1985-02-15

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the third anniversary of the sinking of the Ocean Ranger. This tragedy, which occurred on February 15, 1982, shocked our nation and brought great grief to the people of Canada, and more directly to the families of the 84 men lost at sea. The suffering of the relatives and friends of the dead, and the continuing trauma of the survivors, bring to mind the price paid by working people.
It is worth remembering, especially during the afterglow of the recently signed Atlantic Accord, that the lives of our workers must be considered before we rush into any activity. The health and safety of the riggers and seamen are as much the responsibility of our Government as the negotiating of transfer payments and energy revenues.
Let us remember the 84 men who lost their lives on February 15, 1982, when we rise to discuss labour code amendments and changes to our legislation. It is through our actions in the House and actions by the Government that future tragedies such as the Ocean Ranger can be avoided.


THE CANADIAN FLAG
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, at 1:30 a.m. on December 15, 1964, with 163 in favour and 78 against, Canada was given its own distinctive flag. We owe this to the courage and determination of a great Canadian, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, Leader of the Liberal Party and Prime Minister of Canada from 1963 to 1968.
On February 15, 1965, twenty years ago today-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I am prepared to let the Member finish his statement. I am not prepared to allow displays in the House of Commons because it is against the rules.


Mr. Gauthier:: You have a flag.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not prepared to allow the displays. I apologize. It is against the rules. I am prepared to let the Member finish his statement.


Marcel Prud'homme: You will understand why I am so proud, Mr. Speaker.

On February 15, 1965, twenty years ago today, this symbol of Canadian unity and pride was raised above all federal buildings and property, and elsewhere across Canada. The resistance of certain politicians was swept away by the enthusiasm of Canadians for their own distinctive flag.
In fact, Mr. Maxime Guitard, one of the clerks at the Table who was committee clerk at the time, could give us the exact details of this story. Nine Members sitting in the House of Commons at the time are still sitting in the House today.
I take particular pride in recalling this event because it was the most important day in my twenty-one years in politics. Five of the nine who voted in favour were Liberals, and they were Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra), Mr. Gray (Windsor-West) and Mr. Chretien, and my good friend Ms. Pauline Jewett, who was a Liberal at the time, and myself. Four of the nine who are still sitting today voted against and belong to the Progressive Conservative Party. They included, I am sorry to say, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Nielsen).
For us, Mr. Speaker, as it is for all Canadians, for our young people and for all new Canadians, this is one of the most memorable days of our lives.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the arts community and our cultural organizations have been forced to concentrate their efforts on defending themselves against the Government's budget-cutting attacks. As a result, they have not had a chance to develop proposals for improving cultural life in Canada.

February 15, 1985

Major problems remain in addition to those caused by the cut-backs, Mr. Speaker. There are problems of distribution and access to cultural products and to performances. There are particular problems with regard to films, books, magazines, and theatrical performances. Distribution systems must be improved. Governments now subsidize the production of many products and performances that do not get to be seen by many Canadians. These subsidies would not have to be as important numerically if there were more purchases. In short, Governments ought to be purchasing books and magazines for schools, libraries, and other institutions. Such a measure would require federal and provincial co-operation.
We will be having a meeting of federal and provincial Ministers of Culture. I hope that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) will bring forward imaginative proposals to improve access to cultural products and performances in Canada, and will discuss these things with his provincial counterparts. More money is needed in this area, but certainly it is important-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Member that her time has expired.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mrs. Anne Blouin (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, my constituents of Montmorency-Orleans and their fellow Quebecers are delighted to see the climate of confidence that now reigns in negotiations between the Canadian Government and the Government of Quebec. This is very much to the liking of many Quebecers, at a time when a federal-provincial conference is being held in Regina.
The Canada-Quebec agreements signed to date are impressive both in number and in scope. On December 14 last year, the federal Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and the Quebec Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs signed the new economic and regional development agreement. Under this agreement, the federal Government will be contributing $1 billion over the next five years.
On January 22, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced the introduction of a program for technological innovation assistance in Quebec, also spread over five years. On February 1, the federal Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) and the Quebec Minister of Communications concluded an agreement aiming at promoting the development of the communications industry in Quebec.
Finally, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec will be spending $100 million on the tourist industry within the next few years.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on in this vein, but I would prefer to emphasize the incredible improvement in Canada-Quebec relations since the present Government came to power and decided to promote the interests of Quebec.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the United Native Nations represents non status Indians and some off-reserve Indians in British Columbia. Last year the Secretary of State cut their core funding in order to provide funding for the Louis Riel Metis Association of B.C. The Metis Association certainly required the funding, but it should not have been taken from the United Native Nations. This kind of government action makes it very difficult for different aboriginal peoples to achieve unity.
In a similar manner, United Native Nations applied for Indian Affairs funding to hold workshops on proposed changes to the Indian Act which would affect their membership. However, all available funding went to the B.C. Indian Homemakers Association. The homemakers needed this funding and are holding workshops throughout the province. But again we must ask why one legitimate organization was funded at the expense of another equally legitimate organization.
British Columbia Metis and non status people favour the one window concept for Canada employment programs. The single project officer cuts down on red tape and makes it easier for native people to gain access. But they feel that they are not adequately represented on district advisory boards and as a result do not get approval for a fair share of their projects.
I call on the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), to look into these concerns and ensure that non status people are not subject to double discrimination.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the Member that his time has expired.


ETHNIC AFFAIRS
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Fast):: Mr. Speaker, on February 7, 1985, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Crosbie) announced the establishment of a commission of inquiry on war criminals to be conducted by Mr. Justice Jules Deschenes of the Superior Court of Quebec.
I commend the Government on its efforts to take all responsible steps to ensure any war criminals in Canada are brought
February 15, 1985

to justice, whatever their racial origin. However, Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that while we are seeking out those who have perpetrated crimes against humanity we do not allow such action to reflect poorly on entire ethnic groups. Canada is a society rich in the wealth of ethnic diversity and has benefited enormously from the contribution of our citizens who have emigrated to Canada and raised their families here.
One such ethnic group with which I am familiar is the Ukrainian Canadian community of some 600,000 people, 90 per cent of whom are Canadian born. Many of these Ukrainian Canadians, indeed, fought in the Canadian Armed Forces during the Second World War against the Nazis. Some of them fought in their country to liberate it from Russian and Nazi oppression.
Should individuals of a particular ethnic group be accused of atrocities, it is imperative that the group as a whole not be treated in a manner which ignores its vital involvement in and contribution to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, we Canadians need to be reminded that on February 16, 1918, Lithuania was restored to independence and flourished as a free democratic state for 20 years, along with its neighbours Latvia and Estonia.
In June, 1940, all three were subjugated once again when the Soviet Union signed the Ribbentrop-Molotov Non-Aggression Pact, and marched in and annexed them.
We take for granted the freedoms that the Lithuanian people are denied, but they are still continuing the struggle for liberation. The refusal of Canada to recognize de jure the incorporation of Lithuania into the Soviet Union, and the welcome of the consuls of the Governments in exile of the Baltic states, constitute important acts which help to keep alive the hopes and aspirations of these valiant peoples, many of whose citizens are now our fellow Canadians.
I would ask that Members of the House associate themselves with these sentiments on this sixty-seventh anniversary, so that these courageous peoples know that we have not forgotten them.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian flag is now flying proudly into eight countries of the Pacific
Oral Questions
Rim. Air Canada is now circling the globe in three-week, 30,000 mile tours of the southern hemisphere.
This event signifies much more than a first for the airline. It is a major step in opening up the world to Canadian trade and commerce. Canadian products will become known to people of Hawaii, Fiji, Australia, Indonesia, Singapore, and Rio de Janeiro. There will be new demands for Canadian goods. Trade barriers will be lifted and new markets will be open to us.
It would be fitting for the flight attendants on these flights to serve a popular Canadian product. I refer, of course, to our fine quality Canadian wines. This will be a great introduction to our "buy-Canadian" promotion. Passengers who are given the opportunity to try these Canadian products will soon adopt our favourite slogan, "Hooray! It's Canadian!"



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I have further questions with respect to the Hatfield case. We have on the one hand Premier Hatfield continuing to make charges against certain members of the RCMP, that they leaked information and that they made an extraordinary effort to build a case against him. On the other hand, we have growing information that Premier Hatfield might have been helped in his defence. We have the secret meeting, and even yesterday he admitted that he was tipped off with respect to certain Crown evidence.
In order to ensure the integrity of the criminal justice system, and considering everything I have said just now to the Deputy Prime Minister, will he now agree that, in order to ensure that integrity, we should have a full, public, independent inquiry into this case?
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, that question was responded to by the Minister of Justice as well as by the Solicitor General on more than one occasion this week. As the Hon. Member knows, there is an internal review now being conducted with respect to this matter. If he or any other Member of Parliament, or indeed any other citizen, has any evidence which would warrant consideration with respect to that internal review, and whatever decision may be made as a result thereof, I would urge them to bring it forward.
February 15, 1985

Oral Questions


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PREMIER
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, since yesterday the Premier of New Brunswick has made further statements which further confuse this case. For example, he said, in relation to the secret meeting of October 7 with the Solicitor General:
I wanted to make the point to the new Solicitor General, 'get the investigation over with because, if it drags on like the former one did, it's going to result in encumbering me from doing my job'.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that this request by the Premier of New Brunswick to the Solicitor General constitutes tampering with the administration of justice in that he wanted to speed up the investigation? Does he not agree that that kind of request brings into disrepute equality before the law in our criminal justice system? There is new evidence and new damaging evidence every day, and it is time for an inquiry.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member believes that there is new evidence available, I urge him to make it available. It is my observation that the only injection of confusing factors in this matter is interventions such as his-


Mr. Axworthy:: Stonewalling and covering up.


Erik Nielsen: -and those of the Official Opposition and of the NDP. If there is any evidence the Hon. Member wishes to bring forward for consideration by the internal review now under way, I wish he would do just that.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, if there were not the statements by the Premier of New Brunswick, and if there had not been a secret meeting, we would not be raising these questions.


REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF SOLICITOR GENERAL
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week one Minister resigned claiming he did no wrong. The Prime Minister said there was no breach of national or NATO security, yet he accepted the resignation. We have another Minister who clearly broke a long-standing practice in the United Kingdom and in Canada, by having a secret meeting with a person under investigation, and he has not resigned. Why the double standard, Mr. Speaker? Will the Government now request the resignation of the Solicitor General, and hold a full, public, independent inquiry into this case?
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the last part of the question has already been answered.


William Warren Allmand: That is stonewalling.


Erik Nielsen: It is not stonewalling at all.


William Warren Allmand: Darn right it is.


Erik Nielsen: It is not stonewalling at all. Let me repeat what the Acting Prime Minister of the day, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, said in this House last Wednesday.


An Hon. Member:: We know that.


Erik Nielsen: He said:
-the former Minister offered his resignation because he believed that public allegations-
-which appeared in the noon edition of The Citizen of that day-
-impaired his ability to carry out his sensitive responsibilities in the extremely sensitive and important portfolio of Minister of National Defence, and because he believed those allegations impeded his freedom to pursue an action in the courts.
Those were the reasons for the resignation.


William Warren Allmand: Double standard.


Erik Nielsen: There is no double standard which appeals to my sense of reason and my logic, which seem to be entirely lacking on the part of the Hon. Member putting the question.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Over the past several weeks we have directed several questions to the Minister concerning United States' plans for nuclear deployment in this country, and have always received assurances that Canada would exercise its independent decision and not receive such weapons.
We now have reports that the United States State Department has sent communiques to the Government insisting that Canada must accept nuclear weapons on our soil. This not only contradicts the Minister's own statements but is a clear case of nuclear colonialism. We would like to know what in fact is in that telegram and, more particularly, when did the Minister receive it? Finally, will the Minister today issue a statement totally rejecting the American request and saying that it is outrageous that they should suggest anything to an independent country?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as is usually the case in my responses to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, I would say that his facts are completely wrong. There was no such request by the Government of the United States to the Government of Canada. There was, so far as I know, no suggestion by the Government of the United States to anyone that Canada should accept nuclear arms. There was, so far as I know, an instruction by the Department of State of the United States to their ambassador here in Ottawa to be in touch with us
February 15, 1985

expressing concern about the degree to which countries with which the United States has treaty arrangements were going to honour those arrangements.
The question of nuclear arms on Canadian soil did not arise, because the position of the Government of Canada on the question of nuclear arms on Canadian soil is abundantly clear. We do not allow nuclear arms to be stationed on Canadian soil. In the event of any contingency plan which might call for the stationing of nuclear arms here, this Government retains its right to refuse nuclear arms on Canadian soil, and this Government would be prepared to exercise our option to refuse nuclear arms on Canadian soil if we believed that to be in the interests of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, with great respect to the Minister.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. We have already seen how the United States has taken retaliatory action against New Zealand over the rejection of the placement of naval bases in that country.


Some Hon. Members:: Placement!


Lloyd Axworthy: The visit of naval forces.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Are Members opposite interested in the sovereignty of this country or not? Do they want to hear the question?


An Hon. Member:: We are interested in the facts.


Lloyd Axworthy: We would like to know exactly what communication was issued by the U.S. ambassador to this country. Also, is it not time that this country took the initiative and asked for a full ministerial meeting of NATO Ministers to discuss how and in which ways all those countries which are allies of the United States would participate in both the planning and development of that deployment strategy, so that we would be assured that we have the independence and sovereignty to make that decision, and not have it imposed upon us, as the report now says it must?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have told the Hon. Member and the House on several occasions that we are looking at ways in which we can expand the parameters of definition of emergency so that there might be a greater opportunity for countries that are involved to have more lead time in making decisions. I repeat the point that this country, under this Government, would retain the right to refuse nuclear weapons on Canadian soil.
Let me come to Canadian sovereignty. This Government actively defends Canadian sovereignty. That is why, as I said yesterday in committee, this Government wants to proceed
Oral Questions
with the north warning system which will protect and assert Canadian sovereignty, whereas the Hon. Member in his questions as recently as yesterday indicates that he wants to leave open gaps in the radar warning system now, gaps which threaten Canadian sovereignty and threaten Canadian security.


NEW YORK TIMES REPORT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs knows, there is a report today in The New York Times which says that indeed an agreement exists between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States, and it would permit the locating of nuclear weaponry in Canada under certain circumstances. I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether there is such an agreement in existence between Canada and the United States. If so, does that agreement contain the veto right of Canada, that is, the right to say no? Third, since the right to say no would also entail the right to say yes, will the Minister use the occasion to convey to the United States that, under no circumstances, will we permit the locating of nuclear weaponry on Canadian soil?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with those matters in order. There is no such agreement. Second, there is, as the Hon. Member probably knows, a NATO decision from the NATO summit meeting in December, 1957, when it was decided that NATO should establish stocks of nuclear weapons which would be available to the alliance in case of emergency. Heads of government agreed in 1957, it stands, and I quote:
The deployment of these stocks and missiles and arrangements for their use, will accordingly be decided in conformity with NATO defence plans and in agreement with the states directly concerned.
That is paragraph 21 of the Paris heads of government communique. That is the authority on which I have been answering questions. That is the authority on which I have said, and repeat categorically now, that this country retains the right to refuse nuclear weapons on Canadian soil in any emergency.


CANADIAN POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to what the Minister had to say. He did not reply to the crucial third part of that question. Since the right to say no also logically entails the possibility of saying yes, and since Canadians have made it abundantly clear in every part of this land that under no circumstances do we want nuclear weaponry located, deployed, parked, or in any way put on Canadian soil, will the Minister now make it clear to the people of Canada, and soon to the United States, that under no circumstances will we accept nuclear weapons in Canada?

February 15, 1985
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, who follows these questions carefully, takes them seriously, and does not try to mislead Canadians about their implications, will know that there have been discussions in the House for some time on the so-called contingency plan in the United States. There are no such plans now. In the event that contingency plans were developed, the contingency of which they would take account would be a circumstance to attack. In that circumstance, Canada has the right to say yes or no to nuclear arms. I am not in a position at this time to be able to say how we would respond, not knowing the conditions of attack that might prevail.
The Hon. Member will understand the conditions of attack, which we all devoutly hope will never occur, are conditions which are almost impossible for any of us to conceive in detail in advance. I do say to him that this Government retains, and so long as I am here the Government would exercise, the right to say no to nuclear arms, even in those circumstances, if we believe that to be in the Canadian interest, and it would be Canadians, not anyone else, who would make that decision of Canadian interest.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the use of nuclear weaponry at any point, according to all the literature that I have read and I imagine the Minister has read, would be an act of complete and utter folly. If one agrees with that as the premise, will the Minister agree that what follows from that is that no circumstance, a real emergency, an alleged emergency, or any other circumstance down the road, should lead us to the conclusion that we could ever accept nuclear weapons, because the use of them under any circumstances will mean mutual suicide involving the United States and the Soviet Union? If that should happen, so far as it is possible, we do not want to be any part of that process. Therefore, will he now say that under no circumstances will we have nuclear weapons in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I agree that nuclear conflict would be folly for the world. I believe that everyone in the House shares the view that it would be folly for the world. I think we all hope that that folly will never arise. Indeed, one of the reasons why this Government is pursuing as vigorously as it is the establishment of the northern warning system, and the modernization of our radar system, is that that is a part of the deterrence system which for so long has prevented that folly from occurring.
What the Hon. Member is asking me to do is to predict how we would act in the event of an attack which all of us hope does not occur. It is impossible to give that answer before those circumstances, which we hope never arise, do arise.
I repeat my assurance. The Government of Canada has insisted on retaining in Canadian hands the right to make the decision on how we would react even in that most extreme of circumstances. Even at that height of folly, it will be a Canadian decision and not a decision of anyone else.


THE ECONOMY
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Finance. The First Ministers' love-in threatened to turn sour yesterday when the Premiers attacked rising interest rates. They were told by the Prime Minister that the Government does not intend to change its interest rate policy. Surely for a Government which prides itself on consultation and consensus making, and which promised lower interest rates in its election platform, that is not the final response. Will the Minister tell the House what consideration the Government is giving to the recommendations put forward by the Premiers?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to answer on behalf of the Minister of Finance who has done a very capable job in Regina on behalf of the people of Canada. I should point out to the Hon. Member that the Government has no specific target in terms of exchange rates and interest rates. We would like to have a Canadian dollar that is strong. We would like to have interest rates which are as low as conceivably possible. Government policy will be set in such a way as to encourage that.


EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier of Alberta argued strongly that the Bank of Canada be given new instructions, and the Minister of Finance was quoted in The Gazette today as saying that the Premier's recommendation is under study. Does this mean that we are to have yet another discussion paper while uncertainty grows about investments, economic development, and jobs?


Henry Perrin Beatty: No,
Mr. Speaker.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We now understand that he is prepared to accept a U.S. definition of crisis that will be decided by the U.S. military and the White House, and that he has reserved his right to say yes in terms of the stationing of nuclear weapons, in British
February 15, 1985

Columbia and Nova Scotia at least. As the Minister knows, today nuclear vessels can enter the harbours of Vancouver, Halifax, and other ports in Canada with live U.S. nuclear weapons on board.
Let us not split hairs. The Minister is telling the people of Canada right now that he is prepared to accept the placement of nuclear weapons in Canada as long as they are simply tied by a rope to a wharf in the major cities of Vancouver and Halifax.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is there a question?


James Ross Fulton: That is right. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs accept that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am at your direction. When you detect a question, I will try to answer it.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that today the policy of the Government is that U.S. warships and submarines, with live-


Mr. Speaker:: I am in some difficulty. Does the Hon. Member have a question? I have yet to hear one.


James Ross Fulton: Is it the Minister's view that it is acceptable today for the United States to continue to bring live nuclear weapons into the hearts of Canada's major cities of Halifax and Vancouver?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first let me say, just to assure the Hon. Member, that if I do not agree with the definition of emergency or of crisis that might be given by the Americans in the case of some perceived emergency, then obviously our answer to the American request will be no.
Regarding the specific question that has been asked, there has been a long-standing arrangement dealing with the necessity for submarines carrying nuclear weapons to visit ports, and those submarines are occasionally given the opportunity to dock at Canadian ports. That policy has not changed nor does that policy affect the position that I have taken, and the position that Mr. Trudeau before me took, that there would be no stationing of nuclear arms on Canadian soil.


SITUATION IN NEW ZEALAND
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, if a U.S. nuclear submarine is to tie up in Vancouver at the foot of Granville Street, or in Halifax, is the Minister prepared to show the same kind of backbone that New Zealand has shown, say no to the U.S. now, and tell them that no more nuclear warships and weapons will be allowed in the major ports of Canada?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to comment particularly on the New Zealand situation except to say that there is a degree to which their situation is parallel to our own. In an election campaign in New Zealand a particular position was
Oral Questions
taken by the now Government of New Zealand, and it is trying to implement that position. In the election campaign of September 4, in which the people of Canada made an overwhelming judgment, this Party made it very clear that we intended to stand up to and honour our obligations to NATO, to NORAD, and to our allies. We intend to keep our word on this issue as on other issues.


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. We seem to have an amazing number of convenient coincidences occurring in the Prime Minister's office lately. The Prime Minister has stated that he first learned about the allegations of risk to national security on January 22, which was the same day on which he met with Lord Carrington, the Secretary General of NATO, and only four days after the resignation of the former Minister of National Defence's senior policy adviser. The Prime Minister has also stated that he received the final in-depth report concerning this incident at noon on February 12, the same time that the allegations became public, eventually being followed by the resignation of the former Minister.
Did Lord Carrington, the Secretary General of NATO, at any time discuss with the Prime Minister, any other government member, or any officer of the Government of Canada, the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the actions of any of the Government's Ministers?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member, in all reason, would not expect me to be in a position to be able to answer questions with respect to discussions that took place to which I was not privy. I have been present here in the House and I have read responses made by the Prime Minister outside the House assuring Members and Canadians that he acted at once in order to deal with any possible breach of national security. He did that in a very careful and thorough way. That has been his explanation to the House of Commons, and one which I think should be accepted not only by the Hon. Member but by all Hon. Members of the House.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the issue. It is interesting to note how changes occur when going from one side of the House to another. The issue at which I am getting today is not the-


Mr. Speaker:: With due respect, the Hon. Member had a very long preamble to his first question. Would he now come immediately to a question, please?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The issue is the Prime Minister's handling of the event.

February 15, 1985
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Scarborough West.


UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION CANADIAN MEMBERSHIP AND FUNDING
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the upheaval in the membership of UNESCO, with several nations withdrawing or having given notice to withdraw, and other nations increasing their funding of UNESCO, what review, if any, is the Canadian Government giving to our membership in UNESCO? In particular, are we contemplating any reduction or increase in our funding of that organization?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. He will know that the Government of France has just announced an increased contribution to certain of the activities of UNESCO. It is not the intention of the Government of Canada to follow that example.
Earlier this week I had the opportunity to meet with the executive of the Canadian Commission to UNESCO, and at that time I expressed our very grave concern about the state of that organization. I made it clear that our intention was not to make a decision until the meeting in the fall with regard to UNESCO. I also told them that we were not satisfied with the present pace of reform. I indicated that there was an overwhelming concern in Canada for the strength of international institutions and the strength of the United Nations system, and that that was the basis upon which I was urging reform in UNESCO.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications, who has instituted a policy review of the CBC. Would he now undertake to make this a public review and allow public hearings on the subject? If not, how many more protests, demonstrations, assemblies, and advertisements in newspapers will it take before he realizes that the Canadian public is extremely dissatisfied with his conduct of the Department and wants some input into the CBC review?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is talking about two
separate issues which she, either for political reasons or out of ignorance, has a tendency to confuse. There are two entirely different problems here.
First of all, we have the statement by the Minister of Finance prescribing budgetary cutbacks in all Government envelopes. As part of these cutbacks, the CBC has been asked to make a contribution that seemed and still does seem to us entirely fair and proportionate.
Second, the Government has made a commitment to review Canada's broadcasting industry, which includes the CBC. This decision was announced last fall, and in the weeks to come we shall be in a position to make a full statement on the mechanisms we intend to introduce to ensure the participation of Canadians in the future of broadcasting in Canada.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Minister began by answering a question which I put to him a couple of weeks ago. I was not asking about cut-backs. I was asking about the policy review and when the Canadian public will be able to have some input into it. Is it normal that the Canadian public has to place advertisements in newspapers to get through to the Minister? He refuses to meet with groups. When will he listen to them? When will he let the public talk about what they want their public broadcasting system to do?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question I said that in due time, that is, within a few weeks, the Government will be announcirig to Canadians and to the House how those who are interested in the future of broadcasting in Canada, and especially that of the CBC, can make their views known within the consultation process.


IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Employment and Immigration. In the 1984 Annual Report on Future Immigration Levels the Minister gave top priority to encouraging business immigration to Canada. Given the fact that this kind of immigration benefits our economy immensely because of the jobs it creates, can the Minister tell the House what specific measures have been taken, or will be taken, to encourage and promote entrepreneur immigration to Canada?
February 15, 1985


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for her question.
I can inform her that we intend to maintain the immigration program for entrepreneurs and that we have given special training to thirty-five visa officers in order to respond more effectively and extend a more cordial invitation to prospective immigrants.
We also have a working group that includes the Employment and Immigration Commission, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and External Affairs, and whose role is to find effective ways of getting more entrepreneurs to come to this country and give us the benefit of their expertise and talents, in order to generate jobs and improve our quality of life.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of last week's statistics which showed that there were an additional 167,000 Canadians unemployed, that interest rates were rising, and because the Minister of Finance has refused to give us a specific date for a Budget, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why in yesterday's announcement by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, there was such a serious reduction in the moneys which are allocated for job creation and job training? Can he explain the reduction? Is it part of the restraint program?


Some Hon. Members:: $300 million less.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I heard the comment about $300 million less, but that is not the way I heard the Minister of Employment and Immigration on The National, and that is not the way I read her statement. If the Hon. Member wishes, I will send it to him so that he and his colleagues can cease distorting what was presented by the Minister at the First Ministers' conference in Regina. That is not helpful in solving the problem of unemployment. This is.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the unemployed want jobs. They do not want pious platitudes from him, the Prime Minister, or the provincial Premiers. Will the Deputy Prime Minister exercise his responsibilites and tell the House how many jobs will be created by that program, when
Oral Questions
those jobs will come into effect, and how many lasting jobs will be created? Will he exercise his responsibilities and tell the House?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in my judgment we are exercising our responsibilities in a much more positive way than that which was displayed by the Party which he supported, when it was in power.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I do not know why he should be so exercised by our exercising our responsibilities, when every single Premier at the First Ministers' conference welcomed, with open arms and eagerness, the statement of the Minister of Employment and Immigration yesterday with respect to our very challenging employment program laid out by her.


CANADA COUNCIL
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. The Canada Council is a crucial agency which was established to build our cultural independence and assist our artists in maintaining their livelihoods. Therefore great care and nonpartisan responsibility should be exercised when making appointments to it.
Will the Minister assure the House that the six vacant positions on the Council will be filled on a non-partisan basis by people with extended experience in the arts and culture area, after close consultation with cultural associations?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that any future appointments will be made with a view to ensuring a competent presence on the Canada Council.


ARTISTS' REPRESENTATION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, competence is always to be preferred. Will the Minister assure the House that we will not see more appointments of which the chief claim to fame is ties to the Prime Minister or his constituency? Will the Minister assure the House that at least a majority of the existing six vacant positions will go to artists?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that all appointments will be made in accordance with the Act.

February 15, 1985

Oral Questions


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Deputy Prime Minister is in a blue funk today because he happens to be one of those few left in the House who voted against the Canadian flag. It must gall him to see it on its twentieth anniversary today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Notwithstanding that, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his statement today-


Some Hon. Members:: Louder!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Excuse me. For those government Members who are not interested in a nuclear holocaust which may be facing this country-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs commented today on the agreements and accords made with NATO. This Conservative nuclear attitude in lock-step with the United States flies in the face of that very NATO agreement. Why is the Minister blaming New Zealand's position on so-called election campaign promises when in fact the NATO agreement he cites states that deployment of weapons, stocks, and missiles, and arrangements for their use, will be decided in conformity with NATO defence plans and in agreement with the states directly concerned? Why is he not prepared to follow the example of New Zealand and develop an independent nuclear policy for this country?


Mr. Andre:: How long has New Zealand been in NATO?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the practice was in the Ontario Legislature, but when Members direct an insult at a Minister of the Crown and then refuse to put the question to the Minister, we here in the House of Commons call that offence hit and run.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The best answer I can give to the Hon. Member is that, unless there was some agreement concluded by the Ontario Legislature of which I am not aware, New Zealand is not a member of NATO.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the reason for my hit and run is because the Deputy Prime Minister has been stalled in neutral all week.


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


CANADIAN POLICY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Secretary of State did not understand the question. My question is: why is this country not prepared to develop an independent policy such as was agreed to in the 1957 NATO accords, which he cites as the very reason for this country joining the nuclear movement in lock-step with the United States of America?


Charles Joseph Clark: Among the elements of the sovereign policy which has been in place in Canada for some time, but was not pursued sufficiently actively by the Liberal Government, of which the Hon. Member is a supporter, is first of all making it clear that there will be no stationing of nuclear arms on Canadian soil without the agreement of the Government of Canada. That is a principle which I have repeated and referred to frequently in this House.
A second element is the determination to stop our northern radar system from breaking down, creating gaps which threaten our security and sovereignty. It might have been good enough for the Liberals to have Canadian security and sovereignty threatened by the holes in the northern warning system, but it is not good enough for us. We are here to protect and advance Canadian sovereignty and security.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it may be kind of silly to try to get an answer again out of the Minister of Communications, but I will try with an easy question.
Because of budget cut-backs at CBC it has withdrawn from Telefilm and, as a result, about one-third of the 100 or so independent Canadian film producers are in jeopardy. This is a severe threat to Canadian content in broadcasting. The Minister promised a review of the criteria for Telefilm, I think last December, to be completed early this year. It is getting late. Will the Minister respond to the proposal by 17 French and English production associations made in January for a special allocation of $35 million for the production of Canadian programming?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, since the end of last December, when I announced that the Government was going to review some of the criteria for Telefilm, we have had a number of consultations with interested groups.
The Department has received an initial report on these consultations. There have been a number of meetings of officials, and at some time in the future we will be able to announce new criteria for Telefilm.
February 15, 1985


MINISTER'S REPLY TO PROPOSAL
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, maybe I came close. Can we be assured at least that the answer with respect to that proposal will not come any later than April 1?
Oral Questions Mr. Tobin: I am asking the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary West.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, my experience in politics has taught me one thing: never give a firm date!
*
* *


OFFSHORE DRILLING-SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the third anniversary of the tragic Ocean Ranger disaster, a day on which 84 lives were lost at sea. Two of those men were my constituents. I ask my question of the Acting Minister of Defence in the hope that we will soon be able to say we have done everything humanly possible to prevent such tragedies in the future.
The most dangerous part of the winter drilling season is fast approaching, and adequate launching systems and life rafts for rigs off the East Coast are still not available. In light of that, is the Minister prepared to accept the recommendation of the Ocean Ranger's Families' Foundation that a joint research and development fund be established by the federal and provincial Governments, and industry, to develop in Canada, for East Coast offshore conditions, launching systems and life rafts, in order to prevent further loss of life in the offshore?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is my third day as Acting Minister, and I think the Hon. Member will understand if I have to take that very important question as notice. I will get back to him with an answer just as soon as I can.


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should know that the last line of defence, the government policy currently is that we have upgraded fixed wing aircraft, and therefore the situation is getting better. But he should know-and I am coming to my question-the last line of defence is an escape system, and we do not have an adequate one. I want to tell him-I will ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, it is an important question in my province. There are hundreds of people at sea.


Some Hon. Members:: Ask the question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: In light of the fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Calgary West.


WINTER OLYMPICS INQUIRY
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Can I ask my question?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am not sure that he is still in the House.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker's attitude reflects the Government's on offshore safety.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's right.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Perhaps another Minister could answer for him. I was interested in the degree to which there is federal involvement in the Winter Olympics regarding the Festival of Arts, whether the federal Government is involved, whether there is some problem in that regard, and what we can anticipate in the future for that part of the Winter Olympics?


An Hon. Member:: Put it on the Order Paper.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member recognizes that the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport has been dealing with the Canadian Olympic Committee and the various agencies associated with it. I will relay the question to the Minister.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs whose interest in environmental matters is well known. Would the Minister use his good offices to ensure that at the midMarch meeting scheduled between the Prime Minister and President Reagan the matter of the Niagara River and the long-term safety of drinking water in the Great Lakes is put on the agenda for discussion, considering the fact that the presence of toxic chemicals in that river is a source of great concern to millions of Canadians, and therefore to members of each Party represented in this House?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. No one need add to the established reputation he has of interest in and action on these questions.
I raised that matter with Secretary Shultz during my first meeting with him in the fall of last year. If the matter is not on

February 15, 1985
Oral Questions
the agenda of President Reagan and the Prime Minister at the March 17 meeting, I assure the Hon. Member I will raise it when I meet that weekend with Secretary Shultz. If he requests, I will report to the House on the response of the Americans to the raising of that question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This morning's Globe and Mail detailed the Bata Shoe Company's non-compliance with the voluntary code of conduct for Canadian firms operating in South Africa. They have engaged in union busting, they pay wages 50 per cent below the poverty line, and they have refused to report to the Canadian Government because they say this would offend South African authorities.
Since 29 out of 30 companies have refused to report, or do not report, to the Canadian Government, is he prepared to admit that the voluntary guidelines are a farce? Will the Government at least take the small step of bringing in anti-discrimination contract compliance provisions for all government contracts, including a provision disqualifying any Canadian company operating in South Africa that does not comply with the guidelines?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, with the active encouragement of the Prime Minister I have been undertaking, within my Department, for the last several months, a complete review of Canadian policy as it affects South Africa. That review is based upon the well established Canadian abhorrence of the system of apartheid and our determination to do what we can to bring a change to that system. We are examining the range of our relations with South Africa and hope to be in a position to make some recommendations to the House.
With regard to reports concerning particular companies, the best way to judge their performance as employers would be for the companies concerned to issue public reports, as called for by our present code of conduct. If there are to be changes in that code of conduct, that will be announced in the House of Commons. That matter, among others respecting South Africa, is under active investigation by myself, the Prime Minister, and other of my colleagues.


VISIT OF APARTHEID APOLOGIST
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs how the proposed visit, arranged by his Department, of Gaza Butelezi, Chief of the South Afican Bantustan and an apologist for the apartheid policy of the
Botha Government, fits in with the professed abhorrence of apartheid? Does the Minister have any plans to meet with-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Let the Minister answer that part. We are running out of time.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as part of my review I am encouraging members of my Department and some of my colleagues in government to consult extensively with people whose information we think might be of use to the Government of Canada. The Leader of the Government in the other place has just returned from a very productive participation in a conference in southern Africa. The Canadian permanent representative to the United Nations, ambassador Steven Lewis, has been very much interested in these questions as he is involved in the development of the appropriate Canadian policy to South Africa.
.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, February 14, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In order to lay the basis for this question of privilege, I will refer you to Citation 48 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which clearly establishes such reflections upon the character of Members as being or constituting a breach of privilege. This is supported by Erskine May's Twentieth Edition, page 159.
The record of yesterday's Hansard clearly shows that the Government House Leader and Minister of State (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) made remarks in the House which were a reflection upon my character. These remarks can be found on page 2349 of Hansard dated February 14, 1985. There the Government House Leader is recorded as saying: "I'll bet you know all those people in the bar; you could have asked them the questions".
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the suggestion by the Government House Leader that he bets that I know all those people in the bar must obviously be a reflection on my character if, indeed, the Prime Minister considered that going there was grounds for the firing of the Minister of National Defence.
In view of this totally inaccurate comment, I feel that this matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to determine how the House should
February 15, 1985

deal with this breach of privilege. I wish the House Leader were here today, Mr. Speaker. However, I understand that if 1 do not raise this matter today 1 lose my privilege of doing so. Therefore, if you find a prima facie breach of privilege, I would be prepared to move that the words of the Government House Leader, which I quoted from page 2349 of the House of Commons Debates of February 14, 1985 be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in the interest of the best civility of the House.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, normally a question of privilege of this nature, particularly when it concerns another Hon. Member, is raised in the presence of that Hon. Member.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He did yesterday.


