1985-06-26

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government claimed to have good relations with and would fight for the working community and, in particular, organized labour. However, it was a black day for Hamilton last Friday when the Conservative Government of Canada chose to turn its back on the collective viewpoint of the City of Hamilton Regional Council, workers, area Members of Parliament, federal and provincial, of all political persuasions, who urged the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and the Government to accept the bid by the workers to buy out Canadian Porcelain and to run that company from the heart and soul of the community of Hamilton.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Government turned its back on the workers. It rejected their application and, instead, accepted an American application which we believe will lead to the demise of this company and, in fact, the manufacture of that product in Canada.
The Government talks about worker co-operation. Here we have an example of workers who have banded together to save their jobs and to work with the community for the betterment of all. Instead the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion rejected their application.
I call upon the Prime Minister, if he really believes that the little boy from Baie Comeau represents the working people of the country, to overturn the cabinet decision to reject the workers' application for Canadian Porcelain. I ask him to fight-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that her 90 seconds have expired.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, today is the thirtieth anniversary of the South African "Freedom Charter", which reads as follows:
We, the people of South Africa, declare for all our country and the world to know:
-that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and that no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of all the people;
-that our people have been robbed of their birthright to land, liberty and peace by a form of government founded on injustice and inequality;
-that our country will never be prosperous or free until all our people live in brotherhood, enjoying equal rights and opportunities;
-that only a democratic state, based on the will of all the people, can secure to all their birthright without distinction of colour, race, sex or belief;
And therefore, we the people of South Africa, black and white together- equals, countrymen and brothers-adopt this Freedom Charter. And we pledge ourselves to strive together, sparing neither strength nor courage, until the democratic changes set out here have been won.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we would talk about sisterhood as well as brotherhood, but the Charter stands as a manifest for all South Africans who care about freedom and justice. The injustice of apartheid continues but the faith in human dignity continues also, and that faith will prevail.


DISASTERS
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Last Friday in my riding, Mr. Speaker, I was a guest at the Centennial Regional High School graduation ceremonies for a number of students.
On that occasion I had the pleasure and honour of giving a 17-year-old pre-medicine student the diploma she so richly deserved. Mr. Speaker, like many other people, including about 20 from my riding, that young girl was among the Air-India Flight 182 passengers who died in this catastrophic accident.
The residents of the riding of La Prairie whom I represent join me to extend their most sincere condolences to the families stricken by this tragedy.
Mr. Speaker, I feel confident that the Findings of the inquiry launched by our Government will shed light on this incident,

June 26, 1985
and I also know that our Government will do its utmost to prevent similar tragedies from happening again.
Canada is a pacifist country where peace, freedom and respect for human rights are basic principles. We cannot let anyone, resorting to whatever means, jeopardize this land of freedom, our beautiful country.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend in my riding, I met with two senior citizens groups-one from Temiscamingue and one from Saint-Eugene-de-Guigues.
I can assure the House that the mood during these meetings was very positive and that discussions took place in a relaxed and friendly atmosphere. Mr. Speaker, when we take the time to sit down with them and speak intelligently and without rhetoric, senior citizens understand.
They understand that our Government is struggling with a gigantic deficit that might become a threat to social programs in the future. They understand that the deficit is a national responsibility and that we must all do our fair share. They understand that between now and January 1986, nothing will change and that their cheques will increase from month to month. They realize our Government is being hard on the elderly, because we introduced the spouse's allowance for persons between the ages of 60 and 64. They understand that starting January 1986, the basic allowance will remain the same and that indexing will be only partially affected, and also that the neediest who are entitled to the Guaranteed Income Supplement will continue to receive the fully indexed supplement. They also understand that the Budget clearly says that if one of these measures proves to be inequitable, our Government will take corrective action immediately.
Mr. Speaker, in the passionate and extreme kind of debate we are seeing today, the elderly are showing a wisdom that many Members in this House would do well to emulate.



Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Conservative Government, pain, suffering, and illness will be taxable in Canada. The list of health care products affected by the removal of the federal sales tax
exemption is ridiculous and scandalous. Aspirin and pain killers like Tylenol are to be taxed, which means the suffering caused by arthritis and minor injuries and headaches is to be taxed. The illness which requires medicine such as ASA to lower fevers, is to be taxed. Bandages are to be taxed, which means bleeding from cuts is being taxed. Support for sprains and other minor injuries is being taxed. Antihistamines are being taxed, which means allergies are being taxed. The discomfort of eczema, psoriasis, and other skin conditions is being taxed. Laxatives are being taxed. Sinusitis is being taxed. Items which help relieve minor symptoms of cold and flu are being taxed. Being sick or being in pain is now taxable.
Did the Tory Government stop to think that ASA is one of the primary treatments for arthritis and degenerative bone diseases? Taxing pain, illness, and suffering is cruel, Mr. Speaker. When a Government taxes items used to treat those conditions, it might as well tax the illness. It is the same thing. That is how greedy the Government is. I want to inform Canadians that the telephone number of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is area code 613-997-7-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the imprisonment and trial of three Polish scholars who have been charged with inciting public unrest by discussing the possibility of calling a symbolic 15-minute general strike to protest food price increases. One of them, historian Adam Michnik, had only recently been released from prison after a term of several years for his non-violent protests on behalf of economic, cultural, and political freedom. Obviously his imprisonment and trial mean a step back for those with hopes that human rights can be advanced in Poland through the peaceful activities of the Solidarity and dissident movements.
An international committee of scholars has been formed to protest this violation of international standards of human rights, and it includes 30 Nobel laureates as members. They have written to the Polish President, General Jaruzelski, demanding the release of Mr. Michnik and his two colleagues, Bogdan Lis and Wladyslaw Frasyniuk. I would very much like to associate all Members of this House of Commons with this international human rights effort. The extraordinary efforts by so many Poles today to bring freedom into their daily lives through their schools, churches, cultural and intellectual life, deserve our every encouragement in effort and deed.
June 26, 1985


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, western Canadians are becoming increasingly apprehensive over the recruiting practices of the RCMP. Five per cent of the force is stationed in Quebec, a province which has its own provincial police. Yet in 1983-84 more than half of our RCMP recruits were from Quebec. On the other hand, approximately one half the entire force is employed by the four western provinces which pay the RCMP to provide provincial policing. In 1983-84 only 11 per cent of our recruits came from the West.
Hundreds of young western Canadians are on a list, still hoping to realize their life's ambition of joining the force. Some have been waiting up to four years for a call after having been told, and I quote: "Your name is on the National Waiting List consisting of people who will, in due course, be engaged . .." It is time for the RCMP either to change its engagement practices or to come clean, be honest, and tell these western Canadians there is no place for them.
Surely the RCMP can have a reasonable engagement policy which, while recognizing the new emphasis on special language, university, and other skills, can still fairly reflect the input of the regions in which the force is utilized. A responsible policy ought not to exclude an entire generation of young western Canadians from serving in this proud institution.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, "Man in Motion" is not only the theme of Expo 86 but of a unique venture of an outstanding Canadian, Rick Hansen. Rick, who is from Vancouver, was paralysed in an accident as a youngster but has gone on to be a world-class wheelchair athlete, winning gold medals at the Pan-Am Games, the Olympics for the Disabled, and bringing honour to Canada. Now Rick has embarked on his dream, to tour the world in a wheelchair taking a message of hope to all who face adversity, and to raise funds for spinal cord research, rehabilitation, and wheelchair sports.
His 25,000 mile tour will encompass six continents, 34 countries, and will end in September, 1986, at the gates of Expo 86 in Vancouver. Tomorrow he will be here in Ottawa, having completed the first part of his tour. I urge Members to meet and support Rick as he demonstrates man's ability to overcome obstacles and create a greater awareness of the potential of disabled people.
I am sure that all Members will join me in passing on our encouragement to Rick as he continues on his difficult journey. I want him to know that we will be keeping him in our hearts
Oral Questions
and minds as he represents the indomitable spirit of Canadians to the rest of the world.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has fewer than three days left before the adjournment of Parliament for the summer to bring back full indexation of old age pensions for all our senior citizens. I understand that he and the Minister of Finance discussed that particular matter at lunch today. I hope the Prime Minister is not even contemplating dividing senior citizens along income lines. I hope he understands that we do not need another means test, and we do not need the Prime Minister breaking another promise, this time being the universality of social programs.
As a result of his lunch with the Minister of Finance, can the Prime Minister clean up this mess and tell us that he is going to bring back full indexation for our old age pensioners?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition talks about making two classes of senior citizens. That is exactly what the Liberal Party of Canada did during the six and five program, and he should know that very well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: I can tell from the frown on their Leader's face that he does not like being reminded of that. However, senior citizens know that, are reminded of that, and do not like it.


