden, Fort Frances, Kenora, Nestor Falls, Rainy River, and Sioux Narrows who, I am sure, would join me in thanking the Government for the sensible decision of today and who pray for the reinstatement of full indexation of Old Age Security pensions.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, to commemorate the occasion of today, I have before me a petition with 2,140 names from across Essex county calling for the Government to make the very decision which it has made today. Today represents their victory and I am pleased to deposit these petitions.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to present a petition which deals with the issue of parity pricing for agricultural products. A Bill has been passed to committee. The petitioners request that the committee give urgent consideration to this Bill and hold hearings across the country.
Introduction of Bills


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the pleasure to present a petition to this House signed by about 800 people, mostly from my constituency, and more specifically from the cities of Brompton, Weedon, Windsor, Richmond, Danville and Asbestos, 800 people who are probably very happy about the decision of the Minister of Finance and very proud to have contributed to this reversal.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition with well over 1,000 names of people who were asking the Government to reconsider its decision to deindex OAS. I am sure they are pleased now that the Government has listened to them. It is my pleasure to present the petition on their behalf.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present petitions this afternoon from 1,600 constituents in the riding of Algoma from the communities of Elliot Lake, Espanola and area, the North Shore area of Lake Huron, central Algoma, Manitoulin Island, Sault Ste. Marie and area, and Blind River and area. I also have a petition from the Seaforth area of Southwestern Ontario calling on the Government to reinstate full indexation. Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say that it is petitions like these, and millions of petitioners-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions on the issue of the deindexation of pensions signed by people who are probably celebrating today. I have here some 3,000 signatures which are part of over 15,000 signatures, some of which have not yet reached my office, which were collected in the City of Windsor.



SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER ACT


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-245, an Act respecting the use of social insurance numbers.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is with respect to the use of social insurance numbers. It will give individuals in Canada the right not to disclose their social insurance numbers except where required by law. This will protect the freedom

June 27, 1985
Introduction of Bills
and privacy of individual citizens against present and growing incursions. The social insurance number is increasingly being used as a national identifier.


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


Flora Isabel MacDonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister 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.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-63, an Act to amend the House of Commons Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister 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.

John Wise: for leave to introduce Bill C-64, an Act to amend the Seeds Act and the Canada Grain Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister 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.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-65, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and other acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister 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.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-66, an Act respecting the reorganization of the Canada Development Corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister 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.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and Penitentiary Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister 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.
June 27, 1985

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Criminal Code.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister 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.

Charles Joseph Clark: for leave to introduce Bill C-69, an Act to amend the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security and certain other Acts in relation thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister 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.

Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of consultations with the Parties, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the presentation and adoption without debate of the following motion, that the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, tabled in the House on Tuesday, June 18, 1985, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Order Paper Questions

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion to be presented and accepted without debate, that the following individuals do compose the membership of the Subcommittee on the Disabled and the Handicapped of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture: Messrs. Boyer, Halliday, Mrs. Killens, Mr. Joncas and Mr. Young.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this final motion, which is on the same basis as the other two, concerns the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages Policy and Programs, of which the Whip for the Liberal Party is a very active and outstanding Member. The motion is as follows, that the First Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages Policy and Programs, tabled in the House on Wednesday, May 29, 1985, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all Members will be very pleased that the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4, 243, 290, 301, 337, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 352, 353, 355, 356, 358 and 364.


Mr. Ellis: 1.	Is CDC Data Systems Inc. a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Canada Development Corporation and, if so, did it acquire a 56 per cent controlling interest in Savin Corporation of Valhalla, New York, in March, 1982 and, if so, what was the total purchase price?
2.	Was Savin Corporation encountering financial difficulties prior to its purchase by CDC Data Systems Inc. and, if so, what (a) were their nature (6) steps did Savin Corporation take to rectify them?
3.	What is the present financial condition of (a) Savin Corporation (b) CDC Data Systems Inc.?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1. According to the 1982 Annual Report, CDC Data Systems Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Canada Development Corporation (CDC). In the first quarter of 1982, it purchased 57 per cent of the voting equity in Savin Corporation for a total purchase price of $75 million (U.S.).

June 27, 1985
Order Paper Questions
2.	Canada Development Corporation is not an agent of Her Majesty or a Crown Corporation. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Citation 357 (dd) applies.
3.	Please refer to part 2 above.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	How many people are employed (a) directly or by contract (6) full time and part time, in the Office of the Prime Minister?
2.	What is the expected yearly cost to the taxpayers for this service?


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. As of January 31, 1985: (a) 14 persons were employed on contract; and (6) 111 persons were employed full-time.
2. The expected annual cost to the taxpayers is $4,623,336.


Mr. Parry: 1.	In 1984-85, did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's Ontario region commit funds to tribal councils or groups of bands and, if so, to which ones?
2.	For 1985-86, was any application for funds from the Shibogamau tribal council (a) received (b) accepted (c) rejected?


David Edward Crombie: 1. In 1984-85 funds were provided to Georgian Bay Tribal Council, Windigo Tribal Council, Kayahna Tribal Council, Petahbun Tribal Council and the United Chiefs and Councils of Manitoulin Island. Kayahna Tribal Council received funds only for economic development purposes.
2. An application for funding has been received from and discussed with the Shibogama Tribal Council. Bearing in mind that this is a newly formed tribal grouping, no commitment to funding was possible pending a review of available resources.


Mr. Gagliano: What is the average administrative cost to the lending institution of a loan made under the Small Businesses Loans Act?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: The Department has no specific data on the average administrative cost of a loan made under the Small Businesses Loans Act (SBLA) nor does the Canadian Bankers' Association. Since SBLA loans represent only 1.5 per cent of bank assets and 2.4 per cent of bank loans to business, their related cost is evaluated in terms of the average cost of other loans.


Mr. Heap: 1.	Is there contaminated radioactive soil on McClure Crescent in Malvern, Ontario and, if so, what is the estimated cost of excavating this soil?
2.	Has the Government considered buying the homes from the residents who live on this crescent and, if so, at what estimated cost?
3.	To date, what have been the legal expenses incurred by (0) the Government (b) AECL, in attempting to remove the contaminated soil and place it in other sites and, in each case, what was the cost?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. On 39 residential properties on McClure Crescent in Malvern, Ontario, there is soil with concentrations of radium somewhat higher than normal background levels for that area. Radium is a radioactive element which is present to some extent in all soils.
The cost of excavating the soil and re-landscaping the affected properties is estimated at $552,000. The cost of storing the soils (an estimated $400,000), as is contemplated in an agreement between Canada and Ontario, will be borne by the province.
2.	The possibility of the houses being bought by either the provincial or federal Government has been analysed. To buy the 39 properties directly affected would cost approximately $2.7 million. However, this action would likely not satisfy the concerns of owners of neighbouring properties which are not contaminated. A number of these owners are involved in litigation, claiming substantial damages, together with owners of directly affected properties. To buy all 104 houses on McClure Crescent and an additional four backing on to the Crescent would cost approximately $8.1 million. Even then, there may be some who feel the line has been drawn too closely. To purchase all houses within a zone equivalent to the uninhabited area around the temporary storage site for the soil proposed by the Province of Ontario would involve an expenditure of tens of millions of dollars.
3.	(a) and (b) There have been two legal actions relating to proposed relocation of the soil. The first was an action by the Townships of Essa and Tosoronto to prevent relocation of the soil to Canadian Forces Base, Borden in 1981. The legal costs incurred by the Atomic Energy Control Board, which was the proponent of that move, were $5,000. In addition, an estimated $2,000 of an AECB official's time was involved in defending the action.
There is currently an injunction action before the Federal Court, in which Waste Not Wanted Inc. is seeking to prevent Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and the federal Government from relocating the soil to a storage site provided by the Province of Ontario in a sparsely populated area of Scarborough under an agreement with the federal Government.
Expenses incurred by AECL and the Government in defending this action are approximately $250,000, in addition to the time of the AECL, EM&R and Department of Justice staff involved in defending the action.


Mr. Desrosiers: Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation renovate the tenth floor of the Dorchester Street building in Montreal recently and, if so (a) at what cost to the taxpayer (/>) who authorized the work?
June 27, 1985


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
No. No "renovations" were carried out on the tenth floor of Maison de Radio-Canada in Montreal. A routine building maintenance operation was conducted. The commercial-quality carpet that was there is meant to last no more than 10 years. This carpet was 13 years old and went back to the opening of the building. It had holes in it and was in such a pitiful state that the accident prevention department had indicated that its replacement should be regarded as a priority. The paint had not been done in six years and the vinyl covering on some of the walls had not been changed since the construction of the building. Since the tiles in the ceilings of Maison de Radio-Canada have not been manufactured for the past seven years, the hanging ceiling on the tenth floor was therefore changed and the intact tiles were saved to be used as replacements in other areas of the building.
(a)	The cost of this work was $32,312.
(b)	The work was authorized by local engineering management and local administration management.


Mr. Desrosiers: Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation shuffle the staff of the Engineering Department on C6te St. Luc Street in Montreal recently and, if so (a) how many employees were moved from the (i) second to the third (ii) third to the second floor (6) at what cost to the taxpayer (c) was the telephone system relocated under the floors and, if so, who authorized the relocation and any other related expense?


Marcel Masse: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
No. However, as a result of the recent budget cuts, the staff in Accounting at Engineering Headquarters, located in another building, was reduced considerably. Almost all the remaining employees from this Department were relocated in the Cote St-Luc building and the space was reallocated to consolidate services. By vacating premises in the other building, the Corporation will save $325,000 on rent. (a)(i) 12, (ii) 6.
(b)	The cost of the new arrangements was $288,000. This will be recovered as a result of the $325,000 saving on the rent for the partially vacated building.
(c)	Yes. The sinking of the telephone system below the floors, which will save Engineering Headquarters about $211,000 a year in operating expenses, was done by means of pipes and ducts already in place. In view of these savings, the system will pay for itself in a little over three years. The work was done in accordance with work orders signed by members of Senior Management duly authorized to sign such documents in the CBC.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Desrosiers: Is the (a) Director, Building Services (b) Chief Engineer, Electrical Section (c) Chief Engineer, Mechanical Section \d) Chief Architect, Building Department (e) Senior Architect, Building Section (0 Senior Engineer, Building Section (g) Supervisor, Mechanical Section in the Engineering Department and of the Canadian Broadcasting Coporation located in the C6te St. Luc Street building in Montreal (i) bilingual (ii) unilingual, and do they all have an assistant?


Marcel Masse: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
Engineering headquarters is attempting to ensure bilingual replacements, and the incumbents of the four professional positions it has filled since 1983 in the building section are all bilingual. Only the Director, Building Services (a), is backed up by a bilingual Assistant Director. None of the incumbents of the other positions mentioned has an assistant. One of the three senior architects in the building section (e) is bilingual. The other incumbents are not. Most of the incumbents of these positions are employees of long standing, who have performed their present duties for an average of 10 years. Some of them are expected to retire in the near future.


Mr. Desrosiers: Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation lease an aircraft for reporting on traffic conditions in the Montreal area and, if so (a) what type (b) who owns the aircraft (c) was a leasing contract or other arrangement entered into between the two parties and, if so (i) as of what date (ii) on what date will the contract expire (</) were tenders called and, if so, on what date and in what manner (e) what is the leasing cost of the aircraft?


Marcel Masse: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
Yes. The CBC French Radio services in Montreal, as is the case with many other broadcasters, leases an aircraft for reporting on traffic conditions Five days a week in the Montreal area.
(a)	Trade mark of aircraft Cessna-model RG-117 Cardinal.
(b)	Andrair Aviation.
(c)	The contract was signed September 3, 1984 and is valid until the end of August, 1985.
(id) Yes, tenders were called during the summer of 1982. Subsequently, the contract was renewed.
(e) $78,408 for the present year.


Mr. Desrosiers: Was a contract awarded by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the construction of an extension ramp for the handicapped, at Studio 42 in Montreal and, if so (a) were public tenders called (b) who was awarded the contract (c) at what cost (d) were restrooms built?

June 27, 1985
Order Paper Questions


Marcel Masse: 1 am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
No. The CBC used its own personnel to build a ramp enabling handicapped persons to have access to Studio 42.
(a), (b) and (c) Not applicable.
(d)	No. Nor does the CBC plan to provide restrooms specially for Studio 42 since there are already some in the area that can accommodate handicapped persons.


Mr. Desrosiers: Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provide its French network television and radio directors with computers and, if so (a) were public tenders called (A) who was awarded the (i) sales (ii) service contract (c) what was the purchase price for each computer (4) how many computers did the corporation purchase?


Marcel Masse: 1 am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
No. But the CBC at Montreal, as do many other broadcasters, uses a central computer to prepare and broadcast its programs.


Mr. Desrosiers: Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Montreal burn or destroy its decors after use and, if so, what was the amount allocated for such purposes in the fiscal years (a) 1983-84 (A) 1984-85 (c) 1985-86?


Marcel Masse: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
Reusable sets are kept in storage. Some set elements, such as furniture and accessories that have not been used for a long time and which are not likely to be used in the short or medium term, are sold. However, it is more economical to destroy, rather than store, set elements that cannot be used again or sold. Reusable elements, including doors, handles, hinges, kitchen cupboards and counters, windows, stairways, floor tiles, curtains and draperies, backdrops, cycloramas and orchestra platforms, are recovered and stored.
(a), (b) and (c) No funds are allocated specifically for the destruction of set elements.


Mr. Desrosiers: 1.	What were the (a) production (A) direction (c) distribution costs of the gala performance "Le chez-nous des artistes" on December 16, 1984?
2.	How many performers participated in the gala at the Place des Arts?
3.	Were the performers paid the same fees and was it agreed, orally or in writing, between CBC and the performers that their culture fees would be paid to La maison des artistes, a non-profit organization?


Marcel Masse: 1 am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1- (tf)>
(b) and (c) Program expenses are not broken down in this way. The costs of this special program were as follows:
Performers' fees and other	$476,618
direct expenses
Indirect expenses	$234,064
2.	There were 211 performers.
3.	No. The fees paid to each performer were in keeping with the role played in the gala and with the standards of the Union des Artistes. All performers who were asked to participate in "Le Chez-nous des artistes" were verbally invited to contribute their fees to the Fondation du Chez-nous des artistes.


Mr. Desrosiers: Who is the programming manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation French TV network and is this a (permanent full-time) position?


Marcel Masse: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
Strictly speaking, there is no longer a programming manager for the French Television network. The position was abolished in April, 1985, and the French Television network underwent a change in its administrative structure; this resulted in a reduction in the levels of management.


Mr. Desrosiers: Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have an anonymous reading committee and, if so (a) are its members permanent or contract employees (b) do they have offices at the Corporation or do they work at home?


Marcel Masse: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
No. For several years, various people have been asked to evaluate the scripts submitted to the Corporation's French networks in Montreal (in particular to the Drama Programs Department and the Script Bureau). Whenever a drama competition is organized by the French television or radio networks, the CBC invites writers and actors/actresses to be members of the jury. Routine affairs are handled from inside the Corporation by employees of the departments concerned.


Mr. Desrosiers: Is the head of the (a) entertainment (A) drama department of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation French TV Network a permanent or contract employee and, in the latter case (a) what is the termination date of his or her
June 27, 1985

contract (6) does CBC intend to renew the contract (c) did the contract employee inform CBC whether he or she would like the contract renewed?


Marcel Masse: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
The heads of the entertainment and drama departments for the French Television Network are both permanent CBC employees.


Mr. Desrosiers: Was there more than one Canadian Broadcasting Corporation director in charge of the daily program Avis de recherche?


Marcel Masse: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
Yes. Avis de recherche is a daily program produced five times weekly for 39 weeks, for a total of 195 programs. To ensure the smooth running of this program series, which consists of studio elements and inserts shot on location, the crew is made up of one producer, one executive producer and two production assistants. In addition to producing a few programs, the executive producer must make plans weeks in advance to invite guests to the program.


Mr. de Jong: 1.	Did Conscience Canada apply to the Department of National Revenue for designation as a charitable organization and, if so (a) on what date (b) was the application approved and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Have there been any groups who for reasons of conscience been exempted from the payment of taxes?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. (a)
Conscience Canada Inc. applied for charitable registration on December 22, 1983.
(b) The organization was denied registration because it was the Department's view that its resources were not being devoted to exclusively charitable activities as required under the Income Tax Act. Conscience Canada Inc. is appealing the Department's decision.
2. I am not aware of any instances where groups were exempted from the payment of taxes for reasons of conscience.
[English)


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why the Government is unwilling to answer a very simple question which I put on the Order Paper on February
Order Paper Questions
28, 1985. I have another question asking if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) went to Jamaica on March 6, 1985, and other questions like it. I know that this must be terribly embarrassing, but surely there must be a way for the Government to answer other questions in my name, such as Nos. 349, 400, 388 and Question 313. Why will the Government not answer these questions?


Paul Wyatt Dick: I know that the Government will be pleased to answer these questions and will get around to answering the questions. The problem to date is that there are so many silly questions put on by that Hon. Member.


Don Boudria: The people of Canada have a right to know.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is the kind of remark that draws blood over here. The Parliamentary Secretary was doing very well, thank you very much, until he made that silly remark.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 9 could be made an Order for Return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 9 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ms. Copps: 1.	How many housing starts are expected during the fourth quarter of 1984 by (a) province (b) type of dwelling (c) city?
2.	How many housing starts were financed through CMHC during the first three quarters of 1984 by (a) province (b) type of dwelling (c) city?
3.	What was the average purchase price of each unit financed by CMHC by (a) province (b) type of dwelling (c) city?
4.	How many geared to income units were built during the first three quarters of 1984 by (a) province (b) type of dwelling (c) city?
5.	How many geared to income units have been approved for the fourth quarter of 1984 by (a) province (b) type of dwelling (c) city?
6.	How many housing starts arc projected for 1985 by (a) province (b) type of dwelling (c) city?
7.	What will the allocation of publically assisted housing units be for in 1985 by (a) province (6) type of dwelling (c) city (</) rental (e) size?
8.	(a) How many temporary shelter units are available in Canada by (i) province (ii) city (h) how many were funded by the (i) government (ii) provinces (iii) municipalities?

June 27, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
9.	By province and city, how many temporary housing units were or will be funded by CMHC (a) during 1983 (ft) during the fourth quarter of 1984 (c) for the first quarter of 1985?
10.	During the fourth quarter of 1984 and the first quarter of 1985, how many rental housing units will be financed by CMHC?
11.	By province and city, how many rental units financed through CMHC will be (a) geared to income (b) used for senior citizen housing?
12.	Will any new housing starts projected for the fourth period of 1984 and for 1985, replace existing housing and, if so (a) how many (6) will the previous inhabitants be rehoused in CMHC financed projects and, if so, how many?
13.	By province and city, how many co-op housing units will be allocated by CMHC in 1985?
14.	Since 1974, what was the average income level of persons housed in co-op units by (a) province (b) city (c) type of dwelling?
15.	How many persons residing in a co-op, financed through CMHC, own another residence by (a) province (b) city (c) type of dwelling?
16.	How many persons have defaulted on their mortgages during the fourth quarter of 1984 by (i) province (ii) city (iii) number of persons in the household (b) what assistance is available to them at the present time?
17.	How many CMHC financed housing units are available at this time to Canada's native peoples by (a) province (b) type of dwelling?
18.	How many CMHC financed housing units are available to the handicapped by (a) province (b) city (c) type of dwelling?
19.	How many new housing units were or will be financed by CMHC in Hamilton East during 1984 and 1985?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise that Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, be read the third time and passed.
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for Question Period, I was speaking to Bill C-25. I pointed out that the amendment to Clause 8 introduced by the Minister last week broke the harmony that existed with the producers, the four provinces and the federal Government, which had agreed to a red meat stabilization tripartite agreement.
The producers have told me that they are totally confused by that amendment to Clause 8. It removes the provision that provincial Governments must phase out any existing stabilization program when they participate in the tripartite stabilization program. The Minister's amendment does not seem to have satisfied the concerns of the producers in the Maritime Provinces, Quebec and British Columbia.
This Bill does not take advantage of the harmony that existed in those four provinces. In fact, when I spoke to a representative of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association yesterday, he said that producers are thoroughly confused as to what the amendment means and will not support it at this time
because they do not understand it. The Minister has created the worst of all worlds.
There is another matter of great concern to the committee. According to presentations from organizations like the Canadian Pork Council, the Alberta Government and other provincial Governments, the parties to the original agreement want the Bill passed in the form in which it was presented. The Minister is not only confusing that situation, but has not met the demands of the Maritime provinces when they asked that the Minister establish a grain feed freight assistance program as well as a program which will allow them to become self-sufficient in feed grains over the short run. I think those are a very great concern, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister said this Bill offers an opportunity to resolve our trading problems with the United States. Before the committee the Minister as a witness said that the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, John Block, in the meetings he had with him over the course of the spring months while the Bill was being discussed and studied, was hardening in his position. The question is as to whether or not stabilization payments made under a tripartite arrangement are subject to a countervail. The countervail which is in position now is apparently to be confirmed on the twenty-fifth of the month. Most of these payments seem to be subject to the U.S. countervail.
The question is how do you gain by stabilization payments through a tripartite arrangement if they are going to be subject to countervail? The Minister has to be prepared to go to Washington and to negotiate with the Secretary of Agriculture. If tripartite agreements are put in place in the future, they should not be subject to countervail, otherwise the whole Bill and exercise is really futile.
We see many non-tariff barriers. They tell me in the last two or three days we have had two or three more loads of Canadian cattle going to the United States turned down because of technical mechanisms that some States are using which is, from all I know, totally illegal. During the last couple of weeks we have had some 30 loads of cattle coming into the Toronto market from the United States. We have to ask our trading partner is this free trade thing for real or it is just a one way free trade which the Minister and the Government have been talking about? During the committee study, the Minister kept referring to a London Free Press article on June 17 in which he seemed to be saying to the farmers of Canada, at least the article says, referring to the whole problem of countervails and stabilization payments that, and I quote:
The best solution would seem to be a stabilization plan administered by the Government but entirely financed by the farmers who choose to participate.
That is the final paragraph of the article.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is not the Minister's policy that we are going to have the Government administering the program but not making any contributions. I do not know why he would continue to refer to that. It is not the policy of this Government. It is not the policy of this Government to have stabilization payments in total made by the federal Government.
June 27, 1985


John Wise: Read the first paragraph for us.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I hear the Minister talking about the first paragraph of this article.


John Wise: Just read it, please.


Maurice Brydon Foster: During the committee studies, the Minister continued to refer to farmers sort of providing all the stabilization. I thought what we needed was a stop loss program where the federal and provincial Governments would contribute to assist hard-pressed producers. At the same time, the Minister seemed to be speaking a great deal, even during the course of the study of the Bill, about the possibility of a tripartite stabilization program where we have four provinces in agreement to it. He continued to speak about the possibility of a national hog marketing agency. Those recommendations during the course of debate on the stabilization program only confuse the situation.
This Bill provides retroactive arrangements for payments which are not made within the crop year. This Bill would be very beneficial to groups like the Alberta Sugar-Beet Growers who have suffered incredible hardship this year. This is the first time in 65 years that they have not been able to produce a crop, the plant will not run and beets will not be seeded. This Bill provides for retroactive payments where one grows a crop one year, markets the produce the following year and payments are made at the end of that year or in subsequent years. This Bill makes provision for that and is an important part of the Bill.
Unfortunately, the Minister was not prepared during the committee studies to make a commitment that the $10 million or $12 million, which is owed to the Alberta Sugar-Beet Growers, would be paid. That is most unfortunate because they have suffered a great deal. The situation is one in which the producers are very uncertain as to whether this legislation can or will be used. I think we have to put it in the backdrop of the over-all agriculture situation.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) when speaking this afternoon outlined his total ignorance about the farm financial situation in Canada today. In January he brought down a White Paper on farm taxation issues. It outlined how great and how rosy things were on the farm scene. In that statement, the Minister pointed out that farmers earned twice as much as the average Canadian, but they pay one-quarter as many taxes and are worth eight times as much. I put a question to the Minister about an exemption on the gas tax which he is to impose on September 3, which will reinstate about one-half of the excise tax taken off last fall. By the time he is through imposing the tax on January 1, 1987, the situation will be that much worse.
It is really sad that the Minister of Finance does not seem to be aware of the concern when he brings down a budget. He starts reeling off a number of items, but he does not realize now much anguish, hardship and difficulty there is in the farming community.
Agricultural Stabilization Act
There is a strong recommendation from the Finance Committee that we position a major agri-bond program which would have provided long term low interest rates of 8 per cent over a number of years. Apparently the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) was not able to convince the Minister of Finance in his Budget that he should have had a positive program to assist the 17 per cent of farmers who are in serious financial difficulties.
I should like to refer to a resolution which was passed by the directors of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture which indicated that the Government had betrayed Canadian farmers, that it ignored the consultative process and its recommendations, and that it ignored the legitimate needs of farmers. It seems to me that we should have received more action from the Government in terms of providing retroactive payments under the stabilization program. Sugar-beet growers of Alberta will be eligible once the bill is passed, yet the Minister is not prepared to make those payments even though they were dealt with in Committee of the Whole.
The Minister talked about a new era in agriculture. Many people are very concerned about the new tripartite era. If we look at the document entitled: A New Direction for Canada which was tabled last fall, particularly at the section dealing with agriculture, we see that the federal Government will opt out of many support and stabilization programs in which it is now involved. For example, on page 60, it is noted that out of the $1.35 billion budget of Agriculture Canada, some $700 million is devoted to price and income supports. In part it reads:
The federal Government must examine its involvement in the sector to ensure that it is directed at maintaining a strong, efficient, and competitive Canadian agricultural sector, and that it recognizes its special challenges. It will be important to determine whether existing price and income support programs are still appropriate for present-day conditions and to ensure that they are not causing structural inefficiencies in the industry.
The next sentence is the key one, and it reads:
The new tripartite approach to red meat stabilization may be a good example of how both levels of Government and the producers themselves can co-operate to develop improvements over former arrangements.
Is the federal Government looking to the possibility of having crop insurance programs instead of federal-producer programs with the provinces administering them? Is it planning under the tripartite stabilization legislation to have the province pick up a third of the cost of crop insurance? Is it planning to have provincial Governments pick up a third of the costs of the western grain stabilization program? Is it planning to have provincial Governments and producers pay a third each of the costs of the dairy stabilization program? In total, the dairy program would cost some $300 million.
A New Direction for Canada, under the Tory Government, suggests that the tripartite arrangement is what the Government has planned. If so, it will be a great revelation to hard-pressed producers and provincial Governments. For instance, if they each had to put up $100 million under the dairy support program, it would not only be the cause of great