Erik Nielsen: That would be the first available occasion upon which to raise it.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Nonetheless-


Marcel Prud'homme: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Nonetheless-


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I have a point of order. You have to listen before saying no.


Erik Nielsen: That is not the practice. Nonetheless-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Who are you, the Speaker?


Erik Nielsen: Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I will personally draw the attention of the submission of breach of privilege by the Hon. Member to the attention of the Government House Leader. I am sure that he would want to respond personally at the earliest opportunity-


Sheila Maureen Copps: He had a chance yesterday and he refused.


Erik Nielsen: -which I expect would be when the House resumes after the break.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister knows that the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pem-broke raised this matter before the House yesterday at the end of Question Period. He indicated-


Marcel Prud'homme: That's right. You were not here.


Mr. Speaker:: He indicated that he would be consulting the "blues" and raising the matter today if he could. Under the circumstances, while I have a preliminary view on the matter, given that the Hon. Government House Leader is not present, I think I will reserve any further judgment on the matter at this time.
Motions


PETITIONS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my apologies for my hoarseness. I am trying to imitate the absent Prime Minister, I fear.
I wish to present a petition from approximately 2,500 of my constituents in Essex-Windsor dealing with the cut-backs to CBC service and particularly local programming within Windsor. In this petition they express strong concern about the Government's plans and the management of the CBC in the way those cuts have been implemented. They have asked me to convey to the House, with the petition, their strong sense of commitment to the CBC. I do so with submission of this petition.


Mr. Speaker:: I congratulate the Member on the creativity of his opening, if not on its being in order.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition by a group of students from Laval University, expressing their concern about unemployment among those with specialized training and about the situation for young people in this country. They are asking for a national program to train or specialize young unemployed workers for high technology jobs.



AGRICULTURE


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) raised a matter which I understand had been the subject matter of discussions with House Leaders of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party. These discussions concerned a reference to committee of Section 31, tax issues in agriculture. I understand that a draft order has been provided to the Opposition House Leader and, indeed, the Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition said yesterday, as reported at page 2359 of Hansard, that he would have to take the matter under advisement.
I am asked by the Government House Leader today to put the matter once again, that this reference be made with unanimous consent so that the Standing Committee on Agriculture could be seized of this matter and the needs of western farmers, indeed farmers everywhere, might be dealt with in a mode where they have total input into the formulation of agricultural policy.
Order Paper Questions Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

February 15, 1985


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: I would like to comment, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to seek unanimous consent so the Hon. Member can comment.


Jacques Guilbault: Can I speak? No.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Deputy House Leader have some comment prior to the seeking of unanimous consent? There is a procedural difficulty in doing that.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Jacques Guilbault: It is easy to say no.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, the motion is not before the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Jacques Guilbault: Teach this guy.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1, 92, 128, 150 and 187.
N.W.T.	1	2	0	0	0Y.T.	0	5	2	0	0Total	931	860	549	25	88
2. Distribution of Regular Members (including S/Csts) * of the RCMP by Province and Territory (as of 84-10-26)
Nfld.	587
P.E.I.	121
N.B.	474
N.S.	689
Ont.	2,648
Que.	879
Man.	953
Sask.	1,248
Alta.	2,038
B.C.	3,844
N.W.T.	222
Y.T.	116
Total	13,819
S/Csts-Special Constables


Mr. Riis: 1.	Presently, how many persons in Canada are receiving the War Veterans Allowance?
2.	How many persons who receive the War Veterans Allowance were not Canadian citizens during the period of their military service?


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. There are 84,125 persons receiving War Veterans Allowance.
2.	Our records do not contain information as to citizenship during the period of military service. Accordingly, we cannot provide this information.


Mr. Skelly: 1.	In (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983 (e) 1984 to date, were any recruits engaged by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, if so, in each case, how many from each Province and/or Territory?
2.	By Province and Territory, what is the distribution of regular members of the RCMP?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: RCMP Recruiting Statistics by Province/Territory Calendar Years 1980-1984 (inclusive) Regular Members (excluding Special Constables)
1980	1981	1982	1983	1984 (as of 84-12-12)Nfld.	62	30	20	1	0P.E.I.	8	12	4	0	3N.B.	63	57	31	1	. 2N.S.	87	57	23	1	7Ont.	192	179	82	4	21Que.	87	149	181	17	41Man.	59	54	29	0	4Sask.	92	68	44	0	1Alta.	110	98	48	1	4B.C.	170	149	85	0	5


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	From April 1, 1984 to September 17, 1984, what was the amount spent in the departmental office of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	Were the budgetary guidelines exceeded and, if so, by what amount?
3.	For the same period, how many exempt staff, including those on personal services contracts, were employed by the Minister and what were their names, date of appointment and salary?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. $180,168.41.
2.	No.
3.	Seven (see below)
Name	Date of Appointment	Salary RangeWilliam Babcock	15/08/83	up to 542,850Robert Benoit	15/08/83	" 47,000Peter Black	. 15/08/83	" 36,729Judy Blanchard	15/08/83	" 28,161Justyna Kuryllowicz	15/08/83	" 42,850Steve Megannety	15/08/83	" 36.729Jean Parri	03/01/84	" 36,729
February 15, 1985


Mr. de Jong: 1.	Is Mr. Fred von Veh employed by the Department of Transport or in the Minister of Transport's office and, if so, what is his designation?
2.	Is he on the Minister's exempt staff and, if so, what is his salary?
3.	Is he under contract to the Department or the Minister's office and, if so, what are the terms and conditions of the contract?
4.	Is he or will he receive any other emoluments further to his salary?
5.	What was his previous occupation and with whom was he employed?
6.	Was he employed by any other Department or by any Minister at any time?
7.	Did he or the firm he may have been associated with ever represent or been counsel to any car rental agency?
8.	Is he currently in the employ of any firm, legal or otherwise, which represents any car rental agency?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: 1. Mr. von Veh's services as legal advisor were retained by the Minister, in order to advise him from time to time on matters relating to the administration of the various laws under the responsibility of the Minister.
2.	No. Mr. von Veh is a member of the legal firm of Stikemen Elliott.
3.	Mr. von Veh's services were secured on a retainer basis. The terms and conditions of the contract as of this date have yet to be finalized. No fees have been invoiced or paid to date.
4.	No.
5.	Mr. von Veh is and was a member of the legal firm of Stikemen Elliott.
6.	We understand that his services were retained on certain matters by the office of the Solicitor General.
7.	This question should be properly addressed to the legal firm of Stikemen Elliott.
8.	See 7 above.


Mr. Stackhouse: In (a) 1982 (b) 1983, how much was spent by Canadian embassies and other diplomatic missions on hospitality?


Charles Joseph Clark: (a) In 1982-83: $8,292,898; (b) in 1983-84: $8,391,451.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question with respect to starred question No. 212 which was put on the Order Paper on January 21.


Mr. Forrestall:: We remember those.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I want the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) to know that I support him strongly for the next Defence Minister over the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre). He would do a much better job.
Western Grain Stabilization Act Starred question No. 212 has been on the Order Paper since January 21. It is a very simple question that only involves a number of names. It should be picked up within 24 hours. When will this question be replied to?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I can honestly answer the Hon. Member that in accordance with the practices set down by the previous Government, we will answer the questions soon.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I thought this Government had promised to do better than the previous Government.
I therefore wish to ask the following question on behalf of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps): When does the Government intend to answer Question No. 9? Can we expect the Parliamentary Secretary will soon give us an answer to this very simple question which is dated November 7?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that so far we have answered 39.3 per cent of all questions put to this time which, as of the 53rd sitting day-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Wyatt Dick: -is much better than all preceding Parliaments.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Wenman) found this question so important-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -that he came across the day I put it on the Order Paper to find out what I wanted to know.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John Wise (for the Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)) moved: that Bill C-29, to amend the Western
80164 -TO

February 15, 1985
Western Grain Stabilization Act Grain Stabilization Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the House Leader of my Party (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for recognizing the need to proceed on this piece of legislation as soon as possible. I know that my House Leader, my Leader and indeed the entire caucus of our Party recognize the importance of this piece of legislation.
Second, they also recognize that, in order for western farmers to receive benefits as early as possible, it would be necessary for us to take early action on this piece of legislation. This Bill is before the House today as a result of that understanding and appreciation of the difficulties which exist in western Canadian agriculture.
We have sought and received unanimous consent to proceed with Bill C-29 through all stages in the House today. I want to acknowledge that co-operation and the co-operation that has been extended to us by the House Leader of the Official Opposition, the House Leader and agriculture critic for the NDP.
For that reason I hesitate to express my extreme concern about what I just witnessed a few moments ago in the exchange between the Deputy Prime Minister and the official spokesperson for the Official Opposition. His Party is denying us consent to refer to committee three very major tax items which have been made known to us in representations over the years by people in the agriculture industry. They are to study and hopefully act on the issue of capital gains, the problems associated with Section 31, and to further study the issue of agri-bonds. It dumbfounds me to witness this continuing reluctance on behalf of the Official Opposition to give us an opportunity to refer these three items to an appropriate standing committee. These items could then be studied and agricultural organizations in this country could have an opportunity to have the input for which they have been asking for many years.
I think that is a very serious matter. Although I appreciate the co-operation that we have received from both Opposition Parties with respect to this Bill, I could not let this opportunity pass without registering my very deep concern about the continuing reluctance on behalf of the Official Opposition to refer these matters to a standing committee.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I resent the allegations by the Minister. Yesterday I made a commitment to get back to the Government House Leader.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You have had two weeks.


Jacques Guilbault: Yesterday I made a commitment. Today I was not permitted by the Speaker to have the floor to speak on this. I ask the Minister to keep a lid on it and don't start spreading innuendos.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You have had two weeks.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Put it on the Order Paper then.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of bending the rules or doing anything of that nature. However, offers have been forthcoming from our House Leader. The record from as late as a few moments ago will show that there was no attempt to bend the rules, by any stretch of the imagination. I am sure Canaian farmers will recognize the situation. As of today we, the Government, and the New Democratic Party are prepared to refer these matters to the appropriate standing committee, but the Official Opposition is not prepared as of today to do that.
I do want to make mention of the fact that this Bill would have been introduced and perhaps this speech might well have been made by my colleague, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), but because the First Ministers' conference is still in progress in Regina, Saskatchewan, and the Minister of State for the Wheat Board is attending that conference, I am acting on his behalf on this legislation.
It is with serious concern for western Canada's grain producers that I wish to speak on the proposed amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act. This is a critical time for grain farmers. Thousands of them are caught in a tight cost-price squeeze. It is important that they receive help, and it is important that they receive help as soon as possible. Spring seeding time is less than three months away, and somehow between now and then grain producers have to come up with a lot of cash or credit, enough to buy seed, fertilizer, pesticides, fuel and maybe even machinery. For a lot of producers, that will be difficult. The drought took a large toll among prairie grain crops last summer. In some areas, hail and even flooding reduced crop yields. For many farmers it was the second bad year in a row. According to the most recent Statistics Canada Figures, 1984 wheat production fell by 21 per cent from the previous year. Total grain production in western Canada was down by an estimated 6 per cent from 1983 and 16 per cent from the previous five-year average. On top of that, operating and depreciation charges had increased and are expected to go up again in the coming year.
Planting time is the most expensive time of the year for grain producers. It is estimated that in 1984 prairie grain farmers spent over $1.4 billion on direct crop inputs, seed, fertilizer and pesticides. We can figure that fuel, machinery and labour costs were also in the 10-digit bracket. For 1985, Statistics Canada predicts a slight increase in operating and depreciation charges. Obviously, the capital requirements to plant a new crop are substantial.
On January 11 the Canadian Wheat Board announced that western grain farmers would receive $688 million in final payments for grain they delivered during the 1983-84 crop year. That brings to $5,037 billion the total amount of money they received for grain sold through the Wheat Board last year. While that may sound like a lot a money, I would point out that it is $261 million less than prairie grain producers received through the Wheat Board the year before.
February 15, 1985

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is this: with less grain to deliver over the next few months, many western producers will be hard-pressed to meet their interest payments and come up with the cash or credit they need to put this year's crops in the ground. Obviously, our western grain producers need all the help they can get, and they need it soon. That is why I am introducing for second reading Bill C-29, a Bill to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act.
The main intent of this legislation is to amend the Act so that interim payments could be issued during the crop year, and even before spring seeding. Such payments could be authorized as long as they are made without risk of overpayment. I have discussed producers' severe need for cash flow this spring, and the probability of a large pay-out for the 1984-85 crop year. This amendment would allow for a substantial payment to be made early this spring and before seeding.
The second amendment involves a small housekeeping matter. It would retroactively deem all previous Orders in Council raising the maximum level of grain sale proceeds eligible for levy payments under the Act to have been passed, registered and published in the Canada Gazette in accordance with the Statutory Instruments Act. This is a matter which was left outstanding by the previous Government when the Act was amended in 1984.
The Western Grain Stabilization Plan is a voluntary program designed to provide farmers with funds during years of low income. Participating producers currently contribute 1.5 per cent of grain sales to the fund, and the federal Government puts in nearly 3.5 per cent, or roughly $2.30 for every dollar contributed by farmers. Whenever net cash flow falls below the previous five-year average, the fund makes a pay-out.
For the 1983-84 crop year, the Western Grain Stabilization Plan paid out $223 million to prairie farmers, $100 million in August and $123 million in November. Because of amendments to the Act last June, the pay-out was triggered under a new formula for calculating net cash flow on a per tonne basis. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it was a welcome payment, but it would have been appreciated even more if it had been in the hands of western farmers earlier. If the amendments that I am proposing today had been in place last spring, the first $100 million of the 1983-84 payment could have been in farmers' hands sooner.
Since its inception in 1976, the Western Grain Stabilization Plan has made pay-outs in 1977, 1978 and 1984. As of this date, an individual farmer contributing at the maximum allowable rate has paid a total of $6,825 in levies and received stabilization payments totalling $10,750. Because of poor prospects for grain farmers in the current year, a substantial pay-out for 1984-85 is projected. This is based largely on the reduced volume of marketings.
Farmers, by the very nature of their business, must take risks. They have to gamble on the weather, the markets, and on interest rates, so most farmers will use every available means to protect their incomes. The Western Grain Stabilization Program is a very worth-while income assurance program,
Western Grain Stabilization Act
and producers have recognized it as such. The number of grain farmers participating in the Western Grain Stabilization Plan has increased, not significantly but it has increased year by year. In 1976, the year the program started, 74 per cent of all grain producers enrolled. Today the program has over 77 per cent enrolment.
For the remainder of this crop year, the outlook for grain sales is not spectacular. Producer marketings of the major grains to date are ahead of marketings for this period last year, but exports are lower due to the decline in production last summer. For the remainder of this crop year and next, exports are expected to remain below the level of the previous two years.
However, we can expect to feel market effects of a 13 per cent increase in 1984-85 in world oilseed production and larger wheat supplies in many countries. The latest estimates indicate a six million to seven million tonne decline in marketings of the seven major grains in 1985. Estimating average receipts at $160 per tonne, that represents a significant shortfall in farm income, even with the $668 million in the 1983-84 final Wheat Board payment.
For these reasons there is a strong possibility that a pay-out will be triggered for the 1984-85 crop year extending from last August 1 to this coming July 31. Knowing that, I believe we have a responsibility to see that it gets into the hands of producers as quickly as possible. No matter how large or how small the payment might be, timing is a crucial factor. It makes a lot of sense to put as much as possible into the hands of producers as early as possible and thereby save them some extra interest rate costs.
Moreover, experience has shown that when farmers have more cash available in the spring, they use higher levels of fertilizers and pesticides and in the end result receive higher yields. As a farmer, as a Member of Parliament and as Minister of Agriculture, I have supported the Western Grain Stabilization Plan. However, I realized from the beginning that it was not sensitive enough to the real cash flow needs of farmers. I have always maintained that the legislation was not flexible enough. That is why last June when the Act was being amended to allow for a one-time only interim payment, I said that the amendments did not go far enough. I complained about the fact that we were not given more time in the standing committee to make more improvements to the Bill. I pointed out that because the legislation was still flawed, indeed it would require further improvements. I stated then, as I have said today, that the Western Grain Stabilization Act should be amended to permit payments in any year that a pay-out is likely to be triggered. Had this matter been dealt with last June, of course this Bill and its amendments would not be necessary now.
On behalf of grain producers in western Canada, I urge all Hon. Members of the House to give their support to Bill C-29. By passing the proposed amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act, we will be assisting a major component at a