Some Hon. Members:: Bye-bye, Michael.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I met with a group of senior citizens yesterday and we had a very good meeting. We discussed all aspects of this problem. As I have said before, I am sensitive and am listening to this issue. In due course we will have a decision.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REMOVE NEW SALES TAX ON ESSENTIAL HYGIENE PRODUCTS
John Napier Turner: have a supplementary for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
The purchasing power of the elderly is decreasing. In less than a week, on Canada Day, to be exact, the elderly will start paying 10 per cent more for bandages, aspirin, antacids and a

June 26, 1985
Oral Questions
lot of other essential health care products on which the Progressive Conservatives have now imposed a sales tax. My question is therefore directed to the Prime Minister: Could he eliminate this new regressive tax before Canada Day?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition again refers to some of these matters. Before he starts making these comments and asking these questions he should consider the mess that the Liberal Party left the country in, starting from the time when he became the Minister of Finance until September of last year. If he considers the mess in which he left the country, perhaps he will go into a corner and hang his head in shame for putting the country into the mess it is in.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Bye-bye, Michael!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Bye-bye, Wilson. We won't miss you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INDEXATION-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I assure the Minister that the 2.5 million to 3 million senior citizens of the country are holding him and the Prime Minister solely to account for having attempted to control the public debt of the country on the backs of the pensioners, the weak, and the aged.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can assure him that it is not a trumped up issue, as he suggests. Over a thousand citizens in front of City Hall in Toronto again place the blame squarely on the head of the Prime Minister, saying that he alone is causing fear and anxiety, and that he has betrayed his promise to the Canadian people.
I ask the Prime Minister once again if he will cancel this mean-spirited proposal? Will he restore full indexation to our old age pensioners? Otherwise, I suggest to him quite strongly that we will continue not to facilitate the passage of the borrowing Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions the Leader of the Opposition has said that we are balancing the Budget, or cutting the deficit, solely on the backs of the senior citizens ... Nothing could be further from the truth.
We have introduced a range of measures which will involve spending cuts in every Department of Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have a surtax on upper-income Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about the Prime Minister's office?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could we simply listen to the questions and the answers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is very hard getting the attention of Members on the other side of the House-


Mr. Lapierre:: Give us an answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -since they don't like hearing the news that they are uncomfortable about.


Mr. Rossi:: Tell us the truth.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will tell you the truth. The truth is that we have introduced a wide range of fairness measures, and I think if the Leader of the Opposition would get this out, people would better understand the policy of the Government.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about the Prime Minister's office?


Some Hon. Members:: Hush!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It would be helpful if we would all listen to all of the questions and all of the answers.

[ Translation]


OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I realize he is going to talk and pretend he is not listening. That is all part of his strategy.
Mr. Speaker, I have here some petitions from the riding of Baie Comeau, some from the riding of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and one petition from the riding of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The elderly want to know now what is going to happen, and they are sick and tired of the Prime Minister's shilly-shallying. Mr. Prime Minister, are you going to give an answer, here and now, to the elderly who want to have this information before the summer starts? Are you going to meet your commitment to protect fully their Old Age Security pensions?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything very original in the question put
June 26, 1985

by the Hon. Member. I don't think he has an original thought in his mind.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: I think we have heard that one before.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It's true, isn't it?
I would say to the senior citizens of the country that before the House rises this session we will have an announcement to make-


John V. Nunziata: Aha! You're backing down.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There will be some news that senior citizens will be looking forward to.


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary but please address it to the Chair!


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL ANSWER ELDERLY BEFORE SUMMER ADJOURNMENT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, since the real Prime Minister refuses to take the floor in the House.
Could the Minister of Finance inform the House, since we seem to be getting our answers piecemeal, that the answer he will give the House of Commons will be given before the House adjourns on Friday? Otherwise, we promise to go on like this for a couple of weeks more this summer. Are the elderly going to get their answer now, before Friday?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was quite clear. I said that I would probably have an announcement to make before the House rises.


GOVERNMENT PLANS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the Minister of Finance say the Government just might be coming to its senses on pensions. We will see that later.
I have a question for the Prime Minister, just to clarify what the Minister of Finance had to say. Will the Prime Minister tell the House and, more important, will he tell the pensioners of Canada whether we will hear before Friday what the Government plans to do in terms of its pensions provisions in the Budget?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what more I can say to the Hon. Member.


John Edward Broadbent: We know what you can say.
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I have said that there will be an announcement before the House rises.


John Napier Turner: Not probably; will be.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There will be an announcement before the House rises.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PLACE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since it was he who indicated in reply to a question from me not many days ago that when the announcement was to be made it would be made in the House, will the Prime Minister assure the House that the announcement that is to be made will be made in the House of Commons this week? Second, when it is made, will it be an announcement that pensions for all of Canada's pensioners will be fully indexed?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if I could respond to the Hon. Member's question, that statement will be made in the House, and it will be made before the House rises.


APPLICATION OF INDEXATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Minister of Finance-and I will go back to him since evidently he is going to be answering these questions today-earlier replied to a question from the Leader of the Opposition about the previous Liberal Government's decision to index some pensions but leave out others. The Minister of Finance said, and I wrote down the words, "that senior citizens do not like that". Since he said senior citizens did not like it when the Liberals did it, will the Minister assure the House that the Conservative Government will not do the same thing?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I said I am a very reasonable man.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am flexible. I listen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Edward Broadbent: That is it?

June 26, 1985
Oral Questions


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
In light of revelations that Mirabel Airport safety measures leave much to be desired and are a haphazardous exercise, and even that access to the runways is practically a free-for-all, is the Minister now prepared to agree to an independent and impartial Canadian Aviation Safety Board inquiry into the whole safety system in Canadian airports and on procedures used to protect passengers in our airports?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board is in fact involved in the investigation of the accident. It will be making recommendations and will be presenting observations, I am sure, with respect to any deficiencies that may be in place or may be perceived to be in place. We expect that will be brought to our attention.
The Canadian Aviation Safety Board also has the prerogative of holding public hearings. That is a decision it can make on its own accord. However, I think the Hon. Member would also appreciate the fact that the investigation has just started. Our people are there, on the scene, working with officials from India, the United States, and the United Kingdom. If any recommendations are brought to my attention and to the attention of my Department with respect to improvements in safety, we will certainly look at them very favourably.


PROTECTION OF PUBLIC-REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. We are not concerned about an investigation of the incident. Clearly there will be an investigation in that regard. However, what I am asking the Minister to recognize is that, while this investigation could take time, it is important for the public who use airports to do so with the assurance that appropriate measures have been taken to protect them. What we asked yesterday and again today is for a quick, independent investigation of the current security procedures at airports in Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board can, on its own accord, investigate matters relating to safety and security. If there is any suggestion that safety standards are not up to par, they will certainly bring that to our attention and may very well want to engage in a full inquiry.
To be more specific, and to reply to the specific part of the question, I should like to inform the Hon. Member that the air
transport administrator today called in all regional administrators from across the country and urged them to ensure that security is tightened up, especially with regard to the accessibility of aircraft on the ramp, gates, identification passes, doors, and the access leading to the air side of airports. In other words, not only are standards to be maintained, but they are to be scrupulously maintained. As far as the Hon. Member's request for full-scale inquiry by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board is concerned, naturally we will be discussing it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the seriousness of the matter, but perhaps this should be a Statement under Motions.


PENSIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since he specifically promised seniors during the election campaign that, on election, the Conservative Party would fully index Old Age Security benefits, could the Prime Minister assure the House that, when the Government makes an announcement prior to Friday of this week, the commitment made to seniors during the election campaign will be maintained?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is not using the time of the House very well. Surely he could demonstrate a little patience.


Neil Young: I think the seniors have demonstrated great patience with this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. To be fair, would he stand up and assure our seniors that the promise which he personally made during the election campaign will be carried out? For the sake of the dignity of our seniors, would he not stand up and say that?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, unlike our Liberal friends who claim to be the serene depository of truth and who have already introduced a program whose impact on poorer people in our society proved to be quite disastrous, we have been listening closely throughout this lengthy debate, not only to our own caucus but also to other Members of the House of Commons, including my colleague, of course.
The Minister of Finance has indicated that a statement will be made before the House adjourns-within a few hours or
June 26, 1985

days-and I should think it will likely allay most of the fears already expressed.


REQUEST FOR EARLY STATEMENT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Hon. Members on this side of the House very cautiously welcome the indications of the Minister of Finance thus far today. However, to repeat what my Leader has said: "You cannot solve one problem by breaking another promise".


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I ask the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance to give consideration to making a statement, if possible this afternoon; if not, the first thing tomorrow; so that Hon. Members, and indeed senior citizens, have an opportunity to examine the kind of movement which has obviously now occurred, to see whether the Government has kept its commitment of last November to the principle of universality.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I hate to say this to the Hon. Member because we are going to have to ruin his long weekend-it might not be done until Friday.


PASSAGE OF BORROWING AUTHORITY LEGISLATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that today would have been a day of generosity and good spirit.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is obvious that the Minister of Finance had crow for lunch, because he is not in a very good mood. I want again to repeat the words of my Leader-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could the Hon. Member please ask his supplementary question, and not engage in a preamble?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Would the Minister of Finance not agree that he would like to have his borrowing Bill through the House before
it rises?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Would he not agree that it would be wise to make a statement soon, so that parliamentarians of all Parties and senior citizens could examine it to ensure that he has kept his commitments, before we allow the Minister to have his borrowing authority, which we know he so richly needs, provided that he is being straightforward with us?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me caution the Hon. Member that when he uses threats
Oral Questions
and blackmail he will get absolutely nowhere. The last time the Liberal Party held up a borrowing Bill, it cost taxpayers $15 million, $15 million that we could have used on many other things. Before he starts using blackmail, he should look into his own mind and ask how we could use $15 million more effectively. The Leader of the Opposition knows that as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Professor Eastman was appointed to study the question of the pricing of prescription drugs. He has told Canadians that the system we have had since 1968 worked quite well, and that to give multinational drug companies a fair return on their cost of research they should have exclusive right to the sale of drugs for four years. Why has the Minister indicated that he is prepared to give those companies six years, which will cost Canadians $75 million per year in extra costs?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: In answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, I might simply indicate that we did release the Eastman report in May. We said we intend to consider various solutions so as to give Canadian consumers the best protection possible. Never did 1 announce our intention to extend protection an additional six years. I said it was a possibility still under active consideration.