June 27, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
revelation. I wonder whether that is what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has in mind.
The Budget has provided that for each year, for the next five years, there will be a $50 million reduction in the funding of Agriculture Canada. I assume, from reading A New Direction for Canada, that it will come out of the $700 million devoted to price and income support.
There is great uncertainty in the agricultural community as to whether the amendments of the Minister will allow the red meat program to go ahead. In fact, the Bill does not provide for the concerns of the Maritimes or the Province of Quebec. We should not only look at the immediate concerns in the red meat industry, but we should look ahead at the demands which the Minister and his Government will make on producers and provincial Governments to pay a third of the costs of stabilization programs for many other commodities which heretofore were either totally, or to a large percentage, paid by the federal Government.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Trade-Steel exports to United States, b) Request that monitoring system be established; The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker)-Airports-Stationing of RCMP officers at airports; The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)- The Constitution-Supreme Court judgment, (b) Consultations with Maintoba Government and Society of Franco-Manitobans-Government position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise that Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate on this particular Bill, I should like to sum up the position of my Party. For several weeks we have been discussing an amendment to the Agricultural Stabilization Act, an Act which has been around since 1957-58. It was offered in response to a need in agriculture which had been expressed by farmers for ages, a need to come up with programs which would permit them to remain in business during the tremendous price cycles which occur in agricultural production and pricing.
We in Canada have approached this question from two directions. For some commodities we offered the possibility of national marketing board legislation. Most of the commodities which we produce, other than those under the Canadian Wheat Board or the current national supply-managed marketing systems, have been exempted from the ability to apply under that particular legislation. For example, a red meat producer cannot knowingly set up a national meat marketing agency because there is no room under the umbrella legislation for producers of beef or pork to do so. As an alternative, Governments of the past offered agricultural stabilization programs which in effect took an average of the ups and down of prices over five years and guaranteed producers approximately 90 per cent of that floating or moving average.
This particular set of amendments came about in response to several initiatives which were taken outside the House. The first amendment included a change to designated products. I must point out that there are two sets of products under the Act. Some farmers realize that there are named products, for which the stabilization program and formula are automatic, and that there are designated products that are usually less widely produced products, over which the Minister has some discretion in designating as products. The Minister can decide on the level of pay-out for a particular commodity over a period of time. There has been some difficulty in that regard, in that the old Act suggested that pay-outs had to be based upon the prices of the past year. They ran into some legal problems, thus a minor change was made to make the year a retroactive one so that pay-outs could be made legally under the Act.
The amount of named commodities has been enlarged and extended somewhat with these amendments but mostly what the Act is purporting to do, if we listen to the Minister and some of the witnesses, is to take care of a fear that is in some parts of the farming community that our farm production will be Balkanized because of the interference of some provincial treasuries in the subsidization of agricultural products in their province. This is legal under our constitution, but creates some interprovincial trade problems. That fear was carried forward and provided with some impetus by the fact that some of our trading partners have now begun to interfere with and react to the kind of stabilization policies we have in this country. In particular, the United States of America has moved, through its Commerce Department to put on a countervail tariff of 5.5 cents a pound on pork and about 4.4 cents a pound on live hogs.
The argument that is offered for changing the Agricultural Stabilization Act is that if we have a national program where-
June 27, 1985

by producers can only collect under a national program that somehow or other, through some magic that has never been totally explained, the U.S. will stop their countervail.
However, we should point out, as was pointed out through the witnesses and during the investigation of this Bill, that the U.S. has, during the course of its countervail, countervailed almost equally against provincial programs as it has against federal programs. It does not seem to provide any immunity to federal programs. We are operating very much on faith if we think that these particular changes will change the minds of the U.S. regarding the countervail of pork. I expect if it behooves them to do so, they will countervail equally against us when we come in with a beef program and it all depends under what sort of political pressure producers in the United States put their Government. They have a procedure that permits them to act and get a countervail much quicker that most countries have. In a matter of a few months, they were successful in having the countervail on pork and they, I think, would move equally as quickly if beef producers in the United States felt that their markets were being jeopardized as well.
We heard about a lot of frustration in the committee from producers of pork in particular because they thought we had a free trade agreement with the United States in pork. It is not too many years ago when Canada accepted between 14 and 15 per cent of our total pork consumption from the United States. While there may have been some grumblings, we realized that we had a free trade agreement with them and, therefore, if that was going to be any good, we would have to accept their pork when their product was cheaper than ours and could find a ready market in Canada. When the tables were reversed, however, with less than 3 per cent of the American market for pork being taken up by the Canadian product, the Americans moved a countervail action in an attempt to stop Canadian pork going into their market.
It is very difficult to see the justice in that and very difficult to see that we have in fact a free trade arrangement with the United States when we will accept between 14 and 15 per cent of their product and they move unilaterally against us when we take up 2 or 3 per cent of their market. There was a lot of frustration and we had two points of view-there were probably far more than two points of view but there were certainly two distinct schools of thought-in the information that appeared before us.
I pointed out because of the formula that Canada has adopted for stabilization programs when we get into a period of rapid inflation that is not matched in the market-place, as has happened with red meats, the 90 per cent of the five-year average does nothing to stabilize the industry. It does nothing to assist producers to stay in business.
We have in the late 1970s come through a period when interest rates virtually tripled, fuel prices tripled and a great many other production costs also went up very rapidly, but the price of beef and pork only went up a small part of the increase in cost. The 90 per cent of the five-year market average fell far short of covering the actual cash cost of the producers. As a consequence, a great many of the provinces, in
Agricultural Stabilization Act
order to maintain production and to assist the maintenance of farmers in their provinces, came in with bipartite stabilization programs based on a cost of production formula rather than on a market-pricing formula. They experimented, I think quite successfully, with the cost-based formula. They pioneered the programs where producers were able to recoup all of their cash costs and part of their investment costs each year through a program to which the producers contributed approximately one-half of the insurance premiums and those premiums were shared by the provinces.
Many of the producers who had experience with these programs had been agitating for these kinds of cost-based programs to be presented at the national level and that the contributions be done by farmers, provincial treasuries and the federal Treasury. These proposals seem to have been largely rejected by the Government. There is some mention of costs in the new formula but it is only used to arrive at a factor or an index and that then becomes part of a calculation.
The cost being the main source of triggering a pay-out is not going to be part of this particular program that we have offered to us here. They have come a little ways so that costs can make up part of the formula, but it is still basically a market-oriented program. When market prices fail to meet the cost of production, it simply locks in a situation which many of the producers who appeared before us describe by saying that it stabilizes poverty or it stabilizes bankruptcy.
During the course of hearing the witnesses on this, we also saw some changes to the political lexicon and redefinitions that will, I hope, not become part of the political dictionary of this country because prior to the changes we had some of the provinces attempt to come up with a tripartite agreement that was suitable to them, to the federal Government and to some of the farm groups within these provinces. Remember, Mr. Speaker, this is in a confederation of Canada which has taken pride in surviving with 10 distinct provinces and two territories for more than a century and has taken pride in recognizing the need for some recognition of differences for regions in the different areas of the country.
In spite of that, we started hearing about the majority of provinces which, when one understands the lexicon, means the four provinces that produce most of the livestock, and then we heard about the minority of provinces which turns out to be the six provinces that have most of the farmers. I am afraid that we ended up, by my assessment, listening to the livestock rather than the farmers.
The Minister attempted to bring in some amendments which he feels address some of the problems. The major amendment is one that I find very difficult to accept, and I voted against it in committee. I would like to talk about it for a few moments because I think the amendment misses the whole purpose of a tripartite scheme.
As we read the Bill initially, most of us thought that a tripartite scheme as presented by the Bill would be the establishment of a framework under which producer groups, provin-

June 27, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
cial Governments and federal Governments could meet to bargain, discuss and negotiate to arrive at a proposal which would provide a stabilization program that would cover the agreed to commodities in those agreeing provinces. The federal Government would participate by paying one-third of the premiums. However, the most noteworthy amendment put by the Minister in an effort, we were told, to go some way toward meeting the problems of the so-called minority of provinces, was a different proposition. As when the original Bill went through the House at second reading, it permits the tripartite discussions to take place, but the Minister has added something that he feels will look after everything. I will read this amendment into the record so that you may make up your own mind about it, Mr. Speaker. It reads:
The Minister may enter into an agreement with a province in respect of an agricultural commodity only if he is of the opinion that such an agreement (a) would not give to the producers of the commodity who are to be parties to the agreement or for whose benefit the agreement would be entered into, a financial advantage in the production or marketing of the commodity not enjoyed by other producers of the commodity in Canada.
Reading that, I realize that for every dollar a producer puts up in premiums, the province will put up a dollar and the federal Government will put up a dollar. This means that for every $1 put up, two more come into existence. That sounds like a bit of an advantage for those who participate in the plan over those who do not. However, the Minister may veto the program if it suddenly hits him when he looks at the plan that this is what is does.
Not only can the Minister have that kind of discretion. His motion goes on to say that the Minister could stop the plan if in his opinion the agreement would be an incentive to the producers of the commodity who are to be parties to the agreement or for whose benefit the agreement would be entered into to over-produce the commodity. We know by the very nature of the agricultural community that according to economists, the economic reason for market lows is over-production. If we are going to have periods of time when there are low prices, the Minister can call it over-production and veto the program.
I have great difficulty understanding the Minister's explanation of these words. When I read them, they seem to be very clear. I think that-


John Wise: That's because you and I are not lawyers, Vic.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: My lawyers tell me the same thing.


John Wise: That's not what my lawyers tell me.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I think the proposal has to be tested simply because of the force of the all Members against everyone else. However, I do not think it will be effective in responding to the trade war initiated by the U.S. I do not think it will properly address the problems that exist interprovincially. I think that we have only stirred up the hornets and the nest is now broken. We will simply have to live again with an Agricultural Stabilization Act that does not do what farmers expect it to do.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be on my feet for very long. However, there are some things that I feel should be said about this Bill.
First, I would like to remind the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) that this Party was in power for 10 or 15 years. When his Party was in power, we never heard about any of these new ideas he is now suggesting. Now when the Party is in opposition, Liberal Members suddenly have a great many new ideas that they are bringing forth. Why did they not bring them forth during the years they were in power? It makes me think of something somebody said which goes, "Don't do what I do, do what I say".
This Government is doing something about the problem. The Bill may not be perfect but the problem is being tackled. The Minister is putting his neck on the line and his head on the block and he is trying to do something for agriculture, the backbone industry of this country that has been neglected for 15 years. That in itself is a great step forward.
The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) took such a negative view of the Bill I was surprised, because normally he has some pretty good ideas about agriculture. He is a practical man of the land. Today he reminded me of the fellow who, when he held up his whisky bottle, said, "My God, the thing is half empty". Another fellow looked at it and said, "Good, it's half full". We are doing something about the problem. I do not like the idea of Members saying that it is a failure before it even gets started. I would like to give it a chance.
I would like to deal with some of these items. First I want to say that we live in a wonderful country. I am proud to be a Canadian. I was proud to wear a Canadian uniform. Wherever I go in the world, I find that people recognize and appreciate Canadians. However, Canada is a vast country. It is far flung. One time a fellow said, "I think Canada is far flung but sometimes it's flung too far".
When dealing with problems from the Pacific to the Atlantic and from the 49th parallel to the Arctic Ocean, Ministers must get an overwhelming feeling. Each province has its own beauty and its own differences. Each province has its own ideas. Agriculture is important to every province and Territory in this country.
I do not want to leave the impression that we will not do anything about the differences between the provinces. I do not want the provinces to be all the same. However, I would like to use the differences to show that we can strengthen our nation by recognizing and dealing with our differences.
The point I would like to make is that we must recognize that Canada is composed of a lot of provinces. I am a Canadian. I come from Alberta and I was born in Alberta. When I die, I hope I will die in Alberta. I know every province. As a former Minister of Highways for Alberta it was my pleasure to spend two or three days with Ministers of Highways from every province of this great country. From that I learned that every province has its own objectives and ambitions. All the provinces want to make Canada a united and
June 27, 1985

greater country. When I decided to run federally, I hoped that I would be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
I want to deal with the matter before the House today with the view of trying to solve the problems which face our agricultural industry. The bottom line in the Bill is that producers in each and every province must be treated fairly and equitably. I do not know of a farmer in Alberta who expects special treatment. I do not know many farmers in Quebec or the Maritimes, but the few I do know have never said that they want special treatment. They all want fair and equitable treatment in order that they can survive and make a living. That is the bottom line of the Bill.
This Bill is not exactly what the people of my province or I wanted. I would have preferred a straight red meat tripartite stabilization bill. For many years we spoke about that. However, that would affect only four provinces and there are six other provinces that have something to say about the matter. The committee accommodated and listened to people from each province. Then it attempted to address the problems of each province. There had to be some compromise. During the meetings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture it was argued that the original Bill, while it would have been very helpful to red meat and pork producers in Alberta, would have destroyed the agricultural industry in the Maritimes. I do not want the agricultural industry in any province to be destroyed. I want the agricultural industry in every province to have the opportunity to survive and to contribute to this great nation.
I would like to deal with the matter of subsidies. We know what EEC subsidized beef meant in Canada. It almost destroyed the beef industry in Canada. During the Liberal administration nothing was done about it. It was dumped into Canada, subsidized to the hilt and almost destroyed our industry. The beef producers of Canada could not compete against subsidized beef from another part of the world. Therefore, it reduced the standard of living of our farmers. We know what subsidization means, when a farmer cannot compete against government subsidies. However, now the shoe is on the other foot.
We have subsidized pork in every province except Alberta. The Alberta pork producers have a double whammy. They do not have a provincial subsidy, as do farmers in other provinces, and they also have to deal with U.S. countervailing duties. The Alberta producer must compete interprovincially against government money. The provincial Governments of British Columbia, Quebec, Saskatchewan and every other province pay a subsidy for pork. That subsidy varies in accordance with the reasoning of the industry and the Government of each particular province. We must decide whether we want subsidies or want to remain an exporting nation. Already we are seeing that we will lose part of our market because the United States has told us that their farmers cannot compete against subsidized pork from Canada, just as we cannot compete against subsidized beef from the European market.
Agricultural Stabilization Act
What is the solution? Alberta thinks that all provincial subsidies should be eliminated. That would do it, but many provinces are not prepared to do that. I would like to have seen a clause in the Bill stating that there would be no top loading, underloading or side loading. However, that was not satisfactory to six provinces.
Are we going to give special treatment to one province? I complained about special treatment being given to any province in a number of areas, as an MLA and as an MP. Therefore, I cannot say that I want special treatment for my province. I do not. Neither do the cattle producers, the pork producers or the Government of Alberta. I want equal and equitable treatment to be given to Alberta, Quebec, the Maritimes and Ontario. That is building a nation.
The Minister has come up with a "no financial advantage". That replaces the top loading-underloading. We have a responsible Minister who wants to build the country, not destroy any province. Therefore, he came up with the best way in which he could get agreement. I do not particularly like it, but I am a Canadian. I do not think that my province should have the whole say. If I did, we would not be a nation. It is the best the committee could do. The Minister has told us that he does not want top loading or bottom loading. How fairer can he be? The Minister made it very clear that he did not want producers in one province to have a financial advantage over producers in another province. Is there something wrong with that? I do not see anything wrong with it. The Minister has made it very clear.
It is not only the wording of the Bill which counts, it is the administration and the interpretation. We have the Minister's interpretation. When the agreements are entered into, the Minister will have the final say as far as the federal Government is concerned. The Minister wants to give fair treatment to every agricultural industry in every province of Canada. The agreements will be signed by the provincial Governments and the federal Government. Surely at that time the details can be worked out. I have every hope that this legislation will meet the problems. We have a Minister who is agriculturally-minded and determined to build Canada, not destroy any part of it.
Agriculture takes in a lot of fields. My interest is in grain, beef and pork. I do not have much to do with blueberries. There are a few honey producers in my riding. My interest is to ensure that the hog producers, beef producers, honey and grain producers in my riding have a chance to compete in Canada and in external markets. If they can do that, I will be happy.
We are on the way. I think this administration and the Minister will be a tremendous boost to agriculture in Canada. I will not go into other examples of how the law was interpreted by other administrations in such a way as to destroy provinces, because our Minister will do the very opposite. It is a case of building within the framework of this Bill. The Minister believes this law is right. It will indeed stop bottom loading and or top loading or, in other words, stop provincial or federal subsidization. It will be up to the provincial Govern-

June 27, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
ments to decide whether we are to go into this tripartite agreement and stop subsidization, or we are going to keep subsidization and take the chance of losing our markets. We cannot go on with subsidization and still have our markets in other parts of the world, because that subsidization will be resented in the same way as we resent the subsidization of European beef. The bottom line is that producers in every province must be treated fairly and equitably with special favours to none. Alberta producers want to stand on their own feet. They want fair competition because they cannot compete against government subsidies.
I think one would find that the farmers and producers in every province say the same thing. They want fair treatment. Keeping Canada together is important. I am sure in the minds of most Canadians when they elected this Government was the thought that we would try to keep Canada together. The Progressive Conservatives were the last hope of many people in this country. When this Bill is passed it will be demonstrated to all Canadians and to the world that we want to be fair to every part of Canada and keep all of Canada together.
I want the producers of every province to be able to compete and produce fairly and equitably. I want the beef and pork producers of Alberta to have an opportunity to survive, grow and contribute to a prosperous and united nation, and I want the same for every other province and every other producer. If this administration fails to acomplish that, then we can still do something different-at least we are trying. I have no intention of stopping an effort by saying it has failed before it has even started.
The red meat industry is important to me, to the Minister, to the people of Alberta and to all of Canada. I am sure that the goal of fair treatment will be accomplished.
We are a trading nation, an exporting nation. We cannot afford to lose our markets. Agriculture must decide whether to exist with its government subsidies and lose its market or forego government subsidy and live good and increasing markets. That is what I hope this Bill will accomplish. No subsidies, provincially or federally, will invoke fair trade in this country. We want to show other parts of the world that we are not asking our produces to compete against government money.
International law must not be used as a back door to come in and destroy some of our industries. So I also urge the Government to take a look at these international laws and GATT agreements so we will not have unfair treatment to our agricultural industry in any part of Canada. That has been too evident in the past.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill may not be perfect but it will give Canadians a chance. It will give the whole industry, including the beef and pork producers in every province, an opportunity to grow and prosper and to contribute to a greater and better Canada and to a better world.
[ Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear the speech by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). His eloquent defence of Canada as a nation was very interesting but hardly appropriate, since he was talking about unity in connection with a Bill that is so divisive and on which it has been impossible to get any consensus. Telegrams are pouring in for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), announcing that most intervenors are against the Bill. When the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) talks about national unity and Canada's great virtues as a nation, he should realize that this measure has divided the Canadian agricultural community more than ever. I think the Hon. Member would be doing farmers a favour if he recognized this country's diversity as well as its unity.
Mr. Speaker, I think this Bill is a mistake in that it fails to recognize the diversity of this country and of Canadian agriculture. The Hon. Member gave an example of a situation in his province. I have a great deal of respect for his province, but the practice there is entirely different from the situation in other provinces. Of course he sees the Bill as an advantage since there is no such program in his province, but, and he said this earlier, there are other farmers who already have vested interests. There are farms across the country, in other provinces, who have made sacrifices to set up stabilization programs. There are provincial governments that have already made sacrifices and have used some of their resources to set up a stabilization instrument.
The Hon. Member refuses to admit that not all Canadian provinces are in the same situation. Nor will the Minister admit it, and that is why there is so much concern about this Bill.
The Minister is oblivious of the fact that for several days, Quebec farmers have been going from Member's office to Member's office, trying to persuade Members to stop the Minister and tell him: We need more consultation and more guarantees. And up to now, the Minister has refused to listen. He was at the committee sitting when the UPA president was there with representatives from other federations, but I wonder whether he was really listening, because none of their representations were incorporated in this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister will have to recognize that there is disagreement on this Bill. He will have to, and I am thinking of the editorial in "Terre de chez nous", where Francois Cote says: "Instead of taking a vigorous stand against this manoeuvre, the Canadian Government seems to want to use it as an excuse to justify the adoption of Bill C-25. It is a constraint that is unacceptable for two reasons." And then we get comments on the pork issue, and I will get back to that later. Mr. Cote goes on to say: "Adopting Bill C-25 would mean adopting institutionalized hypocrisy, because from the strictly economic point of view, increasing income or reducing costs produces exactly the same results".
June 27, 1985

Mr. Speaker, it was in all the newspapers, and I just quoted an example from a Quebec newspaper, but I could also quote from the Calgary Herald, which says:

"Agriculture Bill appears to be waste of effort".

And he comments in great detail on the Bill. Mr. Speaker, no one at this time seems to think the Bill meets their needs and expectations.
The Minister claims there is no risk involved and that the Bill is just going to be a kind of testing ground. I have the impression the entire Bill is some kind of test balloon. Lately, the Minister has been unable to convince his fellow Members from Quebec that there is any justification for this Bill. He only managed to twist their arms, Mr. Speaker.
I was very pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary wonder about last night's voting. He must know that the Whip had to go down and make Members go upstairs, because they were not very keen.
Mr. Speaker, unless the Hon. Members who confirmed this had shaky knees ... All I can say is, I am convinced that this Bill has created considerable concern within the Conservative caucus. And if it is not real, that means Hon. Members are not doing their job and that they are not properly representing the interests of their own producers.
The Minister should realize the responsibilities and mandate given to his Quebec colleagues by their electors. One of those responsibilities is to represent them with dignity in this House and they certainly would not be assuming those responsibilities if they were to cave in under ministerial pressure.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of regional production costs has been the main topic since debate began on this Bill. A few minutes ago 1 was talking to farmers who told me: It is impossible, it is illusory to think that costs are the same throughout Canada. In their brief they asked for the establishment of a system acknowledging the existing cost difference. Last night our colleagues introduced an amendment which would have accomplished that to a point so as to take regional concerns into account, but the Progressive Conservative Members voted against it, Mr. Speaker. Once again that is what I call the tyranny of the majority. But the Minister will have to live with the consequences of his action, just as he will have to explain next July 25 his failure to convince the Americans not to impose the surtax. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to bet that the Minister will again lose the last round to the American authorities.
I can tell you as well that the Minister will have to chose his words very carefully if he hopes to hide from Canadian and Quebec farmers the fact that his departmental budget is to be reduced by $50 million. He will also have to skate in circles
Agricultural Stabilization Act
once he starts tinkering around with the dairy policy. He should not forget to sharpen his skates.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this Bill does not meet the legitimate aspirations of Quebec producers. As an example I told the Minister about one of my constituents who last year got $24 through the provincial pork stabilization program to which he has contributed. He was offered another program, a federal program which I describe as "stabilization of misery"-$6.54 to boot-except that APU members did not get it. It was promised to him all right, but he is still waiting, so given the difference can the Minister blame the producer? Can the Minister blame the producer who would rather keep his own program? Surely the Minister understands and agrees with me that the producer wants to keep the benefits and advantages he already has. As the saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush!
As a producer himself the Minister would certainly opt for the provincial solution if he were in the same dilemma. I am sure of that. But he is the Minister responsible, he has his marching orders, so I understand he is forced to ignore this legitimate request but I do find that unacceptable. As a result, Mr. Speaker, it is as though the Minister is attempting to rewrite the Canadian Constitution, for he takes it upon himself to have the last word with respect to agricultural stabilization. Only the Minister will have the right of veto. In fact we have just witnessed the creation of a federal right of veto over everything connected with stabilization in Canada.
That is the kind of power the Minister wants to assume, yet agriculture is a joint federal-provincial jurisdiction under the provisions of the Canadian Constitution. The Minister will have a lot of difficulty when he attempts to explain his reasoning to Quebec producers.
I deplore the fact that the Minister did not see fit to consult more, for I am sure he might have been able to come up with a more realistic and more understanding amendment.
The Minister himself was forced to issue a rather half-baked press release on the meaning of his amendment, trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. But by doing so no one was satisfied and it is my view, Mr. Speaker, that over the coming weeks, and the coming months, and the coming years probably, the Minister will realize that his program does not interest many people. What will happen unfortunately, is that producers who will be counting on what they already have will be penalized by the federal stabilization program. Those people also are federal taxpayers, and under Bill C-25, if they do not meet the Minister's requirements, they can never get federal funds, which is not good enough in a confederation such as ours. It is not good enough that the program should have no flexibility. Mr. Speaker, the Minister could tell us that in the past we have had similar examples. Well, we did, and indeed we paid dearly, and I thought the Minister would have learned their lesson from last year's Bill C-54. I thought the Minister would also learn his lesson from other programs. In

June 27, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
fact, other designated products could be covered by that and it would mean that producers who did not meet the Minister's requirements would have no access to any part of the federal funds, and there is the dilemma, Mr. Speaker.
We have seen over the last few days a number of farmers oppose this Bill. Some Members acted as if they opposed the Bill and, Mr. Speaker, I will never forget last Thursday when Quebec's great champions on the Committee were nuzzled around the noon hour, those Progressive Conservatives Members from Quebec, and in the afternoon they disappeared when the time came for the vote. But I say to the Minister: This may work this time, you may have succeeded in convincing your colleagues to trust you. But you will need to deliver, and I am convinced that the way the program started you will never deliver. I am sure also that the Minister will not deliver because of the American surtax, and I am sure that by the end of the summer there will be disappointment after disappointment, and what he saw with the senior citizens is nothing compared with what he will see this fall if he has the same attitude. If the Minister keeps scoffing at producers who have legitimate claims, if he will not defend them, because as Minister of Agriculture, he is the farmers' spokesman in Cabinet rather than a Cabinet spokesman for dealing with the farmers, and although the Minister was a good Member of Parliament in opposition he might even have done a better job had he stayed there longer, farmers now are under the impression that unfair provisions are forced down their throat. This is the perception that is evolving, just as senior citizens had the legitimate perception that they were being had, as you were forced to recognize belatedly, and it is my forecast, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister will be forced to do exactly the same thing. He will be forced one of these days to backtrack because of this country's diversity. We may refer to unity within diversity, but diversity must be emphasized in a legislation such as this.
In that sense, I am sure that what with the coming events and the failures on the horizon, unless the Minister knows from the horse's mouth, unless he can tell us that he succeeded in convincing the Americans, but since this issue started he admits from week to week that special advantages are granted, he used the plight of pork producers as a rationale for Bill C-25, and he would have us believe that the granting of federal funds, federal stabilization is more acceptable than provincial stabilization. This is what he would have us believe. This is what he tried to tell the committee, that this Bill would be very well received by the Americans. Indeed, he did not consult the representatives of Canadian producers before introducing his Bill, but he did consult the Americans. This is what is incredible. The UPA people told us that they had not been consulted, and one week later, the Minister admitted that he had his Bill checked by the Americans. This is what he admitted to us, that this measure would not embarras them too much, and that if it made then happy, it might work. This is what the
Minister admitted in the committee, Mr. Speaker, that the Americans had been consulted.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand his reasoning. Why would his Bill not create the danger of surtaxes while provincial money would be dangerous? Something is wrong in his reasoning. This is why, for the moment, we think that this Bill is premature in view of the lack of consultation and consensus.
The Minister has received telegrams in the last few days. 1 challenge him to table a single telegram of support. All the copies of telegrams that we saw were from people who said: This will not work. If the Minister has any that say something else, I think that it might be useful to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) to know what support his Government has in this country. However, during the last few hours, my colleagues from the Maritimes have shown us some negative telegrams that they have received. We from Quebec have also received negative messages. People from the West have also sent negative telegrams and I am simply wondering whether the Minister is the only one not to have received any. In my opinion, this legislation will have to be reviewed and the Minister will realize that his standardization or stabilization of poverty is unfortunately utopic and that, in practice, there is so little consensus that his scheme will not work. In the interests of the producers I represent. I can only say that I wish that he does realize it because he is now jeopardizing stabilization instruments which were developed by the provinces following epic battles by the farmers. These programs were not given gradly. They were the product of numerous fights to assure at least some income stability and some survival in this sector.
Mr. Speaker, we have only to look at pork, beef, grain or lamb production to realize that Quebec producers are slowly gaining. There have been setbacks in pork production and there will be even more because of the grovelling of the Government before the Americans. However, on the whole, I believe that we had developed valid instruments. In any case, because of the tyranny of the majority, as I said earlier, the Minister will have his Bill in spite of what everyone says. However, 1 trust that, in the weeks to come, the Minister will use his time off to reflect on the lack of any practical options in his Bill, and I personally invite him to come and meet the farmers of my constituency. I would be very happy to meet the Minister, and I think that it would be in his interest to go also to the riding of Brome-Missisquoi, and I see my colleague for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand), who would be very happy to welcome the Minister. We could have him meet real people, real farmers who would tell him what they think. I am certain that he would come back with a whole new perspective in the fall. I find this Bill really regrettable, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that the intentions of the Minister are good. The problem is in applying these intentions to reality and I must unfortunately oppose this Bill which, if it were properly amended, could be useful to the people I have the honour to represent. Unfortunately, the Minister has not deemed it
June 27, 1985

appropriate to listen either to his colleagues from Quebec, or to the representatives of certain provinces, or to the members of certain federations, and also-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry. Questions and comments.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed quite pleased to take part in the debate on third reading of this bill. I cannot help remembering the summer months last year when Quebec farm producers were very concerned. Rightly or wrongly, they had the brilliant idea to meet with the various party candidates who were hoping to represent their respective constituencies. The discussions focused on a number of problems faced by the farmers. We heard quite a lot about the unpaid $31 million, as well as the $450,000 to sheep producers. We heard also a lot about their problems with the Farm Credit Corporation. We were told about the long term dairy policy, the concern of the retiring farmer about the future of his farm, the problems of research, as well as all the other problems stemming from those I have just enumerated.
Overriding these problems, Mr. Speaker, we could see as a sort of common denominator the very deep concern Quebec farm producers had about their future, and what lay ahead. Well, I felt it was quite normal and proper for these farmers who, for the most part are businessmen, to inquire and possibly find out what the future and the various political parties had to offer.
In reply to these questions, various candidates, including some hon. members who unfortunately are sitting on the government side, told Quebec farmers what they wanted to hear. They promised an era of stability. They promised them security. I repeat, they told them what they wanted to hear. Hardly a year had elapsed when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) introduced Bill C-25 which is an unbelievable insult and a denial of the farmers' well deserved aspirations, a total disregard of Quebec farmers' concerns, and an end to the very good protection schemes they had devised for themselves over the past few years.
My colleague from Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) pointed out a few minutes ago that for pork production, which is extremely important in Quebec, the provincial stabilization program has paid over $20 per pork unit, while the federal program has paid slightly more than $6. For that reason, it is quite normal, fair and reasonable that Quebec pork producers want to keep what they have obtained, set up, built out of nothing and paid for, because those payments are not a godsend, Mr. Speaker, they come from the producers' contributions.
Now in Quebec, and I think that our colleagues opposite should know that a number of decisions were made in Quebec in the past few years: the decision to promote certain types of
Agricultural Stabilization Act
production and to support producers; the decision to intensify production in certain sectors. And in my opinion, those are quite legitimate decisions, because the provinces are allowed to make them under the Canadian Constitution.
In that connection, I should like, if you allow me, Mr. Speaker, to quote from an editorial published in La Terre de chez nous which says:
Under the Canadian constitutional system, agriculture is a shared responsibility, and the federal government has no right to prevent any province from supporting its production and developing its agriculture through means deemed to be the soundest and the most appropriate by that province.
That was precisely, Mr. Speaker, the decision and the step taken by Quebec farmers a few years ago, and now with Bill C-25 they are told: "Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to take advantage of this legislation-which, by the way, is indeed less generous than the legislation now covering them-you will have to give up in the first place the system which you have set up and your yearly contributions." This is rather unacceptable, it seems to me, and I can easily understand that all farmers without exception are up in arms against the federal measure.
I also understand why the unions and producers' associations so Fiercely object to Bill C-25.
As a result of the uncertainty, discrimination and inequity, they feel prompted to ask: "What do you have to offer in return?" Producers have the right to wonder what the Government is ready to offer as an alternative after denying them what they have so dearly paid for throughout the years. What is the Government entitled to offer as an alternative, what is it entitled to give them? Unfortunately, Bill C-25 does not provide any answer to those concerns, and here is another interesting excerpt from La Terre de chez nous:
Bill C-25 does not specify on what bases the stabilization payments will be calculated nor what will be the contribution of every party to those agreements.
Two items which, rightly so, as you will agree, Mr. Speaker, are extremely important. This legislation provides that the formula for computing stabilization payments and the contribution of each party shall be agreed upon by the three parties. Finally, he concludes that part by stating:
In this, the Progressive Conservative Government is following the same strategy as with all other issues. It shies aways from decisions by minimizing the opportunities for confrontation.
On that item, Mr. Speaker, not only are farmers just as concerned, there is simply utter confusion, total and absolute uncertainty. One thing that is still more frustrating, still more unbelievable is the fact that the Minister is using an extremely acute problem, a most difficult problem now faced by farming in Quebec, the countervail that was slapped on pork products some time ago. At that level, there is ample talk that any direct or indirect subsidy would be liable to be met with that kind of countervail, which sooner or later would do considerable harm to farming. Again, that attitude, those comments are definitely and absolutely refuted by an article that sounds

June 27, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
quite interesting to me, in which it is stated, Mr. Speaker, thatthis is only a pretext, because the Provinces have found over the years a number of loopholes.
In cases where indeed there is no direct subsidy, they find a way to subsidize farmers in respect of fences, ditches, a number of items which as such, are perhaps not direct subsidies to any specific industry but which considered indirectly are a subsidy, to the point where the implementation of Bill C-25 would change absolutely nothing, would simply result in somehow institutionalizing a number of loopholes with the result that the unity or consistency aimed at by the Minister would in no way be reached.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, to me this legislation seems quite simply a piece of utter discrimination against all Quebec commodities and producers. Remember, Mr. Speaker, how this Government supported those great principles of consultation, openness, forthright and honest discussion with all parties involved! Do you remember all that talk about how this Government would definitely be a model of communication and consultation with provincial Governments? It is rather amazing that on this issue that is so basic to Quebec farming, all producers, all farmers, the Minister of Agriculture, all organizations, all unions unanimously and strongly opposed, and have been pressuring the Government for a long time to postpone or to further consider the consequences seen to be absolutely harmful to Quebec farming.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Agriculture to recognize that basic reality in Canadian farming, that the Quebec Government, the Province of Quebec and all Quebec farmers ferociously oppose the Bill. We urge the Minister and all Hon. Members opposite who made the same points, who met the same producers, who are aware of the same problems, to please beg the Minister and ask for a fair and just bill that will protect what Quebec farmers have gained over the last few years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions, comments.
The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin).