February 15, 1985
Western Grain Stabilization Act time when that component certainly is in need of assistance and help. It is a very important component in the total Canadian agricultural industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) that, as we have previously indicated, we are prepared to support this Bill and give it quick dispatch through the House, hopefully within the period allotted to it during this day's sitting. We do so because we recognzie, as does everyone, that there is a serious cash flow problem and that it is important to try to provide a major interim payment. Furthermore, a major plank in our own agricultural program last summer was that we would bring in amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act allowing for interim payments as the first piece of legislation.
I notice that this is not the First piece of legislation the Government has brought in, but it is close enough that we will not quibble over the timing. However, we feel that probably quicker action could have been taken on it in the sense that many farmers, now that we are into the second week of February, have been somewhat confused or uncertain about what their cash flow would be without knowing the direction. Even with the quick and speedy passage of the Bill through the House today, it will take several weeks to work out the formula for the interim payment. Therefore, many farmers will not know what to expect perhaps until early March and, as the Minister of Agriculture knows, that is getting close to seeding time. However, at least Members of Parliament can do their part and give the Bill quick and easy support during this day's debate.
1 wish the Government had been equally as co-operative as we are trying to be in the notice of motion it put forward relating to the reference it wanted to the agricultural committee. It is important to make clear that our objection was not about the reference itself but about the way in which it was done. No notice was put on the Order Paper, no notice of motion whatsoever was provided by the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Yesterday we were simply presented with a fait accompli, with a request on which we had not been given any notice. Our House Leader was not in the Chamber. We did not have an opportunity to discuss it in caucus or to discuss it with our House Leader, nor did we have an opportunity today to comment upon our problem because we were not recognized.
I want to make it very clear that we are not opposed to the reference itself. We simply suggest that perhaps the Minister of Agriculture could take the matter up with his House Leader and indicate that for future reference it would help if the Government House Leader gave proper notification to the Official Opposition about the Government's intention. Then we would co-operate and respond in like kind.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the Hon. Member would not want an error in fact left on the
record. This matter was referred to the House Leader of the Official Opposition at least 10 days ago. My suggested committee members have been struck for at least 10 days. I am just waiting to hear. We were told that they would get back to us after going to caucus. I think there have been two caucus meetings since he was first given notice of the reference of these three tax matters to the finance subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. We are anxious to get going, that is all.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will not take the time of the House to deal with it. However, I was saying that there was no notice of motion.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You don't do that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Then I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should discuss it and that the Government should be following the proper procedures of the House by giving us a notice of motion.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has been explained in the House that there are a number of procedures, one of which was arbitrary and adopted by the previous Government and one which is by way of consultation. By giving notice 10 days ago verbally, not on the Order Paper, we were trying to consult so that we could change the notice if the wording had to be changed after consultation with other Parties. We think it would be a way of leading to more co-operation than just arbitrarily setting down in stone what the wording would be, as the previous Government always did.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the same point of order, and you will hear me-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have no objection to giving you the floor, but please remove your flag first. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. Yesterday, the Government came with three motions. We gave our consent. From what the Hon. Member just said they now have another proposal. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that if he goes on playing partisan politics this way, we are going to insist that we have a right to see these motions published in the Order Paper, as they should be so that Hon. Members can take note of them before the subject is raised in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I advise the Hon. Member that this time will not be taken off his speech.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, now that we have somewhat cleared the question of procedure, I will return to the short debate. In endorsing the proposal of the Government to bring about a quick interim payment, I am pleased to note-I believe I can take this meaning from the Minister's words-
February 15, 1985

that the position taken by many Conservative Members of Parliament last year during the course of the debate amending the Western Grain Stabilization Act, that they in fact thought that that Act should be abolished, is no longer the position of that Party. I recall many times during that debate members of that Party bringing forward the case that it was time to abolish the Western Grain Stabilization Act because it was not useful, not effective, had no purpose or support and that it was about time to sit down.
At that time, as Minister responsible in the House of Commons for the Canadian Wheat Board, I was somewhat surprised by those comments. I was particularly surprised because they came from western Members of Parliament from the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. We are pleased to note that at least that particular faction or point of view which was previously expressed has not been accepted by the Government. We would hope that one of the purposes of this amendment is to substantiate the endorsement of the Conservative Government on the value of the Western Grain Stabilization Act. I am pleased to hear the Minister add his own personal words of support. We can now proceed with some assurance in the future that this Act will not be abolished.
The press release put out by the Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) indicated that there might be further amendments. Frankly, that gave us some cause for concern. We believe it might reflect the fact that the opinion so loudly and frequently expressed by Conservative Members of Parliament last June will not now be the case.
We all appreciate that the peculiar conditions caused by the weather in western Canada this year will have a serious impact upon western farmers. It is also important to note that there is a continuing concern, particularly in the case of grain farmers, about the problems to be faced this summer, such as locust and insect infestation. I believe it is important at this time for the Government to indicate what contingency plans it may have in response to that.
We have certain mechanisms available such as the Western Grain Stabilization Act. We would obviously like to pursue those. There may be other questions. That is why I want to express one very deep concern on behalf of our Party. There was no mention on the agenda of the First Ministers' conference of agriculture and the problems that it faces. It was particularly ironic that the meeting is being held in Regina, which is the centre of the grain-growing area of western Canada, yet there was nothing on the agenda that would deal specifically with the problems of agriculture, although we know how serious those problems are.
That issue has been somewhat bootlegged into those discussions by the discussion brought forward on interest rates. We all know that is one matter that is affecting the agricultural community severely. During the time that we have in committee, the Minister might avail himself of some opinion as to why, at such an important First Ministers' meeting, agriculture and other productive questions, such as fisheries, were not
Western Grain Stabilization Act on the agenda. There seemed to be an avoidance of dealing with those issues of natural resources and resource production which are so essential to our economy. They received virtually no attention whatsoever.
The lumber, fishing and agriculture industries are areas where there is great concern about international markets, financing, investment and the level of cash flow which those key industries face. We are surprised and we are concerned. We hope there might be an opportunity to discuss this. Perhaps I can make a suggestion. As a follow up to the First Minister's conference, a second similar high-level meeting of First Ministers might be called to deal with questions concerning the resource industries, agriculture, fishing, mining and lumber, the basket of issues dealing with productive renewable resources in this country and how we intend to go about financing them.
1 want to raise another concern and I would welcome very much the response of the Minister. He was not in the House last week when we had an Opposition Day dealing with agricultural problems.


John Wise: I was here.


Lloyd Axworthy: I do not think he was here when I spoke. Perhaps he was behind the curtain or on some other major activity. It is not that I necessarily feel that he had to be a party to my eloquence, but there was one important issue that was raised and I have not heard any response from the Canadian Government on this. I refer to the way in which we intend to cope with the very substantial, almost radical change being proposed by the United States in its agricultural programs. As he knows, Secretary of Agriculture Block and the budget proposals by President Reagan propose a major elimination of their subsidy programs. The solution put forward by the United States Secretary of Agriculture-I apologize to the House if this is out of order-is that they will market the hell out of their products in order to keep up the cash flow of U.S. farmers. That represents a very major and serious question. We know the incredible international market power of U.S. commodities. We also know that they can depress a market, bring it down or dominate a market.
If in fact the United States Government is moving toward what might be called even more aggressive marketing strategies than they already have in order to provide compensation for their farmers due to losses in farming subsidies, that obviously puts our own grain business in very serious jeopardy and causes serious potential problems. We now have problems with the European Common Market. There appears to be a major problem looming on the horizon by a change in U.S. policy. That is something that should not be simply left to circumstance or after-the-fact policy. It is something we should be looking at now.
We would encourage and request from the Minister of Agriculture that this Government address its own levels of concerns to the Secretary of Agriculture. I believe he has had meetings with him. We know that there is a summit meeting between the President and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)

February 15, 1985
Western Grain Stabilization Act
coming up in March. We hope that will be a matter on that agenda and that we will ensure that any attempts by the United States to change its grain policies and subsidies programs will not work to the detriment of our own grain-marketing position.
We have seen, and the Minister properly drew this to the attention of the House, that the Wheat Board this year has performed in a remarkable fashion, not with great prices but with respectable prices and, more important, is continuing to secure our markets. We also know that there are storm clouds in that respect. The Chinese, for example, for three years have had very successful crops. They have been a major buyer of Canadian grains. I do not think anyone would want to be critical of the achievements of the Chinese in developing major grain production. Changes in their own philosophy are a major reason for that.
It does raise, however, questions about our own marketing strategy and the fact that one of our very good customers may now be reaching a point of self-sufficiency. In fact, it may even become an exporter of grain over the next year or two. That, again, will have a major impact upon the western farmer. It comes back to the point I want to make. We are coming to a crunch point or crisis point in the area of international grain marketing and the need for looking at forms of agreement that may be arrived at.
I would hope, and again this is by way of recommendation, that one of the initiatives of this Government will be a very positive, aggressive attempt to rework and rearrange international grain agreements with our partners. I know it is difficult. I am not downplaying the barriers or handicaps, but it is necessary.
I want to express a note of regret. In reading very carefully the trade paper put forward by the colleague of the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelle-her), there is virtually no mention of commodities. There is virtually no mention of what the trade strategy or policy would be of this Government in relation to those commodity markets. I was surprised at that absence. When you consider the amount of money that the grain trade makes for this country, it should be considered almost number one in the trade strategy; but it was not mentioned at all.
I again urge this Government to provide an addendum or supplementary trade paper, prepared in concert with the Wheat Board and the Department of Agriculture, on a grain trade strategy or commodity trade strategy so that we can have proper consultation and know where we want to go. It is time we looked at the horizon we are facing, at what is happening in the United States and with some of our market partners. We should realize we are into some turbulence in the international market area and, therefore, need a very clear response.
With those questions being raised, all done in a spirit of trying to provide some constructive criticism, we would simply say again to the Minister that we will support this Bill. We hope we can have full passage today and that we can get on
with the business. As I say, we don't mind, when we have a good idea, if the Government copies it.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that the amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act will go through all stages here in the House today. I hope that is true because we really want to make it possible for the Government to get the payments out to farmers as early as possible.
First, I would like to congratulate the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) for having this Bill put before the House, albeit a bit later than he had hoped. I also want to congratulate the Minister on getting the support of Liberal Members for this Bill. Liberal Members would not accept this very amendment as late as June 27, 1984, so I congratulate the Minister on getting the support of members of the Liberal Party for this amendment.
I hope that the Government will be more efficient than the previous administration in getting the money out to the farmers. If this Bill passes and there is a pay-out this year, hopefully the farmers will receive it before seeding because that is one of their major requirements. We all know that and there is no reason why we should spend a great deal of time belabouring it.
I do want to talk about a number of concerns that we in the New Democratic Party have about the whole approach to agriculture and the solutions which exist for its problems. The Minister spent a considerable amount of time listing the woes of the farmers and the problems faced by agriculture. Since he knows and is able to articulate these problems so well, hopefully he is also ready to put before the House what he believes are the solutions. We appreciate the fact that, as far as financing is concerned, the Government has decided to have one of the Standing Committees discuss the tax and financing structure of agriculture. We will co-operate with that because we think that that is one, but only one, of the real problems facing agriculture.
We recognize, like the Government, the provincial Governments and certainly the farmers, that there is a real problem facing agriculture. The problem consists not only of financing but of input costs, interest rates and financing methods. These are things about which we must do something. The farmers, the provincial Governments and the federal Government together will have to take a global look at agriculture to identify the problems and find their solution, and this must be done if farming is to survive.
Members of each of the Parties in this House have committed themselves over and over again to supporting the family farm. However, it is the small family farm that is being devastated by the situation in which agriculture finds itself. We cannot blame this situation on one little factor, like not having stabilization or having high interest rates. We must look at all of these factors. I think it is time the Government, the provincial Governments, farm groups and the farmers take
February 15, 1985

a look at the global problems of agriculture and try to come up with some solutions.
There are a number of small solutions to be found. There is stabilization for a number of products and there is supply management for some of the commodities that we sell in the market. There are marketing boards which operate very effectively. As well, there are insurance plans that cover portions of the structure of agriculture but we still find ourselves in the position of having a large number of farms going under. However, we must begin looking at agriculture globally and making all of the decisions for change in the light of the projects and the marketing and stabilization plans that are presently in place. Let us look at agriculture globally to see if there is not something that can be done.
We all recognize, of course, that the obvious and very simple answer to the problems of agriculture is to pay for the commodity what it costs the farmer to produce it. That is a very simple and easy answer but one which is a little more difficult than that to put into place since we do exist within a world market. However, that solution is one at which we should look. Simple as it seems, we have over the years been unable to grapple with that particular approach. Therefore, we must look at it again.
We have needed to implement these many plans because the approach of the previous Government and of many of the provincial Governments has been do deal with a problem when it arises rather than to take a look at the reasons for the problem. Insurance plans or stabilization plans have been put into place so that apple producers and cheese producers could survive for one more year. That is exactly what we are doing by putting this particular plan in place.
We are hoping that the Western Grain Stabilization Plan will help the grain farmers or some of them survive for one more year. I think we are kidding ourselves by believing that this kind of solution will be the only solution. As much as we appreciate the fact that this is one method of getting money into the hands of grain farmers right now, it will not solve the problems of agriculture.
Since it is unlikely that the Government will come up with a global solution, one which would put in place the kind of income security to which we think farmers are entitled, we are now dealing only with the problems of grain farmers in particular. For a considerable amount of time, members of the New Democratic Party have been proposing to amalgamate the insurance plan for grain that we have in western Canada with the Grain Stabilization Plan. This particular approach has been put before the Government of Canada by several groups throughout the country. The Canada grains group, a branch of the Minister's own Department, has on a number of occasions made representations suggesting that we should amalgamate insurance with stabilization so that all grain growers or those who wish to participate can insure themselves against both the market and the weather. It would be a voluntary and contributory plan which would be actuarially sound. The grain growers, the federal Government and the provincial Governments would contribute.
Western Grain Stabilization Act If I could call it one o'clock, I will continue after the lunch recess.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) had the floor.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, when we broke for lunch I was discussing the possibility of amalgamating the existing insurance plan in western Canada with the Western Grain Stabilization Plan in order to have an over-all plan which would be much more effective and valuable. The existing insurance plan provides a structure which covers most of the Prairies. The provincial Governments provide the administration, the federal Government provides a portion of the funds and the farmers also make a contribution to the plan. If that approach were tailored to the needs of every farmer, they would be better off in the end. It would allow the stabilization plan to be tailored for each farmer, region and crop. If the Government intends to amend the Act later in the year to look at this type of approach, we would be happy to exchange a more comprehensive plan for the present Western Grain Stabilization Plan.
I do not think the Government has made a commitment, nor do I think it is prepared to make the kind of commitment, which would provide income security to grain farmers. However, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board indicated an interest in having a full review of the Act. We would commend that action. There are a number of areas in the Act which need to be reviewed.
When the Act was passed in 1978, a number of Members in the House suggested that certain amendments should be made. Since that time the Act has been amended several times and members of the NDP have reiterated the fact that there are weaknesses in the Act which should be corrected. We would congratulate the Minister if it is his intention to amend the Act. We hope that it is done very quickly. After this amendment is passed and the pay-out is made, the Act could be brought before the House to remedy some of its shortcomings.
Over the years members of the New Democratic Party have suggested four or Five policy changes with respect to the Act. If we are unable to get an agricultural income security program or a grain producers' income insurance plan, we will not be able to look at it on a total basis as far as the Prairies are concerned. The Act should be changed so that it will be more effective in the future.
I know many government Members share our concerns, because when the House was debating the Act last year they

February 15, 1985
Western Grain Stabilization Act mentioned approaches which are similar to those which I will suggest today.
First, we believe that the plan should be more producer-specific. There should be a factor which allows a better definition of individual problems. For example, many of the farmers who are going under today are good farmers, but because they are beginning their farms, because of their debt load and because of high interest rates they are unable to meet their payments and continue having a good cash flow. A guaranteed cash flow would be worthwhile to them. However, we are not able to target money for that group. In our wisdom, if we looked at it we might decide that that is not an area where our concern should be targeted.
Second, we believe that the pay-out should be on a regional basis. I think there are very good examples for this which the Government has made some movement toward alleviating. For example, with respect to the western drought, and specifically the drought in southern Saskatchewan, if the rest of the provinces had a good crop and the prices were fairly high, southern Saskatchewan would not be able to get any money from the fund. Therefore we believe that we should be able to make those payments on a regional basis.
Another example would be the frost which on occasion has devastated crops in the Peace River area. Northeast Saskatchewan has had a considerable amount of flood damage in the past few years. Again, that area could have been targeted as a region which should have received money. If the majority of regions in the Praries have a good crop, there is no reason that a region which is hit by poor weather and therefore has a poor crop should not be able to get funds from the plan. That is why the plan is there.
Third, we believe that the plan should be more grain-specific. It should be grain specific because more and more of the farm population are specializing. Most of their crop will be peas, lentils or canola, barley or flax. Most have established some kind of rotation which is better for the land, but we still have those people who specialize in one or two grains. What happens if one crop fails? Maybe only one farmer in ten is affected by that failure, but if all of his land is in canola and there is no crop or the bottom drops out of the market, he is affected. Should he not have more of a call on stabilization in those kinds of circumstances? We think we should look at that.
The plan should be more oriented to the cost of production. That has been talked about on all sides of the House and there is a provision in the present formula, but we still have to recognize that at present the pay-out of stabilization payments is related more to cash income than the cost of production.
There is no real provision for labour, management or cost of investment, or even poor delivery opportunities. Perhaps that is one of the major factors. Right now we do not have too much trouble getting our grain to market because we have so little of it out in the west due to the drought. But there have been many years where we had poor delivery possibilities. In some cases we had two years of grain in the bin. Those kinds of
situations occur so the plan should be related more to farm income.
The Wheat Pool has made a suggestion which I think is worth looking at. They have suggested that farmers who grow their own feed grains should have an opportunity to pay the levy on that grain so that if they have a poor crop they will qualify for stabilization payments. It might be a little difficult to establish but it would be fair and worthwhile for those farmers who raise their own cattle and hog feed.
I am glad to say that this particular amendment takes care of one more shortcoming existing in the Act, the fact that farmers might have to wait for two or three months after the crop year before they got payment. This amendment makes it possible for the Minister to take action quickly when he knows there will be a pay-out and has some idea of the amount. I congratulate the Minister for that. The first step in this direction was taken last year by the Official Opposition and the New Democrats when we tried to have this amendment put in the Bill, but it was not accepted by the Government. So I congratulate the Minister on getting it done now. It is a short and quick method of getting the money out if it is available.
Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that we hope we can get this Bill through the next two stages this afternoon and the Government can then start working on establishing a formula to get money to the farmers by spring seeding.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) on a point of order.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, it is not a point of order, but I think the rules of the House provide me with an opportunity to respond briefly to some questions that were raised both by the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would just like to inform the House that if the Minister replies, that will have the effect of closing debate. Is that the wish of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well. The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I declined to utilize my opportunity earlier today to respond to some of the very legitimate questions raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) in order to allow the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) an opportunity to commence his remarks before the one o'clock break. On reflection, I am pleased I did so because many of the questions raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry were also raised by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert. I indicated in a conversation I had with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry that I would utilize this opportunity to respond to his questions. I appreciate the offer because I think there is an understanding that this legislation can be moved through all stages of the House today. I believe it requires an
February 15, 1985