RESEARCH UNDERTAKEN BY DRUG COMPANIES
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that the Minister has not made up his mind on whether they would get six years. 1 hope he keeps in mind the advice of the Chairman of the Science Council of Canada who made very clear that the argument that the companies would do more research does not hold much water, because they never did much research before and they are not likely to do much research in the future.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that we keep in mind the best interests of Canadian consumers. That is what we intend to do when we announce our policy.

June 26, 1985
Oral Questions


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Solicitor General. A written question a few weeks ago on the number of offences committed by prison inmates while on unescorted temporary absences was answered by the claim that this data does not exist in the Offender Information System.
Will the Minister, in view of the fact that this makes it impossible for any Member of Parliament, including the Ministers, to assess and monitor the temporary absence program, take initiatives to see that this data is added to the Offender Information System?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's question shows once again what a valuable Member he is in pointing out these inadequacies. The present Offender Information System is under review as a result of his pointing out this inadequate keeping of statistics, and the issue he raises is going to be dealt with. I thank him for bringing this to the Minister's attention.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Since the Government took power last September I have had numerous complaints from fishermen across the country of political interference in the fishery, complaints about suspensions being lifted, impounded boats returned, licences granted that should not have been, and so on. It has reached the point where fishermen who are caught for illegal fishing can go to their local Conservative MP and get off the hook. Will the Minister guarantee the House today that he will put an immediate stop to political interference in the fishery?


John Carnell Crosbie: Going on for a thousand years under the Liberals.


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, what I will say to the House today is that the system whereby the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is asked to take further steps after a court conviction is, in my view, wrong. I will be pressing the House and colleagues to make sure that the appropriate legislation and regulations are brought into effect to put an end to that practice.


Mr. Johnston:: That's a red herring.


GRANTING OF LICENCES
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister thinks it is wrong, why did he exercise his right in a number of occasions on this very issue?
Can the Minister assure this House that no special favours have been granted since last September to individuals because of their PC Party association, in the granting of fishing licences? Yes or no?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that, just as the former Government assiduously was careful to ensure that no licences were granted except where there were proper circumstances, we would follow in that tradition.


THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Two weeks ago the Committee on Equality Rights voted to seek a three-month extension of its mandate in view of the fact that no hearings whatsoever could be held within the existing time framework in the Province of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, the North, Quebec City, and even in the Minister's own Province of Newfoundland. Today the committee learned that they are going to be shut down without any opportunity for people in those areas to have a voice before it. I want to ask the Minister if he is not prepared to reconsider this decision and allow the committee to have an extension as it requested two weeks ago, in order that the views of all Canadians be heard, and not just those that have been heard so far.


John Edward Broadbent: Your part of the country.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. gentleman has had a conversion on the road to Damascus with this report, because he opposed the setting up of this committee in the first place. He did not want the Canadian people consulted. Now he is saying that he wants an extension of time. The Government has agreed that the time should be extended to the end of September. That gives July, August, September, and I would hope that the committee can get to Newfoundland within three months, and back again safely.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard today from our staff that it is absolutely impossible for this committee to function under a deadline of September 30. I ask the Government again why is this committee being muzzled? Why is the Government not prepared to hear the concerns of women's groups, of the disabled, of minorities, not just in central Canada but in Newfoundland and the North
June 26, 1985

and other provinces as well? Why is the Government shutting down this important committee at this stage?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it was this honourable House that set up this honourable committee and it was to report by, I think, September 7. The opposition Parties did not support with any enthusiasm at all the setting up of the subcommittee. I am glad they have now discovered that it is a valuable exercise, and I hope that by the end of September the committee will have had sufficient time to give us its report. We are prepared to extend it to the end of September, and then we want to take action on these pressing matters that you wanted us to take action on months ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Hearings on Bill C-25 concluded last Thursday. Over the weekend livestock producers in western Canada, particularly in Alberta, expressed to me their concern over amendments made to the Agricultural Stabilization Act. There appears to be a wide degree of interpretation of the amendments. Has the Minister received communications from his provincial counterparts and industry spokesmen, and what measures is he taking in addressing these concerns?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member's question. I want to indicate to him that I have received messages, and telexes from the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I am really concerned about the fact that there is a great deal of misunderstanding and a great deal of misinterpretation about the intent of the amendment.
This amendment does not back away from top-loading. This amendment recognizes the reality of today. This amendment allows us to deal with all market distortions in the industry.
I challenge the provinces, and I challenge the farm leaders and the producers to come together, to sit down around the table and to work together on something that will provide mid and long-term benefits to Canadian agriculture across the country.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will know that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture passed a resolution at an
Oral Questions
emergency meeting recently which condemned the Budget for having betrayed the farmers of Canada. It has totally ignored the consultation process and has ignored the legitimate needs of farmers across the country. I want to ask the Minister, since he seems to be in a conciliatory mood, if he is willing to bring in new budget measures providing for long-term low interest rate agri-bonds as his Party promised in the election campaign, and as was recommended by the finance committee of this House of Commons.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, can set these out in more complete terms than I can. There are a number of promises that we made in the campaign that are highlighted in the note that he has just released, that I am sure the Hon. Member, as well as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture would like to see, setting out the number of promises that have been kept.
For instance, we said we would do something on capital gains on farms. We said we would do something on the farm fuel taxes and we put a rebate there that gave the farmers $150 million. We said we would make changes in the metric system, of great help to farmers. I could go on and on, but I believe the Hon. Minister of Agricultre could give a fuller answer on that.


EXCISE TAX
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance had read his own Budget well enough he would know that the only provision in the Budget is to help farmers get off the farm, and there are already too many foreclosures taking place. The Minister mentioned reducing the excise tax by 9 per cent last fall-by 10 per cent actually-but in his Budget-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming a preamble. Is there a question, please?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am just getting there. I wonder, in view of the fact that the Budget does provide for a 9 cents a gallon excise tax to start the first of September, would he give an exemption to farmers and not impose this so-called harvest tax just at the beginning of the fall harvest.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Hon. Member about some of the other things that I did not mention in my first answer. We dropped the interest rate on the Farm Credit-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: They do not like to hear the good news. We dropped the interest rate on Farm Credit Corporation loans from 16.25 per cent to, I believe, 12.75 per cent. Interest rates have gone down during the same period of

June 26, 1985
Oral Questions
time, providing help to all farmers. The price of gasoline for farmers is going down as well. I think the farmers have a lot for which to be thankful because of the very progressive policies that have been followed by this Government, led by my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a couple of questions. Several months ago the Union of Canadian Transport Employees warned the Government that continued cut-backs and delays would jeopardize safety and security on the ground and in the air, so 75 new fire trucks were ordered for which money was made available over two years ago. The Government seems to be having some difficulty in taking delivery of those fire trucks, and this lowers the standards of the firefighting service one of two grades below the standards set by the Minister's own Department. Can the Minister tell me what the problem is with obtaining delivery of those 75 new fire trucks? I hope it is not because they are painted Liberal red rather than Tory blue.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to advise the Hon. Member that Canada has one of the very highest standards of crash firefighting and prevention services in the world. It is certainly higher than that of Australia and the United States. With respect to the specific question, there may have been a re-profiling of funding, but I am not aware of any outright cancellation as the Hon. Member suggests.


NATURE OF INVESTIGATION
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, we are faced with the possibility of 109 of the Minister's firefighting branch employees being laid off while he horses around with trucks. In the matter of the investigation that is being carried on, will he tell us who is making it-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am not referring to the disaster of last weekend.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has been recognized on a supplementary question presumably with regard to fire trucks.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister if this investigation will be independent, and if its terms of reference will be broad enough to include safety and security, including fire trucks-


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, I appreciate that it is an important question but it is not a supplementary one.


THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Chairman of the Special Committee on Equality Rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would ask the Chairman if the committee will hear evidence with respect to the way senior citizens who approach 71 and hold Registered Retirement Savings Certificates are treated by the Income Tax Act and the way they are forced because of age, as no other Canadians are, to buy annuities from an insurance company or enter into Registered Investment Retirement Funds.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, as rare as it is for Members on the back-benches to ask questions, it is even rarer to have questions posed to us. I welcome the question and, on behalf of the committee, I would say yes, although not more than eight or nine minutes ago there was a question put by the Hon. Member for Burnaby to the Minister of Justice with respect to the time within which our committee will be required to report to this House. Given the fact that the committee must already hear from some 600 groups and individuals, we will have to take that under advisement and discuss it in the committee. I will let the Hon. Member know.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In the May 23 Budget the Minister of Finance announced that, as of July 1, a number of new sales taxes will go into effect, so consumers in general, and particularly pensioners, will see their purchasing power reduced, thus putting many of them living under the poverty line. How can the Minister of Finance say that his Budget is fair and helps small business when the new sales tax and the sales tax increase will reduce small business activities, thus reducing the number of new jobs created?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the people representing the small business community, whether they are senior spokespeople from the industry or individuals who work in the small business community, are all very, very supportive of the thrust of the Budget as well as the details of it, after taking everything into account. I think that what the Hon. Member is suggesting is wrong.
I would remind the Hon. Member that Members on his side of the House were saying that the small business community was going to fold up and die as a result of the action taken on November 8. Since then there have been 150,000 jobs created by the small business community. Again, members of the opposition Parties are going around with little black clouds over their heads and are saying that the sky is going to fall in,
June 26, 1985