Mr. Frangois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was anxious not to miss this last opportunity to speak to the Bill before the House, a Bill that is so important to agriculture both in Canada and Quebec. After listening to two Liberal Members from Quebec on this Bill, I must say that I did not altogether like what they said about the Quebec caucus, Mr. Speaker. But I suppose it is because they do not have a Quebec caucus, in fact) never had one because it was not much use in the past.
I think it would be appropriate to recall what has transpired in connection with this Bill, and so correct a number of
statements made by the two previous speakers, the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) and the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif). First of all, I think there was full and adequate consultation. I am sure we could have gone on consulting for two years, but I also think that everyone who wanted to be heard on this Bill had that opportunity.
I may recall, first of all, that there were 12 days of hearings before the committee, from May 28 to June 21. There was always at least one Quebecer present on each of those days. There was always one Member of the Quebec caucus of the Conservative Party at each of those hearings. Thirty-four associations were heard. A number of briefs drafted by people who did not come in person were submitted, but nevertheless, 34 associations took the trouble to come here, be heard, make suggestions and comments, and give constructive criticism, not like what we have just heard from Liberal Party Members who only want to be negative and kill this Bill.
In fact, we heard a lot of constructive criticism. Four provincial Ministers of Agriculture came to Ottawa to testify before the Committee. There were two representatives from other provinces, representing provincial Departments of Agriculture, and of course we had officials from Agriculture Canada as well as the Minister of Agriculture who came several times to answer questions put to him by the committee.
From Quebec alone and I am going to name only a few because Quebec belongs to practically all Canadian agricultural associations, such as the Canadian Pork Council, the Canada Sheep Council, the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the National Farmers' Union, and I could name most of the 34 associations I referred to earlier there were six which are particularly important to Quebec producers and these were the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec, whose President, Jacques Proulx, appeared before the committee, and I will talk about Mr. Proulx a little later. We had the Federation des producteurs de pore du Quebec, represented by their president, Yvon Scala-brini, who lives in the great riding of Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, about five miles from my home, and for whom I have great respect-he is a remarkable man. We had the Federation des producteurs de bovins du Quebec, with their President, Mr. Gilles Saint-Laurent who came to testify before the committee. We had the Federation des producteurs d'agneau et de mouton du Quebec, which testified through Mr. Gauthier. We had the Office des producteurs de pore du Quebec, the Conseil de la production integree du pore and the Fonds de recherche pore sain.
Mr. Speaker, how could anyone say this Bill is being adopted without consultation? This is consultation beyond one's wildest dreams!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Window dressing!


François Gérin: It was not window dressing, to quote the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), who is interrupting my
June 27, 1985

speech. This was full consultation. These people came to tell us what kind of legislation would be the best according to them. And we saw a number of regional interests. Everybody always looks after his own, and we saw, for instance, that produces from British Columbia took one position and producers from the Maritimes a different one and Western producers another position again, and of course there were some differences. Following these discussions, the Minister of Agriculture, after all witnesses had been heard, tabled a major amendment that responded more or less to what the producers, the pork producers wer asking, half-


An Hon. Member:: More or less.


François Gérin: -half of the basic demands of the UPA, half of the basic demands of the Federation des producteurs de pore du Quebec which correspond with the demands of the Canadian Pork Council. I have it all here:
The CPC members from the other provinces, British Columbia, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, support the position that the Bill be amended to delete the requirement that provincial plans be dropped as a precondition for the respective provinces to participate in a national agreement and that the terms for this provincial participation-
-that is, both producers and provincial governments-
- be elements to be negotiated in the development of any national agreement.
That is exactly what the Minister's amendment added. So it cannot be said that we are not meeting one of the two conditions.
The other condition refers to production costs. It says here:
The basic position of the members of the Canadian Pork Council is that there are in fact major differences in the costs of production in the respective provinces and that a single, national support level, based on a national average of prices and costs, so far as the latter are and would be used in determining the support level, fails to recognize their cost and price situations.
In addition, any payment based on national average costs and prices would be an advantage for regional producers whose costs are lower. According to the members, the fact is that agriculture in Canada is a joint federal-provincial responsibility and provincial Governments now have a wide range of policies and programs whose consequences vary appreciably, so the federal legislation under which producers might be eligible for participation ought not to exclude the producers in certain provinces for the only reason that a provincial support program already exists.
They maintain that this enabling legislation must not be a way to redress injustices stemming from provincial agricultural programs or policies. So here is the amendment introduced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). And the statement goes on to say:
"Canadian Pork Council members think that Bill C-25 should be amended to delete the requirement that provincial programs be abandoned prior to participation in a national
Agricultural Stabilization Act
agreement, yet keeping in mind that equity and balance in the way producers are treated under the various provincial stabilization programs would still be the subject of serious negotiations in the preparation of agreements."
Therefore I fail to see how the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) can say that this Bill-and that is a reproach he voiced-evades the issue by avoiding confrontation. Of course not! It is a general legislation seeking to achieve consensus. Will we have consensus? I do not know. Nobody here can predict that.
No, Sir, we should not necessarily refrain from drafting a piece of legislation simply because we are not yet sure the producers will go along with it. But we do have a general legislation as it is and it makes it possible for pork producers of all regions of Canada to regroup, consider what might be the best formulas, and recommend to the Canadian Minister of Agriculture and to the provincial Governments a stabilization plan which they could live with.
This is how I understand that piece of legislation and how I see that it does give pork producers a fighting chance to improve their industry.
The leaders of Quebec pork producers had an opportunity to appear before us, as reported in issue 25 of the Votes and Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
If I may, I would like to quote a few comments made by the president of the UPA, Mr. Jacques Proulx.
As concerns the first point, namely the fact that he objected to the Bill because it deals with price stabilization and not income stabilization, he said: "-even though Bill C-25 appears to create openings for income stabilization programs based on production costs-". He therefore admitted that this Bill is an improvement and aims at providing stabilization based on production costs.
You can read the whole text if you like!
On page 25:8, he said the following: "In our view, this desire on the part of the federal government to penalize provinces that have their own stabilization scheme is illogical in terms of its content and unacceptable in terms of its underlying principles." However, at that time, the amendment which Quebec producers have found entirely satisfactory had not been proposed.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Proulx then added: "We agree that, at the national level, there should exist a tripartite stabilization program of the most beneficial and flexible type possible. We also believe that there should continue to be complimentary income stabilization schemes based on the priorities and objectives of each province. There should also be co-ordination between the two levels of government, and the governments should conduct such co-ordination through ongoing consultations aimed at adjusting their policies."

June 27, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
He then said on page 13: "Given the hog surplus in the United States and elsewhere in the world, it is not the only solution.
There is another solution, and it may be to reduce our production, or in any case, attempt to do something along those lines. Whether it is federal stabilization or any other kind of stabilization, I have the feeling that if we continue to produce more and more, we will come to a dead end."
All this was said by Mr. Jacques Proulx, president of the UPA. In the same issue, we find similar comments by Mr. Scalabrini. I do not think that anyone can say that Mr. Scalabrini is not representative of his sector. He said the same thing.
After all these representations, Mr. Speaker, the very next week, on June 17, the Conservative Members of Parliament from Quebec asked for the support of the Federation of Quebec Pork Producers and asked Mr. Scalabrini, among others, to appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture to help analyse possible amendments which would be acceptable in Quebec.
Following two full days of hearing on June 17 and 18 all Conservatives members, regular and substitute alike, sitting on our Standing Committee on Agriculture, together with Mr. Scalabrini and Mr. Pelerin, the new President of the Quebec Hog Producers Federation, tried to convince their committee colleagues and the Minister of the need for an amendment acceptable to Quebec. On Thursday morning, since the committee did not sit on Wednesday, we had made sure that the Farm Producers Union appeared once more before the committee to examine again with us a number of potential amendments, and on Thursday afternoon, the Minister of Agriculture moved an amendment which fully met one of the two requirements of the Quebec hog producers. And you can read all the testimonies.
That is just how effective the Quebec members of the Progressive Conservative Party can be! Contrary to what used to happen in years gone by under the previous government, they know how to present their views to the various committees, and to the House as well. This piece of legislation is quite good. What we have here is a framework legislation which will make it possible for the federal government to consult with the various provincial governments and hog producers organizations for the purpose of stabilizing the industry.
Mr. Speaker, hog producers . .. How long do I still have left, Mr. Speaker? Five seconds or five minutes? Five minutes. The hog producers in my riding are well aware that agriculture is a difficult industry. They know about the overproduction problem. They know that we produce more milk than we can use, more hogs than we can eat, and that we must export a large quantity of farm products. They know that our exports are no longer what they used to be. The countries which used
to buy from us have either improved their own agriculture, or they cannot afford any longer to do so. Mr. Speaker, the farm producers in my riding are aware of these problems. They are also aware of the need to find new solutions and develop a new approach. I do not think this new approach would be for hog producers to say: Let us limit our production to the needs of the domestic market, and let us forget about exporting to other countries. Quite the contrary. I feel that Canada must seek export markets and, to this aim, that the government should set up programs to promote our exports, provided that we develop a healthy and positive attitude, not a negative one.
Quebec hog producers have suggested that a meeting with all the other Canadian hog producers, the various organizations of hog producers in Canada might help devise a scheme to be submitted later to the Federal Government and the various provinces, a scheme that might help save this imperilled industry. It is not this bill which is likely to jeopardize in any way the hog industry in Canada, but the overproduction and the dissensions between hog producers.
And it is my felling that sooner or later the Canadian pork producers will have to sit down together, and the Canadian Government can then join them in the talks because we will have provided a blanket legislation that will allow those talks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions, comments. The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to my hon. friend for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin), and I am sorry to tell him that he understood absolutely nothing about the stabilization program. He set out to prove that we needed the stabilization program to help exports, but the Minister can tell that the stabilization program is altogether worthless where exports are concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) to clarify his view and tell me what impact the stabilization Bill now before us will have on the level of our exports, because if he read the Bill correctly, he knows it is strictly for domestic production.
The other point. .. when the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead-


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I believe the Hon. Member would like to answer your first question.


François Gérin: This is because basically, Mr. Speaker, he is merely asking questions for the fun of it, for the pleasure of hearing his own voice rather than wanting to get an answer.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker

June 27, 1985


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member is entitled to a short preamble and a comment and a fast question put succinctly.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. First there is the impact of the legislation on the level of exports; second, he said that UPA is totally dissatisfied with the amendment. I will tell him, for the record, that UPA's amendment has no common denominator with the amendment tabled by the Minister. Therefore, I would ask the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead to tell me who, from UPA, confirmed that he was totally satisfied. I would like to have his name, and certainly we can then have the reaction of that person. And, secondly, the impact of the legislation on exports.


François Gérin: First, Mr. Jacques Proulx, UPA's president. The first thing he had to say before the Standing Committee on Agriculture was that Liberals, for 11 years, had promised them a legislation but never could come up with one. He recognized this legislation was a serious effort-


An Hon. Member:: We stood up.


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


François Gérin: At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Shefford will agree with me that in the pork industry, exports are vitally important. There is no way the pork industry in the current situation could be restricted to domestic consumption. I think we should have a broad mind, we should go beyond the scope of this legislation when looking at the problems with agriculture. This Bill helps, but it will not solve all the problems faced by Canadian farming, that is a sure thing. I say to you please try and have a broad mind; you Liberals, try not to be partisan. You often brag that you are trying not to be partisan. But make an effort not to be, in actual fact. How can we offer pork producers their present high volumes if we have no exports?
That is the problem, the big problem. Mr. Scalabrini and Mr. Proulx came to us and said this was one of their big problems. Surely they will have at some point to get together with producers in other Provinces, they will have to sit down, agree on what the industry will do. We have trouble with our exports to the United States and other countries; we have trouble exporting our commodities. We produce more than we eat; what are we going to do? Mr. Scalabrini said: Could we not have some kind of national plan to increase Canadian consumption? Could we not. . . For, as he knew very well, Mr. Scalabrini said: There will have to be some consensus among pork producers. The beginning of the end will come when all Canadian hog producers can sit together at the same table in an effort to really try to solve this problem. In this endeavour,
Agricultural Stabilization Act
they can rely on the support of all Progressive Conservative members. Can they rely also on the support of the Liberal members?


An Hon. Member:: Absolutely not!


François Gérin: I really do not know, because all that Liberal members are trying to do is to cause trouble. It is clear that a solution will not be found in an atmosphere of dissension and trouble. On the contrary. So let us be logical. Let us be practical. And let us promote these meetings. Personally, I tell the farm and hog producers in my riding that they can rely on me to promote a meeting of hog producers from across Canada, so that they can all sit together and find a solution.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I was-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Excuse me. Your colleague would like to ask a question and there is only five minutes left.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had no intention to deal with this issue, but when I heard these remarks from my office, I was shocked. How can the hon. member who spoke before me tell us that Quebec farm producers support this legislation, when right outside this House representatives from farm organizations from all over Quebec are telling us that they are against it? How can the hon. member tell us that to our face, when there are people at the door who are telling us something entirely different? Personally, I should like to hear the hon. member tell the truth!


François Gérin: I am quite surprised the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is here tonight, because he was supposed to celebrate or, rather, attend a party in his honour. Nobody knows exactly what for, but anyway.
A while ago, I met the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who had come to the House to support this bill to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, and he told me that-


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


François Gérin: -he had met this afternoon with the Quebec hog producers who had indicated to him that they could live very easily with this bill and that they would seek the consensus the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) mentioned a while ago.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the comments made by the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) show he has some courage, and I mean the courage to rise in the House. Unfortunately, his comments also proved beyond a doubt that he is toeing the party line to a

June 27, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
shocking extreme. He said earlier that we had no caucus. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's predecessor at least had some backbone, and when he spoke in the House, he was not concerned about party lines.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member what he thinks about the credibility of the UPA, considering that the Nicolet UPA had a delegation here yesterday, knocking on the doors of all Progressive Conservative Members to show its complete disapproval of Bill C-25.


François Gérin: So you knew the Hon. Member I defeated at the last election? The pork producers in my riding went to see him at the last election, and he had a nice little pig he brought along. Maybe the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) was there. Well, let us not talk about that. Let us get down to serious matters. Look at what Mr. Scalabrini says, a guy from my riding you can trust, speaking of pork producers. I would say the problem in the pork industry is not necessarily stabilization, whether federal or provincial. The problem is overproduction. The warning light is on. It is time to stop and try and get a nationwide consensus to see where we are going, perhaps reduce our production or find some other solution. Pork producers want to meet and discuss these problems together. Help us help them. Let us make it unanimous so we can all try and help them find a solution. That is what we are asking you to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period provided for questions and comments has now expired. Debate. The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak at the third reading stage of Bill C-25. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council is surprised at my presence in the House during a debate on agricultural legislation. I may remind him that since 1972, I have had annual meetings with representatives from the agricultural industry in the province of Quebec. Every year since 1972, the first year I attended a convention of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec in Drummon-ville, where I did not have the pleasure of meeting-


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin), on a point of order.


François Gérin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) should talk about the future instead of the past.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have plenty of time. If the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) wants to raise frivolous points of order, he is just diminishing the impact of his speech. I was about to say, when the Hon.
Member interrupted me, that Quebec's farm producers, and especially the UPA representatives I have met on many occasions, realize that year after year, together with our fellow members from the rural ridings of Quebec, we have fought major battles to protect the interests of Quebec's farm producers. The reason we have a large and prosperous dairy industry, an industry and a policy that are the envy of dairy producers all over the world, is because Quebec Liberal Members have been working for years to ensure that this dairy policy is both fair and generous to dairy farmers. Quebec has experienced unprecedented expansion in the agricultural sector because Liberal Party Members, and especially Liberal Members of Parliament, have been fighting for years to ensure that producers in Quebec and Eastern Canada are able to obtain sufficient quantities of feed grains at competitive prices, to help them maintain their production and compete not just with other Canadian producers but also with foreign producers on Canadian and world markets.
In this debate on third reading of Bill C-25, I cannot help referring to the document tabled by the Progressive Conservative Government, entitled: "A new direction for Canada". A program for economic renewal, that in pages and pages of text contains only a few paragraphs, not even a whole page on agriculture. I am sure that all farm producers in Canada, whether they are from Quebec or the Maritimes, from Ontario or Western Canada, have read this document published by the Progressive Conservative Government which discusses a new direction for Canada and provides an agenda for economic renewal, while showing so little concern for the problems and demands of our farmers.
As I said, hardly one page on agriculture, but how dangerous and how significant it is, Mr. Speaker, and I will quote briefly one of those paragraphs:
Canada is a leading force in the world agricultural marketplace. Agriculture is a pillar of the economy in the west, and the mainstay of many communities in the east. The sector has demonstrated its resilience in responding to change to an extent probably unmatched by other industries.
Fancy words and compliments for the farmers of Canada. But where this gets serious is when the Progressive Conservative Government states, and I quote:
However, government involvement, both federal and provincial, is significant. In addition to substantial regulatory intervention, annual federal budgetary allocations to the sector amount to some $1.35 billion through Agriculture Canada. Of this, some $700 million is devoted to price and income supports.
So what is the meaning of that, Mr. Speaker? It means that, in its economic statement, the Progressive Conservative Government acknowledges the vitality of the agricultural sector. It acknowledges that Agriculture Canada does spend a lot of money each year for the Canadian agricultural community. In other words, this Progressive Conservative Government admits that the previous administration did well. They admit that the Liberals, the predecessor of the Minister of Agriculture, the
June 27, 1985

Hon. Eugene Whelan, did much for Canada's farmers and that considerable funds are earmarked each year to help Canadian farmers.
But if that was all they are saying we could congratulate the Progressive Conservative Government, but it goes farther and that is where we are concerned and must talk about it. I take this opportunity to voice our concern: In an underhanded manner they want to put a stop to this assistance and those grants to Canadian farmers. This is an economic document which states that the federal Government wants to reduce the deficit, that the federal Government wants to intervene less directly in the economy, and that by every means it seeks to cut down its expenditures. So in this economic statement, in those short few sentences about agriculture the Canadian Government is telling all farmers: We give you too much money, we are now giving you about $700 million under price and income support programs, that is too much, we want to cut down a little. That is what has me seriously worried. I am not surprised to see that the various agricultural organizations are beginning to be quite concerned about the position taken by this Government.
Obviously the Government wants to take a new approach, and it says so: The new tripartite approach to red meat stabilization may be a good example of how both levels of government and the producers themselves can co-operate to develop improvements over former arrangements. What does that mean? It means that the Canadian Government now wants to make the provinces pay part of the bill and make the farmers pay part of the bill, while the Government will only pay one-third and probably reduce its assistance and subsidies to support prices and incomes in the agricultural industry.
I want to ask a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the next program to be affected not be the dairy policy? Is the Minister of Agriculture getting ready to cut back the $300 million or so which have been allocated for many years, year after year, to support the Canadian dairy policy? Is the Minister of Agriculture not getting ready to put an end to this assistance which is absolutely essential for all industrial milk producers who, throughout the years, have received the assistance of the Canadian Government, not only to earn a decent living, but also to work in a sector where they could at least have some returns?
The document published by the Canadian Government entitled A New Direction for Canada: An Agenda for Economic Renewal suggests that the Government is getting ready to cut back its agricultural support programs and I find this quite unacceptable. I would like to say this to the Minister of Agriculture: You are about to rush Bill B-25 through the House in spite of the opposition of Quebec farmers and of several provincial governments who said that they did not approve this Bill. However, I am telling you that if you touch the Canadian dairy policy, you have seen nothing yet. The protests and opposition provoked by your proposal to deindex
Agricultural Stabilization Act
pensions is nothing to what you will see if you try to touch the dairy policy.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this Government which, after its victory on September 4, said that we were beginning a new era of good relations and cooperation between the Canadian Government and the provinces. Why is it that the Minister of Agriculture wants to rush Bill C-25 through against all this opposition before the House adjourns? Why is it so urgent to adopt this Bill which has met with so much opposition?
The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) referred briefly earlier to those who appeared before the Parliamentary committee to make representations. I do not question the figures he has quoted and he named accurately some of the witnesses who appeared before the Parliamentary committee. However, I must point out to him that consultation means dialogue, that you speak to each other, that you ask each other questions and that you try to understand each other.
What consultation seems to mean for the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) is that the Government gave its opinion when introducing its Bill, all the witnesses who appeared before the committee raised objections to this Bill, but in site of all that, the Government seems satisfied that it has consulted everyone. They introduced the Bill. All those who were consulted told them: It is no good. But the Government now says: We have consulted and we are going forward with our Bill without making any substantial amendments.
Earlier, an amendment presented by the Minister in committee was mentioned, but this amendment was rejected by Ministers from the Western provinces. We have been informed that the Alberta and Saskatchewan Ministers of Agriculture are against this amendment and that, in their opinion, it means absolutely nothing and does not meet their basic objections.
This amendment which so impressed the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) does not have the agreement or the approval of the Quebec Union des produc-teurs agricoles either. This amendment is much too timid and only creates confusion which will allow the Minister of Agriculture of Canada (Mr. Wise) to decide arbitrarily and alone how the tri-partite program will work. It does not allow the provinces to take part in the final decision. The Minister of Agriculture of Canada will decide alone whether or not a provincial program will be maintained or whether it will have to be abandoned even though doing so would be to the disadvantage of the farm producers of that province.
This is not a satisfactory amendment. It means that each farm producer in the provinces with existing programs are at the mercy of the whims and the fancy of the Minister of Agriculture, and this is totally unacceptable.
6306

June 27, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member for Megantic-Comp-ton-Stanstead referred to it, I can only underline that this Bill has been rushed through this Parliament. In fact, second reading of this Bill began on May 17. On that date, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais) introduced the Bill on behalf of his Minister. And when I refer to Hansard of that day, those who took part in that debate were members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, but no other Tory Member from Quebec spoke.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


André Ouellet: The only one who spoke was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.


An Hon. Member:: He could not figure out what he was reading!


André Ouellet: The debate resumed a few days later on May 21, and then a rather remarkable thing happened, the only one to speak before the Bill obtained second reading was the Official Opposition critic on agriculture, and he was the only Liberal Member with a NDP Member to take part in the debate at that time.


An Hon. Member:: It was fortunate that he was there.


André Ouellet: The Minister did not speak on the 17 nor on the 21.


An Hon. Member:: He was ashamed until then!


André Ouellet: The Bill came back yesterday with amendments for our consideration and which ... I still have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: About a minute.


André Ouellet: A minute, thank you. The Bill came back yesterday and once again, unfortunately, only our NDP colleague took the floor, along with a good number of Liberal Members and the Minister still remained silent. Does he really want to have that Bill passed? One wonders. I think, Mr. Speaker, and I am coming to an end, that this Bill has not been fully looked into in this House. I think that there is too much opposition as well in the Maritimes. Yesterday, my colleague from Prince Edward Island mentioned a telegram he had received from the Minister of Agriculture of that Province objecting to the Bill. We know that dozens and dozens of farmers' organizations object to the Bill and that other provincial Ministers of Agriculture also object to it. I wonder why the Minister is bent on having that legislation passed in a hurry before the summer recess, a legislation which does not meet the legitimate aspirations of Canadian farmers. The Liberal Party will surely fight to the end against that Bill and we will surely vote against it, because it is prejudicial, not only
in the short term but also in the long term, to Canadian farmers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions, comments or debate? The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this very important agricultural debate. I note a certain sadness on the face of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). It is no doubt caused by the assault which was perpetrated on the farmers earlier by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) when he imposed a one cent a litre tax on gasoline. I know that the Minister of Agriculture, like myself, is very worried about the effect that will have on the agricultural industry in Canada. I do not blame him for being disappointed. Members representing agricultural constituencies are also disappointed with a Government which gives so many breaks to the rich and so little to the poor and the farming communities of Canada.
A few days ago I made a few remarks in the House concerning Bill C-25, and for the benefit of Members who were not present on that day I would like to repeat those remarks.


An Hon. Member:: I missed something.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member opposite said that he missed something, so I will repeat it for his benefit. I know that the Member opposite is on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and is very interested in the well-being of farmers across Canada.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House the minutes of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Number 39 of June 18, 1985. The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) asked the Minister a very important question in committee. He was talking about agricultural stabilization and, in particular, pork. He asked what effect this Bill would have, in the event it was passed, in establishing stabilization in the pork industry. Much of the debate over the last few days in this House has surrounded the whole area of the pork industry because we know the terrible condition of that industry. 1 outlined to the committee and to this House the fact that this industry has been diminishing in numbers and amount of production every year for the last five years in the constituency I represent. I know the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski), who is listening very attentively, will be interested in hearing this, as he usually is. I would just like to quote something the Minister of Agriculture said. He said the following in Committee:
If I were presented with that decision today, and recognizing the extent of the percentage and the impact and the importance of the size of the hog industry to one or two or three provinces, I can assure you, given the conditions today, that I would not be recommending that we go forward with a hog plan.
June 27, 1985

We are in a situation, Mr. Speaker, as we discuss hog stabilization, with the Minister saying we need this Bill right away in order to help the agricultural industry out of a difficult position. Of course, in my own riding that is very much the case. We are in a very difficult position. On the other hand, a large number of the people in my own constituency are hog producers who need these measures, yet we have no assurance that they will be helped in any way, shape or form. So we wonder what the rush is to pass a Bill which is not going to be of assistance to a large number of those who need the assistance.
Furthermore, there are confusing interpretations about some of these situations at the present time. For instance, the Minister of Agriculture was quoted in a London Free Press article of June 17, 1985. The article describes how subsidies invite retaliation such as countervails, and so forth, from other countries. I would like to quote part of the last paragraph of the article in the London Free Press. It states:
The best solution would be a stabilization plan administered by Government but entirely financed by farmers-
But if a plan is going to be funded only by the farmers, that is no plan at all. Our farmers need help at this point. And if the farmers wanted a plan of their own, it would be administered by themselves. If you were one of those farmers, Mr. Speaker-recognizing the neutrality of your position-would you trust the Tories with your money? Obviously not, Mr. Speaker. We can see that you would not trust the Tories with your money.


Mr. Boyer:: Let the record show the Speaker nodded.