amendment to the motion because the motion refers the Bill to the standing committee. Therefore, I have forwarded a motion to the Chair and I hope the Chair finds it in order so we can proceed with this Bill in all stages today. If that is the case, then we will not take very much of the time of the House. I feel somewhat guilty in taking the time I am going to take at the moment, but I do feel a responsibility to respond to some of the very legitimate questions raised.
Both Members raised the question whether or not it would be the position of this Government to open up the Bill for further study at a later date. I can give them that assurance. Indeed, if we had more time we would be quite prepared to open up the Bill for study and the amendment we brought forward today would be the result of those studies which could have taken place. But as both Hon. Members know, and as we have been cautioned by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, time is short. We recognized that fact and that is the prime reason we brought the Bill forward, simply to allow an interim payment to be made as soon as possible.
My colleague, the Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), has said publicly in the past that there are other matters we will want to consider. Indeed, some of these matters were flagged for us and raised in the speech of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert. We recognize there is a need. There have been requests for regional payments and we think it is a legitimate area to be looked at.
As well, the question of producer-specific has been raised before, perhaps by the Hon. Member, certainly by other grain farmers in western Canada, and we think it may indeed have some merit. I just want to acknowledge those as legitimate concerns which we share. If we had additional time we would study these matters which the Hon. Member raises.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry raised questions about damage to grain crops in western Canada which may be caused by pest infiltration in 1985. Some people may take that subject lightly. Those of us who have a better understanding of what this means in terms of crop and dollar losses to western farmers do not take the subject of grasshoppers lightly. I can assure Hon. Members that we are very concerned about it for a couple of reasons. One is that there are some early indications of a possibility of a larger infestation of grasshoppers in the crop year of 1985 than in that of last year. It will, of course, depend on weather conditions. If we happen to have an early and dry spring and a dry growing season, larger infestations of grasshoppers will be encouraged.
We are looking at this very closely. We are working closely with the provincial Governments. We have formed a federal-provincial committee of research scientists across western Canada. They are putting together a system to give a weekly update on the situation. Farmers in western Canada will have a contact point where they can obtain the latest update on grasshopper numbers. In Canada we have 10 licensed effective chemicals which can be used. We are watching the situation
Western Grain Stabilization Act very closely. We hope that the early indicators will not materialize.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry raised some questions which I do not think are legitimate. He asked why the subject of agriculture is not front row and centre at the First Ministers' conference which is about to conclude in Regina. A First Ministers' conference has not been held in this country since 1982. The main focus of the conference is the financial climate and economy of the country as well as interest rates and job creation. The problems in the agricultural industry and the importance of the industry in terms of the general economy and of job creation have been raised, as we would expect they would be, by provincial Premiers attending the meeting. To a large extent the agricultural industry depends on the general state of the economy.
There was some complaint that agriculture was only mentioned once in the Throne Speech. It was not a shopping basket approach. There were two very definite and strong commitments by the Government to the agricultural industry in the Throne Speech. The Government is fulfilling the commitments it made to the agricultural industry during the campaign in a very rapid fashion.
There have been concerns about what may happen to the Canadian farm economy as a result of certain actions which may or may not be taken by the U.S. Government through its farm Bill. Due to my responsibilities, I feel I should be the first to indicate that that matter concerns me very much. I doubt very much whether the U.S. Government will be able to carry out some of the indications which are flowing out of that country. There are large stockpiles of commodities in the U.S. If the financial support now in place is withdrawn, it will create very severe ramifications in the international marketplace. It is obvious that will have detrimental effects on the Canadian agricultural economy. I doubt very much whether some of these predictions will materialize to the extent that we think they might at the moment. There is no doubt, however, that they will follow more aggressive export sales promotion programs in the international market. We must be prepared to provide the same types of effective, aggressive and successful export programs to compete in the international market-place.
I can assure the Hon. Member that officials of my Department and officials of the U.S.D.A. are in contact with each other on almost a daily basis. I have had a number of conversations with U.S. Secretary John Block. My colleague, the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Kelleher), has had discussions with his counterpart in the U.S. We all know that our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has met the President of the United States and will meet him again next month. I am satisfied that these matters will be discussed on those forums. I hope that we can continue to compete on a fair and equitable basis in the international market.
I have perhaps not addressed all of the issues, Mr. Speaker. I am as anxious as anyone else to utilize the time of the House to the greatest advantage. I hope that we have the support of Hon. Members to move this Bill through the House. If there is a technical problem, I hope the motion which I have forwarded

February 15, 1985
Western Grain Stabilization Act to the Chair will be sufficient to allow us to pass this Bill through all stages in order to utilize the earliest opportunity to provide an interim payment to western farmers. If that is the case, as I assume it is, I would like to express my appreciation for the co-operation we have received from all quarters of the House on this legislation.
Mir. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the House agrees with the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) that this Bill be referred to Committee of the Whole instead of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Is that correct?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Wise, for Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mr. Nielsen, moves that Bill C-29, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole. 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, by unanimous consent, the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Marcel Danis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-29, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act. Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Chairman, this is the time to direct questions to the Minister if we desire to have this particular clause explained. Since the Bill does not indicate a percentage, is it the Minister's intention to provide approximately 50 per cent of the estimated pay-out? I assume that some preliminary calculations have been made. Approximately what would be the expected pay-out?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, that is a very legitimate question. I am not in a position at the moment to give the Hon. Member a definite answer.


Mr. Benjamin:: Give us a guess.


John Wise: Thank you for the invitation. I can make a guess. The safeguard is so that we will obtain as much information as possible. To avoid risking making an overpayment, we will take that information back to Cabinet where the actual assessment and decision will be made. We are told that we will be supplied with a fair amount of information which should be sufficiently reliable to make an intelligent decision, so we can make a reasonable payment but with the assurance that it would not potentially be an overpayment.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Would the Minister state whether the advisory board to the stabilization group would be consulted to determine the size of the pay-out? I recognize that the Act is not written in quite the same way as the Wheat Board Act, according to which the Wheat Board itself makes a recommendation to the Minister. The Minister takes this recommendation to Cabinet and with Cabinet approval the Government then accepts responsibility in the event that the initial pay-out for grains is too high.
I do not believe there is any such guarantee in this legislation. Will the advisory committee be utilized? Are there any guarantees against bad guesses so that the fund itself will not bear the burden of a bad guess? How is that approached?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I expect that the advisory committee would indeed be the likely body with which consultations would take place. Indeed, it is there for a variety of reasons and should be very capable of advising the Minister as to what appropriate action could be taken. I would expect that it would be one of many groups that would be consulted. It would have an opportunity to give its input.
It is difficult to come up with an appropriate mechanism that would allow for an appropriate payment and, second, to be required to provide a safeguard whereby an overpayment would not take place.
In the absence of some suitable mechanism at the moment, we felt that the information that would come from the industry and would be available through statistics which are gathered by Agriculture Canada would be sufficient for the Cabinet to assume its responsibilities and make a reasonable and intelligent decision.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, does the Minister have a guideline at this point by which he could give us a range of the initial pay-out? Will it be 20 per cent, 50 per cent or 80 per cent of the final pay-out? Are you trying to give half of the pay-out before seeding and the rest when the final calculations are made, or, because of the circumstances this year and the great need for cash, are you looking at an 80 per cent pay-out?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the legitimate reasons behind the Hon. Member's question. At this point I think it would be irresponsible for me to indicate what that particular target would be. There is a rather large amount of money in the fund. Second, there is a very tight cash situation in western Canada. If I mentioned a percentage, I am afraid that it would automatically become a minimum or benchmark. A benchmark for 1985 might not be appropriate for succeeding years.
I have some personal views about this, as does the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. The final decision will be made by Cabinet but it has not been made yet.
I appreciate the information which the Hon. Member seeks and I wish I were in the position to provide it to him at the moment. However, I think it is somewhat premature for me to respond.
February 15, 1985


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I realize from his previous answers that the Minister is somewhat loth to make firm commitments. We have heard the Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board say that it is his intention to have the cheques in the hands of the farmers before seeding. Since it is apparent that the Minister will not tell me a particular date by which he hopes to deliver the cheques, could he be somewhat circumspect and state when he thinks we will start seeding this year?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I think there might be more of a degree of accuracy if the Hon. Member suggested to me the exact seeding date in all regions of western Canada.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Chairman, my question may also concern other clauses. The Minister will remember that many of us in the Opposition last year accused the previous Government of juggling the formula to fit the amount it decided to pay. Is there a specific formula or does one have to be calculated for each payment?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the exact formula with me. I made reference to it in general terms in my speech. It is my understanding that the formula is in place. I do not think there is any juggling or any intention to juggle a formula in future years unless the recommendations flow from the western grain farmers and those recommendations have a great deal of merit and legitimacy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but if my memory serves me rightly the income is calculated on the previous three crop years. If income is below 90 per cent of that three-year average in the current crop year, that figure is the payment. Does the Minister have the figures for the average income for the previous three crop years and what would be the projected income for the current crop year?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I might have that information if I have a little more time to go through my notes. I will be happy to share that information with the Hon. Member if I can find it and it is here.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Agreed, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Chairman, my question follows from one asked by a Member from the NDP, namely that we have promised a pay-out before seeding. Sometimes in southern Alberta when people are seeding they are still plowing snow in northern Alberta. When it is springtime in the Rockies, sometimes people are still cleaning snow off their sidewalks 100 miles east of the Rockies. Different crops require different seeding times. It is difficult to say that we will do it all before May 24. We used to take as a rule of thumb that we have to have our potatoes and our wheat in by May 24. The varieties of wheat have changed and the varieties of potatoes have changed and that rule of thumb is not applicable now, but there is a deadline.
Western Grain Stabilization Act
Let us try to get the pay-out ahead of any seeding, well ahead of time because it is not simply the buying of the seed or the fuel, et cetera; there is machine repair and lots of preparation. Farmers require that money very badly this year. Many of our farmers are living from hand to mouth at the present time. Many people think farmers are really well off but farmers are going through a difficult and critical time in their history. We should make an effort to keep all of our good farmers. The ones having difficulties are mostly the young ones. Let us keep our good young farmers on the land. They will be essential to Canada, especially in the future.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I want to place on the record that I never argue with representations made by the Hon. Member for Bow River.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I want to come back to the calculations again, Mr. Chairman. I understand the regulations are viewed with the cost production factor in the formula. They have been changed or they were changed in the last calculations that were done in June, or after June.
Would it be possible for the Minister to provide us with the formula and the regulations by which the cost of production is reached so we can have some insight into the process by which the Government is going to reach that level or the level that will be decided upon?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have any objection to that at all when I have the information available to me. There was some reference in an earlier question to the fact that the formula was based on the net cash flow for the previous three years. The information I have is that through stabilization payments they protect the net cash flow from the sale of seven major grains in western Canada-and we know what grains they are-from falling below the average net cash flow for the immediate preceding five-year period.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Do you have those Figures?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, we have heard some questions now about the pay-out side. I would like to ask the Minister some questions relating to the input side. My own information indicates that at the end of 1983 there was about $884 million in the Western Grain Stabilization Fund. This last year there was a pay-out somewhere in excess of $223 million which would bring the fund to the level of less than $600 million. The normal levies on federal participation and producer participation add another $130 million a year. In the Minister's opening statement, he indicated that he felt that the total pay-out by July could amount to some $800 million. I believe that was the figure he was using. In any event, it was pretty close to that.
Would the Minister tell us what the current state of the fund is? What would be the levies provided to the producers and what would be the federal contribution to that? What would be the estimated state of the fund at the end of the pay-out period next summer?

February 15, 1985
Western Grain Stabilization Act


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I can provide the Hon. Member with accurate information on that without some additional time. I believe the fund is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $900 million. I am not certain whether that $900 million was before the final payment of $123 million. The fund earns interest, of course. The information I have is that as of December 31, 1984, the balance was about $900 million. As a result of the drought on the Prairies last summer, producer marketings were expected to be down to six or seven million tonnes this crop year; thus a substantial western grain stabilization payment is expected to be triggered in the 1984-85 crop year under the total net cash flow calculation. Producers who had poor crops in 1984 require additional cash flows to enable them to seed their crops in the spring.
I do not believe the actual levy has changed where the contribution is 1.5 per cent of grain sales. If you look at the total picture, Mr. Chairman, the contribution is $1 for a producer and a $2 contribution by the federal Government.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the Minister may have some problem providing the immediate figures. The point of the question concerns the state of the fund at the end of the pay-out period. It has an implication for the producers in terms of the amount of the levy. Again we are potentially caught in the squeeze between putting out on the one side and having to take on the other. Because of the substantially lower crop and sales expectation, the amount paid into the fund is on a smaller base and therefore may require a higher levy.
Part of the question is whether there would be consideration in the form of a moratorium on the level of payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Fund at this point in time so that we are not taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another in the same period, and therefore not giving that much benefit back to farmers at this time when the squeeze is on.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member raises a very legitimate question and one which has occupied a fair amount of discussion to this point in time. We recognize it is public knowledge that the fund is fairly sizeable. It is recognized that we have a responsibility because we have had numerous requests for us to make an interim payment by grain producers who have contributed to that fund. At the same time we recognize that we would want to be responsible in making that decision in such a way that a reasonable payment could be made to the farmers so as to put as much cash in their hands as early as possible and also to signal a greater degree of confidence. If cash was not placed in their hands, perhaps a greater measure of credit could be extended to them. We want to do it in a balanced way so that the actual fund is properly utilized, we do not run the risk of overpayment or of depleting the fund and we do not run the risk of having to increase levies.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I have one final question in this respect. I have had some experience in the past with Finance Ministers who were very touchy about the question of
cash flows and relative levels of financing of different projects. I want to raise with the Minister what could be a difficult equation. Perhaps he will be faced with it. I should like to seek some assurances.
We in the House have heard that the Government is intending to bring forward a Budget in April or May, depending upon whose version of events one listens to. Let us say that the Budget will be brought forward this spring. We are now engaged in passing authority for interim payments. The final calculation will not take place until July 31. Therefore, we are in a position where, in a sense, the fiscal framework and allocations will be set in the Budget in the spring, before the calculation on the Western Grain Stabilization Fund has been set. There is a potential shortfall, certainly in terms of the actual federal contributions out of consolidated revenues.
Would the Minister assure us in terms of the budgetary process and the fiscal framework that sufficient funds will be set aside to ensure that full payments will be made, that the fund is considered stable, that it will maintain liquidity at the same time and that it will not affect the rate of levy to producers? The rate of levy to producers could be affected if the opposite happened; that is, if the Minister of Finance put forward a Budget, set the fiscal framework and then had the fund do its final calculations for July 31, realizing that higher levels of payment were required and therefore requiring a draw on more funds. This is a fairly important question, and we really need the assurance of the Minister in that respect.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, let me utilize this opportunity to correct the record. I think I referred to a two and one breakdown as far as contributions were concerned. I have been advised that this indeed was the case commencing January 1, 1984. Since then it has been 1.5 per cent for producers and the Government's contribution has been increased to 2.5 per cent.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry challenges us. Actually that is the challenge we face. There is somewhat of a risk if we want to provide an interim payment. I can assure him and other Hon. Members of the House that every precautionary step which can be taken will be taken to prevent us from getting into that situation. However, as a Government and because of our interest in the agricultural industry, if we find ourselves in a position where we have to accept our responsibilities as a result of some miscalculation, misjudg-ment or something of that nature, we will be as prepared to accept our responsibilities under those conditions, which we hope do not happen, as we are today.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a series of informational questions. If the Minister does not have the information, perhaps he could forward it to me or give it to the House in the future. That would be acceptable.
Could he tell us how much is in the fund right now, the balance? How much interest are we collecting on that fund from the Government?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The rate.
February 15, 1985


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The rate of interest, yes. The levy was lowered for farmers about three years ago. I am just wondering about the process. Is it lowered by recommendation of the committee, or how is that decision reached? For instance, if we are getting short, is there a chance that it will be raised again? Finally, with the smaller crop this year, what is the expected amount of the levy pay-in?


John Wise: I do not have all that information available to me at the moment, but I have no hesitation in providing it to the Hon. Member at a later date.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bissonnette that Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-23. Even though a 10-minute period for speeches is provided now, there are a number of things I want to say.
First, I support the Bill wholeheartedly because it will continue to be a boon to small-businessmen. Second, the situation faced by small-businessmen in Canada indicates that the Bill is badly needed.
We have heard some Hon. Members of the Liberal Party say that the Bill should be withdrawn, divided or thrown out. That would be a real slap in the face, to put it colloquially, for small-businessmen in Canada. They need this Bill. The fact that the money has already run out indicates that we need additional legislative authority to continue until March 31.
Every Member of the House who wants small business to progress should be in favour of moving this Bill forward as quickly as possible in line with full debate. If the Bill is delayed unduly, it means that some businessmen will not receive loans as there is no money left in the fund and it has to be supplemented by the $300 thousand which was mentioned by the Hon. Minister.
Some Hon. Members indicated that it was much better in 1981-82 and in 1983-84. I cannot see how this is so. Certainly it did a reasonably good job but there were defaults and deficiencies which should now be corrected. I believe this Bill will correct some of the things which have been discovered. The number of small businesses which went bankrupt in 1981 amounted to 8,005-8,005 businesses went out of business and into receivership or bankruptcy. In 1982, 10,765 businesses
Small Businesses Loans Act
went into bankruptcy. In 1983, there were 10,260. When Liberal Members say that this Act should be withdrawn, in light of that experience I do not think we would be assisting the small businessman.
No one on this side of the House thinks we should be giving hand-outs to small or large businesses, but there is a place for government money in order to keep businesses going such as seed money and other supplementary money. That enables a businessman to continue. Otherwise he may have gone into bankruptcy or receivership. During the last three or four years, that money often was not available because there were too many restrictions on getting the money.
Let us look at the small business bond, for example. When the Clark Government was in power, the small business bond was welcomed by the people with open arms. When the Liberal Government took over, people had to be in dire straits before they could get the money. That put the kibosh on that wonderful program.
There was a provision in the Act which said that loans could be made up to $500,000. I know a businessman who did not want to borrow any more than he had to. He borrowed $250,000. Due to rising prices and interest rates, which rose to the maximum during that period, he found he could not operate. When he returned for another loan, he was told, "We cannot do it". He was only permitted one loan. Even though he only borrowed half the amount, they would not loan the balance.
I went to the then Minister, the Hon. Allan MacEachen, and pointed that out. He said he would fix that. He agreed that the man should get the $500,000. I pointed out that he may want only another $100,000. He said he would look after this, but the departmental officials did not do that. I had the Minister's word verbally and by letter saying that he would arrange for the balance of that money, but he did not do it. What happened? Over 20 people lost their jobs. The business is now like a ghost. There are empty sheds.
I want to deal with one or two other points. Ten minutes is just not enough time. Are you signalling me that I have one minute remaining, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has 20 minutes in which to speak.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You were pointing one finger and that made me nervous.
I want to deal with another item that was raised by a number of Liberal Members. I hope we can put their fears to rest. Some objected to the banks being responsible for any part of the losses. I do not follow that. All the losses would then be borne by the people, not by the banks. We would have a situation where the banks make the profit, maybe not as much as with normal loans because this has to be prime plus, and did all the arranging, and if there was any loss, the people of the country had to pay, that is, the government.