and that everything will go the wrong way, when actions are proving that everything is going the right way.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL DELAY IMPOSITION OF SALES TAX ON PREFABRICATED CEMENT
Alfonso Gagliano: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance is suggesting that his Budget is really good. I would therefore ask him the following question.
Why does the Minister of Finance put Canadian prefabricated cement companies in a difficult position by imposing a 6 per cent sales tax beginning July 1 without even taking into consideration those contracts that were signed before May 23? Will he grant them a delay until January 1, 1986 to give them a chance to cope with that increase without going belly up?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is a very good example of how members of the Opposition are both sucking and blowing. I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to his Leader who has said that we must get the deficit under control. 1 would ask the Hon. Member to speak to other members of his caucus who have said that we have to remove the loopholes and exemptions in the taxation system, and that we have to broaden the tax base. He should think about what his colleagues are saying. That is what we are trying to do with the Budget. It is a broad effort that is shared in a wide way across Canada to get the deficit under control. Those people in the industries that are affected understand the need for that and will be prepared to accept it.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it still the Minister's view, as he has stated to both the Canadian Hospital Association and the provincial Ministers of Health, that the health care system should look to private funding to maintain the level of services Canadians currently enjoy?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member asked that question because I think that that is not the interpretation that should be placed on this particular discussion. What is taking place, in both the hospital structure and the health care system generally, is that, in light of the health care challenges that face us all, we are asking whether or not there are some areas in which we could get better financial return or cost-effectiveness through privatization. For instance, there are services in hospitals which have been privatized, like laundry services.
Oral Questions
When the Hon. Member and members of the press hear the word "privatization", I do not think that they should draw the long bow by thinking that hospitals as such would be privatized.


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, muddling through what appears to be a quite convoluted answer, may I ask the Minister directly-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You're the expert.


Ian Deans: Thank you. Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister, who has said that it is not the position of the Government of Canada that the hospital or health care system in Canada should have to seek private funding in order to maintain its level of health care?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, yes, I agree with the Prime Minister, and that is also what I have said. That has been my position all along. If the Hon. Member were to talk to hospital administrators he would find that, in many hospitals across Canada, administrators have been looking at the most cost-effective way of delivering services. That is the responsibility of the administrators, and I do not think that we should reduce their options because they are trying to deliver the very best health care system within the financial situation facing them.


WAR CRIMINALS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister may be aware that I have been invited to assist the Deschenes Commission which is investigating war criminals residing in Canada. In preparation for that task I have asked the Solicitor General if I could review departmental files from my time in office. 1 have been denied access to those files. Would the Prime Minister direct the Solicitor General to give me that access so that 1 can prepare to assist the commission?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was unaware that my hon. friend had been invited to assist the Deschenes Commission. I would have hoped that such a commission could have been established some years ago, and I think it is a great tribute to the Government that there has been a response on this very important matter.
I was unaware that my hon. friend had been invited to assist. I would be happy to look into the question he raises and ascertain the manner in which I could be helpful to that process.

June 26, 1985
Committee Reports CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of two, presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, June 25, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), by filing with the Clerk of the House, also meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. The report deals with the notice of Ways and Means motion. It was referred to the committee on May 13. It is dated May 9. The report is in both official languages.


PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in both official languages.
[ Translation]


TRANSPORT-PRESENTATION OF THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Transport.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES POLICY AND PROGRAMS- PRESENTATION OF SECOND REPORT OF STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Second Report of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Official Languages Policy and Programs.
[Editor's Note: For above reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House Leader could confirm the business of the House for today and even beyond that, if he is ready to do so?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think we will commence consideration of the Bill relating to advance payment of crops amendments today. Then I would like to proceed, if I might, to Bill C-25, which is the agriculture stabilization Bill. These are Bills with respect to which we received indication that we would be able to get through third reading on these items of legislation.
As the House Leader of the Official Opposition knows, I had given a list some time ago of legislation we would like to have passed before the House adjourns. The two Bills I mentioned fit into that category. Other Bills include the Bill with respect to the sale of the Northern Transportation Company Limited, which I understand is to be reported back to the House today from the Standing Committee on Transport.
I believe there would be a disposition to complete consideration of third reading of that legislation so that the Senate may also pass it and so that it may receive Royal Assent.
The other Bills I would like to see dealt with before we adjourn the House for the summer recess include the Western Grain Transportation Act, which I think is still before the committee but there is hope that it will be able to report it, if not today then tomorrow. There have also been discussions with respect to other items of legislation, such as a Bill which increases the number of judges in certain provinces at the request of the provinces. It is a non-controversial Bill, I believe. I hope there will be a disposition to deal with that Bill at all stages in the House so that the Senate could also pass it.
As well, Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions on the amendments to Standing Orders to bring into effect the recommendations of the first report of the Standing Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons at the beginning of September. I think we have a consensus among House Leaders with respect to that process.
There will be an amendment to the House of Commons Act, Mr. Speaker, which will create, in accordance with the recommendations of the Standing Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, the new Board of Internal Economy effective September 9, 1985.
These are some of the items of which I have given a list and would want to have passed before we adjourn. I think I might have missed one or two Bills such as the borrowing Bill, but, as you know, Mr. Speaker, just because I mention that last, it does not mean it is the least. That Bill will have to be passed
June 26, 1985

before Hon. Members can consider going on summer recess. We hope to do that by this Friday. However, I leave that in the hands of members of the Opposition. If they want to be irresponsible and deny the people of Canada the benefit of borrowing authority, which will mean that the people for whom the Opposition purports to speak will suffer, I think that would be awful-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, just by way of clarification of the Government House Leader's very interesting statement, with respect to the first two items he mentioned it is my recollection that I indicated to him in our consultations the number of speakers I thought we might have, which may have led him to the conclusion as to when third reading could be obtained. However, I want to make it clear that certainly while we will bear in mind his desire as to when third reading might be obtained, my comments to the Government House Leader did not go beyond indicating at that time the information I had as the number of speakers.
With respect to the final point the Government House Leader made, I think it should be put on the record that, as far as I am aware, the Government has borrowing authority now until the beginning of September. Certainly, the interests of the senior citizens of Canada have to come before the Government's mismanagement of government finances.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as to the question posed by the Opposition House Leader, in the course of our discussions-and I do not believe I am disclosing anything out of the meetings we had-it was clearly indicated that we were talking about items of legislation that we thought would be passed before the House adjourned.
In the course of that discussion, of course, I withdrew items that I would have liked to have had passed from that list in order to accommodate the Opposition. But it was on the clear understanding that we would make progress on the modest list I put forward over the course of time left. I very much appreciate the progress we have now made, but the reality is that that list is there and I think we should get through the list and try to make progress on it.
The only effect of not passing the borrowing Bill would be to punish the senior citizens of this country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add a comment. I do not think this is leading anywhere. I just wonder if perhaps the Government House Leader might consider calling a meeting so we could discuss these things in the normal fashion.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. To clarify that list, I wonder if the Government House Leader could tell me-because there is some interest in Vancouver-what his plans are for the amendment to the Criminal Code with respect to prostitution.
Point of Order-Mr. Nickerson I think that is Bill C-49. Is that on his list or is that to be done in the fall?


John Carnell Crosbie: You blocked it, Waddell.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, that is very much a priority on the list. That is one of the Bills to which I referred. I would bring it on except that the House Leader for the Hon. Member's party said that there was no way that Bill was going to be passed. That Bill is a priority of the Government, but the New Democratic Party has blocked it and will not let us pass it before the summer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -which is going to cause undue hardship in many cities of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: What is happening now only suggests that conversations about House business are best conducted somewhere else.
May I interrupt Routine Proceedings. I have a ruling I wish to read into the record. I meant to do this at the beginning.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) rose on a point of order to ask the Chair to review the proceedings of the House on June 20, 1985, on Motion No. 7 of Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act at report stage. I have his request and have examined the record.
The Hon. Member is correct in noting that the Votes and Proceedings do not reflect the sequence of events. However, I would refer him to Citation 149, paragraph 1 of the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne's which states that the Votes and Proceedings record all that is or-and I underline the "or"-is deemed to be done by the House. During consideration of the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), and subsequently, the House was operating under unusual circumstances in that there was unanimous consent to revert back to report stage and have the motion, which had in fact been carried, rescinded. The record shows that the motion was negatived. Again, I remind the Hon. Members, as indicated by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), that all of this was done by unanimous consent and, after Motion No. 7 was negatived, the House continued with debate on third reading. To have recorded all of this process in the Votes and Proceedings would have resulted in a very confusing record of the proceedings and would have provided in fact more information than was required to record the final decision of the House. What was

June 26, 1985
Petitions
recorded was the decision the House arrived at by unanimous consent. 1 therefore find that the record is in order.
As to the matter of the Mace still being on the Table, I would simply point out that at report stage the Mace sits on the Table; it is only in Committee of the Whole that it rests under the Table.