Don Boudria: Of course, neither would the farmers. Like yourself, Mr. Speaker, they would be very reluctant to get into that kind of proposition.
My distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), referred to the Agenda for Economic Renewal proposed by the Government last fall. He explained very well some very important questions he wanted answered. I invite the Minister to take note of those questions, as I am sure he did.
The Government seems to be of the view that tripartite is the way of the future in providing assistance to agriculture. In its Agenda for Economic Renewal the Government states in part:
The federal Government must examine its involvement in the sector to ensure that it is directed at maintaining a strong, efficient, and competitive Canadian agricultural sector, and that it recognizes its special challenges.
It states further on, and I quote:
The new tripartite approach to red meat stabilization may be a good example of how both levels of Government and the producers themselves can co-operate to develop improvements over former arrangements.
What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? Does it mean, for instance, that there would be tripartite in the dairy industry in the future? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does it mean that? Of course, in that case the Canadian farmers would be worried that the Government would withdraw from its present responsibilities.
Agricultural Stabilization Act
Obviously, Canadian farmers are upset. They are in a difficult situation. They have been promised a lot by the present Government and have received very little. Just to outline to you, Mr. Speaker, the frustration of the Canadian farmers at the present time, I would like to read a resolution passed by the Glengarry, Prescott and Russell Federations of Agriculture. It states, and I quote:
Whereas Mr. Brian Mulroney during the last election campaign made a written promise to provide agriculture with long-term financing at stable and affordable rates and
Whereas farm financing was not addressed in the recent budget,
Therefore we, the members of the Glengarry, Prescott and Russell Federations of Agriculture jointly demand that the Prime Minister of Canada fulfil his campaign promises and be it further resolved that we demand that the cuts of $60 million in the Agriculture programs announced November 8, 1984 and the proposed $50 million cut in the May 23 Budget be cancelled and that full funding be immediately restored to the Agriculture Department.
I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, so that you will understand, as I am sure you do, the difficulty facing the agricultural industry of our country.
The Bill before us has generated quite a bit of controversy. We know that some Conservative Members from Quebec, and other areas where the cost of production in certain commodities is higher than in other regions, want to have provincial programs which will bring those producers into a more advantageous position. That, of course, is very important to the farmers of those regions.
As I said the other day, the farmers of the regions I represent are located right near the City of Montreal in eastern Ontario. They compete against the Quebec farmers. They receive little or no programs in Ontario which could help them because the previous Conservative Government of Ontario did nothing for the farmers. So they are selling on the Quebec market in competition with the Quebec farmer who has a larger provincial subsidy. The difficulty with this, of course, Mr. Speaker-and I am sure you have recognized it by now-is that it leaves them a lot less profit.
At a time when agriculture was somewhat more profitable-not that it was ever very profitable but it was more profitable than it is now-the farmers of my constituency still made money, even though others made more. They managed to make ends meet. But at a time when the margin of profit has decreased, so much, or does not even exist, they are in a losing proposition. Therefore, the farmers I represent in eastern Ontario want a regional component, but "regional" not necessarily meaning provincial. In other words, there should be smaller regions within the provinces so that the farmers of my riding, and others in similar circumstances, could be assisted.
The Minister has brought forward an amendment. As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, it brings more confusion and less clarity to a Bill which is already controversial and difficult to understand. Let me read briefly, Mr. Speaker, Clause 8(3)(a) of the amendment. It states, and I quote:
The Minister may enter into an agreement with a province in respect of an agricultural commodity only if he is of the opinion that such an agreement

June 27, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
(a) would not give to the producers of the commodity who are to be parties to
the agreement or for whose benefit the agreement would be entered into, a
financial advantage in the production or marketing of the commodity not
enjoyed by other producers of the commodity in Canada;
Let us say two provinces have an agreement with the Federal Government, and a third province with a lower cost of production wants to join in that same commodity agreement. That province would, of course, be in a financially advantageous position vis-a-vis the production and marketing of the commodity. Would that mean that the province would be excluded from a previously implemented plan? If that is the case, I wonder what the amendment does other than nullify the Bill in its entirety.-1 am at a total loss to understand why the Government is proceeding with the Bill in this manner.
It is obvious that we have to get more agreement from producers and redefine what we are trying to do. Everyone wants stabilization. Everyone wants our farmers to be assisted. But we do not want the farmers of one part of the country pitted against the others. We do not want farmers of the same province but in different parts to be pitted against each other. That is not why we are here. What we all want is to assist the farming industry.
We can do something tonight for that industry. Let us get together and withdraw those gas price increases for the farmers of Canada. Let us do that right now. I am sure if you would seek unanimous consent of the House to withdraw that ridiculous tax increase you would get it.


William (Bill) Gottselig: Dream on.


Don Boudria: You see, again I over-estimated the Tories. I will never do that again. 1 thought at least some were in favour of farming, but perhaps I was wrong. Well, after the next election the new Liberal Government can take care of farmers, because obviously the Tories refused to do it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: That is very unfortunate. I am sure that if I spoke to my colleagues on this side they would want the farmers of Canada to pay less in gasoline taxes. I am sure all Liberals would agree with that right now. That is a good Liberal policy. But the Conservatives, while they are proceeding with this legislation, are creating this atmosphere of difficulty.


John Wise: You are creating it.


Don Boudria: The Minister says I am creating that atmosphere.


John Wise: Sure you are.


Don Boudria: He has repeated it. I am sure you have noted it, Mr. Speaker. I am sure he is aware that there are many commodity groups across this country-


John Wise: That is right.


Don Boudria: -who appeared before our committee, some of whom were for and some of whom were against the measure. We even had one group come up with two resolutions, one saying they wanted top loading and the other saying they did not, and this from the same group.


John Edmund Parry: They must be Liberals.


Don Boudria: What this Government should do is postpone this Bill, we should hear more from the farming community and obtain that very valuable consensus that the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) referred to earlier. We should spend the summer listening to their concerns, so that when we do something we do it properly. Meanwhile, if we want to do something constructive tonight and tomorrow, let us reduce the gas taxes which the Minister of Finance is attempting to raise on the backs of the farmers of this country. That would be a good and constructive move at the present time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I sat in this House in 1980 when the Government was defeated on the Budget over a gasoline tax. The Liberals came into government and transferred that tax burden to home-heating fuel which hurt the senior citizens of this country. Is that what the Member is proposing we do, increase taxes on home-heating fuel instead of motor vehicles, just like they did for so many years?


Don Boudria: That is an excellent question. The Member is asking where I propose to increase taxes. Well, I don't.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Then move over to your left.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I just wanted to ask the Hon. Member whether he thinks the Government should be plunging ahead with this Bill when the Alberta and Saskatchewan Ministers of Agriculture have expressed their concern and opposition to it. Many producer groups say they cannot understand the amendment the Minister has put forward. Does the Hon. Member feel it is wise to be plunging ahead with this Bill when there is no consensus?
As well, I am very conscious of the Hon. Member's concern about the two cent a litre gas tax which the Minister is going to impose in September. In the west they call that the new Tory harvest tax. The Hon. Member from Saskatchewan over there is very nervous because he knows that although the Liberal Government promised a $16 million assistance program for northeastern Saskatchewan, the Tories only delivered about $8 million. So he is obviously very nervous.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The Liberals destroyed the west.


Maurice Brydon Foster: He also knows that the imposition of a 9 cent a gallon tax on farm fuels during the harvest this fall will be very bad.


Mr. Scowen:: It is your tax, don't forget that.
June 27, 1985


Maurice Brydon Foster: I asked the Minister yesterday whether there was going to be an exemption for farmers and he said there is no exemption for farmers. The Tories were very proud last fall to announce a reduction in excise tax for farmers, but they did not say anything about the 9 cents a gallon tax they were imposing in September. I asked the Minister if the additional 4 cents or 5 cents a gallon tax announced today was going to be imposed on farmers and he as much as said yes. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made a speech at Inuvik about two months ago saying that she was going to put in place a new petroleum incentive program. The discussion in her department is that another 2 cents a litre tax is going to be imposed on Canadians some time next fall or winter.
1 wanted to comment on the speech by the Hon. Member because he certainly touched on those points where the Tories are really putting pressure on Canadian agriculture.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the comments of my hon. colleague. The amendment proposed by the Minister resembles an economic forecast. It could be interpreted about 45 different ways and there does not seem to be a consensus even on what it means. He issued a press release to explain what he means, but reading the press release and then reading the amendment is like reading two different things. That has a number of people worried.
The tax increase on gasoline for farmers, the harvest tax if you like, perpetrated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and put up with by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), undoubtedly with a lot of reluctance, is shameful indeed. The Conservative Party pledged so much to the farmers last summer. I have a list of Tory promises, 20 of them specifically for the farming sector.


John Wise: Sixteen.


Don Boudria: Well, there are 20 here. That is the problem with the Tories; they promise things and then they forget, or they try to forget. But we are here to remind them. None of the promises which I have here say, "Vote for us and we will tax you more". If this is such a great idea, why did they not advocate it last summer when they were seeking the votes of farmers across the country? The reason is obvious, Mr. Speaker. They did not talk about it because there were no votes in it. That is the trouble with that Party. It has made too many promises to too many people and cannot live up to the commitments it made. That is called breaking promises or breaking sacred trusts.


Mr. Caldwell:: You are breaking my heart.


Don Boudria: I don't know if I am breaking the Member's heart, and 1 don't really care. I care about the farmers of this country and that is what is important. Maybe the Member across will stand and speak on behalf of the farmers of his riding. That is what he should do. He should stand up to the
Agricultural Stabilization Act
Minister of Finance and tell him that he cannot tax the farmers out of business, as the Government is trying to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on a speech that was right to the point, and ask him to comment on one aspect of this Bill which has raised major concerns across the country, not only among provincial representatives but also among many groups of producers. It was said, more specifically, that once a province had signed an agreement, it would no longer have the right to plead variations in production costs that would necessarily occur, and they will necessarily occur across the country. We cannot expect costs to be the same for a farmer in Western Canada, a farmer in Ontario, a farmer in Quebec and a farmer in the Maritimes.
According to the parties who appeared before the committee, some way must be found to enable a province, once it has signed the agreement, to raise the issue of costs specific to a certain region and make it possible to negotiate the kind of system that will be required to make the tripartite system suggested by the Conservative Government function satisfactorily across the country. To resolve this problem, yesterday the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) presented an amendment that would allow for cost variations and would make the legislation a little fairer and a little more equitable. I would like to know what the Hon. Member thinks of the Government Members' incredible refusal, especially those Members from Eastern Canada, an area where costs vary considerably. Why did Conservative Members from Eastern Canada not support this amendment?


Don Boudria: As you would know, Mr. Speaker, I made a speech in support of the amendment described by my colleague the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). Frankly I too was very surprised to see that the Conservative Members did not at least express an opinion in favour of this amendment, as they should have done if they really represented their ridings.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is happening is that not only do costs differ in certain provinces, as my colleague the Hon. Member for Papineau so aptly described it, but they sometimes differ within the same province. For instance, production costs in a given region of the Gaspe area might differ from those in the Eastern Townships, and the same thing goes for Eastern Ontario which I represent, costs are not the same as those in the southwest. It is obvious that an amendment such as the one proposed by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) should have been unanimously endorsed by all Members of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).

June 27, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is the first time I rise in this House to speak on a Bill which deals with the farmers.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Claude Malépart: I think that everyone knows that I represent an urban constituency. Why did I rise this evening to speak on a Bill whose purpose is to defend Quebec farmers? Yesterday evening, at the door of the House of Commons, members of the UPA came to see me and told me: "Mr. Malepart, you have to join the battle for Quebec farmers!" I told myself that it had to be serious if representatives of urban centres were being asked to become involved in a battle to defend farmers.


Jean-C. Lapierre: The Conservatives are not there!


Jean-Claude Malépart: That is true. My colleague for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) has given one of the reasons for this. Unfortunately, the Progressive Conservative Members in Quebec are mostly from rural areas and they are behaving like cowards, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Jelly-fish!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Second, these people told me: "This will affect your constituency because food prices will increase and the low- and middle-income people of Sainte-Marie who will be the ones to pay the bill.
Another reason why I wanted to speak about this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that I do not understand the reasoning of these Progressive Conservative Members who should have learned a lesson today from the Official Opposition. One month ago, this whole gang of Quebec Conservative jelly-fish, the 58 silent Members, said after the Budget: This is excellent for senior citizens. Today, they all looked like dummies. They all looked humiliated, and once more, the representatives of Quebec are telling these Members: Wake up, you have found the restrooms in Parliament, get down to the issues which concern us, stand up! Mr. Speaker, since September 4, Quebec has been ripped off four times by this Progressive Conservative Government Mr. Speaker, today-


Carole Jacques: Come on!


Jean-Claude Malépart: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Ms. Jacques)-


An Hon. Member:: She never speaks in this House!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, since September 4, how many promises have been made by the Prime Minister to Quebec men and women throughout the province? Yet, this same Government is shamelessly deceiving the population. Are we going to have to find another Mrs. Denis in the farming community? Who will come on Parliament Hill to shake up the Prime Minister?
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to listen to us.


An Hon. Member:: It is very sad!


Jean-Claude Malépart: The Minister of Agriculture does not understand Quebecers. He saw his Minister of Finance eat crow today and reverse his decision. I can tell the Minister of Agriculture not to depend on the representatives of Quebec in his own party, because if ever the Quebec farmers, the men and women from Quebec, come here, the Minister of Agriculture will have to do what the Minister of Finance did today and retreat, Mr. Speaker!
Quebec was ripped off by the tax, by de-indexation and by the $2.5 billion giveaway to oil multinationals to create jobs in the West and increase consumer taxes in Quebec! The housing sector in Quebec has been ripped off as far as the RRAP is concerned and these 58 silent Progressive Conservatives did nothing! You are aware of this, Mr. Speaker! Sherbrooke will become a subsidiary of Longueuil for social housing! Trois-Rivieres will become a subsidiary of the City of Laval! Fortunately, Montreal is represented mostly by Liberals who hold together and do not lose the Budget battle.
Mr. Speaker, I could list all the commitments made by the Prime Minister which have been forgotten since September 4. For one month, we kept after him, we gave him a little lesson, we shook him up just a bit, and today he retreated, but he does not know how hot it will be next fall. I have been a Member of the Quebec National Assembly. At 12, I went on strike as an altar boy. I shook up the parish priest, and I can tell you that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), if we get involved, will be shaken up and will realize that we Quebecers know how to go about all that.
Mr. Speaker, there is something else. Last week, our very dear Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the bright kid from Baie Comeau, the life citizen of Westmount, will meet Quebec's Premier. And he solemnly swears, as he can do so well with his grave and mellow voice, to recognize Quebec's special status. He goes along saying whatever comes to his mind. To wit: his Members from Quebec, with him taking the lead, have said concerning agriculture, and it is written in black and white, in an editorial, that Quebec farmers want a special status. Why not support that amendment?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister-this is a childhood sickness, do not worry about it, there are ways to cure that-says anything, uses any word, but in actual fact, it is Quebecers who are had. Luckilly, Quebecers can count on my colleagues from Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) and Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), who have expertise in that area and who know how to defend the industry.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this would be a golden opportunity for the Prime Minister and his Conservative
June 27, 1985

Members to show their intellectual honesty on that issue, and to say: "We are ready to take up constitutional negotiations, we are ready to recognize a special status for Quebec." Let us start by granting Quebec a special status as far as agriculture is concerned, to provide what Quebec farmers need. Our 58 speechless-we had in Quebec a leading pump attendant and we expected him to put oil multinationals in step, but now, Mr. Speaker, we have absolute silence. Among Quebec Members, two have shown courage, the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) and the Hon. Member for Rouyn-Noranda. But all the others are just cowards.
1 think they will have time to think the legislation over during the summer recess. Because as I recall, when I was MLA in Quebec and farmers were not satisfied with the provincial Government's policies of the time, things went rough. Manure flew over the lawns. There were a number of activities, and I remember that Members for those areas stood up after that, but it was too late. Where are those Quebec Members? We see here Mr. Proulx, representing UPA. We crumble under new taxes. In the federal budget, the bill is steep: "UPA opposes the Bill on red meat."
Faced with American threats of tariff barriers, Garon, the Quebec Minister, supported the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine), a Conservative, during the last elections. He must be rather sorry that the latter should have betrayed him here today. Garon, in Ottawa, failed to defend pork producers in this country. Oh yes, a headline we saw every where: "Mul-roney promises to defend pork producers". He made so many promises that guy. But we see no action.
"Red meat stabilization. Quebec farmers press for the Bill's withdrawal". Can you read? Do you understand anything, Members from Quebec? Can you speak? You should stand up a little. Another newspaper report: "Pork returns. UPA calls for general mobilization". The Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) never rises to do anything. It is about time he woke up over there. He was here to vote on his knees for Mr. Reagan's party. How many millions did that cost for the Conservative gang, to go there on their knees: "Mr. Reagan, we are going to fix all that?" The next day, Quebec farmers took the loss. The very next day, Canadian producers incurred losses. The balance sheet for hogs is as follows: for the Beauce area, a loss of $4.5 million. Where is our brave member for Beauce (Mr.Bernier)? Where is he hiding? Has he left for the pigsty? Come on, that is unacceptable.
From the Editor ... Francis Cote: Bill C-25 and the US imposed countervailing duties on Canadian hogs. Mr. Speaker, I think everybody should read this. Two major events are occurring now within the agricultural community. Each of them is very complex, but the link between the two is even more complex which makes the whole situation for most people understandably confusing. That is the perfect image of our Prime Minister. On the one hand, there is the Federal Government who has introduced in the House of Commons bill
Agricultural Stabilization Act
C-25 and who, while seeking to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, is in fact trying to get rid of the provincial price and income stabilizing schemes which exist in Quebec and several other provinces.
Mr. Cote continues: Bill C-25 provides that producers involved in a provincial stabilization scheme could not benefit from the federal one. Which means that because Quebec is helping farm producers, the Federal government will keep away. Once again Quebecers are being stuck in the middle! Again from Mr. Cote's article: The bill provides that producers-that is worth repeating-who benefit from a provincial scheme will be penalized by the Federal scheme. If adopted, this legislation would confirm the government's refusal to pay Quebec producers $6.54 per hog for 1983-84, in line with its refusal a few years ago to pay sheep producers. I thought the Minister of Public Works had promised a cheque during the election campaign, but there is a problem with his cheque: it is worthless for lack of sufficient funds. Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that such things should happen.
I continue quoting from Mr. Cote's article: The decision to stop the various provinces from implementing top-loading plans does not make any sense at all in view of the fact that nothing prohibits the provinces anxious to help their farmers from subsiding them indirectly by reducing the difference in costs or from adopting policies aimed at providing farmers with services more cheaply. To pass Bill C-25-and it is important that all Members of this House hear this-would be to systematize hypocrisy and I will say it over again, Mr. Speaker, in case someone failed to understand: To pass Bill C-25 would be to systematize hypocrisy, because from a strictly economic point of view, to increase revenues or reduce costs amounts exactly to the same thing.
I quoted part of an editorial signed by Mr. Cote, a well-known authority on agriculture in Quebec and a highly qualified man.
Mr. Speaker, in the past week of two all the Liberal Members in this House have been trying by every possible means to sensitize the Members of this House, mainly the Quebec Members, and convince them that Bill C-25 should be geared to regional needs at the provincial level. Such a request, Mr. Speaker, would be consistent with the comments made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during the election campaign in Quebec and with the same comments repeated when the Quebec Government requested constitutional amendments, as well as the comments he made at his meeting with the Quebec premier this week.
What producers are asking is quite simple. They want the same thing the Prime Minister wants but in fact refuses to give. They want programs that are regionally adapted that acknowledge the specific nature of agriculture in Quebec. They do not want promises, they want action to harmonize federal stabilization programs with the programs the provincial government makes available to farmers, including subsi-

June 27, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
dies, and that in return, the federal Government will not withdraw its programs but continue to maintain the same kind of action to help Quebec producers.
It seems to me this is very simple and easy to understand. I do not know what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) can be thinking.
Unfortunately, the most shocking aspect of this question is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture is from Quebec. Often, for a mere $8,000 more as Parliamentary Secretary, some people are willing to sell out anyone. And that is exactly what is happening with respect to the agricultural sector in Quebec. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais) who comes from Quebec, is being paid a salary to sell the Minister's policies to Quebec farmers and to put his fellow Members to sleep. His role is to defend the interests of Quebec farmers. And the same definition of a Member's role applies to those Conservative Members in this House who since September 4 thought they were elected and paid to sell the policies of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to their constituents. Meanwhile, they are not doing the work they should be doing, which consists in representing and defending the interests of their constituents in Parliament.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Pensions!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) is referring to the last debate we had on de-indexation of Old Age Security pensions. How many Conservative Members in the House-Mr. Speaker, I am about to finish my speech-have said: Canadians agree, I saw my constituents and they approve? I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Bertrand) who on some occasions,-I have heard quite a few debates-also defended the Minister's policies. Today, the Prime Minister dropped the whole gang to save this skin. He saved his image, but it makes the rest of his Members look very foolish.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I hope that after this humiliating experience on the issue of Old Age Security pensions, Hon. Members opposite, and especially new Members, will stand a little straighter and now they have some backbone and defend the interests of Quebec farmers. And I hope these people will have the guts to talk to the Minister of Agriculture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to pay special homage to my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). 1 think that as a Member from an urban riding he has shown that he can defend the interests of the people who
have elected him, and his oustanding intervention proved that he can also defend the interest of all Quebecers. I find it admirable on his part that he would want to take part in a debate which more directly concerns rural Members. Thanks to his co-operation and his participation, we had at least an input from Quebec in this discussion, particularly since the rural Members of the Government chose to remain seated. He did point out that Members were silent. I see the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) is in the House. I salute him, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to hear his views. I see my neighbour riding representative, the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand), who has as many pork producers in her constituency as I have in mine. She has yet to say a word in this debate. That is regrettable because, frankly, Shefford is not the only riding where pork producers are experiencing difficulties. Our neighbours of Brome-Missisquoi do have problems and I find it rather discouraging that she quite simply refuses to join in the debate and defend the interests of her electors. It is a shame that the electors of Brome-Missisquoi cannot have their say about what is for that agricultural community a very basic issue. Thanks to people like my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie, Quebecers have someone to speak up for them in the House, and 1 commend him for that.
Still, Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for him. Does my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie not think it is a bit ridiculous that this Government, which since the beginning of its mandate and throughout the election campaign talked about nothing but new harmony, consultations galore and consensus, now finds itself in a dilemma-there is no consensus nor harmony with respect to this Bill? The Minister is all by himself, no partners. I would ask the Hon. Member whether finally his riding . . . Considering the battle he has won today about the old age security pensions, I certainly want to congratulate him. He must be thinking about Quebec farmers, the intransigence of the Minister of Agriculture, his lack of understanding and his incompetence when dealing with the Americans. We know now that a permanent surtax will be facing Canadian farmers as of July 25 and we are also worried about his approach to the dairy policy. I think we will need the support of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie to launch an attack when the session resumes and to make sure that, once again, after weeks and months of efforts we will be able to stir our Quebec colleagues so that we might at long last have some Quebec input in this House. I want to ask my colleague whether he thinks that it might be the only way to wake up those Members?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to tell my colleague that, in my opinion, we should not wait till September to mobilize Quebec farmers to put pressure on the Minister, and I am not speaking of putting pressure on the Conservative Members because it would be useless as we saw in that other matter, but to put pressure on the Minister of
June 27, 1985

Agriculture and the Prime Minister. We should start as soon as August to tour the constituencies like we did for the old age pensions, to meet the farmers in each town and each village to develop an action plan to force the Minister of Agriculture, and if he does not want to listen, to force the Prime Minister to respect his commitments to provide a special status for Quebecers.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to join my colleague for Shefford in paying a special hommage to my colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, who, because of his involvement, has succeeded in defending the interests of Quebec farm producers and who has just fought and won an historic battle for all Canadian men and women.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie thinks of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) who, earlier this evening, showed how the Quebec Members had submitted most shockingly when he said in his speech that farm producers agreed with the intentions of the Government to pass Bill C-25.
1 would like to ask my colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, whom I understand met with UP A representatives from Nico-let yesterday here in Parliament, what was the reaction of these farm producers and what they asked him to do as a Member for an urban riding.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my colleague asks what I think of the comments made by the Conservative Member whom I do not know by name or by constituency as we hear so little from these people. I am told he is from the Eastern Townships.
It was the same for the old age security pensions. All the Conservative Members learned a single sentence. Like in Russia, they are briefed to say a certain word.
Everybody repeats the same thing, nobody knows what it is all about but it does not make any different, we have met the people and they agree. However, I must say to my colleague that when I met the APU representatives yesterday, they told me the same thing. They did not say what the Tory Members and the Miniser of Agriculture are saying in this House. However, those people completely disagreed and urged us to make a similar request to the Tory Members and bring pressure to bear so that the Bill would not be passed. They want that Bill to be delayed so that the Minister of Agriculture and all Members of this House, especially those from Quebec, may visit their constituencies during the summer recess and sound out the farmers and the people, because I think it is important, as a Member from Montreal, that my colleague from Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), my colleague, the Member for Langelier (Mr. Cote), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who represent urban ridings, state their views, since the decision of the Minister of Agriculture will have an impact on the increase in food prices.
Agricultural Stabilization Act
So, I think that all Members of this House should do their utmost to prevent the passage of this Bill so that the Canadian peopel may be consulted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate? Question?


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my Quebec colleagues have asked me to say a few words on this particular Bill. It certainly does not have the acceptance of producers in the Province of Quebec. In fact, having listened to the debate, I would say that it does not have the acceptance of producers in eastern Canada or in the Maritimes. Now we have discovered that it does not have the acceptance of producers in some western provinces.
I listened to the comments of the Minister when he introduced this Bill, in particular to his remarks regarding statements made by opposition Members, particularly Members from the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. One gets the feeling that perhaps the policy of this new Government, in terms of dealing with Bills which concern primary producers and the stability of their incomes, does not mesh with what the Government said prior to being elected.
Perhaps the most blatant example of this can be found in the statements of government Members concerning provincial agreements. This Government was supposed to be the Government which would answer all disputes with provincial Governments. From now on, everything would be hunky-dory. There would be no objections. The federal Government would become suddenly benevolent and the provincial Governments would say: "Isn't this wonderful; look at our wonderful system".
What has happened along the way as a result of this Bill and other ones? The Province of Saskatchewan and the great Province of Alberta are not very happy with this particular Bill. In fact, the Maritime provinces are saying that they need one of two things, either a substantial subsidy on their feed in the east or some sort of buoying up in the form of top loading on what would be in existence under this Bill.
We have seen provincial Governments accepting the actions of this Government for some time. They accepted them and looked the other way. Along came the cuts in November, and the provincial Governments turned a blind eye and said that things would change. As time went on they saw this Bill, the legislation affecting the fisheries, FIR A legislation, as well as other legislation, and then the Budget. At that point they could no longer accept what the federal Government was offering and saying.
For example, the Province of New Brunswick said no to the fisheries Bill, that was an intrusion into its area of jurisdiction. The provincial Governments are now asking what will be the end result of the Minister's amendment. It leaves things at the discretion of the Minister, and when one looks at the amendment, one understands why there is some concern. I remind the

June 27, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
House that the amendment indicates that the Minister may, only if he is of the opinion, stipulate the stabilization and may allow additional subsidies on top of what the Bill will provide, if they do not exceed the general subsidy given by another province covered under the legislation.
One can understand why the provincial Governments are objecting. They should be objecting. They should have been objecting all along, ever since the new Government of Canada took office. They should have objected when a measure was passed by the Government which drastically affected the people of their provinces, but they turned a blind eye. This is a good example of a provincial Government saying that it does not agree with what the federal Government is doing.
I should like to refer to another area of great concern to me. The Government made promises in terms of trade with the United States.


Mr. Fraleigh:: Stick to the Bill.


George Baker: I hear the Hon. Member. When I mention trade with the United States, the Hon. Member should realize that it is one of the pertinent points which should be discussed when dealing with this Bill. We have seen the Government of the United States, under the guise of its Department of Commerce and under the guise of the International Trade Commission, act in such a way as we have never seen before on a variety of items, including hogs. Tariffs have been imposed on many items. Some Hon. Members would disagree, but if our exporters to the United States are required to post bonds, I consider that to be the imposition of tariffs.
When we look at what has happened under the International Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce to other primary producers in Canada, we can understand why producers in the Province of Quebec are objecting. For example, in one of our primary products, that of fish, the Government of the United States through those mechanisms imposed a bond structure. In fact, our hog exporters have to put up bonds, blank cheques, promissory notes or whatever when exporting their products to the United States, which are called due when the final decision is made. When they post bonds they are really posting money in financial terms. It is a hardship on them and they have to consider then what the result would be if that was called by the U.S. Government.
So we have seen the U.S. Government now for first time in Canadian history taking a crack at all kinds of items from lumber to footwear to saltfish to raspberries and now to hogs. One wonders, as a primary producer, as a farmer, as a person involved in agriculture in this country-one would have to wonder-where the end is going to come, and what is going to happen when those bonds are called. What is going to happen if the decision that is brought down is going to be in favour of the initial judgment of the International Trade Commission who had to examine documents, had to examine books, had to come up with some good rationale for the imposition of the posting of the bond in the first place?
On those two items the people of Canada are wondering what went wrong. What went wrong with this great relationship that was supposed to emanate automatically when this new Government of Canada came into power? What happened to this marvellous trade relationship that it was going to have with the United States of America? What happened to all of those meetings that were supposed to have taken place between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the president of the United States when each of these items came up for public debate? When people knew that there was a possibility of a tariff on a product they automatically complained, they went to their provincial Governments who automatically asked the federal Government, through the Department of External Affairs, to intervene.
The point of the matter is that the answer from the Department of External Affairs has been the same as the answer from the Prime Minister's Office; "Well, we will make representations but we really cannot interfere at this point in the negotiations". Primary producers have listened to that, with saltfish, with the Prime Minister down in his own riding prior to the Quebec Summit, and the Prime Minister said "yes, I am going to take this up with the president of the United States". The producers went home and they figured that if the Prime Minister of Canada is going to take this up with the president of the United States then surely a solution is going to be found. Then all of a sudden the axe came down and when that axe comes down it is an interesting axe because it cuts in many directions. It ultimately cuts each province and each exporter differently. Tariffs could range from 2 per cent to 22 per cent, and they call that a 12 or 13 or 14 per cent average.
On those two questions of dealing with the provincial Governments, the Governments duly elected by the people of the provinces, everything was supposed to be fine and dandy, and everything with U.S. trade was supposed to be great.
There is just one other item that I wanted to bring to the attention of the House concerning what appears to be, on the part of this Government, an inevitable desire for the Minister in charge of the Department to always have unlimited power under the Act, even after decisions are made. We see it in this Act and in this particular amendment.
Fishermen, such as those involved in the saltfish industry, farmers, people who are involved in forestry and those who raise hogs, are faced with tariffs. They are asking the Government of Canada what it will do about it. Who is going to pay the tariff to be imposed on hogs under this legislation? Who is going to pay the difference of 12 or 13 or 14 per cent? Is it going to be the farmer? Is it going to be the producers' organization? Is it going to be the provincial jurisdiction responsible, or is it going to be the federal Government of Canada?
I would suggest that this Bill and many other Bills before this House, and many other actions of this Government since they have been elected, be sent back to the drawing-board for more discussion, more consideration and more consultation with the people affected, the provincial Governments affected and the producers' organizations affected.
June 27, 1985


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question for the Hon. Member who just made a highly interesting contribution. 1 would like to advise him that the former Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois), who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture under the Trudeau administration, has been calling us over the telephone in the lobby reminding us about the strength and determination with which he, as a Liberal Member from Quebec, used to defend the interests of the Quebec farmers when he was a Member here. He reminded me that the work he did with all the Members of the Quebec caucus sitting on the sub-committee on Agriculture bore fruit, because when the Government had intended to put forward a similar bill, Members from Quebec, at the request of representatives from the Quebec Union des producteurs agricoles, were able to make representations to the Government so that the Bill would not get approval in the previous Parliament. Our friend Jean-Guy Dubois was wondering over the telephone a few minutes ago why the present Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) did not rise in this debate to defend the interests of farmers in his area, and I would like our colleague who just spoke, who knew our friend Jean-Guy Dubois well, to tell us how much he has been disappointed at the lack of responsibility of those Members for rural constituencies in Quebec and Eastern Canada who yesterday opposed the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Hum-boldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) who wanted to make sure that regional interests of farmers in rural areas would be safeguarded by Bill C-25.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know for the life of me why every single Member of Parliament has not spoken at some point or other on this particular legislation, not only in the House of Commons or in committee but to the Minister and the Prime Minister and every single Cabinet Minister in his caucus, no matter which one it was. I cannot understand how since last fall we have seen the Government of Canada bring in measures like this, that nobody agrees with, that affected those primary producers and those farmers and those fishermen and those lumbermen, in such a way as has never been done before.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please! The Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) on a point of order.