February 15, 1985
Small Businesses Loans Act
When the banks make a profit, they should be responsible for some of the loss. That is very reasonable. I would like to see it go beyond what this Bill says. It will not be changed in this fiscal year. After April 1,10 per cent of the losses will be paid by the banks. Why should that not be? They make the profit, why not be responsible for some of the loss? They made the contract. They might then make a more careful examination when making loans.
It is not right to say that people must pay the whole loss and the banks make all the profit. I do not go for that at all. I support this Bill which says the Government will pay 90 per cent and the banks 10 per cent. That is going the second mile, having the banks going for 10 per cent. I suppose the idea is to encourage the banks to make the loans, to look after needy cases. We will have to see how it works out. Certainly the other method did not work very well.
Let us look at the facts. In 1977, $96 million was lent and there were losses of $600,000. That was not too bad. However, let us look at 1984 when $900 million was lent and there was a loss of $43 million. The people had to pay that $43 million loss. Not only were the businesses lost, but the people lost $43 million and the banks lost nothing. They had their profit. I do not think that is a good record. No wonder the present Government says the banks should pay for part of the loss. That is right. I support it fully.
Another new feature in this Bill is that if the banks are going to make all the profit, they should pay a fee. If I were to go hunting and have the pleasure of hunting, I would have to pay for a licence. Nobody would give me the licence. I would pay for it. If I buy a car, I have to pay for a licence before I can operate it. Here the bank has the privilege of lending the money, with the Government picking up any losses and the bank paying absolutely nothing. We now say there will be a 1 per cent fee.
I suppose there is the danger of that fee being passed on to the borrower, but the Act will look after that. The banks cannot pass that 1 per cent fee on to the borrower. It will come out of the profits of the banks. It is about time the banks started paying some of these things instead of just taking all the time. I do not see anything wrong with the 1 per cent of the amount of the loan being charged, especially when it cannot be passed on. That will bring in revenue, which will compensate for some of the losses the people are taking. That is right and proper. Therefore, I support the Bill with regard to those points.
1 would now like to deal with the effect this will have on jobs. That is a very important item. Everything we do should consider those who are not receiving a pay cheque at the end of the week or the end of the month. The wife and children are under stress and strain because there is no pay cheque coming in. They may receive UIC, but that is only temporary. They cannot live a normal life. It is a tremendous help, but when that closes off, what do they have? All they are left with is welfare. That varies almost from municipality to municipality and certainly in every province. In some places it is reasonably good and in other places it is bad and the people barely exist.
An elderly citizen told me that for the last three days of the month he has soup and bread, and that sometimes he has to go without the soup and just have dry bread. In this country there should be a reasonable floor for our people. Whether you live in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, or the Northwest Territories, you are a Canadian. The standard of living should at least be at a certain level. Whether you work or cannot work, whether you are on compensation of welfare, there should be a reasonable level, one that entitles you at least to live.
The truth is that most people want to work. They want to be independent. Many people would like to work but cannot find jobs, and this is particularly so for those in small communities who cannot commute to the cities in which some jobs are available. Therefore, we would like to see some jobs created through this Bill as well.
In my view, keeping our small businesses viable is one of the best ways of creating jobs in this country. I like the idea of small business. I like the idea of a proprietor, his wife and his family making the decisions. There are no boards of directors, large corporation lawyers or chartered accountants. It is only the man, his wife and his children who make the decisions, and if they make wrong decisions, they take the flak. Most times, their decisions are right because they are made in light of all the factors in that particular community.
One of the great highlights of free enterprise is that the proprietors make the decisions themselves rather than the Government and the chartered accountants. The man who has the money invested in that business makes his decisions, and he makes them in the best interests of his family and his community because he must live in the community and he must look after his family.
Every successful loan we make under this Act will provide jobs for more Canadians, including young people, women and men. There are small businesses in every community across the country right from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Newfoundland to Victoria, from the 49th parallel to the Arctic Circle. There are people in those communities who need jobs. We are getting right down to the grass roots where the money is being utilized in the area in which the people live. There is a place for big businesses which can hire as many as 2,000 people. That is fine, but we still need the small businesses to look after employment in our communities throughout the country. Therefore, this Act is a job-creating Act.
A businessman who does not need the money will not borrow it. He will not pay prime plus 1 per cent when he does not need the money. If he has enough capital to keep going, then he keeps going. It is the man who is on the verge of failure or the man who wants to expand his successful business, provide more jobs, make more money and contribute to the nation who needs help.
I spoke to a man who lives in Black Diamond. He told me that he owned the empty lot that sat right beside the business he operates. He said, "I would like to build another building
February 15, 1985

on that lot. It would provide another eight or 10 jobs during construction and another three or four permanent jobs in this community. However, I am not going to do it". I asked him why this was so. He said, "Well, in the first place, no provision is made for a man of my capacity, a small businessman, to borrow money. I have to go to the bank and borrow at a high rate". He did not know about the Small Businesses Loans Act. It would have fit right into his plans. He went on to say, "Another reason for this is that I will work my fingers to the bone for my wife and my children but I will not work my fingers to the bone and then pay it all out in capital gains taxes when I pass away or retire".
Another thing we must do is to set the capital gains tax at a sensible level-nil. It is killing initiative today and is keeping businesses from expanding. It is stopping those who want to retire on the nest-egg they have built over the last 50 years from retiring because the Government will grab a percentage of half of it leaving them without enough to continue. Well, that is another Act, Mr. Speaker. However, it shows what small business can do if it is given the proper incentive.
That brings me to the last point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, and that is that I think the Government has a responsibility to create a climate that will encourage people to invest. People say that Canadians have more money in the banks than any other people on the face of the earth. I do not know whether it is true or not, but if it is true or only partly true, then that money could be invested in ways that would pay bigger returns than bank interest rates or Canada savings bonds and people would be investing their money. When we invest money, we provide jobs. When we invest money, we increase the productivity of the country so that we can implement a good welfare program.
This tremendous economy of ours is all wrapped up together. We have a country with tremendous resources. We live in a country with tremendous people. All we need to do is put our resources and our people together, give them the wherewithal to convince the small businesses across this nation to invest, and we will make a big dent in the number of unemployed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I once again have the pleasure of rising to participate in debate on a Friday afternoon. I am pleased to do so when we are discussing a Bill that is as important to the small business community as this one.
I was quite taken aback and almost struck speechless by the opening comments of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), an Hon. Member to whom I have listened on many occasions. In his opening elocution, he indicated that he was in favour of government doing something for the private sector on some occasions. That was such an incredible reversal and radical turnaround from the multitude of statements and comments I have heard the Hon. Member make over the years that I thought that it may have been caused by something he ate for lunch. Perhaps he had a conversion on the road to Tarsus. However, I could not believe my ears. He was actually saying that the Government itself, that nasty, horrible, evil
Small Businesses Loans Act
engine of destruction, would do something positive and constructive. I do not know whether that was a momentary lapse or whether he got carried away with his enthusiasm for supporting a mechanism of small businesses loans administration that was brought in and amended over the years by various Liberal Governments which saw the wisdom of having a program that would support small businesses in this country.
I was glad to see that by the end of his speech, he had reverted to form and was once again using his powers of erudition to flagellate government and extol the private sector.
I think the key question we are facing in this debate is whether or not the amendments proposed by the Government will assist small business. I have not heard anyone argue against helping small business. The key question in this regard is whether or not the specific amendments being discussed in the House provide for the necessary changes. Obviously the extension of the loan guarantees are an improvement and one to which I look forward. However, when I look at the other two components of the Bill, I find myself scratching my head.
I have heard that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is off in Regina on his "grope and tell" session with the Premiers and they are all extolling the benefits of small business. However, we have in front of us an Act which, in very simple terms, will make it more difficult for small business to receive loans from the banks, chartered companies and trust companies. The question is, why is the Government doing that? Why would it deliberately go out of its way to make a change in the Act that will make it more difficult for small business to obtain loans? That opinion is held not only by members of the Opposition but has been widely expressed by members of the Federation of Small Business and by others in business. They simply say that by reducing the loan guarantee to 90 per cent and by charging a fee, the Bill makes it far less attractive for the lending institutions to provide the loans that are necessary. Surely that is a mystery. It is a conundrum. The Conservative Government, which believes, in the very depths of its theological soul, that private business is important, is putting additional barriers in the way of small business achieving its purpose. Frankly, I have no one who can give a plausible explanation for that other than the Hon. Member for Bow River who said that it is up to the banks to share in whatever losses may occur.
There may be some justice in the banks sharing the burden, but surely that is not the point of the Small Businesses Loans Act. The Act is to help small business invest, expand, and modernize to produce more and create more jobs. Contrary to every public statement, when it comes down to action, the Conservative Government is more dominated by a cost-cutting chartered accountant's view of the world than it is by a growth philosophy which would give small business a change. It only makes sense. If the Government is going to make it available to the banks at prime rate-and that would be the result of charging the 1 per cent user fee-then the banks will not give that kind of privileged opportunity to small business. The

February 15, 1985
Small Businesses Loans Act
banks will not give small business the advantage which was previously offered by the Act.
It is interesting that John Bulloch and Members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business are saying that if the user fee is going to be charged, then it could be passed on to the borrower. That is a possibility which the Government should have examined. A strange mentality has taken hold of the Government. It must show a better balance on its own accounting sheets, as opposed to the larger question of national accounts, in terms of the over-all economic performance which involves jobs, growth, expansion and development. It is the primary responsibility of every Government to measure the economy by the total number of indicators and not only use what shows up in the calculations of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). It is that curious finance mentality that the Government somehow thinks it is doing something useful if it shows that it has reduced the costs on the outlays when the Estimates are tabled. It does not matter that it will reduce small business growth, expansion and job creation. That does not seem to be important. What is important to the Government is an impression that somehow it has taken action and reduced deficits or cut back on the Estimates. It does not matter what damage it has done, what negative impact it has created, or the fact that growth has been retarded. That is a very dangerous precedent. It is a very serious problem, because if that is the mentality which drives and motivates members of the Ministry-and I am not talking about the back-benchers because they have said that they believe in small business-we are going to have a very difficult time over the next four years until a new Government assumes power. That Government will have a more positive point of view. This Government is putting anchors on the legs and wheels of small business.
I would like to talk about some interesting comparisons which have been made between small business growth in the United States and Canada. Several surveys and studies were done by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion a year ago which indicated that Canada has approximately the same rate of small business creation as does the United States. However, there is one very major difference. In the United States, when a small business reaches a certain level of development, it has a much easier time becoming a medium or a large business. Small businesses in the United States have a take-off point. They are able to expand their markets, activities and, in particular, they are able to provide more jobs. In Canada, small business hits a dead zone. Canada has a much lower rate of small business upgrading, improving and expanding. Canadian small businesses tend to hit a level whereby they are no longer able to expand their activities. If we asked why, it comes down to the greater difficulty small business in Canada has in achieving venture capital for expansion and development. Canada has a more rigid financial market and less flexibility in the operation of capital markets as they apply to small business.
That is particularly true in western Canada which does not have many large corporations. I would say it is also shared in the Atlantic provinces. Small business forms the business
community there and it is what drives the economy in the West.
A recent survey was done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in the western region, and the major complaint of small business was the reduction in the financial system, especially with respect to the chartered banks. I have argued previously in the House that one of the most important initiatives we could take is a form of deregulation of the financial institutions to provide more opportunity for the caisses populates, credit unions and the smaller financial institutions which are locally based to expand their lending power and capacity. For example, small business in western Canada has indicated that the chartered bank system, with its rigid insistence on high levels of collateral, has become a frustration and a deterrent to small business development. There is a very clear and compelling argument that we must reorganize our financial system to allow for a much broader and more flexible flow of capital into small business for a wide variety of purposes. It is also important in the range of financial instruments which are offered by federal and provincial Governments.
A major problem-and it is a complaint which has been registered in previous lending practices, and particularly now under the new program of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion-is that the service sector is totally ignored. The Economic Council of Canada in its 1984 report entitled Western Transition, indicated that one of the potential areas of real growth in the West was in the service sector. Yet that sector finds it far more difficult to receive financial backing and support from the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, the IRDP, the FBDB, and other institutions which provide financial assistance. It is clearly the time for a major reform of both the private financial institutions and the federal and provincial lending institutions to deregulate, expand and make more flexible their offerings.
Over the past five or six months we have seen several actions which have contradicted that approach. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) radically changed IRDP. That is the major grant program for business. He has basically wiped out the opportunity for small business to get loans because the tier 1 allocation was removed. All small businesses in the major cities of Canada as well as in many other areas, were wiped out. Assistance is no longer available for expansion, modernization or renovation. Federal assistance to tourism has been removed. Tourism is a major service sector which provides incredibly labour-intensive job activity. The federal Government has withdrawn from that area. In that one act, the Government, which says it believes in small business, has eliminated a major area of support to small business. The Government will not tell us the reason and we are now seeing a major disparity between promises and action.
In addition, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion brought in the Investment Canada Bill. That Bill established thresholds, and the Government put the small business community into a real danger of being taken over by foreign investors. You do not have to take my word for it. Two days
February IS, 1985

ago we had the Conference Board of Canada, which represents the business community, saying the very same thing in committee. The question was asked: Do the present screening requirements under Investment Canada represent a threat to small business in the form of takeovers? They said, yes, and it should be amended to change that. The same Minister has, in his Investment Canada Bill, a further barrier to the expansion and development of small business. Now we have these amendments by the same Minister to the Small Businesses Loans Act which again puts up barriers. If you go back to the biblical injunction of being known by your actions, not by your words, then we have to say that this Government, because of its actions, clearly does not believe it should be giving assistance to small business. Never mind the rhetoric, the Fine speeches, look at the actions. It has eliminated IRDP loans and assistance for small businesses on tier one. It has eliminated grants for tourism. It has changed the Investment Canada procedures so that small businesses are now threatened by takeovers without screening or review. Then we have the imposition, under this Act, of user-fee requirements and a change in the loan guarantee provision, which means that private lenders will find it more difficult to give loans to small business. Logic and argument indicate we can only conclude that this is a Government which thinks that by smoke-screening, public relations, fine rhetoric and the spinning of homey phrases it can convince people of one thing, but the harsh reality as indicated by its actions in this House is that the Government is not a friend of small business. Certainly the Minister is not because every single thing he has done has worked against their interests.
I think this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we have come to a very profound realization. The Conservative Government and the platforms upon which the Conservatives built, and the thousands of chamber of commerce speeches they have made, cannot be trusted. The Government does not live up to its promises. Furthermore, the small business community is being hoodwinked. In fact, what is far more dominant is this mythology and mentality that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the Minister of Finance are showing neater calculations on their cost accounting sheets. That is what their objective is, not to create growth, opportunity or development.
The Hon. Member for Bow River asks why several Members of Parliament are saying that the Bill should be withdrawn. The reason is that it does not do what it should do, that is, to provide assistance and encouragement to our small business community to expand and provide job creation. It is bad legislation. Surely the Conservative back-benchers at their next caucus meeting should take the Minister off into a corner and whisper some words of wisdom in his ear. Not that he is going to listen very much. They should tell him that they are getting tired of this business. They are the ones who are exposed. They are making speeches in favour of small business, but they are going to be exposed as hypocrites because their Government is betraying them. Every single thing they do
Small Businesses Loans Act
works in contradiction to the interests of the small business community.


David Kilgour: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Axworthy: Now we have them concerned, Mr. Speaker.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know very well that the word "hypocrite" has been ruled as being an unparliamentary word. I ask that he withdraw that word from the record.


An Hon. Member:: It is not.


David Kilgour: The word "hypocrite" Sir, is unparliamentary.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would defer to the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) and-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair rules that the words mentioned by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) are parliamentary, therefore he may continue.


David Kilgour: Are parliamentary?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, they are.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can check Beauchesne, and in the meantime I will finish my speech.
Whether it is hypocritical or not, the fact remains that Conservative Members of Parliament are in danger of having their intentions subjected to some degree of skepticism because I believe their Government is betraying them. I say that with all my sympathy and with the intent to provide constructive encouragement and advice. They should change that Bill because no one in the small business community is going to thank them for having supported legislation which works against what they are trying to achieve. That is the hard reality they will have to face. All the brave promises that were made before September 4 are now being dashed to dust in the ground. This is a Government of big business, and that is the hard reality. All this consultation has not taken into account what the small business community is really saying. If this is a Government which really believed in consultation and in following advice, then why does it not change the Bill as small business has asked them to do? It is very simple. They said the user-fee will have a very serious deterrent effect on the provision of loans.
All we in opposition can do is to point out the fallacies and foibles and fumblings before us. We do not have the power to change them. That is why we are here this afternoon saying to those members of the government Party that they should take a hard look at this legislation and realize that they are doing no good. They are not providing any assistance or encouragement to small business. Therefore, the small business community will not be able to take advantage of opportunities to get the kind of capital it needs in order to expand and grow. That is really the message in this Bill. However, I hope that in this debate we will be able to ensure that by the time it gets to committee, the Minister will have come to his senses, will

February 15, 1985
Small Businesses Loans Act
listen to some of the good advice, and will make the amendments that are absolutely necessary to make this a good Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments?