PETITIONS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table some petitions signed by a large number of residents of 920 Ouellette, a senior citizens' apartment building, in Windsor, Ontario. They call upon the Government to honour the commitment it made during the election campaign in the summer of 1984, and maintain full indexation of old age pensions.
I have petitions from residents of 120 Oak, another senior citizens' apartment building like the one I just mentioned, in Windsor, Ontario. They call upon the Government to honour the commitment it made during the election campaign in the summer of 1984 and maintain full indexation of old age pensions.
Furthermore, I have petitions from residents of 9150 Wyandotte Street East in Windsor. They call upon the Government to honour the commitment it made during the election campaign in the summer of 1984 and maintain full indexation of old age pensions.
I also have a petition from residents of 1989 Wyandotte Street West in Windsor. They also call upon the Government to honour the commitment it made during the election campaign in the summer of 1984 and maintain full indexation of old age pensions.
Finally, I have a large number of petitions from a substantial number of people living in various parts of the City of Windsor, Ontario. They all call upon the Government to honour the commitment it made during the election campaign in the summer of 1984 to maintain full indexation of old age pensions.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of 6,560 constituents of the riding held previously by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), that of Central Nova. They indicate they are very displeased with the fact that the Prime Minister has chosen to disrespect his commitment of the 1984 election campaign to maintain full indexation for old age pensions. They humbly beseech the Prime Minister to take cognizance of this petition and reverse his position.
I have a petition on behalf of 254 constituents of the federal riding of St. Paul's, presently held by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall). They ask the Prime Minister of Canada to respect his commitment of the 1984 election campaign and maintain full indexation for old age pensions.
In addition, I have a petition signed by 265 residents in the riding of Vancouver Centre. They are very much dismayed by the fact that this Government has chosen to break its promise of the last election campaign. They humbly call upon the Prime Minister to reverse his stand on the deindexation of pensions.
I have a further petition signed by residents of the riding of Saskatoon West, presently held by the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn). They humbly beseech the Prime Minister and Members on the front bench to withdraw their deindexation proposal. They hope this will be done before we rise for the summer break.
I have a further 1,074 signatures on a petition from the riding of Ontario presently held by a Conservative back-bencher. They are very much disturbed by the fact that the Prime Minister has chosen-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I hope the Hon. Member will discontinue stating who holds the seat. It really does not matter. Let us have the petitions.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, we are hoping it will matter by Friday of this week. At any rate, they indicated to me that they are dismayed at the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada has indicated a disrespect for his own campaign promises made in 1984, and they humbly beseech the present Government to take cognizance of their complaints and reverse itself by Friday of this week.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by some 116 residents of the Speaker's own riding in Edmonton. They ask for full reindexation of old age pensions. I know he will take note of that matter.
I have grouped the other petitions so I will not mention every municipality, but I do want to mention several areas because they represent a lot of meetings throughout British Columbia. I have signatures on petitions from Sardis, Abbotsford, Clearbrook, Aldergrove and Surrey, all asking for full indexation of old age pensions. Across the water on Vancouver Island, I have signatures on petitions asking for the same thing. I also have signatures of residents from quite a number of municipalities in the Lower Mainland. I will not read them all separately, but they include Vancouver, West Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, Delta and Harwood. They all ask the Government to reconsider its policy and fully reindex old age pensions.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition submitted by senior citizens residing at 6800 Gouin Boulevard in the great riding of Bourassa, asking the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, to meet his commitment made during the election campaign in the summer of 1984 to reinstate full indexation of Old Age Security pensions.
June 26, 1985


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure to present a petition from some 300 senior citizens at 1920 Power Street in my riding, and from 201 Rumball Terrace, which calls upon the Conservative Government to honour the promise made in the last federal election and fully reindex old age pensions.
I also have from the Town of Capreol a petition signed by 700 residents, who represent some 25 per cent of the population of the city where 1 live, calling on the Government to honour the promise it made and with which it sucked in Canadians when the Conservatives said they would fully index old age pensions. This petition calls upon the Government to reintroduce indexing.
1 also have the privilege and pleasure of introducing a petition from residents of Ottawa who call on the Conservative Government to honour its commitment and promise to the people of Canada made during the election campaign that old age pensions would be fully indexed and that it was a sacred trust. The petition calls upon the Government to maintain that trust.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by about 600 constituents in Ottawa-Carleton whose signatures were collected by Ottawa-Carleton senior citizens. Most of the petitioners voted Conservative, but they said: "Never again"! The petition comes from the Elm-vale and Heron Gate Mall shopping centres, and the petitioners ask the Government-
-that we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Conservative Government to honour its commitment of the election campaign of the summer of 1984 to maintain full indexing of old age pensions.

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from my riding, signed by 75 constituents and residents of Bernard Street who are asking the Progressive Conservative Government to meet its commitment made during the election campaign and maintain full indexation of Old Age Security pensions.
Mr. Speaker, 1 also have the honour of presenting another petition from Queen Mary Street, Prince Albert and the great neighbourhood of Overbrook, in my riding of Ottawa-Vanier. The petitioners from this part of my riding are asking the Progressive Conservative Government to keep its promise and refrain from making the senior citizens of this country shoulder the burden of reducing the federal deficit, and maintain universal indexation of pensions.
The last petition I have for today, Mr. Speaker, comes from residents of my riding, again from the Sandy Hill area, who call upon this House-
Petitions

-that we the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Conservative Government to honour the commitment it made during the election campaign of the summer of 1984 to maintain full indexation of old age pensions.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a number of petitions. One is from the great riding of Hamilton West, St. John's Place, where there are some very effective spokespersons for senior citizens, including Lorraine Watson. The petition of the undersigned residents calls upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government to live up to its word with respect to pensions. I have several hundred signatures of people from First Place and Sanford Place as well as St. John's Place. These people have worked hard and got the message across to the people of Hamilton.
I also have a number of petitions from the Niagara Peninsula. I have had calls from all over the Niagara Peninsula-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -asking me what is happening to Members. I have a petition from the good City of St. Catharines calling upon the Prime Minister to live up to his promise to the seniors to restore full indexing for the pensions of all senior citizens. We will be calling upon him to do that today and tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, I also have a number of other petitions from the ridings of Hamilton East, Hamilton West, and Lincoln calling upon the Prime Minister and the Government to live up to the promise made to senior citizens. There are 1,500 signatures on these petitions from Hamilton and the Niagara Peninsula. I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -whose constituents have signed these petitions, to join with me in calling upon the Government and the, Prime Minister to live up to the promise with regard to senior citizens' pensions.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The order in this House is to see the pensions of senior citizens restored, and we will continue to-


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


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Don't you know the rules of this place?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I too, rise on the matter of senior citizens' pensions. 1 have a petition signed by Mrs. Chaykowsky who lives on St. Catharines Street in my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway. She has got together with 417 other people, most of whom are seniors. They pray that the May 23 Budget will be changed because it imposes undue and unfair hardship on pensioners by deindexing the Old Age Security Program. They pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the Old

June 26, 1985
Petitions
Age Security Program in Canada. I think Mrs. Chaykowsky and the other pensioners.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition from some 1,500 people, most of whom are from Spadina, who gathered in Spadina during the past week. These petitioners ask this House to remember the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) last summer that a PC Government would once again index the old age pension to the actual cost of living on a quarterly basis. They ask the House to hold the Prime Minister to his pledge and to ensure that full indexing is restored. And as in duty bound your petitioners humbly pray.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present five petitions with more than 400 names from my own constituency and from the constituency of Selkirk-Interlake. These petitioners call upon the Government to live up to the promise that a PC Government would once more index old age pensions to the actual cost of living on a quarterly basis and to stop the proposal of deindexing pensions.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition signed by many, many, many petitioners from the riding of Egmont.


An Hon. Member:: How many are there?


George Roland Henderson: Oh, there are hundreds of them. They ask that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Government respect the commitment made in the 1984 election campaign to maintain full indexing for old age pensions.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a large number of petitions from pensioners in northern British Columbia, principally from the Prince George area, but also from the constituencies of Prince George-Peace River and Prince George-Bulkley Valley. The petitioners pray that the May 23 Budget proposals with regard to deindexing will be changed to reflect the campaign promise of last year that a PC Government would once more index the old age pension to the actual cost of living on a quarterly basis. These northern pensioners are concerned at the loss from their pensions of $100 next year and $680 by 1991.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a number of petitions.


John V. Nunziata: How many?


Sergio Marchi: Oh, about 20 or 30, each with a couple of hundred signatures at the very minimum.


Mr. Boudria:: That's lots.


Sergio Marchi: The NDP laughed. It is not a laughing matter, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Let us get to the
petitions please.


Sergio Marchi: The first petition is from a Mr. and Mrs. Sam Guido of 51 Yorkdale Crescent in my riding of York West who went up and down their street. The petition asks the Government to maintain its promise of the 1984 election campaign to senior citizens with regard to the indexation of Old Age Security pensions.
I have a second petition, signed by hundreds of senior citizens from the Federation of Anziani Pensionati Italo Cana-dese in Toronto urging the Government to index fully the pensions of all senior citizens throughout the country.
I also have a petition from the riding of York West, specifically from the Amesbury Senior Citizens Club, asking the Prime Minister to respect his commitment of the 1984 election campaign to maintain full indexation for senior citizens' pensions.
I also have a petition signed by hundreds of members of the Downsview Arena Senior Citizens club at 1633 Wilson Avenue in York West asking the Government to fulfil its commitment by indexing completely Old Age Security pensions for senior citizens.
I also have a petition from the riding of York West from the senior citizens at the Falstaff Harmony Seniors Club asking the Government to honour its commitment-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Sergio Marchi: -to senior citizens to index their pensions fully.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Come on, you know the rules.


Sergio Marchi: I also have a petition from the Circolo Anziani and Humber Summit in the riding of York West asking for the very same thing as the other petitioners did, namely that the full indexation-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Sergio Marchi: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We heard it the first time.