Mr. Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-Ia-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that is being steadily ignored this evening.

With our new Government, we want to put some order-
Agricultural Stabilization Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order! I am sorry but this is not a question, nor is it a point of order. It is a point of debate.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I hope the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) rises on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to see the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) has come in. Since the beginning of the debate he has not uttered a dam word. It is time he say something!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: If there will be two, there will be three, as we say in French.


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, my point is very clear. The Hon. Member from the Opposition was saying that they could not resolve the problems with the Bills. We will with our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows full well that that is not a point of order.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member did get on the record saying that this is a new order. Yes, this is a new Government and a new order. It taxes the poor people. It taxes the farmers. This new order allows the United States to impose tariffs on the farmers and the people who are trying to sell products to the United States. This is the new order that is now picking a fight with the provincial Governments on practically every bit of legislation that it is introducing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. I call the Hon. Member to order on a question of relevancy.


George Baker: Getting back to the relevant question asked by the Hon. Member concerning the input of Members of Parliament, this is a very, very important subject. No matter on which side of the House one sits, there is a mechanism to effect legislation. Unfortunately, on this side of the House the only thing we can do is hold up legislation. When one is on the government side, one can apply the appropriate pressure and make the appropriate threats that need to be made on behalf of the primary producers of this country. One can make those threats to the Cabinet and one can be heard. Of course, no one outside the caucus room knows what is said inside, but I would predict that there has been a great deal of discussion and argument, not only on this issue but on other issues. If the original legislation as it was presented was not acceptable, then what would we do with the Minister's amendment to the original Bill? Then certainly it becomes doubly unacceptable to anyone, because that amendment is what caused the uproar

June 27, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
with the Province of Saskatchewan, the Province of Alberta, the Maritime provinces and the producers of Quebec.
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that I said with the producers of Quebec. I said this because I think that the point of the producers in Quebec is being made more in this Chamber than it is at the provincial Government level. I think that that is a fair statement to make. Hon. Members from Quebec have been very vocal on this issue. They want the producers of Quebec to be heard. They want the people of Canada to know that they are being hit with that quota. They want the people to know that they have to post a bond every time they export to the United States.


An Hon. Member:: Who caused the bond?


George Baker: Who caused the bond? I can tell you what caused the bond on the hogs, Mr. Speaker, because I have examined the issue. It was caused by inaction by the Government of Canada when making representations to the United States Government and the President of the United States, as the Prime Minister stated he did. There was no formal representation made. If one was made, that does not say very much for the Government of Canada because the United States Government did not listen.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions, comments. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) mentioned earlier the excellent job done by our colleague Jean-Guy Dubois from Lotbiniere.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall that if-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the speaker who has the floor has already spoken on this debate. The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) did not make a speech. He is not the Member being questioned.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: If I recognized you, it is because I wanted you to continue. I do not intend to reply to the argument of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I want to state emphatically that this bill would have never been passed if our colleague Mr. Lapointe, the former member for Beauce, had been here. My old colleague, Mr. Leduc, the former member for Richelieu, would have been up on his feet defending farm producers. If Mr. Gourd, the former member for Argenteuil, had been here, he would have argued the case of the farm producers. If Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette, our former member for Montreal-Mercier had been here, she would not have been satisfied with free travel passes as a reward; she would have spoken in support of farmers and consumers. If
Mr. Campbell, the former member for the La Salle riding, had been here, he would have put up a defence for the farmers and consumers in his riding, instead of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please! The question and comment period has now expired.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT 1985-86 (No. 2) MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 25, 1985, consideration in committee of Bill C-51, an Act to provide Borrowing Authority-Miss MacDonald (for the Minister of State (Finance))-Mr. Charest in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House again in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-51, an Act to provide borrowing authority.

When the committee suspended its sitting at 9 p.m. on Tuesday, the 25th of June 1985, it was dealing with Clause 2 of the bill and the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).

Shall Clause 2 carry?
On Clause 2-


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, the amendment before the House was put forward by the Official Opposition, and it was a very important amendment. Because the Government of Canada wanted to remove three percentage points from the indexation of senior citizens' pensions, we as the Official Opposition demanded that the Government of Canada take a 3 per cent cut on its borrowing authority.
As we witnessed today, the Government finally relented, because of a number of things. First and foremost were the objections from senior citizens, and from all people, regardless of age, in the country. The Government also relented because it had a feeling that the Official Opposition would not permit it to have its borrowing authority unless it brought in closure. Then we would have debated that. That was the purpose of this particular amendment.
June 27, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: If Hon. Members opposite start making remarks, I will speak until after nine o'clock. That is fair. If I talk until after nine o'clock, the Government will be forced to come back to the House tomorrow on Bill C-51. At that time I will speak again, have someone interrupt, and continue all day long.
1 would like to return to my original point. The Government of Canada has now changed its policy. That was accomplished by the people of Canada who opposed the terrible measure to be imposed upon them by the new Government. It was an accomplishment. Those of us who objected should all take pride in that. A headline in The Citizen of Ottawa reads: "The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister Split Over Pensions". We know who won. The people of Canada won against the decisions of both those gentlemen.
My colleagues have advised me that we wish to seek unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment we are now discussing. I am going to do that in a minute.
However, let us not forget that this Government has whacked another tax on transportation fuel. The people of Canada will not forget that. That is in addition to the other taxes which were imposed in the Budget. Let us not forget that the Government has also imposed a sales tax on items which all Canadians use. That tax was extended for the first time to include additional items, and it was increased.
Let us not forget what the Government has done since it took office. It has selectively given to certain groups, such as the oil companies, billions of dollars. Then the Government turned around and whacked taxes on the ordinary people of Canada. That is what the Government did. That is how the books are balanced by the Government of Canada. The people of Canada will not forget that. They will not forget the actions which have been taken by the Government. Never again will the people of Canada trust the words of the Government.
With those words I would respectfully ask all Members of the House for their unanimous consent that I withdraw the amendment is presently before the House.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain on a point of order.


Ian Deans: First, I would like to offer the consent of this Party to withdraw the amendment. I am sure there is unanimous consent. However, it may require that the Speaker be in the chair in order to facilitate what I am about to request. I would like to ask that the committee rise now and report. Then with the Speaker in the chair I could make a suggestion regarding this legislation and two or three other pieces which are still before the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall I rise and report progress?
Business of the House


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, I gather that there is unanimous consent. We in this Party certainly appreciate the gesture made by the Hon. Member in withdrawing his amendment. If we could have it declared that the amendment is now removed, Mr. Chairman, then you could proceed back to the chair.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of co-operation, we agree with the proposal which has been made and we will give our unanimous consent to have you reoccupy the chair.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall I rise and report progress?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, certain discussions have taken place over the course of the day and we have agreed to pass certain legislation this evening in order that Royal Assent can be obtained. In addition to that, an understanding has been reached that at the end of tomorrow's Question Period the House would rise. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to seek the unanimous consent of the House not to see the clock this evening until such time as the legislative package which has been agreed upon has been completed, and until such time as Royal Assent has been sought and received.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the House Leader for the New Democratic Party is attempting, but 1 would like him to give us the list to which he has referred so that all Members of the House would be aware of what we are talking about. Secret deals have taken place, without any consultation, to my knowledge, and I would like to participate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if there has been secrecy, I am about to do away with that secrecy. In my usual way, I would like to inform the House, and the people of the country who are all glued to their television sets watching this as opposed to the Blue Jays or the Expo games, what we intend to do.
The legislative package which we had discussed was to obtain third reading of Bill C-51, which is the borrowing Bill and third reading of Bill C-44, which is a Bill respecting amendments to the Western Grain Transportation Act. We also discussed legislation which must be dealt with before the House rises for the summer. That legislation included amending the Judges Act and other statutes concerning additional

June 27, 1985
Business of the House
judges in certain provinces, at their request. New provisional Standing Orders have been circulated to opposition House Leaders which will come into effect when Parliament reconvenes next fall. They are in response to the first report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons.
We also have a Bill which I introduced for first reading today, which would go through all three stages and receive third reading. It:s an amendment to the House of Commons Act, the main purpose of which is to establish a new Board of Internal Economy. That also takes effect on the recommencement of Parliament.
I am reminded by my Parliamentary Secretary that I should now seek agreement that we should not see the clock until we finish our arrangements. I would ask for unanimous consent so we could continue, and I can complete my dissertation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would second the motion that you do not see the clock, Mr. Speaker. However, I would like to clarify the shopping list put to us by the Government House Leader. We are going to get to third reading of Bill C-51 in a few minutes. Bill C-44 is the next item of business, or is the Government House Leader going to talk about the motions? Is he going to talk about the House of Commons Act? Is that the order in which he is going to call the Bills? Because that changes what I was told.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in my own hand I gave to the Hon. Member's Deputy House Leader the listing. It is Bill C-51, Bill C-44, the Judges Bill, the Bill with respect to the House of Commons Act and the Standing Orders. There is a good reason for that, Mr. Speaker.
The Senate has preconsidered the first items to which I referred up to Bill C-44. The House of Commons Act is a Bill which the Senate has not preconsidered, but it only affects the House of Commons. I thought I would leave that until the end because it is something that the Senate could leave and deal with, I think, rather expeditiously. I do not want to presume that, but I think the Senate would be inclined to understand that this is something affecting only the House of Commons.
The understanding would be, of course, that the arrangement about adjourning tomorrow is conditional upon obtaining Royal Assent tonight. I will not get into the details but, obviously, if we do not get Royal Assent, we will have to sit tomorrow and continue on until Royal Assent is obtained. However, I believe it is possible to get Royal Assent tonight, in which case we can convene tomorrow.
I would be quite prepared to accept the suggestion of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party. I think I should put this in context. The House Leader of the New Democratic Party asked me for this particular move-as the Whip for the Official Opposition will understand-because that Party has its national convention here. It is on the basis that those Hon. Members are meeting in national convention that we would agree to this proposition, and only on that basis. It is a
courtesy extended to the New Democratic Party in respect to its national convention. I want to make that perfectly clear.
I think I have given the undertakings and understandings as requested by the House Leader for the New Democratic Party.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the items enumerated by the Government House Leader will be made an order of this House and that we will protect the rights of Hon. Members of this House to have their late adjournment debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Are they here?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I do not know, but I am protecting their rights as an Hon. Member of the House. I think we should protect those people. I do not know who they are.
The Government House Leader is telling us that in the spirit of co-operation with the New Democratic Party, we will adjourn the House after Question Period tomorrow. Is that what I understand?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would say after the Question Period and after Routine Proceedings because, as the Whip of the Liberal Party will understand, there are a number of requests which have come from his Party with respect to changes in membership of committees which will be sitting during the course of the summer. There are various items. I think Routine Proceedings would be the end. We will adjourn before Orders of the Day would be called, if that would be to the satisfaction of the Whip of the Liberal Party.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, since I seem to have started this mess, let me finish it. I want, first of all, to say that the understanding as outlined by the Government House Leader is exactly the way I understood it to be. I appreciate the intervention of the Whip for the Official Opposition.
I want to thank both the Official Opposition and the Government for agreeing that tomorrow we could rise at the end of Routine Proceedings in order that all of my colleagues and myself could be in attendance at the national convention.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent that the Chair does not see the clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I also take it that the late show will be held?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Speaker wishes to thank you.
June 27, 1985


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT 1985-86 (No. 2) MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in Committee of Bill C-51, an Act to provide borrowing authority-Miss MacDonald (for the Minister of State (Finance))-Mr. Charest in the Chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: That Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act, be amended in sub-clause 1(1)
(a)	by striking out line 7 at page 1 and substituting the following:
"(D) nine Members who shall be",
(b)	by striking out line 16 at page 1 and substituting the following:
"Manitoba four representing the pro-".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought that was my amendment, not the amendment of the Minister of Transport. I filed it earlier this day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: With respect to the point of order of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), he has brought a similar motion before the House, but to be able to present the motion he would need Royal recommendation. In this case he does not have it. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) does have Royal recommendation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We went through this yesterday in the Transport Committee. It makes no difference in terms of the Royal recommendation whether an amendment is moved by the Minister or by an Hon. Member of the Opposition. The point is that this amendment, whether moved by the Minister or myself-and I submit that my amendment was in first, but that does not matter-the Royal recommendation covers a lump sum of money which he is allowed to spend under the provisions of Bill C-44. The Bill in no way specifies how much will be paid to each member of the advisory committee. If the Minister or myself increase the number of members on the
Western Grain Transportation Act committee, with the consent of this House, and if it was originally conceived that the per diem was $100 a day, given the amount of money available to the Minister under the Royal recommendation, and the number is increased from eight to nine, that may mean the Minister pays the members only $90 a day in order to pay that one additional member. There is nothing in the legislation which specifies how much is going to be paid to the members of that committee. I submit that the Royal recommendation does not enter into this because the Bill itself does not spell out what shall be paid to individual members on a per diem, or any other basis. It only spells out the amount which the Minister has available.
I submit that it makes no difference whether the Minister or I present the amendment. That has nothing to do with the Royal recommendation presently before the House. If it does, the Minister and the Government House Leader will have to come back and ask for unanimous consent to have the Royal recommendation changed. Either that or my amendment or that of the Minister is acceptable now. You cannot have it both ways. My amendment, or a similar amendment proposed by the Minister, does not mean any extra expenditure by the Government under the present Royal recommendation. We do not need to go through that nonsense again.
By the way, you should know that this has been the result of much consultation and meetings in the committee and other places, and there need not to be any more nit-picking about Royal recommendations because the Minister has the authority to pay 8, 9, 10, 12 or 100 members with the amount of money already in the Royal recommendation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this debate, nor do I want to deny the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) the credit for initiating the amendment you are now dealing with. It clearly is his amendment. There is no question about that. The advice we received both from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and my legal advisers was that this did require a change in the Royal recommendation. I know the Hon. Member is making an argument tonight similar to what he made in committee. To in effect do what he is suggesting would mean that all members of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee who are presently members would receive a lower per diem allowance as the result of the addition of another member to represent the Province of Saskatchewan.
The fact that we have a change in the Royal recommendation now gives the Minister the prerogative of adding additional funds to pay for the person who is going to be added to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. It was in the spirit of ensuring that the amendment would be incorporated in the legislation that we took this extra precaution.
I in no way want to assume credit or authorship for this amendment. I will simply give the Hon. Member for Regina West full credit and full marks for bringing the amendment forward and making a strong case. We agreed. We discussed it at some length and I certainly wanted to incorporate the

June 27, 1985
Western Grain Transportation Act desire and the wish he enunciated in an earlier amendment, it is only to ensure that the amendment is incorporated that it was brought forth in this fashion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I can see the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) rising again, I presume on the same point of order, but if he will permit me, I think it is the Chair's turn. I might clear this up by pointing out to the Hon. Member for Regina West, who is a very experienced and learned Member of this House, that in this case the Minister of Transport is not bringing in the amendment on the original Royal recommendation but on a separate Royal recommendation which I have in hand now. It says:
Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act, be amended in subclause 1(1)
(a)	by striking out line 7 at page 1 and substituting the following:
"(d) nine members who shall be"
(b)	by striking out line 16 at page 1 and substituting the following:
"Manitoba four representing the pro-"
It is the same in the French language version. I hope that clears up the matter as far as the Royal recommendation is concerned.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I make it perfectly clear right away to the Minister and yourself that it is not a matter so much of who is moving the amendment. I would like to point out to the Chair that once the Royal recommendation has been amended it makes no difference who moves the amendment. However, I am prepared to give way. The amendment can be in the Minister's name, and God bless him. But I think the Chair errs. Once the Royal recommendation is changed, then any Member can move an amendment on that matter. I am not going to argue about it; I just wanted to leave that with the Chair. If you want to accept the amendment from the Minister, so be it; I will support him on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is that agreed?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want other Hon. Members besides the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), myself and the rest of us in the NDP to understand what is happening here. Originally I proposed an amendment to make this read "10 members" and the Minister and I agreed that we would go along with nine. The reason for the amendment is that the Province of Saskatchewan has as many grain producers as the other two provinces and the Peace River district of B.C. put together. In addition, the Province of Saskatchewan grows and ships as much grain as the other two provinces and the Peace River district of British Columbia put together. So all we are trying to do is equalize the membership on this committee, having regard to the number of producers and the volume they produce and ship. If you were really going to equalize it, Mr. Speaker, and I am doing this for the record, we would have the
number "10" in there instead of the number "9". There would be five members from Saskatchewan. That would equalize it. But the Minster and I have agreed that we will make it four instead of three and I have given way, he has given way, and I want to give him credit for recognizing this.
I would remind the Chair to look again at the advice he has received about once a Royal recommendation is changed and who can or cannot move amendments. To be accommodating, I am glad the Minister moved the amendment in order that we can have this change made.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is another motion at report stage moved by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) on Clause 5 of this Bill, which motion was filed several hours ago. We had two amendments which were properly filed with the table. There is one more amendment to be dealt with.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent to revert to report stage of Bill C-44?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House reverted to the consideration of Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act, as reported with amendments from the Standing Committee on Transport.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan) moved:: That Bill C-44, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 38 at page 2 and substituting the following therefore:
"repealed, and the following paragraphs are added:
(B)	a person who in his opinion represents the Port cities of the Eastern
Division; and
(C)	a person who in his opinion represents the Port cities of the Western
Division."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will not take much time. I know that all Members of the House would like to finish our business and get on to enjoying the summer. I moved this amendment to this very important Bill in an effort to ensure representation from the many communities in the east and the west which owe much of their economy to the movement of grain through their ports. I feel very strongly that ports, whether the port of Vancouver or the port of Prince Rupert on the west coast, or the port of Churchill or Thunder Bay on what we refer to as the east coast of grain shipment, have a right to representation, at least with observer status, in order to keep track of the decisions being made and to have some input.
June 27, 1985

It was suggested in committee that the groupings were very vague. Presently an individual is a voting member of the group but is in effect representing all of the trade unions involved in the movement and handling of grain. I believe that if the Minister could select an individual, mechanisms could be found to ensure that both eastern and western ports have representation as well. I believe that the existing representative could be from either the east or the west. They have no distinct loyalties to any one of the ports and have some participation in them. The same thing applies to the railroads.
I urge the Minister to give consideration to, at the very least, providing observer status for the ports in order that they can lobby on behalf of their citizens to ensure that their ports are used to the best possible advantage.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I follow the argument of the Hon. Member. However, I am having some difficulty with the wording of the proposed amendment. I have great difficulty trying to determine how this particular amendment would fit in with Clause 5, because that clause says "Paragraph 10(3)(b) of the said Act is repealed". The motion says:
That Bill C-44, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 38 at page 2 and substituting the following therefore:
"repealed, and the following paragraphs are added:
(B)	a person who in his opinion represents the port cities of the eastern
division; and
(C)	a person who in his opinion represents the port cities of the western
division".
I suspect that part of the problem is that we do not have a printed version of the Bill as it was amended in committee. That may have some bearing on it. I wonder if that could be explained.
While I appreciate the purport of the Hon. Member's motion, to suggest that one should appoint a person representing the port cities of the eastern division and western division is fairly broad. In reality it is poorly drafted and I am not sure whether it would be found acceptable by the legal draftsmen.
For example, in British Columbia, which could be referred to as the western divsion, there is a port in Vancouver, North Vancouver, New Westminster, Roberts Bank, and Prince Rupert. There would be a lot of discretion left to the Minister. Quite frankly, I think the Hon. Member may want to reflect and probably withdraw.
I believe that what the Hon. Member has said has merit. I believe he is really thinking about getting some assurance that the port of Thunder Bay will have some representation on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, either as a representative or as an observer. I think he would also expect, as a balance, to have someone representing the western ports, either Prince Rupert or Vancouver. Quite frankly, I think his suggestion has merit. Notwithstanding the disposition of this particular motion, I would certainly undertake to explore ways and means to bring forward representatives, perhaps in the form of observers for starters. We will be going through a complete review of Bill C-44. We may be able to accommodate the thrust of his motion in that respect.
Western Grain Transportation Act
If he would be willing to accept it on that basis, perhaps he might agree to withdraw the motion. I repeat that the review of Bill C-44 will take place, commencing the crop year 198586, at which time there will obviously be further amendments as the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) suggested yesterday. I will certainly take into consideration very seriously the valid arguments that he has made tonight.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his comments. Assuming that we have unanimous consent to withdraw the motion, I would be very happy to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I presume that the Hon. Member is rising on a point of order. I cannot let him take the floor under any other circumstances.


Iain Francis Angus: I am rising on a point of order to indicate to the Minister that I would be more than happy to withdraw my motion because very clearly he has indicated his willingness to ensure there is representation in the organization. I look forward to working with him to ensure that that happens.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The Minister raises a valid point. It may be that the amendment moved yesterday was on the wrong line and on the wrong clause. That happens to all of us. I only want to add what my colleague for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) said. I will confess right now that we made a slight error and should have said "grain handling ports" which would have eliminated a number of ports on the West Coast in particular that do not handle one bushel.
I simply want to make it clear to the Minister that we want someone there, whether it is an observer or a voting Member, to represent Prince Rupert and Vancouver in the grain handling operations and Thunder Bay and Churchill in the grain handling operations which is the western and eastern directions in the context of the language used by the Canadian Grain Commission, the Canadian Wheat Board and others.
When we talk about Eastern Division, that goes as far as Thunder Bay and slightly east. That is the point we want to make to the Minister. We are concerned about the Western Grain Transportation grain operations from Thunder Bay west. It would be one person for Thunder Bay and Churchill and one person for the West Coast grain handling ports. Whether they are observers or become voting members later on, we welcome the Minister's undertaking and my colleague is prepared to withdraw the amendment, as he indicated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Angus) withdraw.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
June 27, 1985
Western Grain Transportation Act
Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to spend approximately three or four minutes-


Some Hon. Members:: Too many.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: All right. I will make it two. I believe that under the rules I have 30 minutes, but I promise not to take that long.
In winding up the debate at third reading of this legislation, I want to remind the House and the Minister that there were other amendments that were not accepted or defeated which will crop up again in another year or two.
I also remind the Minister and the Government that, as I said in December of 1983, the Crow may be sorely wounded, but it isn't dead. Therefore, I say to the Minister that we are pleased that he accepted one amendment tonight and one yesterday. I believe that he probably sympathizes a great deal with many other amendments but could not persuade his Cabinet colleagues to accept them. If he wants our help at any time in the coming year or two, we will be glad to provide it.
I remind the Minister that according to the amendments to the Western Grain Transportation Act in this Bill, during the review process in the next two years there will be no application before the Canadian Transport Commission for variable rate implementation, no moves either by legislation, propaganda or press releases about changing the method of payment while the review process is going on. I will be glad not to make any speeches on that matter if the Minister will agree to do the same thing out in western Canada.
We are not letting this go through because we like it. We still have mixed feelings and the Minister's amendments so far have not done any more harm to the statutory grain rate provisions for western grain producers. However, I want to serve notice on him now than in a year or two he better keep in mind what occurred in 1983 and what has occurred in the past week with this legislation.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow the good example set by my colleague and deal rather briefly with third reading of Bill C-44.
The Official Opposition has agreed that the report stage be immediately followed by Third Reading, so that this Bill to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act might be passed tonight. But as I said in committee, these amendments are only the very first of a whole series of amendments which the government will have to introduce within the next few months, if not within the next few years.
As members of the Official Opposition, we are going to watch very closely the whole review process in the case of the Western Grain Transportation Act. It is vital for Canadian producers that this review be carried out most objectively, so that they get a fair deal whether they live in Western Canada
or Eastern Canada. It is clear that Quebec producers in particular are seeking a fair deal for all, and if they are somewhat concerned and apprehensive it is about the government's intentions with regard to payments, and whether they will be made to the railways or directly to the producers.
I cannot help being concerned about the intentions of the Minister and this Progressive Conservative government. The Hall report has now been made public; the Minister of Transport who has it will have to make a decision within the next few weeks or months, before introducing new amendments to the Western Grain Transportation Act.
I want to make sure that the Minister of Transport fully realizes the importance of giving a fair deal to all Canadian producers from coast to coast.


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fitting as Vice-Chairman of the Transport Committee that I thank Members of Parliament who took part in the discussion of the Bill which the Transport Committee discussed. As the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) said, he gave assurances to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) that he is a competent person and will in the years to come look after the transport situation and our farmers.
Let me say, and pardon the expression, Mr. Speaker, a virgin of truth, that as a new Member of Parliament I do not wish to go on record as being a blabber mouth but whether we are Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats we cannot play politics in transport. I think the Minister has expressed that with what he has done in this Bill. I look forward to the co-operation of Members in years to come and I thank them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


JUDGES ACT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Judges Act, the Federal Court Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the National Defence Act in relation to judicial matters and to amend an Act to amend the Judges Act and the Federal Court Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: I think by unanimous consent we had agreed to have the matter after second reading referred to a Committee of the Whole, concurrence, third reading and all stages so that the Senate may deal with this matter. If the motion could be
June 27, 1985

deemed to be a reference to a Committee of the Whole, it would receive unanimous approval.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the statement just made by the Government House Leader is acceptable to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.


Mr. Robinson:: We, too, concur, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Mr. Hnatyshyn (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada), seconded by Mr. Cote (Mr. Langelier) moves that Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Judges Act, the Federal Court Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the National Defence Act in relation to judicial matters and to amend an Act to amend the Judges Act and the Federal Court Act in consequence thereof be now read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) rising on debate?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the motion carried. I suggest in the interests of efficiency of time that Hon. Members who wish to participate in this debate do so in Committee of the Whole and we will all listen with rapt attention.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the Chair.
On Clause 1 -
Mr. Speyer:: Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to be as eloquent in Committee of the Whole as we all were with respect to second reading.
Many provinces desperately need judges. In Alberta, for example, there are four positions to be filled. The provincial legislation has been passed, the Judicature Act, but cases have had to be cancelled because we have not had enough judges. In the Province of Manitoba there has been created by provincial statute a senior associate chief justice position but that position cannot be filled until this Bill is passed by Parliament. In Quebec there has been provincial legislation to add six new judges. Unfortunately, that cannot be done until this Bill is passed.
This Bill will add a total of 38 judicial positions to federal and provincial courts, 19 of which have been filled in the past two years by draws from the pool of positions authorized by the provincial, superior, district and county courts by Section 19.1 of the Judges Act. All but three positions will be allocated to courts in eight provinces pursuant to requests for additional judges to handle increasing case loads in these courts. The pool will be restored to its full strength and will be restructured to authorize the appointment of up to 20 trial judges on provincial superior courts.
Judges Act
Over the past two years, provincial requests have been heavy with respect to this category of judges resulting in the rapid depletion of the positions allocated by the pool for trial judges as set forth in Section 19 of the Judges Act. While the total number of positions will remain unchanged, the restructuring should permit the pool to meet the needs of the provinces over the next three to five years.
Other features of the Bill, very quickly, are restoration of the former one-third ratio of judges required to be appointed to the Federal Court of Canada from the bench or bar of the Province of Quebec. This measure is designed to assure to the courts sufficient judges trained in civil law to hear the increasing numbers of such cases being heard by both divisions of the Federal Court. It will require that a least eight of the 25 judges of the court meet this qualification. There will be an addition of two members of the court to the Pension Appeals Board. This will bring membership on the Board to 12 and, again, is in response to increasing workload. Finally, there will be a provision for the disposition of all matters, short of an appeal by a single judge of the Court Marshall Appeal Court of Canada. The National Defence Act presently requires a panel of not less than three judges to determine any matter before the court.
In summary, let me just say that although these amendments are of a technical nature, they are certainly essential. This Bill has nothing to do with compensation for judges. I am happy to hear of the agreement of all Parties that we receive expeditious passage.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report to the House that the Parliamentary Secretary had consulted with me on behalf of my Party in connection with this Bill. I have no objection to it.
I would like to indicate that I was surprised to notice in the allocation that there was a very small increase proposed for the Province of Ontario. I understand the principle followed for proposing the increases in the legislation was the request for increases by the provincial Government. It is a legal maxim or a popular maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. I know there is a backlog, no less in the Province of Ontario than in the Province of Quebec. However, it appears that the former Government of the Province of Ontario did not request any increase in the number of judges in that province, and that is why this legislation proposes no increase. I regard it as a priority to increase the number of judges in the Province of Ontario, but the expense of supporting the court and building courtrooms is that of the province. Now that we have a sensitive Government in power in the Province of Ontario, I hope there will be a recognition of the fact that more judges are needed in that province. I hope the new Attorney General of Ontario will request an increase soon.
As the Parliamentary Secretary indicated, that request for an increase will not need legislation by existing legislation, which I think was introduced 10 or 12 years ago by the former Government. We will be able to fill Ontario s needs, if the

June 27, 1985
Judges Act
federal Government is disposed to do so, out of the allocation of available appointments. I want to point out to the people of Ontario that their interests are covered in this new legislation, even though there is no official plan to allocate positions to the requirements for additional judges and courts in that province.