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) did not want to mislead the House or anyone who may have been listening to his comments. He talked about the user-fee and putting impediments in the way of the small business development bond. He would recognize, and I am sure admit, that the small business development bond, when it was first introduced, was just that, a bond to help small business develop. When his Government got hold of it over the past four years, it became a rescue bond. It was no longer used for small business development, but, rather, as a bail-out bond, particularly over the last few years. It was a survival mechanism. The Government said it was not going to use it as a development bond any more. As a result, losses on the bonds became extremely high because we took away from the banks the discretionary use of the bond, as should be the case with good and normal planning practices in businesses.
What we are doing is putting some of the onus back on the banks. We are saying to them that they are going to lend the money and we are going to guarantee it, but there is a chance for a 10 per cent loss if they make a bad judgment. We no longer want to use this as a bail-out bond; we want to use it as a development bond. Surely the Hon. Member would understand that, would he not?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, let me provide the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) with two different kinds of answers, both of which I know he will find satisfactory. First, his description of the use of the Small Businesses Loans Act is not accurate.
If he goes back to the latest figures of the uses made of the money, he will find that in the year ending December 31, 1983, $70 million was used for fixed equipment, $408 million for moveable equipment, $76 million for improvement of premises, $35 million for construction of buildings, $85 million for purchase of buildings, and $14 million for the purchase of land. None of that is for bail-outs. It is for improvement, expansion, modernization and development. The basic purpose of the Small Businesses Loans Act is to give a small business entrepreneur, who sees an opportunity for a new business development, the necessary capital to make those choices. Those figures are in the small business loans report.
Mr. John Bulloch, who is known as a good friend of the Conservative Party and is the President of the Canadian Federation of Business, said that the Government would be crazy to make the banks pay the fee. We are trying to make that same point. He said that if we want to pass the user-fee on to the borrower we should examine that possibility. He said that taking the 1 per cent user-fee reduces the bank return to prime and, therefore, they will not make the loans. If the Government wants to recapture its fee and put it on the level
of the borrower, as Mr. Bulloch seems to be suggesting, it should look at that option. However, do not introduce an instrument into the Bill which will make it more difficult for a small business person to get a loan. The loan is the important thing. If the banks cannot get a return they will not provide the capital. They would prefer to make convertible loans or provide for a take-over or acquisition under the new Investment Canada Bill, or make some equally questionable use of the money.
It is the actual prescription of the Bill which is at fault. That is where the change should be made. That is why it is important to continue this debate. If Members on both sides of the House can be convinced of this by the time we get to committee, there may be a willingness to make that change.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, for the life of me I cannot understand why the Liberal Party is sticking up for the banks rather than for small businessmen. If the banks were doing their job a Bill such as this would not be necessary. They would be lending the money to worth-while small businesses. In this Bill we are telling the banks that we will pick up 90 per cent of the losses and that they can have all the profit and pay nothing. I do not think the banks are such poor corporate citizens that they will not make loans. It is in their interest to make loans. They will make the profit, not the Government. The Government will take up 90 per cent of the loss. The Government is the people. Surely a bank will not refuse to lend money for a sound investment because it will have to pay a 1 per cent fee. If banks are that bad, we should change the Bank Act. Part of the business of banks is to provide capital for business. This Act is a supplement. Surely they can pay 1 per cent on the loans when they are making prime plus 1 per cent.
I do not think the Hon. Member will get much support from businessmen in small towns by making such statements as he has here. You will find that the banks will be anxious to lend money. If I was in the business and could make 12.1 per cent, I would gladly pay a fee of 1 per cent. That would be wonderful. I might as well go into that kind of business. I disagree entirely.
The only parliamentary response that I cam make to the Hon. Member's suggestion that the Government is betraying the small businessman is to say, baloney. Small businessmen elected 211 Members on this side because they lost faith in what the Liberals were doing. They have confidence in the Government. We are building a climate in which they can invest their money and make a dollar. I will stand anywhere and support this Bill. The people are supporting it too. If the Liberal Party is trying to build up from the grass roots, it had better get some policies that appeal to the common people rather than only to the bankers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we have just now seen another prime example of Tory delusion. They love to use these words of rhetoric. They love to say that they believe in all these fine upstanding things. However, we are talking about action. I
February 15, 1985

suggest that the Hon. Member for Bow River read his own legislation. He should look at what the Government has proposed. He says that it is what the people want. I would suggest that he go back to his office and read the report of statements by the Canadian Federation of Small Business. It is opposed to that position in the Bill. John Bulloch, the President of the Federation, says that the banks, which have a number of competing demands upon their capital, need an incentive because small business does not offer the same degree of security.
The Hon. Member was obviously not paying much attention to my speech, although he should have been. I said that if the Government wants to be bold, it should introduce major programs to deregulate the financial system. It should give a lot more opportunity and flexibility because the chartered banks do have too much power. I have been arguing that for two years. I was the person who deregulated the airlines, which brought a lot more competition to that industry. I believe in that.
Do not tell me that this Bill will somehow help the small business community. It simply means that it will not have the necessary capital. If you are simply waiting for a major reform of the banking system, that is fine, but do not put a handicap in the way of small business in the meantime. That is exactly what the Government is doing. I suggest that before speaking, Hon. Members should read their own legislation.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this Bill because, although it is not perfect, I think it is better to pass it and get on to other legislation. The objections which I have heard do not carry much weight in light of recent years. I will explain that point further. I would like to make a couple of other points first.
I take it that this Bill is being slightly updated to take inflation into account. The total insurable amount is being raised by $300 million, which I hope will make it more widely used. It probably just keeps up with inflation. The maximum size of a business to be considered a small business is raised from $1.5 million to $2 million. That again is to keep up with inflation. It is a necessary housekeeping amendment.
The extension of the length of loans to five years will give some people a better opportunity to plan than when decisions must be made in a one-year period. The issue of the user-fee and the 90 per cent insurance by the Government with 10 per cent left to the banks has caused a great deal of heat on the part of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), who got so heated up he just evaporated. I can understand his heat because the Government which he represented in past years followed a different policy. Its policy was to give as much as possible to the banks. The banks would then say that they would treat the public well with that money because they are so kind. That did not work. The banks have been shipping their money out of the country by the billions of dollars. They have been taking the largesse given to them by the previous Liberal Governments through the tax system and sending it anywhere but Canada. This money has been used by
Small Businesses Loans Act
them to finance companies like Cadillac-Fairview and Trisac that are now shipping their fortunes to the United States.
The legislation which has provided the banks with 100 per cent insurance and a free agency at the expense of the Government has not helped small business or job creation in Canada. All the benefits have gone to the banks themselves, and small businesses in Spadina have complained that this legislation has not allowed them to get loans from the banks.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry suggests that small businessmen will not be able to get loans from the banks if these changes are made. I suggest that there is no difference because it is only people who have changed sides of the House. The banks' performance will likely be no worse under this legislation than it was under the previous legislation. It will be interesting to see the results because I believe the user-fee is worth trying as an experiment. I suggest it is proper to call it a user-fee by the banks rather than by small business people. It is irrelevant whether the banks will pass it on to the borrower since they have already been doing so with the blessing of both this Government and the previous Government by jacking the rates up as high as the market would bear with absolutely no relation to cost.
The banks do not provide loans on the basis of cost; they do so on the basis of how much the market can bear. Therefore, I suggest that this legislation will not make any difference to the prime rate of interest, which it does not affect at all, or to the availability of loans. While it is suggested that it may increase the loans, the amount of money insurable for loans may increase but it remains to be seen if that will increase the amount of loans that the banks make. The banks' record in this respect has been very poor in the past.
The small business sector makes up a substantial part of our economy and provides over 40 per cent of all business employment. It provides a quarter of the Gross National Product and is almost 100 per cent Canadian-owned. It deserves more attention from the banks than it gets, and the fact is that the banks cause the most problems for small business.
Those businessmen to whom I talk in Spadina tell me that high interest rates and the difficulty of getting a loan when they need it, even with high interest rates, are their main problems. The banks cannot be bothered with processing a loan to small businesses; they prefer to lend to the big corporations. That has not made Canada stronger.
Let me give an example. Approximately six years ago, MacMillan Bloedel took over a section of the Continental Can corrugated box operation where I used to work. It shut down the plant where I had worked for 18 years. Some workers had put 10, 20 and 30 years of their lives into that plant and now they are still walking the streets looking for work. That takeover by MacMillan Bloedel did not create jobs, it destroyed jobs. Eventually MacMillan Bloedel had its own financial crisis and was itself taken over. In other words, this is an example of how the bloating of companies as a result of loans from the big banks is not healthy for Canada. The

February 15, 1985
Small Businesses Loans Act
banking money would be far better directed to the small business community.
Why have past Governments favoured the banks in the tax system and disfavoured the manufacturers where many of the small businesses are to be found? It appears to me that the present Government will follow the same policy. Why must manufacturers pay more than a third of their profits in tax while the banks generally pay less than a quarter of their profits in tax? This is essentially making the small and big manufacturers subsidize the banks.
In fact, in 1982, a couple of banks made $200 million or $300 million each in profits but paid no tax as a result of the generous taxing arrangements of the Government. Not only did they pay no tax, they received $20 million or $30 million in tax rebates.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member indicated at the beginning of his speech that he supported the passage of this Bill at second reading today. Would he consider sitting down, with no one else rising, so that this can happen?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of this Bill being passed so that we can move to other legislation. I will not raise objections to the Bill, but there are others who wish to speak on it after today. I do not intend to support a move to terminate debate on the Bill today. I do intend to make some points that must be made because it is not perfect.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Let's do it in committee.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The point I am making is that the situation is like that of the Irishman who does not like to be kicked with his own boot. The manufacturers in my riding, particularly in the garment and printing industries, do not like their taxes being given to the banks from which they must borrow it back at extortionist rates of interest. The Bill fails to address that issue or even to provide that a certain proportion of the banks' profits be made available by law to small business. Therefore, it is a defective Bill.


Jack Wendele Shields: Let us get it into committee.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Rather than delay it by objecting at this point, I simply want to put certain points on the record. I realize that Members opposite do not want to hear any objections because they favour the banks. However, I believe certain points must be made. The interest payments as a proportion of our economy have been growing like a cancer. During one 16-year period, interest rates grew from 6 per cent to 15 per cent of the Gross National Product. The previous Government refused to consider that problem, but it is one which the present Government should take seriously.
I support the passage of this Bill but I ask that the Government consider some of the effects which I have pointed out. I hope that it will be wiling to consider some amendments similar to what I have suggested when the Bill goes to committee.


Jack Wendele Shields: We will.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I am glad there is some willingness to reconsider this Bill with regard to its defects. I hope Hon. Members intend to allow a full debate on the Bill during second reading, which is the only time when most Members can contribute on general questions of principle.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.\nIndian Self-government", "It being five o'clock, pursuant to order made Wednesday, January 23, 1985 and pursuant to Standing Order 3, this House stands adjourned until Monday, February 25, 1985 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 5 p.m. the House adjourned.", 'Monday, February 25, 1985']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Order No. 27?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from January 22, 1985, consideration of the motion of Mr. Penner:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of promoting Indian self-government by:
1.	Announcing support for an affirmative policy of constitutional recognition of aboriginal self-government;
2.	Pursuing actively, a bilateral process of discussion with representatives of first nations on such issues as self-government, natives claims and the elimination of the extinguishment policy; and
3.	Introducing legislation to recognize first nations self-government which should be developed by means of a joint process and utilization of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on the issue of Indian self-government. As the House will recall, on December 4 the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) moved this motion in the House. It was discussed again on January 22, and it is a pleasure to continue the discussion today.
I should like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior for the dedication which he has shown in pursuit of the interests of the Indians of the country. Over the years I, too, have had the opportunity of working with native people on issues relating to their economic and social development, both in Alberta and in the Northwest Territories. This has provided me with an opportunity to understand their concerns and aspirations.
February 15, 1985

I now have the honour to represent the people of the Squamish Indian band in my riding of Capilano. Over the past months I have had the opportunity on a number of occasions to have discussions with their representatives on issues relating to economic development and Indian self-government as they would apply to that band. I am pleased to advise the House, as it may well know, that the Squamish Indian band is perhaps a model for Indian self-government. The people of that band have shown their ability and commitment to provide for economic betterment and to play an active role in national native politics. They are able to take control and encourage their members to attain economic self-sufficiency while retaining their cultural values and sense of identity.
Obviously things are not perfect and there is much to be done. However that band, like many other bands in the country, deserves increased recognition and responsibilities for its land and its future. I look forward over the coming months and years to discussions about the best way this can be accomplished, understanding that there is differentiation among native bands across the country and each may need to work toward self-government at a different rate and in a different way.
I should like to spend a few minutes today providing some of the context for Indian self-government and to talk a bit about some of the economic issues. Indian self-government, as I understand it, was intended, first, to correct historic wrongs perpetrated by past Governments against the aboriginal peoples of this land. Second, it was intended to help establish a new economic basis from which Indian people could develop in the future. The historical view of this land held by aboriginal peoples is that prior to European exploration and colonization Canada was inhabited by many different indigeneous peoples, organized into political entities and groupings based on common language, culture and history. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 confirmed this view with its reference to "the several nations or tribes of Indians with whom we are connected".
Over the years, however, differing views of history developed. Indian people saw treaties as reaffirmations of their sovereignty and rights or as agreements to allow settlement in certain areas. Non-Indians regarded treaties as an extinguishment of rights, as an acceptance of the supremacy of the Crown or as a gift of land so that Indians might have land of their own. In more recent years there has been a wider acceptance of the aboriginal acceptance of history. Partly it was as a result of court decisions such as that of the Supreme Court of Canada in Colder v. The Attorney General of British Columbia. This 1973 case involved a title claim by the Nishga to an area in northwestern British Columbia. A more recent decision, again in British Columbia, of the Supreme Court in Guerin v. The Queen pointed out the fiduciary duty of the Crown to Indian bands.
Our view of history has also changed as a result of the articulate arguments of aboriginal people on their position at many constitutional meetings and other forums over the last few years, and also as a result of the all-Party Special Com-
Indian Self-government
mittee on Indian Self-government, led by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior, which in its hearings and in its report set out the reasoning for the aboriginal position.
I think the views of Canadians on aboriginal issues are changing for other reasons as well. Past efforts, explicit or implicit, have failed to bring about assimilation. Native groups have continued traditional practices and take pride in their culture. I think we as Canadians now recognize that and are ready to show our full appreciation of it. Also it is very evident that the past approaches to economic development for our native people have failed quite miserably.
I should like to provide some background information on that. For instance, the statistics from 1981 and other recent sources point out the failure of past economic approaches. The educational levels of native peoples are much lower than those non-native. Fifteen per cent of the native population over 15 years of age have less than grade five education, compared with 5 per cent of the rest of the population. Fortunately there are signs of hope in this area. Only 3 per cent of young natives aged 15 to 29 have not gone past grade five, compared with 57 per cent of natives 65 years and older. Changes are taking place. Again I can point to the band in my own riding where there is an increased emphasis upon education and an increased awareness among the parents of the importance of education for young people. There is also a desire that they have some role in that educational process and that part of that process include consideration of their culture and their values.
The incomes of status Indians on reserves are just over half or 54 per cent of those of the non-native population. In 1980 the average income of natives on reserves was $7,100, compared with $13,100 for the non-native population. Incomes for native people as a whole are little better. They are two-thirds of the non-native average.
The employment rates of natives, particularly for those living on reserves, are much lower than for the rest of Canadians. In 1981, half the adult native population was in the labour force, compared with two-thirds of non-natives. For those on reserves, only 42 per cent of the men and 22 per cent of the women were employed.
We all know the circumstance with respect to housing. The housing of native people is often poor. I recall that being the case in some of the areas of Alberta where I worked and in Ontario as well. The 1981 census found that the proportion of homes needing major repair on Indian reserves was nearly one in four compared with one in fifteen for non-native homes. Half the homes on reserves lacked central heating, compared with 9 per cent of non-native homes. Bathrooms were lacking in 30 per cent of on-reserve housing, but in less than 1 per cent of non-native homes. One in three homes on reserves was crowded, compared with one in 43 non-native homes.
When we reflect upon those figures we see some of the difficult social conditions under which many native people on reserves live. They are conducive to some of the problems they experience. Changes in the economic prospects of aboriginal people will not come about easily. They will not come about as