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


Sergio Marchi: This petition is in order, and if you don't like it you can shove it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, order!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If you don't know the rules, don't come in here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order! The Hon. Member has been here now for nine or ten months and he realizes that he cannot carry on in this way. There is no reason for this. I do not care who the occupant of the Chair is, if the Hon. Member has a petition, let him get on with it and let us get it done so that we can get on to the Orders of the Day.
June 26, 1985


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we have some indication from the Chair as to how many petitions an Hon. Member may present on a particular day? If we get some direction from the Chair, Hon. Members-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not consider that to be a point of order but I will check into it and find out while we go through petitions.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I was not abusing parliamentary time. I was trying to read the petitions from senior citizens' clubs that came from my riding. If I can do that, I would like to continue.
The next petition comes from seniors and non seniors from the riding of York West, namely from neighbours from the Falstaff Road community, advocating that full indexation be maintained and fully honoured.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We know in the House that Members are entitled and are duty bound to bring in petitions on behalf of their constituents. That is an honourable and ancient tradition in the House of Commons. The Speaker has made a ruling with respect to the method by which these petitions are to be presented. I think you will recall the ruling that when petitions are of a similar nature, asking for essentially the same relief-


John V. Nunziata: Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am simply saying that the point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The President of the Privy Council has the floor. If anybody wants to rise on the same point of order-


John V. Nunziata: That is the same point I was making.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The ruling of the Chair has been that the practice in the House is simply to make preference to where the petition came from but not to repeat every petition that is filed or its contents.
The Hon. Member is now taking up the time of the House by reading, over and over again, the content of the petition. I respect his right, and in fact his obligation, to bring forward petitions, but he also has a responsibility to other Members of the House who have petitions and are waiting patiently for their turn to present petitions which they feel are equally important. The more time of the House the Hon. Member takes up, the more he prevents other Members from presenting their petitions.
I think he should read the places from which the petitions come and not repeat and content each time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. With all due respect to the Hon. House Leader, he is as aware of the rules of the House, as we are. However, I want him to think about Beauchesne, Citation 692(1) which states:
Petitions
While a Member may, if he desires, present a petition from his place in the House during Routine Proceedings and before the Introduction of Bills, he may also present his petition by filing it with the Clerk of the House.
That is left up to the Member. Citation 692(2) states:
When a Member presents a petition, he may not make a speech nor present argument in support of the petition.
The Hon. Member was not making a speech or presenting an argument. I submit that we are following the rules and presenting petitions in the House according to Citation 692.


Sergio Marchi: I rise on a point of order. I detest very much the allegation or suggestion that I was trying to abuse the privileges of the House. In order to allow all Members an opportunity to present their petitions, I would like to keep the remaining petitions.
I think the organizations would like me to present them individually because they have worked hard. I will present them tomorrow.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions with a total of 1,426 signatures. Most of the petitioners reside in the federal riding of York South-Weston.
As you know, the Liberal Party has led the battle to restore full indexation for all senior citizens' pensions in Canada.


An Hon. Member:: That is a speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Petitions.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, these petitioners request the Government of Canada to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the Hon. Member still on the same petition, or is this another one?


John V. Nunziata: I am just beginning, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is this the first petition? Would the Hon. Member please get on with it?


John V. Nunziata: The first petition reads, whereas the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) made a solemn promise to the senior citizens of Canada and in fact to all Canadians during the election campaign of 1984, and whereas the same Prime Minister has breached that promise to senior citizens-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Member like to carry on with another petition? He has already mentioned that one. Would he want to go on to another one?


John V. Nunziata: Therefore, the petitioners request the Prime Minister and the Conservative Government to honour that solemn promise made to senior citizens and Canadians to restore, ensure and guarantee full indexation of all senior citizens' pensions in Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. Does the Hon. Member have another petition?

June 26, 1985
Petitions


John V. Nunziata: I have another petition signed by 440 residents of the riding of York South-Weston. These petitioners are requesting the Government of Canada, particularly the Prime Minister, to honour his commitment made in Sherbrooke, Quebec, in July-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Again, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston abuses the privileges of the House by reading and repeating a similar petition with similar content in each of the petitions.
There is nothing wrong with his saying that he has petitions from a number of constituents or separate petitions dealing with the same subject and referring to each of the groups that have presented a petition. However, what he does, first, is to read the petition, which is against the practice of the House. It should be in summary form. Second, he repeats the content of the same petition for each group. I do not mind sitting here and waiting, but it seems to me that members of the NDP have equally important petitions to present. Those Members are wasting the time of the House and preventing members of the NDP and members of the Government to bring their petitions before the House.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I want to say that the person who is wasting the time, in my opinion, is the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn). If we did not have spurious points of order that are not points of order, Members would be able to present their petitions. The Hon. Member has been summarizing the petition, which he is allowed to do.
Not only are the rules plainly printed in Beauchesne, there is also the practice. Mr. Speaker has ruled several times during this session that Members are allowed to do what they are doing now, that is, to present the gist of the petition one by one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate the Hon. Member's intervention. Let me read from page 213 of Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition. I am sure that the Hon. Member is a very learned member of the bar and I will not question his ability. However, he will understand what I read and I hope he will carry on to complete his petitions so that other Members can do the same. There are many senior citizens who want to hear the same thing as the Hon. Member is presenting today. If he would co-operate with the Chair, I would be grateful. With respect to the method of presentation of petitions, Citation 692(2) states:
When a Member presents a petition, he may not make a speech nor present argument in support of the petition.
I am sure the Hon. Member realizes what I am looking for and will expedite the presentation of his petitions.


John V. Nunziata: Out of an immense respect for the Chair and particularly the present occupant of the Chair, I will refrain from making argument, pursuant to the citation that you have cited. I will proceed to present my petitions in an orderly fashion and indicate the gist of each and every petition that I will heretofore present to the House.
The petition signed by a total of 440 residents of the good riding of York South-Weston in Toronto requests the Prime Minister to honour his commitment made in Sherbrooke, Quebec, in July of last year to guarantee full indexation for all senior citizens pensioners. The petitioners request the Prime Minister to change the Budget to ensure full indexation for all senior citizens.
The next petition is signed by a total of 150 residents of the riding of York South-Weston. These petitioners also request that the Conservative Government honour its pre-election promise with respect to senior citizens of Canada and ensure, guarantee and restore-


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: That is a comment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not wish to hear any more because that is not a comment. It is a speech, as far as I am concerned. I would hope the Hon. Member would be kind enough to his colleagues, who are sitting there waiting patiently, to allow them to go ahead. Perhaps the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) would like to carry on with his petitions tomorrow?


John V. Nunziata: I will carry on Mr. Speaker.
I have another petition signed by 475 residents of the Fairfield Senior Citizens' Centre on Lothian Avenue in the City of Toronto. These petitioners protest the Government's proposed deindexation of the Old Age Security cheques.
The next petition I have to present to the House concerns the same issue, namely, the Government's proposed deindexation of senior citizens' pensions. These petitioners as well request the Government of Canada to ensure full indexation of senior citizens' pensions.
The next petition is signed by a number of residents of the riding of York South-Weston as well as from a number of other ridings in metropolitan Toronto. These petitioners request the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney to respect his commitment of the election campaign to maintain full indexation of all old age pensions.
The next petition I wish to present to this House of Commons is a petition signed by a great number of residents in and around-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. Again the Hon. Member is making a speech. I would ask him to get right on to the petition, please.


John V. Nunziata: This is a petition signed by a number of residents in the City of Toronto. These petitioners request the Government to reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security Program in Canada.
I have another petition. This petition is signed by a number of residents in the City of York in the municipality of metropolitan Toronto. They too request the Government of Canada to ensure that senior citizens' pensions will be fully indexed and will not be partially indexed.
June 26, 1985

I have another petition, Mr. Speaker. This petition is signed by a number of residents in the City of North York in the municipality of metropolitan Toronto. The petitioners request the Government of Canada to maintain full indexation for all old age pensions.
The next petition I wish to present to the House of Commons has a total of 360 signatories. These signatories request the Government of Canada, in particular the Prime Minister of Canada, to maintain full indexation of all senior citizens' pensions in Canada.
The next petition I wish to present to the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, is from a number of residents and taxpayers in the City of Etobicoke in the municipality of metropolitan Toronto. These petitioners as well request the Prime Minister to keep his promise to the people of Canada and to ensure full indexation of all senior citizens' pensions.
The next petition I wish to present-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please be seated?
The Hon. Member knows that the Speaker of the House had mentioned at one time that if Members had some petitions in regard to deindexation or whatever they could mention the fact that the petitions all are part of the one topic and that they are all from a certain area. The Hon. Member realizes this. His colleagues are anxious to get on with their petitions today. I hope that he will not tax the Chair or anybody else in this House by the way he is presenting his petitions. I do not think it is necessary. I think the people viewing the Hon. Member realize pretty well what he is doing. I hope the Hon. Member will come to the end of his petitions and allow some of his colleagues in this Chamber to make their presentations.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will present two other petitions, recognizing of course that 1 have quite a number of other petitions containing thousands of signatures to present to the House. I will exercise my right as a Member of Parliament and present those petitions, a number of them, tomorrow.
In consideration of other Liberal Members of the House of Commons who wish to present petitions on this subject, I will end my presentation with two other petitions.
The second to the last petition concerns the same matter, namely the issue of partial deindexation of senior citizens' pensions. These residents of 250 Scarlett Road in the federal riding of York South-Weston request the Prime Minister to keep his promises.
The next petition is signed by a number of residents at 80 Shaughnessy Blvd., the City of Toronto. These petitioners as well as others add their names to the hundreds of thousands of people who are concerned about this issue and request the Prime Minister to keep the promises that he made during the election campaign and not to break those promises because, according to his words, they were a sacred trust and the people of Canada have a right-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.
Petitions