I would also like to add a comment on the issue of judges' appointments. We know that during the last election campaign, this Government promised a new system of appointments that would perhaps involve parliamentary participation, and what we are giving the Government today is the right to appoint a further seventeen or eighteen judges, if I am not mistaken. I am not making it a condition of our approval of the legislation that the Government introduce a new system of appointments to become effective with this legislation, but I would like to remind the Government of the promises it made to the Canadian people during the last election campaign. [English]
I want to remind the Government that it will now, as a result of the unanimous consent being given to it, have the opportunity to appoint new judges to the bench. During the last election campaign we heard much about a new system of appointments which would involve parliamentarians and would confirm the judgment of the Government by some broader parliamentary participation. We are not making it a condition of our approval that the Government deliver on that election promise. However, I remind Canadians that that promise was made. As proud as we are of the judges who are serving the people of Canada today, this Government promised that it would have a more accountable system. I look to the Government to deliver on that promise. With its new authority to appoint some 17 or 18 new judges, I look to the Government to live up to its campaign promises.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise to say just a few words on this Bill and to confirm the remarks of the Hon. Member for York Centre with respect to the consultation which took place before the Bill was actually tabled in the House. It is for that reason that we are in the position this evening of being able to facilitate the passage of the Bill in the spirit of co-operation which has characterized the House today in most respects.
I want to make a couple of comments with respect to the legislation. As has been noted, it adds some 37 judicial positions to federal and provincial courts. I would hope, in making these new appointments, appointments which in some cases are long overdue, the Government would be particularly sensitive to the fact that more women and more minorities must be appointed by the federal Government to the bench. The excuse made in the past was that there were not enough qualified women. Fortunately there are many very capable women who have put in the minimum of 10 years required before appointment to a federally appointed judgeship. I hope the Government takes this opportunity with these new appointments to appoint a very significant number of women, as well as minorities, to these important positions.
It is essential, in an era of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which gives a significantly enhanced role to judiciary, to ensure that those judges are sensitive to the concerns of minorities and to civil liberties. I hope the Government looks very seriously at changes to the appointments process itself to involve Parliament, at least in the appointments to senior levels of the judiciary in Canada, including the Supreme Court of Canada. The Canadian Bar Association, to its credit, has conducted a major study. I believe its results will be made public in the month of August. As I understand it, certainly it will look at a number of important changes to the appointments process forjudges.
Coming from the Province of British Columbia, I should like to indicate that we are very proud of our judiciary at all levels. However, the process of appointments is one which is long overdue for re-examination. As has already been noted, this Bill responds to the concerns of a number of provinces. There are shortages in British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick and several other provinces, which have resulted in delays. In some cases it has resulted in serious delays in the delivery of judicial services. As the Hon. Member for York Centre said, justice delayed is justice denied. It is in that spirit of co-operation that we are supporting the passage of this Bill this evening.
When we talk about the courts and the judiciary, it is essential to recognize that the poor and the powerless must also have access to the courts. In many jurisdictions legal aid programs, which are at the core of accessible courts, are seriously underfunded. I hope the Government makes a major commitment to federal funding of legal aid programs in Canada in order that there might be access to the courts for all who seek justice, not just for those who can afford to do so. Also, I hope the Government lives up to its promise to establish a fund to assist those who wish to make challenges under the provisions of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the equality rights section. In fact, the subcommittee on equality rights decided unanimously to report to Parliament upon the need for such a fund. As this House is rising for the summer, certainly the sentiments of that committee should be conveyed to it, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so in the context of this debate on the Judges Act.
There remains a number of inequities with respect to certain elements of the treatment of judges who have left the bench. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and perhaps the Government House Leader are sensitive to the concerns which have been raised by a very distinguished gentleman, a former judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Tom Berger, about the provisions of the pension plan for judges who have served our country and our bench with distinction. I hope the Government looks seriously at recognizing the existing inadequacies in that pension scheme and moves forward to correct the existing problems which have affected judges such as Tom Berger.
Those are the remarks I wish to make at this point. We are supporting the legislation. Certainly we hope that the Govern-
June 27, 1985

ment appoints a large number of women and minorities to the bench at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think Your Honour will find that there is unanimous consent to revert to the tabling of documents.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the Government's response to the first report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, I have the honour to table the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders which will I am sure go a long way in making the House of Commons and committees more effective. There have been extensive consultations with both of the other Parties and with the Table officers respecting the drafting of these amendments. These are for tabling.


PROVISIONAL STANDING ORDERS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, therefore 1 believe there would be unanimous consent for the following motion to be put at this time and passed with limited debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Does the Hon. President of the Privy Council have the unanimous consent to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders, laid upon the table earlier this day, be deemed to have been read, adopted and made Provisional Standing Orders of this House;
Provided that, unless otherwise ordered, the Provisional Standing Orders shall be in effect during the period commencing at 11:00 o'clock a.m. on Monday, September 9, 1985 and concluding at 10:59 o'clock a.m. on Monday, September 12, 1986; and
Provisional Standing Orders
That the Clerk of the House be authorized and instructed to print a revised and renumbered edition of the Standing Orders integrating the Provisional Standing Orders and making any necessary amendments in consequence thereof.
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 have just a brief word. 1 want to say that when I had the opportunity of stating the response on behalf of the Government to the first report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, that response took place after there had been full and, 1 think, fruitful consultations and discussions with my colleagues, the House Leaders of the opposition Parties. As a result, I think you will find that these new Provisional Standing Orders are based upon a mutual understanding and a mutual respect for the House of Commons and a mutual concern that the recommendations of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons be made to work.
When we reconvene next September 9, Mr. Speaker, it will be on a slightly different basis insofar as the rules respecting the election of the Speaker are concerned, although you, Mr. Speaker, will not be affected until by some stroke of fate you decide to offer yourself up for election in this House. This does not apply to the occupant of the chair at the present time.
I think that one of the most interesting parts of the proposals will be with respect to the concept of legislative committees. It will be a new endeavour on the part of the House.
We will try to make these rules work for the benefit of Members of Parliament and for the benefit of the people of Canada.
There are other changes that will take place in terms of Standing Orders to place the management of Private Members' Bills with the Table as opposed to the office of your humble servant, the Government House Leader, who has in effect had the responsibility of arranging the Private Members' Business. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, as much as 1 enjoyed that very distinguished task of serving my colleages in the House, this will allow me to sit back and enjoy the speeches more, rather than rushing around and finding out who is up in the Private Members' hour at any particular time. I think that will be an interesting and a desirable change to the procedure, because it will put Private Members' Business with the Table and not with a representative of the Government. I think that is at least one move forward in the interest of free debate on the part of Private Members.
There are other items in the Standing Orders that we will be dealing with, which I suppose are important, but these are only, I think it is fair to say, the first steps on the journey toward parliamentary reform because we have the second and third reports to respond to.
I see the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) sitting here, the distinguished vice-chairman of the committee, who will understand that on the basis of those reports, and particularly the final report, the recommendations in respect to the committee system are very interesting, and very innovative and will mean quite a change if adopted in the way in which things operate in the committee system in this House.
1 conclude with these few remarks simply by saying once again that I appreciate the co-operation I have had from both


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Government House Leader for his resounding applause. First, it is necessary for the House to recognize and fully understand the work done by this committee. In my opinion, it has been one of the hardest working committees that has ever been structured by the House of Commons. The committee devoted countless hours, and I do not think anyone appreciated it, to looking at matters that many people take for granted. Without the care and deliberation of the members of that committee, the intricacies of the House of Commons would be impossible for most of us to understand.
I would like to pay particular tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), as did my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). The Hon. Member for St. John's East, when given the responsibility, took it with vigour and with dedication. He saw his task as being one of great significance and he lived up to it. I might say that he elevated the entire committee to his own level of concern and hard work.
I would also like to say to the Hon. Member for Papineau and to my good friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), who co-vice-chaired the committee, I know from having read the committee report and having watched the work of the committee that their leadership was of vital importance. They showed a capacity to rise above the normal partisanship that exists in politics to recognize the House of Commons for what it really must be. I hope that the good sense that was displayed throughout the deliberations of this committee will someday become the good sense that will be displayed within the House of Commons. I hope that the co-operation that the committee was able to develop
June 27, 1985

will, through its reports, become the order of the day for the operation under normal circumstances of the House of Commons itself.
The committee's report was reported on in various ways by the media. Certain members of the media saw it as being a great step forward, while others were less inclined to see it that way. Those who were less inclined to see the importance of the committee's report did not understand that parliamentary change by necessity must be slow but steady. That is what has happened over the course of the last few years.
The changes that have taken place in the rules and procedures of Parliament since 1980 have transformed Parliament itself. This is not the same Parliament that was operating in the early part of the 1980s. Perhaps new Members have not yet recognized the changes, and I appreciate that the changes have not yet been fully implemented and perhaps not even understood all that well by many of the older Members. Nevertheless, Parliament has changed dramatically. The way we do business has changed dramatically. The emphasis on individual Members of Parliament will become even greater with the adoption of subsequent reports, but this report in itself, with its greater emphasis on committees, will give Members of Parliament who are not privileged to be in Cabinet or to be the more prominent players the opportunity on a day-to-day basis to participate as they have never participated before.
From the point of view of Members on this side of the House, we look forward to these rules being put in place. We recognize that you, Mr. Speaker, and others who will fill the chair will have to be patient with us, because we will not all pick the rules up as quickly as will the Chair and the Table. Perhaps from time to time we will make reference to rules that no longer exist. I hope that the Chair and Table Officers will be lenient in dealing with us in September and October. I anticipate and expect that each Member, on receiving a copy, will take it home and make it necessary bedtime reading in order that we can come to grips with the intricacies of Parliament, and in order that we can serve our constituents better, as these rules intend.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Hnatyshyn) agreed to.
_____________________________________6327
House of Commons Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-63, an Act to amend the House of Commons Act be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the Chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-63, an Act to amend the House of Commons Act. Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, this Bill is an amendment to the House of Commons Act. It will give effect to one of the key recommendations of the First Report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons. It will establish, for the first time in the House, a Board of Internal Economy which will not only have representation from the government side, but also representation from opposition Parties. Members of the Opposition will be selected to participate in the management of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The content of the Bill was recommended by the Special Committee and I am honoured and pleased to sponsor the passage of the Bill through all stages tonight.
There is an amendment which I have discussed with the House Leaders of both opposition Parties. Mr. Chairman, I think that you will find unanimous consent for the acceptance of the amendment.
As the Bill is presently structured, upon dissolution the positions of Speaker and Deputy Speaker would not continue for the purposes of the Board of Internal Economy or for the purposes of the administration of the House of Commons during the course of an election campaign. It is our intention that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker will continue to occupy their offices until a new Speaker and Deputy Speaker have been selected under the new Standing Orders. In addition, I would point out that upon dissolution of Parliament, the Board of Internal Economy will continue to function, with the Speaker as Chairperson and the Deputy Speaker acting in committee.
Therefore, I move:
That Clause 1 of Bill C-63 be amended by striking out lines 18 and 19 on page 3 and substituting the following:

June 27, 1985
House of Commons Act
"Economy and the Speaker and Deputy Speaker shall be deemed to remain in
office as such, as if there had been no dissolution, until another member is
appointed in his place".


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the amendment carry?


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I would like the Government House Leader to clarify something for me. Clause 18 reads:
On a dissolution of Parliament, every member of the Board of International Economy shall continue in office-
It seems to me that "every member" includes the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, two members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, the Leader of the Opposition or his nominee and four other members. That is the composition of the Board which is found in Clause 15(3). I am wondering why the Government House Leader has to repeat on lines 18 and 19 of Clause 18 on page 3 the names of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. I believe that is redundant. The previous lines state "every member", including the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. I would like the Government House Leader to clarify that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to provide an explanation. That matter was raised with me in a different context. I read the Bill and thought, along the same line of reasoning enunciated by the Hon. Member for Papineau, that there would not likely be a problem. However, Clause 15 states:
(1) There shall be a Board of International Economy of the House of Commons, over which the Speaker of the House of Commons shall preside.
That was one reason for which I thought there should be some provision for the Speaker to continue in office, notwithstanding dissolution, so there would be no question as to who would be the Chairperson of committees. In addition, if the Hon. Member would look at the present House of Commons Act, we are deleting from that legislation a provision which has the effect of keeping the Speaker in charge of the administration of the House after dissolution. My judgment was that I should bring forward this amendment, out of abundant caution, to ensure that there would be no question upon dissolution that the Speaker would remain in charge of the administration of the House and as Chairperson of committees. I share the logic and the reason of the Hon. Member, but I was persuaded, out of abundant caution, that we should move the amendment.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say two things. I agree that the amendment is redundant, however, I do not see that it would do any harm. With that in mind, we would be prepared to pass the amendment.
I can remember when I was elected to the House of Commons and we were involved in a discussion on the Board of International Economy. It struck me as passing strange, coming from the Ontario Legislature where opposition Members had been a part of the administration of the Legislature, that the House of Commons did not have opposition participation on matters which were not only government, but matters which affected every Member of Parliament.
I recall one evening speaking in the House on that very topic. I felt it would be appropriate at some point to amend the Board of Commissioners to include Members of the Opposition in order that everyone could feel, as decisions were made, that they had some input into the decision-making process which affects every day of our lives.
I want to say that this change is one which I believe, and certainly hope, will be of benefit to every Hon. Member for the first time, without passing any judgment on the capacity of those who served before. For the first time individual Members of Parliament will be represented on the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons. The concerns of individual Members will be able to be brought to that board. I anticipate-in fact, I expect-that the board will operate in a totally non-partisan way, that it will operate on the question of merit and not on the question of politics, and that the decisions made by that board will be seen by every Member of Parliament to have been made without consideration for the source of the suggestion or whether it was presented by the Opposition or by government supporters or by the Cabinet. I am sure that the Cabinet itself will come to live with the new reality that while those Members continue to be the Government of Canada, Parliament itself has its own administration representing all Hon. Members. I think this is a truly great step forward.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few comments and perhaps one question. I fully endorse the comments made by the House Leader for the New Democratic Party. There is no doubt that this is a great improvement to parliamentary affairs.
I would just like to reiterate that I take it that all members of the Board of Internal Economy will have the same status, that some members will not have more status than others. Of course, under the Financial Administration Act, that may be a little difficult to reconcile but, nevertheless, I take it the House Leader will confirm that there will not be some members of that Board of Internal Economy who will be of, say, advisory status rather than some others. That is, the Ministers will not impose themselves, as they sometimes do, by their presence and their authority.
Perhaps the President of the Privy Council can answer this question. Clause 18(1) of Bill C-63 reads:
On September 9, 1986, Sections 15 to 18 shall stand referred to such Committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established for the purpose-
I take it there is no time limit attached to when the committee must report to the House after its review of the operation of these new amendments, is that correct? There is no time limit attached to the review process?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, there will be no first class or second class members. There will be only one category of members and they will be full participants.
June 27, 1985

I was interested in the comments made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. I take his comments and thank him for the compliment he has given to us. I think all Hon. Members felt that this move was one which had to be taken in the House of Commons in order to allow Members of Parliament, and not only Members of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada, who are part of the Government, to be involved in the internal economy of the House of Commons.
Indeed, I recall very vividly the rather dramatic point of order raised-my first challenge-by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East who interrupted the very benign proceedings which usually take place here on the opening day of Parliament with the election of the Speaker. He thrashed away at the Prime Minister because of the fact he had appointed the usual Commissioners of Internal Economy by the usual motion. I had to point out to the Hon. Member at that time that we just did not have quite the time to change the Act, that it was only the first day. However, I am glad to say that before we adjourn this summer we are able to do that.
With respect to the observation of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier concerning the review of the operation, there are two courses of action we could have taken. I had originally suggested that we have this on a one-year trial basis to coincide with the Standing Orders which will be used provisionally for a period of one year. At the request of the Hon. Member's House Leader, I was quite prepared to have this review of the legislation not terminate but will carry on.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap speaks day in and day out and here it is my chance to speak and he is making a gesture that he wants to go to the Senate. I don't understand this.
I conclude only by saying, Sir, that, yes, this is only a provision for review. We want to have the matter of the operation of the Board of Internal Economy reviewed by an appropriate committee. I would hope, along with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, that the Board of Internal Economy would operate not only on a non-partisan basis but I would hope it will be able to operate on a consensus basis, that it would not be necessary to have a division on questions put to the committee. I would hope that there would be a discussion and a give and take which I think would benefit the operation of this House. It is going to require the co-operation of all Hon. Members in the spirit of collegiality on that particular board because I believe the people who will be on that board will represent their caucuses and the members within their caucuses. I think the people, therefore, will be people who love the House of Commons and understand it as an important institution. These responsibilities will make it easy to avoid becoming involved in partisanship.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, in his comments, the President of the Privy Council said that the Clerk was to be authorized to reprint the Standing Orders. As he knows, since 1983 we in this House have been working out of a 1982 edition with some glued-on pages. I wonder if the President of the Privy Council could, through his good offices, ask the Clerk if
House of Commons Act
we could have these printed before we come back on September 9, that is, sometime in August.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, I have just two or three questions. Can the President of the Privy Council tell us when the new composition comes into effect?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: September 9, 1985, Mr. Chairman, on the day that the House will reconvene for the next session.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you. As I work through the Budget in part, and having just read the changes to the Standing Orders where legislative committees or standing committees must submit budgets, I could not see the tie-in as to how those budgets would end up in Treasury Board hands and have money voted by Parliament. It talks about staff control by the Clerk. It talks about staff control by the Sergeant-at-Arms. Where is the mechanism which takes the committee budget and puts it through the hand of the Treasury Board Minister and gets voted by Parliament?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief answer which I hope will be sufficient for the Hon. Member. We are moving and have been moving under this Government to have more accountability with respect to the expenses of committees. The Hon. Member will know that the Speaker has written to all chair persons of standing committees requesting that they submit to him and, thereby, to the present Commissioners of Internal Economy, their budgets with respect to extraordinary expenses.
Under the new regime, the new Board of Internal Economy will, in fact, review all committee expenses and I believe they will be putting in place a system under which the committees will have allocated to them certain basic start-up funds. Then the committees will be expected to outline to the new Board of Internal Economy their requirements for their activities.
It will be up to the board to decide on each of these budgets and there will be an obligation on the part of the committee concerned and on the chairperson in particular. When you look at some of the other recommendations of the third report the logical conclusion is carried through. We want to start now on accountability and make sure that people are getting value for money and there is some control over the expenditures in committee. The Hon. Member will know there has been some very substantial bills run up by certain committees, albeit quite inadvertently and with the best intentions. We want to have some control and give leadership through the accountability concept over the operation of our own affairs.
The Hon. Member will undoubtedly have read the third report and will understand that if the provisions regarding the

June 27, 1985
House of Commons Act
transfer of control over spending to the committees are accepted, the committees will have greater independence. They will have to justify their budget, but once they have it they will be in a position to spend the money without further reference to the House.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Chairman, if I may clarify one of the things which concerns me, earlier this morning we changed the Standing Orders. They say that the committee chairman shall not incur any expenses until the chairman of the committee or the member acting for the chairman has presented a budget and so forth to the Board of Internal Economy. What I am concerned about is the legal position of the committee chairman. I am a committee chairman and if we call witnesses during the summer and incur expenses, am I left in some kind of limbo where I have no authority to incur expenses until the budgets are presented? Is there a mechanism which enables committees to function between now and September 9?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, these provisions do not come into effect until September 9 for a good and valid reason. We do not want to affect anything going on this summer. The Hon. Member can rest assured that he will not be incarcerated for misappropriation of funds if he carries out his mandate. He has the authority and will continue to have that authority. When we come back there will be a new regime which will involve a mechanism, which is now being worked on, about how to operate this system. I think it will satisfy all Members and I alluded to it earlier. It simply provides that, for example, committees will have a basic amount allocated to them equivalent to what they will have available to carry on their normal operations in Ottawa. They will then simply have to make a presentation to the board with respect to any other activities, whether it involves travel or extraordinary investigations. All that will be subject to justification to the board which will be sitting on a frequent basis so that committee members will not be inconvenienced by having to wait for adjudication on their budget request.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, as an ordinary private backbench Member, so that the House Leaders are not patting themselves and the committee on the back, I want to extend congratulations to the committee and the three House Leaders for what they have accomplished. With one small caveat. I worry that when all three House Leaders agree on something like now we operate down here, does that mean less work for them and more for us?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You bet your life it does.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly deal with this legislation. There are some things in it which I have a great deal of difficulty with.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Not at this hour of the night.


John Raymond Ellis: Yes, at this hour. The Hon. Member for Regina West kept us here for hours talking about things that some of us had very little interest in so another two or three minutes on this will not be too bad.
I want to put on record that Clause 16 of this legislation reflects legislation which was prepared by the Lefebvre Committee and does not reflect the reforms put forward by the Auditor General in his 1978 report. The fact is that the Clerk of the House does not and has not for many years prepared any estimates. The Sergeant-at-Arms does not and has not for many years prepared any estimates. The estimates have been prepared by the House administration. In addition, when those estimates have been looked at by the Speaker or given to him, they are then referred to the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services for their scrutiny as they have been for many years, before they go back to the Speaker.
I am not going to get into the things that happened in committee, but I tell you that there are four Speakers who are on record as supporting that type of administration. There are three Auditors General who have studied the system and are on record as supporting that kind of system. I only say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I do not intend to make a motion to change this piece of legislation tonight. It comes at almost the eleventh hour of our sitting, literally as well as figuratively. I do know that legislation such as this can be changed and I think that with the putting in place of new rules for the Commissioners of Internal Economy that it in fact should be and perhaps will be.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 2-


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, Clause 2 deals with the date on which the Act shall come into force. It is evident that this Clause was drafted by someone who did not know whether this Bill was to be dealt with before or after September 9. It is now quite evident the Bill is to be dealt with before September 9. Therefore, unless there is some good reason why we should retain the present wording, it would be my suggestion-and unless I get the explanation it would be my intention-that we make the necessary resolution to reword Clause 2 to say that this Act shall come into force on September 9.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Is 1985 okay?


Dave Nickerson: Nineteen eighty-five.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, Parliament lives! There is a legislator who reads legislation. In deference to that distinguished Parliamentarian I accept his suggestion and I therefore move:
That the words
or be deemed to have come into force," be deleted.
The clause would now read:
This Act shall come into force on September 9, 1985.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
June 27, 1985
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be
read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-63, an Act to amend the House of Commons Act, be read the third time and passed.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Government House Leader for his co-operation in agreeing to amend the House of Commons Act, especially as concerns the Board of Internal Economy. I would remind this House that this was one of the major recommendations of the Committee on Reform of the House of Commons and one on which there was unanimity from the start. Not only we were unanimous at the time, but we had even proposed in our first report an amendment which corresponds word for word to that introduced by the Government House Leader, except for section 18(1) which has been added. On behalf of all members of the Committee, and especially our Chairman, I therefore want to thank the Government House Leader for approving this proposal and introducting this Bill today.
I believe that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) said earlier that, since 1980, we had witnessed a lot of changes in Parliamentary procedure and the way Members of Parliament view their work. In my opinion, he is absolutely right. I would like to remind him that the relationship which had evolved among the then Government House Leader, the Hon. Justice Pinard, the late Hon. Walter Baker and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain himself greatly contributed to the improvement in the conditions offered to Members of this House. I especially recall when we decided to stop sitting in the evenings except on rare occasions like tonight. We are these new Standing Orders which allow us to have a more normal and more decent way of life to the cooperation of these three House leaders in the previous Parliament. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we would not have been able to bring about these changes, especially the changes to the Standing Orders which were agreed to earlier this evening and in this Bill C-63, without the understanding and cooperation of the three present House Leaders. I therefore want to thank the Government House Leader. I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), House Leader of the Official Opposition, and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, House Leader of the New Democratic Party, who appeared together before the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, which had never been done before. I would like to thank the House Leaders of the three parties for their co-operation and understanding in trying to improve the conditions for all Members of this House. I am very happy that Bill C-63 is before us this evening and I hope that it will receive unanimous approval.
House of Commons Act


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all Members who gave unanimous consent earlier this evening to sit late. I want everyone to understand that it was at my request that we sat late this evening in order to allow my colleagues to attend the convention of the New Democratic Party tomorrow here in Ottawa. Anyone who wishes to attend will be most welcome. They might in fact find it enjoyable. I hope they would. In any event, I thank the Members who had to sit late this evening in order to accommodate my desires.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of amity and friendship I will not even comment on what I am going to be doing tomorrow, but I do not think I will be at the NDP convention, as much as I would love to be there.


Ian Deans: But you will miss so much.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Since we have concluded the business which we agreed to conclude today, I would like to make a motion that the sitting of the House be suspended to the call of the Chair. When we receive a message from the other place, you might be good enough to ring the bells or let us know in some other way that you want us back in the Chamber. We can then, receive Royal Assent and then adjourn for the evening.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with all Members in wishing the New Democratic Party a very good and, hopefully, a very fruitful weekend. We agreed with the proposals of the New Democratic House Leader in the spirit of objectivity, knowing how he would appreciate it.
I would like to ask a question of order of the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn). I heard the suggestion he made that the bells be rung to invite the Members back to the Chamber when the Senate is ready to proceed with Royal Assent. Is that the suggestion which I just heard? I kow that some Hon. Members are very impatient to go home. Do we have any idea of when the Senate will be ready to receive us?


Mr. Speaker:: As the House knows, the information systems around here are circuitous. On my way in I was informed by a gentleman in a blue shirt and a hat that it would probably be in 20 minutes. I have learned that one can trust those systems. The House has heard the suggestion. I suspect that not all Members who are present will return for Royal Assent. I simply wish those who have stayed a happy summer. Since so much has been done today in an amicable way, this seems an appropriate time to say something that is important to me personally. I am now a new boy who feels comfortable. It has

June 27, 1985
Royal Assent
been an extraordinary eight or nine months for me. That is just something I have been waiting to say.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the House Leader. Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting to the call of the bell?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 10.58 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
At 12.25 a.m. the House resumed.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills without amendment: Bill C-25, an Act to amend the agricultural Stabilization Act; Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act; Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act; Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act; Bill C-51, an Act to provide Borrowing Authority; C-53, an Act to authorize the disposal of the Northern Transportation Company Limited and the Forgiveness of its Debt to Her Majesty and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof; Bill C-56, an Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans act; Bill C-57, an Act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act; Bill C-58, an Act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Judges Act, the Federal Court Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the National Defence Act in relation to judicial matters and to amend an Act to amend the Judges Act and the Federal Court Act in consequence thereof; and Bill C-63, an Act to amend the House of Commons Act.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
June 28, 1985 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerard La Forest, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 28th day of June, at 12.25 a.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Esmond Butler Secretary
to the Governor General.



ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act and the Canadian Home Insulation Program Act-Chapter No. 25.
Bill C-27, an Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms-Chapter No. 26.
Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Indian Act-Chapter No. 27.
Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act-Chapter No. 28.
Bill C-39, an Act to provide for the making of supplementary fiscal equalization payments to certain provinces for the period April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1987-Chapter No. 29.
Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act-Chapter No. 30.
Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act-Chapter No. 31.
Bill C-56, an Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act-Chapter No 32.
Bill C-57, an Act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act-Chapter No. 33.
Bill C-58, an Act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act-Chapter No. 34.
Bill C-53, an Act to authorize the disposal of the Northern Transportation Company Limited and the forgiveness of its debt to Her Majesty and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 35.
Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act-Chapter No 36.
Bill C-51, an Act to provide borrowing authority-Chapter No. 37.
Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Judges Act, the Federal Court Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the National Defence Act in relation to judicial matters and to amend an Act to amend the Judges Act and the Federal Court Act in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 38.
Bill C-63, an Act to amend the House of Commons Act-Chapter No. 39.
Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act-Chapter No. 40.
June 27, 1985



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, first of all, since it is already 12:45 in the morning, I want to thank the House staff for their patience. I do not intend to use up the full seven minutes I am allowed, but I think the matter is sufficiently important, Mr. Speaker, to discuss it at this time. I simply wanted to make sure the Government would have an opportunity to keep an election promise it made with respect to a very important program which provides court challenge assistance, a program that expired on April 30 of this year.
I also wish to point out the presence of one of my good friends, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), who is at my side this evening, at this late hour, and who has always shown great dedication to the cause of Canada's linguistic minorities.
Mr. Speaker, my question on June 13 of this year to the Minister of Justice concerned the recent decision by the Supreme Court, dealing with a referral aimed at emphasizing minority rights and especially at enshrining Section 23 of the Manitoba Act on the same terms as the generous interpretation given Section 133 in Quebec since Confederation, that is, for over 100 years. The Supreme Court has confirmed beyond a doubt that the wording of Section 23 of the Manitoba Act has the same effect as Section 133, and that today we are to understand that for over 100 years, the intent of this section was that laws, statutes, regulations and all matters arising from the powers of the Manitoba Legislature should have been drafted in both official languages, that is in French and English.
Editorial writers were quick to comment on this historic decision by the Supreme Court. In the newspaper Le Devoir, we read: "One hundred years lost". Le Devoir said that this clear and forthright decision by the Supreme Court restored a measure of justice which, however, could not bring back to life what had been buried by 100 years of injustice. The decision in itself would not be enough to make amends and give back to this minority that part of itself that was oppressed by the particular form of madness that has surrounded and will always continue to surround Francophone minorities in Canada, a country where violence is supposedly non-existent.
Mr. Speaker, in this connection, and to save time, now that the Supreme Court has spoken categorically and clearly on the
Adjournment Debate
interpretation of Section 23, today, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) was saying in the House:
In answer to a question from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) said that they had discussed the matter of translating all statutes and all documents of the Manitoba Legislature since 1870 or 1890 when, by some legislative fault, English was made the official language of that province. That fault has now been corrected by the Supreme Court and gives Canadians a challenge to meet, a challenge with which we must deal in the next few months if we want to justice done, and be seen to be done.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) said today in the House that the Government of Manitoba would in effect be making a submission to the Supreme Court, as required, concerning the minimum time to be allowed for the translation of all these documents.