February 15, 1985
Indian Self-government
mere hand-outs by federal or provincial Governments. They will not come about overnight, but I am pleased to say that steps are being taken now by the Government.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) has announced that he is exploring a means of introducing new funding arrangements for Indian bands and tribal councils. Such funding arrangements would enable the bands and councils to decide how best to meet their people's needs, to set their own priorities and to make their own policies within the limitations of current legislation. Thus it is hoped that changes in line with self-government can be implemented soon.
The need for other changes is fully recognized. We need to fund an improved community infrastructure, we need to end the duplication of programs on reserves which result in wasted dollars, and we need to examine the introduction of a system of direct transfer payments. This is now being examined.
As has been said before, we must find a way, in these times of restraint and fiscal responsibility, to provide a level of funding sufficient so that First Nation Governments can provide levels of service on a par with others in Canada, which will allow them to become healthy and productive communities. This can be done only when funds can be expended in accord with their own values and under their own control.
We know the priorities of this Government. The economic revitalization of this country is a major goal of this Government. We have heard what has gone on in Regina over the last two days and how we are looking toward a new harmonization of federal and provincial goals. This revitalization is clearly needed for our aboriginal people as well as for our other citizens. For this reason, the Speech from the Throne which opened this Parliament called on native peoples to be part of the process of building a national economic consensus.
Plans are well under way for the participation of native peoples in the national economic conference scheduled for March 1985. Of course, the next First Ministers' conference on aboriginal constitutional matters will take place in April, 1985.
There is much that will be happening in the future to further our concerns and initiative toward Indian self-government. Hon. Members may be assured that our Government is looking for new approaches to replace the policies which have failed in the past. We are talking to native people and we are seeking their views. We believe that in this spirit of reconciliation, the spirit of harmonization, we will be able to do better. The native people of this country can look forward to a better economic future, a future which takes fully into account their own aspirations.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is to study very thoroughly the question of Indian self-government. It tends to set out general approval for such a move. I was quite moved by the speech we just heard by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) concerning the Government's intention to reconcile the Canadian people and the various competing interests. She
spoke very warmly of the harmonizing of this new approach that is being adopted by this new Government. Given the good feelings and indication from the government Member, now would be a very suitable time for us to send this particular motion to the Standing Committee on Indians Affairs to be acted upon. I will not hold up the House any further. I simply hope that we will pass this on to the appropriate committee at this time.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, as usual it is a pleasure to speak to the House on a Friday afternoon. People have completed their week's work and they are especially attentive to the thoughts that are expressed here. The topic today is one of interest to Members of the House, perhaps of more interest to us who have had the privilege of serving on the joint committee which examined the Canadian Constitution. There are many reasons for those of us who had that privilege why that experience will last in our memories for a long time. The work was important. It proceeded at a fairly rapid pace with a lot of long days and long hours.
Canadians probably remember the work of that committee in a way that is different from the work of all other House of Commons committees because the proceedings were televised. That is the only opportunity Canadians have ever had to watch a joint committee, House committee or Senate committee in action. Many of my constituents told me over the years that they would like to see that experience repeated because they found it educational. They learned a great deal. 1 spoke to many constituents who used to spend their weekends watching the reruns. Of the literally hundreds of witnesses and hundreds of briefs that we received, it was the native people who perhaps had the greatest impact on the Canadian psyche, both because of the quality of their presentations and, to some extent, the frequency of their presentations.
Those short three or four months back in 1980 and early 1981 accomplished a great deal in raising the awareness level of the average Canadian about native people in this country, what their strengths are and could be and what are some of the difficulties that they face. Those were the early days of the serious lobbying done on behalf of the Indian people for a concept that they referred to at that time as Indian selfgovernment.
As a member of the committee, I shared something with the other members of that committee in that we had a great deal of difficulty in understanding what that meant and what the repercussions would be for the Indian people and for the nation as a whole. It speaks to the level of understanding that developed in the committee members that that difficulty which existed for the committee members at the beginning has remained at the end. It was truly a reflection of the difficulty that Indian people were having themselves in understanding what the words meant and what the repercussions would be for them personally and for their place in Canadian society.
I stand here today in the early part of 1985 with the knowledge that the concept has been refined, developed and probably is becoming clearer to a great many Canadians, including the Indian people themselves. I also know that the
February 15, 1985

definition is not complete. It is not a fully defined concept. It is not one that would have instant universal recognition and agreement as to its meaning.
When I look at the motion which we are debating today I find there is a kind of intuitive positive reaction toward its wisdom and the fact that it is probably a good idea. That is the initial reaction. Then we must stand back from it and think it through a second time. We must wonder whether or not it really deals with the right set of words and with the right process. For instance, is a parliamentary standing committee the best body before which such a complex concept may be examined?
Changes in society that are of fundamental importance, and I think constitutional revision is always the kind of change that is of fundamental importance, should never be entered into lightly and should probably not be entered into quickly. Once something is placed in a constitution, then it is difficult to change, so it may be that the quicker it is done, the less likely we are to spot most if not all of the unintended consequences. I think it behooves us as elected Members to be very careful about movements we make in that regard. Any piece of legislation is serious and has repercussions. We should always be careful, but when we move into the constitutional area, we must be especially careful.
In early 1981, the constitutional committee reported back to Parliament. In its report to Parliament, it recommended major changes to the Canadian Constitution as it affected aboriginal peoples. Standing here today, I realize that there has not been sufficient time for all of those changes to work their magic, good or bad, on the situation. In other words, I do not think that Members of Parliament, the Canadian people or the Indian people really understand the long-range implications of that change in the constitutional position.
At the heart of this motion lies an effort to enshrine one more principle in the Canadian Constitution, the principle of Indian self-government. The motion leads us toward that. Yet nowhere do I see a very thorough analysis of what that right might do to the rights which were enshrined when we recently made those constitutional changes. We enshrined the concept of aboriginal rights.
Perhaps I could read into the record those parts of the Act affecting Indian people which came into effect when the Constitution Act was proclaimed in 1982. In section 25, we see that the following was the will of that Parliament and those bodies which signed that Constitution:
The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including
(a)	any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and
(b)	any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of
Canada by way of land claims settlement.
Indian Self-government
Section 35 goes on to say:
(1)	The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
(2)	In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada.
We went further by requiring that a constitutional conference be held within one year. It was the wisdom of Parliament, acting on the advice of a special joint committee which had laboured long and hard and sometimes under very difficult circumstances, to arrive at sets of words and principles that would lock in place something that the aboriginal people indicated to us was important to them and that they wanted. It also set in place a process.
I would like to take a moment or two to examine the process that was set in place. The conference that was required was held in March 1983. It was a First Ministers' conference attended by the two levels of Government that are recognized in the Canadian Constitution, namely, the federal and the provincial. The subject matter was the rights of aboriginal peoples, and they were represented at the table. The federal Government, the provincial Governments and the aboriginal peoples reached some accord and, perhaps more significantly, one of the items on which they agreed was to have a minimum of two further constitutional meetings before April 1987 for the purposes of identifying and defining the rights of aboriginal peoples.
In March 1984, the first of those conferences was held. It was another First Ministers' conference on the rights of aboriginal peoples, and no agreement was reached at that conference last March. The conference dealt with four items: equality rights; aboriginal title and aboriginal rights treaties and treaty rights; land and resources; and aboriginal self-government.
The Hon. Member who moved the motion that is before us today asked us to pursue actively a bilateral process. I suppose those words really twigged me. Because of our desire in the early part of the 1980s to change the Constitution and to enhance the position of aboriginal people in our society, we said that some things were possible and other things must come about through proper process. We decided on the proper process at that time and it involved the federal Government, the provincial Governments and the aboriginal peoples. It was a tripartite process. That tripartite process in the early part of 1985 has not produced the kind of final results that we as members of that committee envisioned back in 1981-82. I do not think I can go the second step and conclude that it will not produce those results. In fact, I believe that it is the most likely kind of process to produce the kind of results that we will be able to support, believe in and make happen in a consensus fashion.
I see this matter as being analogous to so many things that we have in our society. When all of the bodies that are truly and significantly affected by an issue are given the time, the proper atmosphere and the meeting space, though the process is a little sloppy and a little long, it does tend to produce decisions that have a great many more positive aspects than

February 15, 1985
Indian Self-government
negative ones. It tends to produce the kinds of decisions that do not have unintended side-effects which we do not value and cannot support.
It is the notion of process with which I most violently disagree in the approach which was recommended to us by the Hon. Member who moved this motion. After the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) has travelled the country and met with aboriginal groups and when he goes to the conference table and represents the federal perspective, I think that by the time of the next conference there will be a better understanding. If the Government continues in a wide range of activities to act the way that it has, with the sense that this is a Confederation and that the consultation process is important and fundamental, then at the next conference on the issue which is of concern to us today there may be a change in attitude on the part of some of the provinces. That process may produce the kind of understanding which lies at the heart of positive and solid solutions.
For that reason I would urge Members not to be premature in starting a side process which would detract from the process which our best wisdom told us some time ago was the kind of process required to resolve the situation and advance the cause of aboriginal people. That is the goal. We want to improve the situation for aboriginal people in Canada. Most of us in the Chamber believe that the concept of self-government is at the heart of the solution. We might not all agree on exactly what that means, but we know that it is important for the people in local communities to have control over many aspects of their lives. When the provinces created municipalities, cities and so on, they gave democratic powers to people to elect representatives who would make the by-laws, to have their own police force, et cetera. The belief is that the people of the community know best how to run their community.
For decades aboriginal peoples have been denied that right. They were denied the right to vote for far too long. We are progressing to the point where it is essential to negotiate the concept of Indian self-government. I will tell Members that in those negotiations aboriginal people must be at the table, the federal Government must be at the table and the provinces must be at the table. If we are to change government and governmental arrangements in the country, all parties which are affected must be at the table. Then and only then will we obtain the correct solution, the most desirable solution and the solution which will endure and enable aboriginal people to prosper.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to address this particular issue. As this is the first time I have addressed this House, I would like to begin by telling you a bit about myself.
I was born and grew up in Manitoba, which all Members know is the heart of this continent. My father was an immigrant who came to Canada in 1928 and established a farm. We are very proud of our achievements as farmers in Manitoba. My father achieved success at farming through hard work.
It has always been the philosophy of our family that if one wants to succeed, one needs dedication and hard work. I suppose that is how I got here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Felix Holtmann: My interest in this subject stems from the fact that I was always involved in agriculture and that I developed a business at one time which exported Canadian agricultural products around the world, particularly purebred hogs and cattle. I entered the field of exporting products to Mexico, which also has many natives who have problems. Mexico does not have a welfare system, or very many social assistance programs, but it has a good number of people who are at a poverty level far lower than what is known to people in Canada. However, Mexico managed to devise some programs which were absolutely fundamental in improving the standard of living for some tribes of Indians who live in the remote regions. They sat and collectively put together economic units with the help of the Government so that food and shelter would be provided. I was amazed at how effective that process was.
Over the course of the years, the Canadian Government has tried, but in many instances failed, to achieve the things it wanted because it did not consult with the Indians of Canada. In the last few months I visited all the communities in my riding, as well as many others, with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie). All too often people told us that it was always the Canadian Government people who told them what they were going to get but they had never been consulted. I guess that has been the case over the last 100, 200 or 300 years. Not being there when it first began, I think the time has come when we have to sit, listen and discuss these issues with these people. They are just as important a part of our community and our country as any one of us. We should never forget that.
I think the meaning of the words self-determination and self-government have become very confusing to many people in this country. Many, many people will ask if this means we are going to give the Indians their own country. Are we going to have borders and they will have their own passports? People really do not understand what we are trying to achieve or what the natives of this country would like. I think it is up to us as Canadians to show them that what we are trying to do with the Indian reserves is to give them the same things we have in our municipalities. They should have the right, in a democratic way, to decide where they would like to put a ditch or new roads or what kind of development they want. Those things which we take for granted every day are the things that have been denied many of these individuals.
It is not a perfect world, Mr. Speaker. As these people come to my office, as I am sure they do to your office, to talk about their concerns, they tell us that the welfare system is hurting their people. I am often amazed that when these individuals come in they say "my people". Do you ever go home and say
February 15, 1985

about your community, "these are my people"? I am sure the only people you say are your people are the ones in your own house, and beyond that you do not care. But when they come to my office, they describe their community as "my people". I think that is absolutely wonderful.


James Douglas Manly: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the Hon. Member would not want to insinuate that other Hon. Members do not care for their constituents. We often refer to them as "my people", and I am sure he would agree with that point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what problems the Hon. Member has, but I would like to continue if I may.
I would like to advise all Members of this House that if they do have Indians and natives in their area, they should invite them over to their offices and visit their reserves. There is a message out there for them. We have to work together to bring the needs of this group of people to a satisfactory conclusion so that they have the honour and respect they deserve.
Over the years, Mr. Speaker, we have instigated different ways to help through legislation. Yet when you talk to the particular bands, you find that all too often they are totally frustrated with the system. They have no way of finding out things which will benefit them without having to engage consulting firms. Representatives of one individual band came to me just to build a basic elementary school or upgrade the one they had. They had to come to Ottawa at least six times over the course of a year and go to the regional office in Winnipeg about 20 times and almost beg on their knees to get some funding for a school, which we back home take for granted. I want everybody to think about that. If you had to do that in your community, I am sure you would take up arms, and I would not blame you. But we expect them to work under that system. The bureaucratic system we have developed for those bands to achieve some economy is the most frustrating thing they have to deal with every day of their lives. That is what we have to change. We have to bring about some real stability in this particular area which I think has been lacking for too long.
Consider the fact that many Indian bands have 90 per cent unemployment, Mr. Speaker. Put the other way, only 10 per cent have jobs. Realistically there may not always be an opportunity for those bands to obtain an economic base which would allow them to achieve 100 per cent employment. We cannot put a parts factory or a lumber yard in an area where natural resources do not exist. Their past livelihood revolving around hunting or trapping is no longer available because the animals no longer exist. There is no realistic form of economic growth we could even dream up. Those are the realities. How we are to help them achieve an economic base is going to take the collective wisdom of everyone in this House.
I have taken my job very seriously in this area, Mr. Speaker. I have taken seriously the approach that was set out by our Hon. Minister, who has worked at least 14 to 16 hours every
Indian Self-government
day to try to seek their guidance and consultation in trying to find a solution to some of these very serious problems. I believe the Minister's desire to make some significant changes during the mandate of this particular administration, and the one I will be a part of next time, is very honourable and the most dynamic piece of legislation to deal with the reserves which has ever come to Parliament. It is together with my friends in both Parties in opposition that we will work diligently to achieve this type of legislation. The most important point I would like to make is that we should consult with the individuals and their leaders from coast to coast so that their input is used to bring about policies which will help them in the future.
I do not know how much time I have left but I would like to indicate that the whole economy of Canada is a vital element in our attempts to carry out the many programs we would like to carry out in this Government. By getting our economy going we can obtain the funds we need to help these special interest groups. I do not see how we can continue to run a deficit, because the people we help will end up having to live with the deficit and find ways and means of paying it back. That is the situation we are in. Our desire is to bring Canada into the 21st century, to make it a dynamic and exciting place to live. But over the last four months I have sat here and listened to nothing but criticism from the opposition Parties. They never demonstrated a single way to stimulate the economy. The only way they want to stimulate the economy is to reach into someone else's pocket in some other country, bring some money in and keep it rolling at least temporarily.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That is what Mulroney wants to do.


Mr. Keeper:: What about low interest rates?


Felix Holtmann: There they are, Mr. Speaker. They did not notice when interest rates came down from 22 per cent to 13 per cent. Not one of them was excited about that. But it went up one half of a per cent and they are all crying and gyrating around the House.
Not too long ago I heard some of my hon. colleagues in the New Democratic Party saying that their policy is to use Canadian funds which are invested in banks to develop the country. Every six months the Premier of Manitoba would whip over to Japan and pull in $70 million. Then he would whip back over to Switzerland and haul some more in. However, that is not their policy. It just did not make sense. On the one hand they believed in one thing and on the other hand they believed in another. They do not know what they believe in but they will criticize anything we do. Let us get together on a policy like the one we were discussing before to get the economy going. I was surprised to see that they supported it.
Those are my real concerns in this regard. This particular resolution was not even necessary because the things indicated in it are happening. We have a Minister who is determined to make the necessary changes. He is on the right track. He has the consultation attitude which we never had in the 22 years of Liberal rule. This Government gives everyone an opportunity

February 15, 1985
Indian Self-government
to discuss. I suppose that is a wonderment to the NDP, which also sat in opposition in the Liberal administration. The NDP must notice the difference with our open attitude.
I have enjoyed speaking in the House for the first time, Mr. Speaker. I have got the shakes out of my feet now so you will see me rising to speak more often. I look forward to debating many subjects in the coming months.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, that is a tough act to follow. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague on his maiden speech in the House. It was delivered with eloquence and compassion on a subject which is obviously important to him and to his constituents. I recall his telling me a week ago about his trip to the North with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) visiting Indian bands. I represent an urban riding in the City of Ottawa where there are no Indian bands and relatively few native people. In fact, the 100 or 200 who are there are probably employees of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Despite that, I am glad to have an opportunity to take part in this debate on an important national issue.
The Hon. Member's motion says that the Government should consider the advisability of promoting Indian self-government. As the previous speaker made clear, that is one of the prime concerns of the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and of the Government.
An all-Party special committee of the House, chaired by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), examined the issue of Indian self-government some time ago. This committee was unique in that it included an ex-officio member from the Assembly of First Nations and two liaison members from other native organizations. The special committee played a very important role. It clearly articulated the concerns, needs and desires of Indian people for self-government. It raised the awareness of Candians about Indian seelf-government.
The committee travelled widely in Canada as well as in the United States. It heard the views and experiences of many groups and individuals. The special committee's report was tabled on November 3, 1983, less than a year after the creation of the committee. It contained 58 recommendations concerning Indian self-government on a broad range of matters, some of which I will mention.
First, the principle of the constitutional entrenchment of self-government by which the federal Government would seek to establish a new relationship with Indian First Nations and confirm that relationship by means of a constitutional \ amendment.
Second, legislation as an interim measure to provide for recognition of Indian First Nations as well as to accommodate
the full range of governmental arrangements sought by Indian First Nations.
Third, membership for Indian Governments and the process by which this would be determined.
Fourth, the federal responsibility for those people eligible for Indian programs but who are not members of Indian Governments, as well as responsibility to respect the rights and aspirations of all Indian people.
Fifth, the process for recognition of Indian First Nation Governments.
Sixth, the scope of powers for Indian Government, including legislative and policy making powers, control over territory and resources within Indian lands, with the exact scope of jurisdiction to be negotiated by individual Indian First Nations.
Economic foundations for Indian self-government were also included in the recommendations, including adequate land and resource base, settlement of claims and funding. Another recommendation was fiscal arrangements to support Indian First Nation Governments. Also included were lands and resources for Indian Governments, the extent of control, and the various means to achieve full control of Indian lands and resources. Another recommendation was the resolution of claims, including the principle for a new claims process. A further recommendation was the trust relationship between the federal Government and Indian First Nations and the need for it to be renewed and enhanced through constitutional amendment, legislation, and other means. One final recommendation that I will mention was the idea of trust accounts for Indian First Nations and the means by which they should be transferred from departmental authority. There were many other recommendations but those were the most important, Mr. Speaker.
A response to that special committee report was tabled on March 15, 1984. It responded only in a very general way to the recommendations. Moreover, the general framework legislation on self-government for Indian nations, which was proposed in the response and which was introduced in the final days of the previous Parliament, left many issues still not resolved to the satisfaction of Indian peoples.
Key issues surrounding the process of recognition or the type of powers for Indian Governments were not simply or directly handled. The economic foundation and lands and resources relating to self-government were not addressed comprehensively but were left for future work.
This piece of legislation has been harshly criticized by members of the previous Government who called it "an inadequate flawed Bill... totally unacceptable". There are many issues on self-government which need to be considered, Mr. Speaker, which were not fully dealt with in the previous response to the report of the special committee. These issues
February 15, 1985

were not fully dealt with in this proposed legislation. It now rests with the Government and this Parliament to consider these issues more fully.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Indian Self-government

It being five o'clock, pursuant to order made Wednesday, January 23, 1985 and pursuant to Standing Order 3, this House stands adjourned until Monday, February 25, 1985 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, February 25, 1985