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I will not embarrass the people nor their cause on behalf of whom I submit this petition.
I have 500 names on this petition added to the thousands that have already come from Windsor and the thousands yet to come. What the petitioners ask is very simple. They pray that the Government will recognize that a promise is sacred and a broken promise is immoral. They would encourage a strong resolve on the part of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his promise now to change his treatment of pensioners with respect to the pension.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from people in my riding and from various parts of the Province of Ontario. The first is from the Saranac Social Club for Seniors at 3174 Bathhurst Street. The petitioners pray Parliament to call upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to return full indexation of old age pensions to the old age pensioners of Canada.
I have petitions from people from Woodbridge, Downsview, Weston and London, Ontario who also call upon this House through this petition to take into account the anguish which they are experiencing regarding their future and the future of other old age pensioners because of the fact that an increase in taxes is going to take place on July 1 and because of deindexation. They pray the Prime Minister to change the Budget.
I have petitions from 3174 Bathhurst Street in the riding of Eglinton-Lawrence, again calling upon the Prime Minister, through this House, to reindex pensions and to try to bring back full indexation which the Budget of the Conservative Government has removed.
I have petitions also from people in Scarborough, Oshawa, Don Mills, and Whitby, all calling upon the Government, through the Chair, through this House of Commons, to change this policy and bring back full indexation to the senior citizens of this country.
I also have a petition from people in my riding on Bathhurst Street and various other parts of my riding who have asked me to present this petition on their behalf, humbly praying the House of Commons to call upon the Prime Minister of Canada to take into account their concern on behalf of full indexation of the old age pensions for senior citizens.
I also have petitions from other parts of my riding. In order to save time, Mr. Speaker, I will lump them together, which will probably be regrettable in some cases because of the efforts they have made. They are people from Glengarry Street and from various parts of my riding who have asked me to present on their behalf to this House their profound concern, and as petitioners their right to petition the House of Commons, calling upon this Conservative Government, through the Chair, through the House of Commons, to change
6210

June 26, 1985
Petitions
the Budget and to restore full indexation to the senior citizens of this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate what the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) did. I hope other Hon. Members will take heed of how fast he completed his large list of petitions.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present representations in the form of petitions signed by residents from the riding of Mount Royal, particularly from the Town of Cote St. Luc. These residents are dreadfully concerned, very upset and worried about the impact of the Budget on their particular lifestyle. They beg-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member have a number of petitions to present?


Sheila Finestone: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Do they all concern the same subject matter, deindexation? If so, would she just name the places and just give us one reading of the substance of the petitions?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly follow your direction. However, I think the senior citizens of my riding will be very distressed. Nonetheless, the senior citizens of Cote St. Luc Road, who number over 300, have gone to the effort and trouble to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who stated that he heard from all the people and was representing their views in the Budget, that the current Budget does not reflect their-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not know whether the Hon. Member was in the Chamber when I mentioned that we do not require a speech. All she has to do is to say that they concern deindexation or whatever, and just give the street numbers and everything else all together. I am sure senior citizens out there will be hearing the Hon. Member loud and clear.


Sheila Finestone: It is with respect to deindexing that the residents of 6767 Cote St. Luc Road express their displeasure.
I also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a petition from Adalbert, Saint-Ignatius, Plamondon, Kent and McLynn in the City of Montreal, in the riding of Mount Royal. It is addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and to the Minister of Finance. They strongly protest the deindexation of pensions. They urge them to rescind this unethical and immoral legislation.
I also bring to your attention a petition from the Town of Mount Royal, from the streets of Laird and Lockhard- [Translation]
-that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated that the Canadian men and women he met with after the Budget presentation endorse the Budget, and they fully disagree. I
bring that to your attention on behalf of residents of Lockhart and Laird Streets.
From the same area I have another petition signed by people of Powell, Royal and Graham Streets who also expressed their disagreement concerning deindexation.

I also bring to your attention a petition from the federal riding of LaSalle, represented by the Parliamentry Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier). The petitioners express their displeasure. They do not feel they have a voice in the House, so I bring their voices to the House. They are residents from LaSalle Boulevard, Carrol Street, Tetrault Street-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not intend to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I would like her to get to the point of her petitions. Some of her colleagues would like to present petitions. We have been kind by recognizing Hon. Members. I know they have various things to do this afternoon and that there are members of other Parties who would like to present petitions.


Sheila Finestone: As I said, I bring to your attention a petition from the federal riding of LaSalle. I add to that another petition from that riding, as well as a petition from the riding of Dollard, represented by another Parliamentary Secretary. The petitioners indicate their disaccord and disapproval of deindexation, as well as the cost of living increases on health products which they have to use. It is from the Streets of Dorchester, Albion and Monk Boulevard.
I also bring to your attention another petition from the Town of Cote St. Luc and also from Graham Boulevard, Powell Avenue and Saint-Michel, in the riding of Mount Royal. I guess there are many people who feel they do not have a voice anywhere else, so they approach the riding of Mount Royal where they can express themselves freely against the Government's deindexing policy.
I have only two more petitions which I should like to present from the Town of Mount Royal, Powell and Touraine, with respect to the Budget-

-the Budget, that they do not endorse deindexation, and from people of Ville de Mount Royal once again on Sherwood, Laird, Roosevelt, Morrison and Sherwood Crescent. Those people are not pleased at all and they absolutely want access to their money so as to buy everything they need.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House petitions signed by people from coast to coast, from Nova Scotia to British Columbia. These people exercise their ancient right by petitioning Parliament, particularly the Government. They ask the Government to reverse its decision and to maintain the full indexation of the Old Age Security. Of course, they also recognize that the first
June 26, 1985

attack and rape on Old Age Security was committed by the Liberal Party which knows no shame.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member is a longstanding Member of the House. He knows that he should not be making a speech when he is presenting a petition. I just draw that to his attention. I am sure he will come to the point.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, it is an honour for me to present 230 names from the Province of Nova Scotia, namely from the City of Halifax.
Moving across the country, it is also an honour for me to present 150-some names from the riding of Nepean-Carleton and some from my home Province of Saskatchewan. The petition contains the names of several hundred petitioners from centres such as Kerrobert, Luseland, Unity, Biggar, North Battleford, Saskatoon, Hudson Bay, and of course my riding of Regina East.
As well, I have some 1,732 names of petitioners from the Province of British Columbia, from such communities as New Westminster, Surrey, White Rock, Richmond, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Nanaimo, Burnaby, North Vancouver, Vancouver proper and Haney. They join with thousands of Canadians from coast to coast in requesting the Government to implement and maintain full indexation, not to do what the Liberals did, that is, stop full indexation of the Old Age Security.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions from constituents in my riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon and from the City of Thunder Bay, containing more than 400 names. They protest that the May 23 Budget imposes undue and unfair hardship on pensioners by deindexing, and that it flies in the face of Conservative promises to restore quarterly indexing. They call upon the House of Commons to restore full indexation. Also, these petitions come from the Town of Red Rock, the Town of Nipigon and from various parts of the City of Thunder Bay, from residents at 120 South Cumberland Street, from residents in the Castlegreen and Superior View Co-operatives and from members of the Thunder Bay Multicultural Association.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by 162 residents of the community of Rainy River, indicating their opposition to the Government's plan to deindex their pensions. Opposed to these 162 residents, there are two names of people who support the Government's move to deindex old age pensions.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty today to present a series of petitions from my own constituency and also from the constituency of MacKenzie, next door to Prince Albert. These petitioners are concerned about the deindexation of their pensions by the present Government. They request the Parliament of Canada to rein-
Petitions
state full indexation of the Old Age Security Program in Canada.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House petitions signed by a great many seniors from my riding of Papineau who came to protest here in Ottawa two weeks ago and gave me these petitions, asking me to present them to Parliament today.
Through these petitions they are urging the Government to reconsider its position concerning the deindexation of old age security pensions.
Mr. Speaker, 1 have some more petitions signed by constituents in the neighbouring riding of Montreal-Rosemont who vehemently object to the budgetary measures of the Minister of Finance, and who consider that the Government is being far too generous to the oil companies, compared with what it is doing for senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I have some more petitions that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.
Order. The Hon. Member who has been a Minister of the Crown and has had a distinguished career here for many years realizes that what he is doing is taxing the Chair and also his colleagues. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has been getting up and down, and it is very difficult for him, but I hope that the Hon. Member will try to help in these things.