The question of translation is not one that I would like to address. The question I would like to address in the few minutes that I have is the question of helping to assist those who, in my view, have over the years sustained an injustice and require assistance. The courts will, of course, hear the Manitoba case regarding the minimum time required to translate all the statutes. I take it from the answer of the Minister of Justice today that the Government of Canada will also participate in that process.
Tonight, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the Government will now reconsider its position on the court challenges program and put forth a generous program which will give minorities that will be invited by the courts to present their arguments the necessary assistance, be it Financial or a matter of human resources.

I simply would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether his Government is prepared to establish a program to support linguistic minorities, and especially in Manitoba. I am thinking of the Franco-Manitoban Society, the Federation of Francophones outside Quebec and Alliance Quebec, and that these people should have access to Government funds to help them draft and submit their arguments regarding the minimum time to be allowed for translating all these statutes.
I am very well acquainted with the position of the Minister of Justice, who said in the House on May 15 of this year-
I would like to quote from an article quoting the Minister of Justice as saying, "Charter challengers don't need federal financing". He was talking of the citizens and groups which

June 27, 1985
Adjournment Debate
can apply to the courts if they believe they have a cause under the Charter. He said those people-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his seven minutes have expired.
[ Translation]


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we entirely agree with the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) about the historic character of the unanimous judgment on the use of French language delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada on June 13 last.
However, we would like to make a few relevant comments on that epoch-making decision which has clarified and removed any ambiguity from the constitutional requirements in connection with the Manitoba laws and parliamentary procedures.

The Supreme Court has upheld the Constitution of Canada while preserving the rule of law and avoiding legal chaos in the Province of Manitoba. We can only be impressed by the rigour and wisdom of the court's reasoning in coming to that decision, particularly with regard to the primacy of the Constitution and the rule of law, as well as the role of the judiciary in upholding these two fundamental principles of our system of Government.

However, that is not all Mr. Speaker. Each and every Canadian has something to learn from that major decision
which confirms the sacrosanct character of minority language rights in Canada, that point of honour which has always been upheld by our valiant Canadian Prime Minister. However, it is imperative to quote a brief excerpt of that judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in this matter and 1 quote:

The importance of language rights is grounded in the essential role that language plays in human existence, development and dignity. It is through language that we are able to form concepts; to structure and order the world around us. Language bridges the gap between isolation and community, allowing humans to delineate the rights and duties they hold in respect of one another, and thus to live in society.

Mr. Speaker, our Government is seriously committed to protecting minority rights wherever they exist, as stated in the throne speech and the unequivocal commitment of our Government to improve and monitor such an important aspect of a truly national life.

With regard to the legal procedures leading to the resolution-


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid I must advise the Parliamentary Secretary that his three minutes have expired.


George Albert Proud: On behalf of those who are sleepy-eyed, I would like to thank you very much for your patience.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I adjourn, I would like to thank the staff for a job extremely well done.
It being 12.53 o'clock a.m., this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.53 a.m.

June 27, 1985

[Stage Direction]
(See p. 6253)
(Documents tabled by Hon. John Wise, Minister of Agriculture)
Operations under the Farm Improvement Loans Act During the year ended December 31, 1984
40th ANNUAL REPORT
The Farm Improvement Loans Act came into force in March, 1945 for an initial period of 3 years and was subsequently amended from time to time to remain in effect for additional lending periods. The current lending period expires June 30, 1985.
The purpose of the Act is to encourage the provision of intermediate term and short term credit to farmers for the improvement and development of farms and for the improvement of living conditions thereon. To this end, the Act authorizes the Minister of Agriculture to guarantee, against loss, term loans made to farmers by chartered banks, Alberta Treasury branches and other lenders designated by the Minister, for a wide range of farm improvement projects.
The main purposes for which Farm Improvement Loans could be made during 1984 were:
-purchase of agricultural implements and equipment;
-general works for the improvement or development of a farm, including clearing and breaking of land, irrigation systems, farm electric systems, fencing and drainage works;
-construction, repair or alteration of farm buildings;
-purchase of livestock;
-purchase of additional farm land;
-major repair or major overhaul of agricultural implements and equipment (including equipment for beekeeping) where the cost of such repair or overhaul is not less than $400.
A borrower may have several guaranteed loans outstanding at any one time up to a maximum combined amount of $100 000.
The repayment term of a loan depends largely upon the amount borrowed and the particular circumstances of the borrower. The maximum repayment period is 15 years where a loan was granted for the purchase of additional land, and 10 years for all other purposes.
Farm Improvement Loans must be secured and borrowers are required to provide a certain portion of the cost of a purchase or a project from their own resources.
The maximum rate of interest on loans made under the program is equal to the prime lending rate of chartered banks,
plus 1%. This maximum, which varies with the prime rate, applies to both new and outstanding loans.
Review of 1984 Lending
During the year, 12 037 loans were made, amounting to $159.9 million. The average loan made during the year was $13 288. The total amount lent was borrowed for the following purposes:
-$105.7 million or 66.1% to purchase agricultural implements;
-$14.1 million or 8.8% for construction, repair or alteration of farm houses and buildings;
-$15.7 million or 9.8% to purchase land;
-$10.5 million or 6.6% for other improvement purposes such as clearing of land, fencing, irrigation and similar projects;
-$13.4 million or 8.4% for the purchase of livestock;
-$0.5 million for major repair or major overhaul of agricultural implements and equipment.
From the inception of the program to December 31, 1984, approximately 1 904 200 Farm Improvement Loans were made amounting to approximately $5 152 million. During the same period, payments were made to lenders under the guarantee provision in respect of 7 177 claims amounting to approximately $17.0 million, while recoveries were effected of about $2.8 million.
Appended to this Report are the following tables showing in detail the lending operations for 1984:
Table 1. Summary of Operations Table 2. Loans and Repayments to Lenders
Table 3. Loans Classified by Province and Lender
Table 4. Loans Classified by Province and Purpose
Table 5. Loans for Implements Table 6. Loans for Various Farm Improvement Purposes Table 7. Loans for Construction,
Repair and Alteration of Farm Houses and Buildings
[Stage Direction]
June 27, 1985

[Stage Direction]
Year
Loans Made	Average	Claims Paid
[Stage Direction]
 Amount
[Stage Direction]
Number	Amount	of Loan	Number	Amount
Recoveries on Claims Paid
1945 to 1954 1955 to 1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
474 474	513 606 646	1 082689 626	1 013 202 985	1 46991 191	202 706 910	2 22385 553	212 796 464	2 48778 249	203 664 856	2 60314 204	40 243 867	2 83346 891	142 056 482	3 03035 992	103 029 735	2 86346 790	147 847 184	3 16053 591	181 921 661	3 39558 267	231 852 523	3 97933 685	167 626 413	4 97629 928	209 868 002	701220 721	164 319 192	7 93017 172	130 778 224	761624 712	228 607 019	9 25125 309	265 475 706	10 48919 439	222 435 504	11 44315 266	187 798 212	12 30115 795	211 804 525	13 40915 276	210 843 122	13 80212 037	159 949 154	13 288282	149 814	8 7432 393	1 742 217	229 694229	202 373	36 397243	248 209	43 242285	339 394	43 451232	321 936	45 780222	263 439	57 913367	540 603	43 683468	726 626	79 352367	657 974	83 404289	628 691	139 408238	503 608	227 791100	290 747	213 23284	199 731	243 637118	296 008	108 445138	452 094	163 100118	354 009	131 513120	435 796	106 308124	514 524	175 560137	1 013 764	149 451240	2 301 703	250 859383	4 815 747	282 466TOTAL	1 904 168	5 152 434 386	2 706	7 1-
NOTE: Data on loans made in 1983 have been adjusted to reflect lending reported publication of the 1983 report.
16 999 007	2 863 429

[Stage Direction]
Periods	Loans Made	Repayments1	Balance of Loans Payable to LendersPeriod 1: March 1, 1945 to February 28,1948	33 605 576	33 605 576	Period 2: March 1, 1948 to February 28, 1951	142 372 774	142 372 774	Period 3: March 1, 1951 to March 31, 1953	190 449 006	190 449 006	Period 4: April 1, 1953 to March 31, 1956	222 723 494	222 723 494	Period 5: April 1, 1956 to March 31, 1959	239 064 072	239 064 072	Period 6: April 1, 1959 to June 30, 1962	346 906 122	346 906 122	Period 7: July 1, 1962 to June 30, 1965	447 767 384	447 767 384	Period 8: July 1, 1965 to June 30 1968	553 823 636	553 814 738	8 898Period 9: July 1, 1968 to June 30 1971	326 195 760	326 052 543	143 217Period 10: July 1, 1971 to June 30, 1974	572 731 335	569 055 887	3 675 448Period 11: July 1, 1974 to June 30, 1977	528 950 634	517 322 940	11 627 694Period 12: July 1, 1977 to June 30, 1980	654 451 920	615 637 135	38 814 785Period 13: July 1, 1980 to June 30, 1985 (As of December 31,1984)	893 392 673	449 783 913	443 608 760
152 434 386	4 654 555 584	497 878 802
Includes principal amount of claims paid under the government guarantee.
June 27, 1985

[Stage Direction]
Lender Province	Bank of Montreal	Bank of Nova Scotia	Royal Bank of Canada	Toronto Dominion Bank	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	AmountBritish Columbia	183	2 527 765	9	207 160	62	1 211 086	89	1 309 260152	2 789 821	503	7 461 639	33	995 210	1 101	12 228 787Saskatchewan	72	1 507 697	556	9 960 065	359	6 951 255	654	7 642 547Manitoba	63	1 119 310	133	1 657 425	21	719 535	228	2 448 302Ontario	251	4 560 882	32	463 078	78	1 648 480	426	6 184 460Quebec	8	165 125	87	1 943 312	5	45 660New Brunswick	55	533 360	55	497 603	33	370 574	Nova Scotia	3	16 154	30	365 568	23	306 103	1	11 000Prince Edward Island	14	217 110	184	2 087 778	5	72 178	5	116 291Newfoundland	16	265 912	3	35 600	TOTAL	801	13 437 224	1 518	22 966 228	704	14 253 333	2 509	29 986 307
TABLE 3. (Continued)
Lender Province	National Bank of Canada	Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce	Bank of British Columbia	Continental Bank	Total Chartered Banks	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	AmountBritish Columbia	217	2 965 789	2	115000	562	8 336 060Alberta	1 912	23 487 529	5	66 100	4	200 335	3 710	47 229 421Saskatchewan	2 736	32 906 355	4 377	58 967 919Manitoba	10	221 525	984	10 142 078	1 439	16 308 175Ontario	11	188 139	190	2 711 441	988	15 756 480Quebec	30	866 690	5	39 960	135	3 060 747New Brunswick	16	107 870	12	94 424	171	1 603 831Nova Scotia	4	30 295	28	279 475	89	1 008 595Prince Edward Island	16	251 050	130	1 358 957	354	4 103 364Newfoundland	2	10 200	21	311 712Yukon	2	22 000	2	22 000TOTAL	87	1 665 569	6218	74 018 208	7	181 100	4	200 335	11 848	156 708 304
TABLE 3. (Concluded)
Lender Province	Alberta Treasury Branches	Credit Unions	Total Other Lenders	TotalNo.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	AmountBritish Columbia	562	8 336 060Alberta	30	645 800	20	219 716	50	865 516	3 760	48 094 937Saskatchewan	107	1 575 681	107	1 575 681	4 484	60 543 600Manitoba	10	179 765	10	179 765	1 449	16 487 940Ontario	11	336 888	11	336 888	999	16 093 368Quebec	10	268 000	10	268 000	145	3 328 747New Brunswick	171	1 603 831Nova Scotia	89	1 008 595Prince Edward Island	1	15 000	1	15 000	355	4 118 364Newfoundland	21	311 712Yukon	2	22 000TOTAL	30	645 800	159	2 595 050	189	3 240 850	12 037	159 949 154
6338
[Stage Direction]
June 27, 1985

[Stage Direction]
Province	Purchase of Agricultural Implements and Equipment	Clearing/Breaking Fencing/Drainage Improvement/Develop* ment-Irrigation Fixed Equipment	Construction Repair or Alteration of Farm House and Buildings	Purchase of Purchase of Livestock	Major Repair/ Overhaul Additional Land	Implements Equipment	TotalNo. Amount	No. Amount	No. Amount	No. Amount No.	Amount	No. Amount	No. Amount
British
Columbia	409
Alberta	2 763
Saskatchewan	3 563
Manitoba	1 103
Ontario	662
Quebec	97
New Brunswick	135
Nova Scotia	65
Prince Edward	
4 324 264	48	781 723	5132 321 454	263	3 579 305	24044 426 992	227	2 169 351	25411 240 699	36	286 266	1067 995 719	182	2 652 499	1471 283 526	30	481 724	231 111 325	13	105 375	26636 201	7	97 953	91 002 363	82	1 429 975	183 411 591	489	4 907 846	833 250 892	363	3 028 332	1621 572 995	219	1 969 806	352 687 272	88	991 244	41962 841	26	408 686	7316 185	3	9 830	3120 880	10	144 561	I761 200	7	36 535	615	8 336 0603 722 215	35	152 526	3 873	48 094 9377 504 611	35	163 422	4 604	60 543 6001 285 610	14	132 564	I 513	16 487 9401 752 334	3	14 300	1 123	16 093 368182 160	1	9810	184	3 328 74754 000	2	7 116	182	1 603 8319 000	92	1 008 595Island Newfoundland Yukon	266 2 222 567 13 114 986 4 22 000	20 325 164	38 802 814	42 8	362 039 14 196 726	400 530 1	5 250	381 21 4	4 118 364 311 712 22 000TOTAL	9 080 105 699 733	826 10 479 360	894 14 127 833	1 330	13 449 045 364	15 671660 98	521 523	12 592	159 949 1541 Data in this table relate to the number of purposes for which loans were negotiated, not the number of loans. Some loans were made for more than	one purpose.	TABLE 5: LOANS FOR IMPLEMENTS'	Combines	Hay Balers	Tractors	Trucks	Others	Total	Province	No. Amount	No. Amount	No. Amount	No.	Amount	No. Amount	No.	Amount	British Columbia	9	100 070	25Alberta	253	5 480 085	99Saskatchewan	409	9 651 284	71Manitoba	110	2 271 785	39Ontario	63	1 429 709	20Quebec	4	109 000	2New Brunswick	3	45 950	2Nova Scotia Prince Edward	2	25 800	3Island Newfoundland Yukon	10	136 178	14 1TOTAL	863	19 249 861	276124 582	100	1 396 003	107	1 007 116648 637	587	11 113 202	664	5 776 375379 283	826	16 187 029	696	5414061250 247	249	3 992 287	234	1 896 383110 734	197	2 953 555	109	828 94411 500	19	369 889	26	341 58217 020	34	426 200	33	181 41719 800	19	216 369	12	101 06280 775	70	845 029	42	291 1952 250	7	75 673	1	2 250168	1 696 493	409	4 324 2641 160	9 303 155	2 763	32 321 4541 561	12 795 335	3 563	44 426 992471	2 899 997	1 103	11 240 699273	2 672 777	662	7 995 71946	451 555	97	1 283 52663	440 738	135	1 111 32529	273 170	65	636 201130	869 390	266	2 222 5676	39 313	13	114 9862	17 500	4	22 0001 644 828	2 108	37 505 236	1 924	1 5 840 385	3 909	31 459 423	9 080	1 05 699 733
The numbers referred to in this table relate to the actual number of implements purchased and not the number of loans negotiated.
TABLE 6: LOANS FOR VARIOUS FARM IMPROVEMENT PURPOSES'
Clearing and Breaking of Land	Fencing and Drainage Works	Other Works for Improvement or Development	irrigation Systems	Fixed Equipment and Electrical	TotalProvince	No. Amount	No. Amount	No. Amount	No. Amount	No. Amount	No. Amount
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick Nova Scotia Prince Edward Island
[Stage Direction]
3	18 525
22	119410
55	314 064
9	43 440
3	11 600
1	16 935
1	14 783
1	4	0508	33	3847	32	04538	520	5833	62	80094	538 757	57	652 86215	250 54283	741 563121	1 039 44620	137 10643	672 5877	81 5984	36 5308	161 53515	303 145133	2 498 77823	429 40912	150 1872	33 2001	9 7452	26 89314	205 46117	186 17021	354 3877	106 72086	1 297 54217	287 1918	59 1005	71 06011	148 84648	781 723263	3 579 305227	2 169 35136	286 266182	2 652 49930	481 72413	105 3757	97 95320	325 164301	3 120 907	188	3 451357	186	2 715 477	826	10 479 360
1 Data in this table relate to the number of purposes for which loans were made, not the number of loans negotiated.
June 27, 1985
[Stage Direction]
TABLE 7: LOANS FOR CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR AND ALTERATION OF FARM HOUSES AND BUILDINGS'
New Bams and Utility Buildings	New Houses	Repairs and Alterations	TotalProvince	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	AmountBritish Columbia	37	807 433	1	65 000	13	129 930	51	1 002 363139	1 902 581	27	815 474	74	693 536	240	3 411 591Saskatchewan	163	1 595 651	35	1 129 518	56	525 723	254	3 250 89265	936 349	12	411 500	29	225 146	106	1 572 99565	1 398 347	6	160 000	76	1 128 925	147	2 687 272Quebec	10	576 255	3	64 600	10	321 986	23	962 841New Brunswick	12	156 625	1	65 000	13	94 560	26	316 185Nova Scotia	6	105 700	3	15 180	9	120 880Prince Edward Island	25	455 305	2	128 000	11	219 509	38	802 814TOTAL	522	7 934 246	87	2 839 092	285	3 354 495	894	14 127 833
1 Data in this table relate to the number of purposes for which loans were made, not the number of loans negotiated.

[Stage Direction]
1984-85	1985-86
Budget Allotment (1985-86 Fiscal Year)		$12,000,000.00
Interest Paid-1984-85 FY-1984-85 Program Interest Paid-1985-86 FY-1984-85 Program	$4,344,697.	1.393.933.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES		$ 1.393.933.00
Interest Recapture on cash repayments (to consolidated revenue) Only 85-86		$ 14.134.71
TOTAL		$ 14.134.71
Outstanding Agreements 1979-80 Crop Year 1980-	81 Crop Year 1981-	82 Crop Year 1982-	83 Crop Year 1983-	84 Crop Year Current Year		$ 35,640.00 25,879.00 182.198.00 571.912.00 167,168.33 75.176.173.00
TOTAL		$ 76.158.970.33
CONTINGENT LIABILITY		$ 72,301,882.60

[Stage Direction]
PROGRAM	NO. OF APPLICANTS (AGREEMENTS)	STATUS REPORT-JUNE 1, 1985 TOTAL GUARANTEE	AMOUNT ADVANCED (PAID)	INTEREST (PAID)A.P.C.A.	42	$183,730,622	$136,420,470	$5,738,630A.P.C.M.A.	10	138,679,000	N/AA.P.M.A.	27	N/A	N/A	N/AC.A.M.D.F.	23	329,201	278,588	N/AS.P.E.P.P.	2	398,621	N/A	N/AF&VSCFAP	51	3,468,454	2,593,391	N/A
June 27, 1985

[Stage Direction]
P.E.I. Potato Prod.	1	5,350	1	17,210	1	4,097	-	-N.B. Potato Agency	2	4,860	2	9,733	6	39,565	20	216,870	1	29,715.49Federation des	3	10,796	8	33,091	8	33,129	3	11,480.77cultures commer-	6	64,001	8	106,910	8	55,387.00ciale du Quebec	(corn)	(corn)	(corn)Federation des maraichers du Quebec	5	93,980	1	8,440.67Federation des producteurs de pommes	2	30,780	-	-	1	7,219.20Federation des pommes de terre du Quebec	2	28,331	6	81,701	-	-Association pour ('administration des paiements anticipes	5	8,904	-	-Ontario Soyabean Marketing Board	1	3,862	-	-Ontario Corn Producers' Association	1	7,096.00CSP Foods	-	1	15,000.00Man. Pool Elevators	6	3,789	5	30,829.20Alberta Potato Commission	2	18,670	1	2,000.00Total (this month)	4	35,640	6	25,879	23	182,198	62	571,912	22	167,168.33Total (last month)	4	35,640	6	25,879	25	245,643	65	604,366	24	190,293.32
Percentage change
This Month Last Month Percentage Change
Total Number of Producers	117	124Total Amount in Default from 1979 to 1984	982,797	1,101,821
All P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board extensions were paid on or before December 31, 1984.
Follow-up action and repayment schedule in place for each producer in default to its organization.
AS OF JUNE 1, 1985 M.A. Franchina
June 27, 1985

[Stage Direction]
Crop Year	Commodity	Default Payment 90%	Accumulated Interest	Total Debt to Crown	Recovered	Debt out- standing	Year Minister's Guarantee HonouredDavid B. Hamilton R.R.l Florenceville, N.B.	1978	Potatoes	8,245.70	9,879.34	18,125.04	-	18,125.04	1983-84Charles and Lois Gardner	1978	Soybean	7,550.03	957.92	8,507.95	-	8,507.95	1979Alain Albert Grand Falls, N.B.	1979	Potatoes	6,255.00	2,836.19	9,091.19	-	9,091.19	1982-83Ceretec Inc. Bernieres, Quebec	1979	Barley Oats	29,468.34	13,123.40	42,591.74	-	42,591.74	1982-83Raymond Cote	1979	Corn	6,646.22	3,667.25	10,313.47	-	10,313.47	1982-83E. Cage Dixon Cornwall, P.E.I.	1979	Potatoes	1,994.99	873.79	2,868.78	-	2,868.78	1982-83Calvin De Marchant Bath, N.B.	1979	Potatoes	4,897.51	4,008.00	8,905.51	-	8,905.51	1983-84Joseph Fay Souris, P.E.I.	1979	Potatoes	11,885.58	5,216.97	17,102.55	9,768.00 (Sept. /84)	7,334.55	1982-83Ferme la Crainetiere	1979	Corn	8,610.21	6,324.98	14,935.19	-	14,935.19	1982-83Garnet Hawskley R.R.2 Florenceville, N.B.	1979	Potatoes	6,945.30	6,035.96	12,981.26	12,981.26	1983-84Ronald Hawksley	1979	Potatoes	4,532.36	5,710.73	10,243.09	-	10,243.09	1984-85Hillcrest Farms Ltd. Louis, P.E.I.	1979	Potatoes	16,317.90	9,898.65	26,216.55	-	26,216.55	1982-83Cecil Hughes Montague, P.E.I.	1979	Potatoes	2,625.27	1,174.63	3,799.90	-	3,799.90	1982-83Frank Mazza Dundas, Ontario	1979	Soybeans	3,375.00	1,673.99	5,048.99	-	5,048.99	1982-83R & S Enterprises Hartland, N.B.	1979	Potatoes	1,681.15 15,130.35	11,347.51	28,159.01	-	28,159.01	1982-83Richard Sewell N.B. Potato Agency	1979	Potatoes	1,025.74	2,868.80	3,894.54	-	3,894.54	1982-83Albert O. Wood Kensington, P.E.I.	1979	Potatoes	9,945.66	5,369.47	15,315.13	(7,200.00 July/84) pd on principal	8,115.13	1982-83Gilbert Bourgoin N.B.	1980	Potatoes	23,699.88	10,898.93	34,598.81	-	34,598.81	19 82-83Ferme Gergean (Jean-Paul & Germain Allard Rang VI, 518 Saint Bonaventure, Quebec	1980	Corn	9,986.76	4,989.38	14,976.14	14,976.14	1983-84Ferme Clair Martin 44A rue Lainesse Victoriaville, Quebec	1980	Barley	3,891.56	1,849.55	5,741.11	5,741.11	1983-84Walter Metherell	1980	Potatoes	13,500.00	5,083.00	18,583.00	-	18,583.00	1984-85Richard Minard RRb3, Dunham	1980	Apples	1,377.60	1,377.60	-	1,377.60	1984-85Gerard Moreau	1980	Potatoes	7,830.00	2,386.31	10,216.31	-	10,216.31	1982-83
June 27, 1985

[Stage Direction]
Crop Year	Commodity	Default Payment 90%	Accumulated Interest	Total Debt to Crown	Recovered	Debt out- standing	Year Minister's Guarantee HonouredWindy Crest Farms Florenceville, N.B.	1980	Potatoes	14,116.57	6,750.54	20,867.11	-	20,867.11	1983-84Hubert Anderson R.R. 4 Andover, N.B.	1981	Potatoes	4,590.00	1,632.15	6,222.15	-	6,222.15	1983-84Raymond Anderson R.R.4 Perth-Andover, N.B.	1981	Potatoes	5,825.70	1,427.19	7,252.89	-	7,252.89	1983-84Papin Beliveau 850 Pays Brule St-Celistin, Co. Nicolet Quebec	1981	Barley & wheat	12,420.00	2,634.68	15,054.68	15,054.68	1983-84John Bolstridge	1981	Potatoes	13,500.00	1,656.41	15,156.41	-	15,156.41	1983-84Frank Brown, Jr. Grand Falls, N.B.	1981	Potatoes	13,500.00	3,424.64	16,924.64	519.84 recovery Cheque received May 15, 1984	16,404.80	1983-84Donald Canfield P.E.I. Potato Mktg. Bd.	1981	Potatoes	12,621.87	2,798.04	15,419.91	-	15,419.91	1982-83Ray Christensen Grand Falls, N.B.	1981	Potatoes	1,960.74	518.65	2,479.39	-	2,479.39	1983-84Richard E. Corrigal Altona, Manitoba	1981	910.80	202.50	1,113.30	-	1,113.30	1984-85Denis Cusson 239, de PEglise Roxton Falls, Quebec	1981	Corn	13,500.00	5,245.95	18,745.95	-	18,745.95	1984-85Reno Daigle N.B. Potato Agency	1981	Potatoes	12,330.00	3,150.21	15,480.21	-	15,480.21	1982-83C&M Farms Ltd.	1981	Potatoes	22,511.48	2,834.03	25,345.51	3,281.35	22,064.16	1984-85R.R. #1 Grand Falls, N.B.	recovery on May 15, 1984 by cheque	Allison W. Gee	1981	Potatoes	17,536.00	2,164.50	19,700.50	-	19,700.50	1983-84Ferme Girouard Inc.	1981	Cabbage	40,500.00	5,414.18	45,914.18	-	45,914.18	1984-85Danny Hendricken Mount Stewart, P.E.I.	1981	Potatoes	5,760.00	1,804.21	7,564.21	-	7,564.21	1983-84Gary Inman Albertson, P.E.I.	1981	Potatoes	6,300.00	2,171.83	8,471.83	4,280.00 (partial recovery on principal)	4,187.83	1983-84R. Langevin 1083 Rang. 1 (Riv. Blanche) Acton Vale, Cte. Bagot, Que.	1981	Corn	2,914.26	3,107.01	6,021.27	6,021.27	1984-85Societe F.A.P. Leclair Inc., 22 Rang des 24 St-Basile-le-Grand, P.Q.	1981	Corn	33,369.92	19,915.78	55,285.70	-	55,285.70	1984-85Y. Ledoux	1981	Corn	11,790.00	5,204.67	16,994.67	-	16,994.67	1984-85
June 27, 1985

[Stage Direction]
Year
Crop Year	Commodity	Default Payment 90%	Accumulated Interest	Total Debt to Crown	Recovered	Debt out- standing	Minister's Guarantee HonouredEarl James MacDonald Souris, P.E.I.	1981	Potatoes	11,695.05	3,962.25	15,657.30	3,600.00 (partial recovery)	12,057.30	1983-84Terrence MacDonald Mt. Stewart, P.E.I.	1981	Potatoes	5,191.20	1,683.06	6,874.26	-	6,874.26	1983-84Ferme Maitre Inc. (Michel & Annie Maitre) 553, Grand Rang St-Michel, P.Q.	1981	Vegetables	20,547.24	4,047.02	24,594.26	24,594.26	1984-85Bernard McCarthy Grand Falls, N.B.	1981	Potatoes	13,500.00	1,554.49	15,054.49	-	15,054.49	1983-84Denis Melanin	1981	Corn & barley	3,548.61	697.22	4,245.83	-	4,245.83	1984-85Enoil Michaud Grand Falls, N.B.	1981	Potatoes	4,405.70	1,120.02	5,525.72	-	5,525.72	1983-84George Murphy Augustine Ave, P.E.I.	1981	Potatoes	3,068.20	2,891.86	5,960.06	1,800 900.00 (on principal July/84) (partial recovery)	3,260.06	1983-84Semence Norbec Inc. Sept-iles, Quebec	1981	Potatoes	13,500.00	13,500.00	13,500.00	1984-85Ferme des Peupliers Inc.	1981	Corn Oats	2,439.00 941.48	3,895.75	7,276.23	-	7,267.23	1984- 85Stanley Reimer	1981	Corn	13,500.00	1,828.42	15,328.42	-	15,328.42	1984-85Raynald Saindon 86 Des Pins St. Arsene, Que.	1981	Avoine	587.93	318.69	906.62	906.62	1984-85Simon Bros.	1981	Potatoes	35,606.97	3,536.33	39,143.30	-	39,143.30	1983-84F & T Smallman Bros. Ltd. O'Leary, R.RJ3, P.E.I. COB 1Y0	1981	Potatoes	13,500.00	13,500.00	13,500.00	1984-85Orville Smith P.E.I. Potato Mktg. Bd.	1981	Potatoes	11,718.00	2,846.52	14,564.52	743.12	13,821.40 (Partial recovery)	1982-83Renaud Theriault Grand Falls, N.B.	1981	Potatoes	4,997.77	1,278.39	6,276.16	-	2,276.16	1983-84Donald Antworth R.R.#6, Woodstock, N.B.	1981	Potatoes	7,349.64	969.48	8,319.12	-	8,319.12	1983-84Ferme Robert Brodeur Inc. St-Mathias 324 Ch. des Hurons Co. Rouville, P.Q.	1982	Corn	10,260.00	2,360.11	12,620.11	12,620.11	1984-85Ken Jarvis Gladstone, Manitoba	1982	Com	5,403.73	1,070.70	6,474.43	-	6,474.43	1983-84Christian Lapierre 1190 Principale Batiscan, P.Q.	1982	11,238.75	2,674.85	13,913.60	13,913.60	1984-85Ferme R.S. Lefebvre	1982	Grains	1,048.16	328.00	1,376.16	-	1,376.16	1984-85Jacques Nadeau	1982	Potatoes	7,200.00	483.18	7,683.18	-	7,683.18	1984-85
June 27, 1985

[Stage Direction]
Crop Year	Commodity	Default Payment 90%	Accumulated Interest	Total Debt to Crown	Recovered	Debt out- standing	Year Minister's Guarantee HonouredNew Line Farms Ltd.	1982	Potato	11,700.00	1,543.85	13,243.85	13,243.85	1984-85Richard Ouelette	1982	Potatoes	11,700.00	1,795.22	13,495.22	-	13,495.22	1984-85Maurice & Claudette Pelletier	1982	Potatoes	22,936.04	1,727.28	24,663.32	-	24,663. 32	1984-85Denis Raymond 424, Rang St-Augustin Ste-Helene, P.Q.	1982	Corn	13,500.00	3,082.05	16,582.05	-	16,582.05	1984-85Rosaire Sansoucy 3795 Rang des 30 St-Jean-Baptiste, P.Q.	1982	4,617.00	378.21	4,995.21	-	4,995.21	1984-85Ferme Michael Sauriol et Fils Eng.	1982	Vegetables	17,820.00	4,251.54	22,071.54	2,827.68 (Stab Cheque)	19,243.86	1984-85Barrie T. Shaw	1982	Potatoes	7,200.00	760.50	7,960.50	-	7,960.50	1984-85Ferme M. Trepanier Inc. 1150 Rang Sud Herouxville, Quebec	1982	Grains	7,580.24	1,877.97	9,458.21	-	9,458.21	1984-85Debilly, A.F. Inc.	1982	7,492.00	7,492.00	1984-85Cathercole, David	1983	17,977.05	17,977.05	1984-85Maraichers, Bagot Inc. 1996 Haute Riviere Sud Ste-Pie, Quebec JOH 1W0	1983	Onions	40,500.00	5,767.38	46,267.38	-	46,267.38	1984-85TOTAL	819,645.21 246,962.26 1,066,607.47	34,923.99	1,031,683.48	TOTALS OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE BY YEAR AGRICULTURE ASSUMED 1979 7,550.03	DEBT 957.92	8,507.95	8,507.951982-83	183,161.16	86,455.64	269,616.80	17,711.12	251,905.681983-84	220,694.10	69,013.61	289,707.71	11,103.84	278,603.871984-85	408,239.92	90,535.09	498,775.01	6,109.03	492,665.98TOTAL ALL YEARS	819,645.21	246,962.26	1,066,607.47	34,923.99	1,031,683.48
June 27, 1985

[Stage Direction]
1984-85 CROP YEAR ON ADVANCES AS OF JUNE 1, 1985
Organization	Crop	Guarantee Time Period	No. of Producers Partici- at pating Maximum		Minister Guarantee	Amount Advanced	Contingent Liability Outstanding	Interest Paid 84/85 Fiscal Year	Interest Paid 85/86 Fiscal Year	Total
British Columbia										
B.C. Tree Fruits Ltd.	Apples Bart Pears Anjou Pears	840801 850731	0	0	9,000,000 600,000 400,000	7,892,569	2,615,345	285,298	76,335	361,633B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-op Assn.	Onions Rutabagas Potatoes	840801 850731	11	7	90.000 15.000 495,000	260,000	55,120	7,934	1,822	9,756Okanagan Fruit Producers and Shippers Assn.	Apples Bart Pears Anjou Pears	840801 850731	111	0	800,000 50,000 150,000	699,643	410,727	25,824	4,935	30,759Island Vegetable Coop Association	Potatoes	840801 850731	5	3	150,000	62,000	7,189	0	1,407	1,407Interior Veg Agency Ltd.	Potatoes Onions Rutabagas	840801 850731	0	0	20,000 80,000 20,000	57,500	2,015	1,046	171	1,217Sub-Total	127	10	11,870,000	8,971,712	3,090,396	320,102	84,670	404,772Alberta	Alberta Potato Commission	Potatoes	840801 850731	54	49	1,500,000	1,369,500	962,033	33,887	21,711	55,598Alberta Honey Producers	Honey	840801 850731	189	57	2,290,000	2,000,000	1,256,162	132,805	13,080	145, 885Alberta Beekeepers	Honey	840801 850731	0	0	250,000	146,087	96,557	6,395	1,990	8,385Alberta Wheat Pool	Field Beans Flax Canola	840801 850731	91	57	250,000 2,000,000 5,000,000	1,109,119	472,444	42,232	14,422	56,654Sub-Total	334	163	11,290,000	4,624,706	2,787,319	215,319	51,203	266,522Saskatchewan	Saskatchewan Wheat Pool	Canola	840801 850731	752	0	11,000,000	8,383,282	4,506,894	330,442	121 ,577	452,019Sub-Total	752	0	11,000,000	8,383,282	4,506,894	330,442	121,577	452,019Manitoba	CSP Foods Ltd.	Sunflowers	840915 850914	31	10	1,500,000	282,735	155,765	10,798	1,683	12,481Manitoba Veg Producers Mktg. Board	Potatoes Onions Rutabagas	840801 850731	0	0	1,000,000 100,000 30,000	1,079,041	498,013	39,189	7,241	46,430Manitoba Coop Honey Prod. Ltd.	Honey	840801 850731	0	0	2,000,000	1,859,043	103,031	9,374	112,405	Manitoba Corn Growers Assoc.	Corn	840915 850914	138	75	5,000,000	2,728,215	1,820,958	64,300	42,879	107,179Manitoba Honey Mktg. Board	Honey	840801 850731	0	0	550,000	336,352	261,133	2,682	15,901	Manitoba Pool Elevators	Flax Canola	840801 850731	477	0	1,000,000 5,000,000	5,520,780	4,442,000	199,639	0	199,639
June 27, 1985

[Stage Direction]
! 984-85 CROP YEAR ON ADVANCES AS OF JUNE 1, 1985
Interest	Interest
Paid	Paid
Guarantee No. of Producers	Contingent 84/85	85/86
Time Partici- at	Minister Amount Liability Fiscal Fiscal
Organization	Crop	Period	pating	Maximum	Guarantee	Advanced	Outstanding	Year	year	TotalManex Forage Seed Co.	Alfalfa Seed	840801 850731	22	i	800,000	138,964	118,964	6,168	1,329	7,497Prairie Canola Growers	Canola	840801 850731	0	0	20,000,000	16,698,183	11,284,823	789,856	128,917	9 18,773Sub-Total	668	86	36,980,000	28,643,313	19,498,822	1,226,200	194,105	1,420,306Ontario	Blue Water Storage Ltd.	Apples	840801 850731	0	0	350,000	288,015	100,570	10,893	1,216	12,109Norfolk Fruit Growers, Assn.	Apples	840801 850731	37	14	850,000	711,409	711,409	18,014	0	18,014Ontario SoyaBean Growers, Mktg. Bd.	Soybean	840915 850914	1,655	19	25,000,000	16,438,863	9,921,181	573,548	100,897	674,445Ontario Apple Mktg. Comm.	Apples	840801 850731	16	2	750,000	244,609	116,023	7,839	2,681	10,520Ont. Burley	Tobacco	840801	39	0	250,000	145,000	0	4,834	459	5,293Tobacco Growers, Mktg. Bd.	850731	Ont. Flue-Cured Tobacco	Tobacco	840801 850731	1,724	1,254	20,819,822	20,819,822	0	487,895	0	487 ,895Ont. Corn Prod. Assn.	Corn	840915 850914	936	368	20,000,000	16,158,883	11,654,043	247,851	281,861	5 29,712Sub-Total	4,407	1,657	68,019,822	54,806,601	22,503,226	1,350,874	387,114	1,737,988Quebec	Coop des pomiculteurs du Quebec	Apples	840801 850731	20	1	300,000	190,000	181,000	10,906	1,756	12,662Federation des producteurs de pommes du Quebec	Apples	840801 850731	57	20	1,750,000	969,152	838,664	33,182	18,146	51,328Federation des producteurs de cultures comm.	Grains Corn	840801 850731 840915	1,294	1,108	5.000.	000 18.000.	000	15,229,737	11,698,993	308,722	406,102	714,824Fed. des prod, maraichers du Quebec	Onions Leeks Rutabagas Cabbage Carrots	840801 850731	56	18	800,000 60,000 220,000 460.000 460.000	938,890	462,771	34,312	10,904	45,216Scoiete Coop des apiculteurs	Honey	840801 850731	0	0	240,000	225,000	227,500	7,340	4,369	11,709Assoc, des jardiniers maraichers	Rutabagas Cabbage Leek Carrots	840801 850731	31	16	90.000 185.000 35.000 290.000	600,000	399,300	25,730	4,021	29,751Societe Coop agricole de Montcalm	Tobacco	840801 850731	111	0	500,000	400,000	49,943	8,943	525	9,468
June 27, 1985

[Stage Direction]
1984-85 CROP YEAR ON ADVANCES AS OF JUNE 1, 1985
Organization	Crop	Guarantee Time Period	No. of Producers Partici- at pating Maximum	Minister Guarantee	Amount Advanced	Contingent Liability Outstanding	Interest Paid 84/85 Fiscal Year	Interest Paid 85/86 Fiscal Year	TotalFederation des prod, de pommes de terre du Que.	Potatoes	840801 850731	112	79	3,000,000	2,161,724	1,688,915	78,405	39,380	117, 785Sub-Total	1,681	1,242	31,390,000	20,714,503	15,547,086	507,540	485,203	99 2,743New Brunswick	N.B. Fruit Growers Assoc.	Apples	840801 850731	10	0	250,000	99,121	75,564	1,154	2,583	3,737N.B. Potato Agency	Potatoes	840801 850731	236	183	5,500,000	5,250,000	4,166,883	223,173	42,998	266,171N.B. Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Assn.	Tobacco	840801 850731	7	0	255,000	225,000	11,250	7,556	0	7,556Sub-Total	253	183	6,005,000	5,574,121	4,253,697	231,883	45,581	277,464Nova Scotia	N.S. Fruit Growers Assn.	Apples	840801 850731	45	11	1,000,000	599,413	577,693	25,637	0	25,637N.S. Grain Mktg. Board	Wheat Soybeans Feed Wheat Oats, Rye Barley Corn-84915-	840801 850731 850914	295	2	493.500 55,800 127.500 258.000 138.000 192.000	736,224	428,914	33,881	4,323	38,204N.S. Potato Mktg. Bd.	Potato	840801 850731	14	2	200,000	165,278	165,278	4,868	1,633	6,501N.S. Flue-Cured Tobacco	Tobacco	840801 850731	14	0	350,000	287,048	41,999	8,434	0	8,434Sub-Total	368	15	2,814,800	1,787,963	1,213,884	72,820	5,956	78,776Prince Edward Island	PEI Vegetable Growers	Cabbage Rutabagas Carrots	840801 850731	22	2	12,000 19.000 19.000	127,298	127,298	4,286	1,737	6,023PEI Potato Mktg. Board	Potatoes	840801 850731	97	68	3,000,000	1,866,971	1,647,327	58,733	16,787	75 ,520PEI Tobacco	Tobacco	840801	44	39	1,200,000	920,000	347	26,498	0	26,498Sub-Total	163	109	4,361,000	2,914,269	1,774,972	89,517	18,524	108,041Total	8,753	3,465	183,730,622	136,420,470	75,176,173	4,344,697	1,393,933	5,738,630
June 27, 1985
STATUS REPORT (CROP YEAR 1984) Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act May 1, 1985
								Guarantee		
							Average	versus		
Period	Production	Total	Wholesale	Average	Contingent	of	under	Initial	Guarantee	Price to	Wholesale	Liability	Agreement	No. of	Agreement	Payment	Cost	S/unit	Date	Price	$,000,000	Applicant	Y/M/D	producers	w	$/unit	$/unit	(5 + 6)	($/unit)	to Date	(4x7)	Comments(0	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(%>	(9)	BRITISH COLUMBIA B.C. Tree Fruits Ltd.	84/06/01	600	3,651.21	308.56/t	411.44/t	720.00/t	1127.27/t	64	2.665	The product is all sold.(Cherries)	to	(NBR 1)	Final payment is approved.85/05/31	63.8t	308.56/t	255.44/t	564.00/t	1152.79/t	49	(OR.)	B.C. Tree Fruits Ltd.	84/07/01	500	l,480t	176.32/t	383.68/t	560.00/1	755.83/t	74	.829	The product is all sold.(Apricots)	to	Final payment is85/06/30	B.C. Tree Fruits Ltd.	84/07/01	600	4,104t	176.32/t	486.68/t	663.00/t	744.06/t	89	2.721	The product is all sold.(Peaches)	to	Final payment is85/06/30	SASKATCHEWAN Keewatin Wild Rice	84/06/30	141	250t	3465.00/t	2835.00/t	6300.00/t	10,088/t	62	1.575	64% of the product is soldCooperative	to	as of May 1, 198585/07/01	ONTARIO Ontario Wheat Producers'	84/07/01	18,000	800,000t	(#2) 119.42/t	11.37/1	130.79/t	171.39/t	77	104.632	99% of the product was soldMarketing Board	to	(#3) 116.92/t	128.29/t	188.08/t	68	as of May 1, 1985.85/11/30	(#5) 104.42/t	115.79/t	145.81 /t	80	(CFW) 89.42/t	100.79/t	142.62/t	71	Ontario Bean Producers	84/09/01	3,000	50,000t	263.75/t	142.03/t	405.78/t	698 .66	58	20.289	88.7% of product was soldMarketing Board	to	as May 1, 1985. Interim85/08/31	payment approved.Eastern Ont. Veg. Growers	84/07/01	142	2,098t	estimated	178.12/t	550.68/t	784.62/t	70	1.155	87% of the product was soldCoop, Inc. (Green Peas)	to	average	(FCY)	as of May 1, 1985.85/06/30	372.56/t	688.09/t	80	(CH) 757.27/t	73	COMBINED	Eastern Ont. Veg. Growers	84/08/01	142	4,56 It	79.90/t	470.10/t	550.00/t	713.87/1	77	2.509	80% of the 1984 productionCoop, Inc. (Sweet Corn)	to	(WK-FCY)	is sold as of May 1, 1985.85/07/31	597.06/t	92	The Cob-choice grade(WK-CH)	95	represents less than 1% of582.52/t	144	product.(COB-FCY) 382.83/t (COB- CH)	80	684.02/t	COMBINED	QUEBEC Les producteurs de sucre	84/03/01	3,900	97t	1763.70/t	1146.40/t	2910.10/t	4,940.00/t	59	2.202	Agreement has expired.d'erable du Quebec	to	(Ex. C.)	85/02/29	362t	1763.70/t	1146.40/t	2910.10/t	4,700.00/t	62	(C.)	336t	1433.00/t	1146.40/t	2579.40/t	4,380.00/t	59	(Med.)	PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PEI Vegetable Growers	84/07/01	20	102t	nil	1000.00/t	1000.00/t	1,619.00/t	62	.102	The product is completelyAssociation Ltd.-Strawber-	to	allocated to buyers.ries	85/06/30	
Total 10
27,045
138.679
June 27, 1985

[Stage Direction]
Expected
Name of Order	Completion
or Regulation	Changes Contemplated	Status	Date

[Stage Direction]
1.	Alberta Potato Order	Regulate the marketing of potatoes in interprovincial and export trade	Sent to PCO Legal Section for blue-stamping	June 19852.	Alberta Potato Marketing Levies Order	Establish levies re: marketing of potatoes in interprovincial export trade	Sent to Legal Section PCO	July 1985SASKATCHEWAN 3. Saskatchewan Sheep & Wool Marketing Levies Order	Establish levies re: marketing of sheep and wool in interprovincial and export trade	PCO Legal Section	June 1985MANITOBA 4. Manitoba Turkey Marketing Regulations	Regulate the marketing of turkey in interprovincial & export trade	Followup request sent to PCO Legal Section	July 19855.	Manitoba Chicken Broiler Marketing Regulations	Regulate the marketing of chicken in interprovincial and export trade	Sent to PCO Legal Section	July 19856.	Manitoba Chicken Marketing Levies Order	Establish levies re: marketing of chicken in interprovincial and export trade	Forwarded to PCO for registration and publication	June 19857.	Manitoba Vegetable Order	Reflect amalgamation of boards for marketing of vegetables	Submission to Council sent for Minister's signature	June 19858.	Manitoba Vegetable Marketing Regulations	Regulate the marketing of vegetables in interprovincial and export trade	Sent to PCO Legal Section	July 1985ONTARIO 9. Ontario Flue-cured Tobacco License Fees (Interprovincial & Export) Regulations, Amendment	Reflect change in amount	Returned to Board for further clarification	August 198510.	Ontario Flue-cured Tobacco Order, Amendment	1)	Amend Section 3 2)	Add Section 4	1)	Confirmation required from Marketing Board 2)	Section 4 to be added	August 1985ii.	Ontario Rutabaga Order, Revocation	Revoke Order as Marketing Board has been dissolved	Submission to Council sent to Minister for signature	June 198512.	Ontario Rutabaga Order, Amendment- Revocation	Revoke Order as Marketing Board has been dissolved	At PCO Legal Section	June 198513.	Ontario Rutabaga Pricing (Interprovincial and Export) Regulations	Revoke Order as Marketing Board has been dissolved	At PCO Legal Section	June 198514.	Ontario Rutabaga Information (Interprovincial and Export) Regulations	Revoke Order as Marketing Board has been dissolved	At PCO Legal Section	June 198515.	Ontario Rutabaga Service Charge (Interprovincial and Export) Regulations	Revoke Order as Marketing Board has been dissolved	At PCO Legal Section	June 198516.	Ontario Rutabaga Licensing (Interprovincial and Export) Regulations	Revoke Order as Marketing Board has been dissolved	At PCO Legal Section	June 198517.	Ontario Rutabaga Producer-Packer and Producer-Packer-Shipper (Interprovincial and Export) Regulations	Revoke Order as Marketing Board has been dissolved	At PCO Legal Section	June 198518.	Ontario Sweet Corn Price Determination (Interprovincial & Export) Regulations, Amendment	Reflect change in amount charged	Certificate to be approved by PCO Legal Section then sent to Board for certification	August 198519.	Ontario Vegetable Growers Marketing for Processing Order, Amendment	1)	Amend Section 3 2)	Add Section 4	Forwarded to PCO Legal Section for blue-stamping	July 198520.	Ontario Wheat Marketing Levies Order	Establish and regulate levies in interprovincial and export trade	Re-draft forwarded to Board for review	August 1985
June 27, 1985

[Stage Direction]
Name of Order or Regulation	Changes Contemplated	Status	Expected Completion DateNEW BRUNSWICK 21. New Brunswick Licensing of Potato Shippers (Interprovincial and Export) Regulations, Amendment	Amendment to the French version to rectify errors in translation to ensure French and English read the same	Revocation procedure being approved by PCO	July 198522.	New Brunswick Licensing of Potato Exporters (Interprovincial and Export) Regulations, Amendment	Amendments to the French version to rectify errors in translation to ensure French and English read the same	Revocation Order being approved by PCO	July 198523.	New Brunswick Fixing of Export Seed Prices (Interprovincial & Export) Regulations	1)	Revocation Order to be prepared 2)	New certificate to be issued	Revocation Order being approved by PCO	July 198524.	New Brunswick Licensing of Potato Exporters (Interprovincial & Export) Regulations	1)	Revocation Order to be prepared 2)	New certificate to be issued	Revocation Order being approved by PCO	July 198525.	New Brunswick Licensing of Potato Shippers (Interprovincial & Export) Regulations	1)	Revocation Order to be prepared 2)	New certificate to be issued	Revocation Order being approved by PCO.	July 198526.	New Brunswick Licensing of Potato Producers (Interprovincial & Export) Regulations	1)	Revocation Order to be prepared 2)	New certificate to be issued	Revocation Order being approved by PCO	July 198527.	New Brunswick Potato Marketing Levies (Interprovincial & Export) Order	Revoke present Order and issue new Order reflecting changes in amount and application	Registered and published in Canada Gazette as SOR/85-401	Final
Ontario Grapes-for-Processing Order	-Revoke Order and all Regulations: Approval of procedure
Ontario Soybean Order	-Amend Section 3 or Order
Quebec Apple Order	-Revoke Order
Quebec Wood Order	-Amend Section 3 of Order
Standing Joint Committee
Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Marketing Regulations Ontario French Grape Shipper and Dealer-Shipper Regulations Ontario Hog Marketing Regulations Ontario Fresh Fruit Handling Regulations Ontario Fresh Grape Handling Regulations
Ontario Fresh Fruit Shippers, Dealer-Shippers and Producer-Shippers Regulations
June 27, 1985_______________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________6351
	STATUS REPORT CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL MARKET DEVELOPMENT FUND (CAMDF) 1984-85 FISCAL YEAR May 31, 1985	
Title of Project	Reimbursement Contribu- 10% Hold-Total Project tion Total Paid back Left Coordinator Applicant Cost $ CAMDF $ To Date to be Paid Balance	Commentsi.	Developpement des Marches Publiques (Que)	B. Bouchard	Federation dcs pro-ducteurs maraichers du Quebec	95,000.00	20,000.00	15,735.06	1,751.64	2,513.30	The ninth payment has been made to the applicant.2.	Shipping Containers for Floral Products (Ont)	H. Blommers	Flowers Canada	CANCELLED	3.	Marketing Study for Ontario Grain Corn (Ont)	M. Pearson	Ontario Corn Producers' Association	49,000.00	20,000.00	18,000.00	2,000.00	0	Final Claim submitted. Final Report required before Holdback can be paid.4.	Canola Meal in Swine Rations (Alta)	M. Pearson	Canola Council of Canada	30,350.00	5,000.00	2,998.80	333.20	1,668.00	Final Claim submitted. Final Report required before Holdback can be paid.5.	New Potato Promotion (Man)	K. Hunter	The Manitoba Vegetable Producers' Marketing Board	20,213.00	10,106.50	9,095.85	1,010.65	0	Final Claim submitted. Final Report required before Holdback can be paid.6.	Marketing for Domestic Fresh Lamb in B.C. (B.C.)	A. Dagenais	B.C. Sheep Breeders' Co-op Association	89,530.00	19,986.00	15,111.94	1,617.10	3,270.96	The third payment has been made to the applicant.7.	Magnificent Canadian Mushrooms (National)	P. Sereda	Canadian Mushroom Growers Association	57,731.67	20,000.00	18,000.00	2,000.00	0	Final Claim submitted. Final Report required before Holdback can be paid.8.	"Starting Out"-Primary Education Kit (Sask)	S. St-Jacques Hamelin	Saskatchewan Commercial Egg Producers' Marketing Board	9,603.00	3,600.00	1,259.35	139.93	2,200.72	Final Claim submitted. Final Report required before Holdback can be paid.9.	Cultivated Blueberry Promotion (B.C.)	A. Durand	B.C. Blueberry Co-op Association	27,915.87	13,957.94	12,767.77	1,418.64	0	Final Claim submitted. Final Report required before Holdback can be paid.10.	Development of the Market System for Fresh Lamb in Nova Scotia (N.S.)	A. Dagenais	Northumberland Lamb Marketing Coop Ltd.	99,530.00	9,287.00	6,986.08	776.23	1,524.69	Final Claim submitted. Final Report required before Holdback can be paid.11.	Meat Awareness Month (National)	L. Fisher	Canadian Meat Council	40,000.00	20,000.00	18,000.00	2,000.00	0	Final Claim submitted. Final Report required before Holdback can be paid.12.	Niagara Grape and Wine Festival Promotion (Ont.)	A. Durand	Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board	43,985.00	20,000.00	18,000.00	2,000.00	0	Final Claim submitted. Final Report required before Holdback can be paid.13.	Honey Marketing Communications Campaign-Phase II (National)	J. Brown	Canadian Honey Council Promotion Committee	81,800.00	20,000.00	18,000.00	2,000.00	0	Final Claim submitted. Final Report required before Holdback can be paid.14.	Consumer Frozen Food Brochure (National)	J. Oickle	Canadian Frozen Food Association	45,392.00	20,000.00	18,000.00	2,000.00	0	Final Claim submitted. Final Report required before Holdback can be paid.
June 27, 1985

[Stage Direction]
CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL MARKET DEVELOPMENT FUND (CAMDF) 1984-85 FISCAL YEAR May 31, 1985
Reimbursement
Contribu-	10% Hold-
Total Project tion Total Paid back Left
Title of Project	Coordinator	Applicant	Costs	CAMDF$	To Date	to be Paid	Balance	Comments15.	Domestic Promotion of Wild Blueberries (Maritime)	A. Durand	Wild Blueberry Association of North America	40,000.00	20,000.00	15,009.30	1,667.70	3,323.00	The second payment has been made to the applicant.16.	All Canadian Luncheon (National)	S. Lapierre D. Pearen	Beef Information Centre	15,000	7,500	6,749.74	750.26	0	Further Claim expected after March 31, 1985.17.	All Canadian Luncheon (National)	S. Lapierre D. Pearen	Canadian Pork Council	35,000	17,500.00	15,750.00	1,750.00	0	Further Claim expected after March 31, 1985.18.	All Canadian Luncheon (National)	S. Lapierre	National Dairy Council	15,000	7,500.00	6,750.01	749.99	0	Further Claim expected after March 31, 1985.19.	Beef, A Workable Balance	R. Williams	Beef Information Centre	124,000.00	20,000.00	18,001.00	1,999.00	0	Final Claim submitted. Final Report required before Holdback can be paid.20.	Improved Swine Trailers (National)	J-G Lalonde	Donaldson International Livestock Limited	39,800.00	19,900.00	18,000.00	1,900.00	0	Final Claim submitted. Final Report required before Holdback can be paid.21.	Mountain Squab Product Brochure	J. Stevens	Vancouver Island Mountain Squab	9,700.00	4,850.00	4,365.00	485.00	0	Final Claim submitted. Final Report required before Holdback can be paid.22.	Sparkling Apple Juice	R. Woodward	Logo Products Canada Ltd.	41,175.00	20,000.00	13,009.00	1,445.44	5,545.56	Final Claim submitted. Final Report required before holdback can be paid.23.	Benchmark 100	L. MacLachlan	Holstein Association of Canada	24,000.00	10,000.00	9,000.00	1,000.00	0	Final Claim submitted. Final Report required before Holdback can be paid.TOTAL	1,033,725.54	329,201.44 278,588.90	30,794.78	19,817.76

[Stage Direction]
TOTAL PAID TO DATE	278,588.90

[Stage Direction]
-Bleuets du Saguenay Lac St-Jean	926.09
-Honey Communications Campaign (Phase I)	2,657.00
HOLDBACK	30,794.78
TOTAL EXPENDITURES	312,966.77
J. Brown
May 31, 1985
June 27, 1985

[Stage Direction]
Reimbursement
[Stage Direction]
Title of Project
[Stage Direction]
Coordinators(s)
[Stage Direction]
Applicant
[Stage Direction]
Total Project Cost
[Stage Direction]
Approved Contributions
[Stage Direction]
Paid 1985-86 Fiscal Yr.
[Stage Direction]
Paid 1984-85 Fiscal Yr.
[Stage Direction]
Total Payment To Date
[Stage Direction]
Comments
[Stage Direction]
1, Overseas Trial Project 1984-85
[Stage Direction]
I. Glass
[Stage Direction]
Potatoes Canada
[Stage Direction]
$ 248,151
[Stage Direction]
$ 124,075.50
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
$51,254.48
[Stage Direction]
$51,254.48
[Stage Direction]
Total funds available for projects #3 & #4 are $181,000
[Stage Direction]
2. Product Promotion and Market Intelligence Project 1984-85
[Stage Direction]
I. Glass
[Stage Direction]
Potatoes Canada
[Stage Direction]
$ 150,470
[Stage Direction]
$ 75,235.00
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
$15,724.35
[Stage Direction]
$15,724.35
[Stage Direction]
Maximum of $88,840 available in the 1985-86
[Stage Direction]
fiscal year
Holdback account 1984-85: $6,697.89
N.B. Please be advised that the Seed Potato Export Promotion Program (SPEEP) is now an integral part of the Canadian Agricultural Market Development Initiative (CAMDI). A budget for the seed potato portion of CAMDI has not yet been determined, however, $88,840 has been committed for the above mentioned projects.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 28, 1985