Jean-C. Lapierre: It's harder for you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I don't have that problem, but you are taxing the Chair also, s'il vous plait.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, as you suggested I will keep these petitions and present them before the Chair tomorrow, since these constituents insist that I present their objections to a Progressive Conservative Budget that refuses to allow full indexation of Old Age Security pensions.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present petitions on behalf of the people of the ridings of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and Saint-Jean. These petitioners ask the Prime Minister to meet the commitment he made to them in July, and they will not tolerate broken promises. These petitioners are demanding that the Government reinstate full indexation of Old Age Security pensions, and I repeat, they are residents from the ridings of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and Saint-Jean.
I have another petition, this time from senior citizens in the riding of Montreal-Sainte-Marie. They too are demanding

June 26, 1985
Petitions
that the Prime Minister meet his commitment and fully protect the elderly by maintaining indexation of Old Age Security pensions.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition, this time from the ridings of Rosemont and Sherbrooke, which is rather unusual. These petitioners are asking the Prime Minister to meet his commitment and protect the elderly, and they object strenuously to this attack on senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, as for my next petition, I am sure you will agree that it should be presented separately, because it is a very special petition and these are very special people from the City of Baie-Comeau and I am sure they are listening to us at this very moment and they have asked me to present this petition, demanding that the Right Hon. Prime Minister meet his commitments and fully protect Old Age Security pensions.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I have another petition here from residents of the riding of Louis-Hebert in the Quebec City area. These petitioners want the Prime Minister to give senior citizens full protection and they want him to meet his commitments.
Mr. Speaker, before I finish, I have another petition from the riding of Montmorency-Orleans. I imagine everyone knows the riding of Montmorency-Orleans, the pride of its residents, and


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I have said to the Hon. Member that if all the petitions are in regard to the deindexing, I wish he would just name the place. No speeches are required. Let him just give us the petitions, s'il vous plait.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I was talking about the people of the riding of Montreal-Montmorency who also want their voice to be heard here in the House of Commons. It is important to remember that the House of Commons is the House of all Canadians, and therefore the people of Montmorency wish to express their objections to the Prime Minister's and the Government's decision.
Mr. Speaker, before I finish, I have another petition presented on behalf of the residents of the great City of Quebec. Considering the fact that the Parliament of Canada is the Parliament of the people, these petitioners, as Canadian citizens and as senior citizens who built this country, also want to have their names put on the record here in the House of Commons, and they demand that the Prime Minister meet his commitment.
Mr. Speaker, my very last petition, another petition on behalf of some very honourable citizens of Canada who helped build this country and who gave us or present Prime Minister, the people of Baie-Comeau, who feel betrayed by the Prime Minister's decision, and petitioners ask the Prime Minister to reinstate full indexation of Old Age Security pensions.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to present petitions. One is in the name of residents of Louis-Hebert who gave it to me because they did not know the name of their own Member of Parliament. They asked me to urge the Prime Minister to reverse his decision to deindex old age security pensions and to remind him instead of his promise made in Sherbrooke last July concerning full indexation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the people of Sherbrooke who were there when the Prime Minister made his announcement also signed this petition-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member knows-he has been here a long time and he has also been a Minister of the Crown-he realizes that if he has a number of petitions with regard to deindexing, whatever the number is, we do not require a speech. Let him please just bring them to our attention. There are still some more of his colleagues who want to be recognized, s'il vous plait.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I readily acknowledge your wisdom but I must tell you that I am personally committed to perform my duties and present these petitions on behalf of those electors. Among other people, I met a group at the Baie-Comeau "Les amis" Tavern who asked me to present this petition and make sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the fact that even his friends over there insist that he must reverse his decision and honour his commitments.
Mr. Speaker, another group of Baie-Comeau residents, including the Prime Minister's own aunt Jeanne, have asked me to present a petition urging that full indexation be reinstated. Those people are very concerned and they are convinced that the Prime Minister will reconsider his position if they ask him to do so, for he promised them he would listen to them and carry out their wishes.
Mr. Speaker, some people of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve asked me as well to present a petition. Incidentally, they are very proud of their Member of Parliament because he is the only one who had the courage of his and their convictions concerning the deindexation of old age security pensions. As you know, he is the only Government Member who stood up for his electors.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member was the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and he was very fast on his feet then. I would just hope that he will be just as fast with petitions.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for those compliments but I must say that people of Montmorency-Orleans would be very insulted if I did not present the petition they signed concerning the deindexation of old age security pensions.
June 26, 1985


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of three North York senior citizens' groups and many other citizens in my riding of Willowdale, I am honoured to present to this House their petitions opposing the Government's proposed indexing of their Old Age Security pensions.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from several hundred people in my riding from the Villages and Towns of Govan, St. Gregor, Pilger, Alvena, Wynyard and Nokomis who are protesting the proposed deindexation of pensions and ask that the House of Commons reinstate full indexation of the Old Age Security Program in Canada.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from residents of the riding of Saint-Jacques, which I have the honour to represent in Parliament, and from residents of other constituencies, such as Gamelin, Rosemont, Sainte-Marie and Longueuil.
The petitioners state that the Government initiative to limit indexation of old age security pensions after January 1, 1986, would reduce the purchasing power of the elderly.
They therefore humbly ask that the Government of Canada respect the commitment made during the summer of 1984 to maintain full indexation of old age security pensions.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for having recognized my constituency and my presence.
I have a petition from many residents of Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell who are concerned about pensions. I would like to present one signed by 14 residents of Limoges, in Ontario; one signed by 27 residents of Vankleek Hill, in Ontario; another one signed by 55 residents of Limoges; one signed by 34 people in Alexandria; one signed by 70 people of the Club Joie de Vivre in Embrun; one signed by 35 residents of the boarding house Residence Mon Chez-Nous, in Casselman, Ontario; one signed by 16 members of the Club 60 Sainte-Felicitee of Clarence Creek; one signed by 59 residents of the Place Old Mill apartment in Hawkesbury; one signed by 24 people of the village of Bainsville; one signed by 34 people of Embrun; one signed by 65 residents of the Foyer Lapalme in Embrun; and finally, Mr. Speaker, a petition which was given to me here on this very day by 52 membres of the Club de l'Age d'Or of Saint-Bernardin, in Ontario.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I ask your indulgence because I have many petitions to present.
The first comes from the people of Shediac, in my constituency; I have two more from the residents of the city of
Introduction of Bills
Bouctouche; I also have a few other petitions from Sainte-Marie-de-Kent; I have here another one from residents of Cocagne and Saint-Antoine; I also have a petition from the people of Notre-Dame and residents of Sainte-Marie-de-Kent; and I also have three petitions from the people of Cap-Pele.
1 should point out, Mr. Speaker, that these people are very concerned about the de-indexation measures announced in the Wilson Budget, and the petitioners ask the House to urge the Government to re-establish full indexation.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, it is also my pleasure to table in this House a petition signed by a group of residents of the federal constituency of Hochelaga-Maison-neuve, who strongly deplore the position taken by the Government as far as pension indexation is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition, this time from the federal riding of Louis-Hebert, in Quebec city, where many people have expressed their total disapproval of the Government decision not to provide full indexation for old age security pensions.



WAYS AND MEANS


Hon. Bob Layton (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 64(1), I hereby lay on the Table in both official languages notice of a Ways and Means Motion and ask that an Order of the Day be designated for its consideration.



CROWN CORPORATIONS DISSOLUTION AUTHORIZATION ACT


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-60, an Act to authorize procurement of the dissolution of certain Crown corporations and to amend or repeal other Acts in consequence thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the First time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
June 26, 1985
Order Paper Questions

Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-244, an Act to provide for the Canadian Post-Secondary Education Council.
He said: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, the purpose of this Bill is to establish a Canadian Post-Secondary Education Council, the main function of which would be to provide a forum for discussion of the development of post-secondary education in Canada and of interprovincial, national and international educational questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Judges Act, the Federal Court Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the National Defence Act in relation to judicial matters and to amend an Act to amend the Judges Act and the Federal Court Act in consequence thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 186.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	In 1983, what was the total number of staff serving in Canadian embassies and missions and how many were non-Canadian?
2.	In 1983, what was the total operation cost of the embassies and missions?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): 1. There are 5,678 employees, including 2,028 Canada-based employees and 3,650 locally-engaged staff, of whom 340 were Canadian citizens.
2. The total cost was $286,908,260 in the 1983-84 fiscal year.
[ Translation]


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. I wonder if, by the end of this week, the Parliamentary Secretary could give us a resume of the answers given by the Government to date to the questions put by Members of the House and if he could tell us the percentage of questions that have been answered, how many questions are remaining to be answered and when we can expect the other questions to be answered.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, as of June 14, we had answered 68.9 per cent of the questions put so far.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 7 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano)?

CONSULTATIONS RESPECTING BILL C-23 Motion No. 7-Mr. Gagliano:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all briefs presented to the Minister of State (Small Businesses) during his recent consultation tour in relation to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.
June 26, 1985


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: As there has been no round of consultations concerning Bill C-23, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act (SBLA), Mr. Speaker, and as no brief has as yet been submitted to the Minister on the said Bill, we respectfully ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion.


An Hon. Member:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Transferred for debate.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Today is the seventeenth anniversary of the election which brought the Class of '68 to the House of Commons, those Hon. Members elected for the first time in the 1968 election. At that time they were the "Yuppies" and today they are the "Guppies", the greying upwardly mobile professionals.
The Class of '68 included some Members who became outstanding parliamentarians, some who reverted to other occupations and some who went on to their reward in the other place or on the bench.
The present Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) was a member of that group, as were the Hon. Member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). The former distinguished Speaker of the House, the Hon. James Jerome, now associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court, came in in 1968 and soon made his mark in this Chamber.
I, your humble servant, was part of the illustrious class of '68.

Some others who are still here and will remember those days are the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin),
Advance Payments for Crops Act
and the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault). If I have omitted anyone from that freshmen group of 1968, I am sorry.
It is the opportune time to express to the surviving members of that group the appreciation of the House for the dedication those Hon. Members have carried with them over these 17 years, from the time they arrived as callow Members-all of us did-to the present, now that they have become seasoned and mature in the service of this House and everything it represents.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to that outstanding list of parliamentarians. However, I believe there is one name which modesty undoubtedly prevented you from uttering, that of the distinguished Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski), who was one of the outstanding members of the Class of '68, who is now occupying the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join in the pleasantries and affection which you have expressed to the Class of '68, because it was a vintage year. It was an outstanding group of parliamentarians who were elected at that time and they have distinguished themselves in the House of Commons. Of course, the Hon. Member who sits in the Chair today typifies that in the greatest of ways. You, Mr. Speaker, follow in the distinguished footsteps of the former Hon. Member for Sudbury who was the Speaker of the House for a number of years. I think the greatest tribute to those members of the Class of '68 who are still in the House was paid by Mr. Speaker Jerome at one time where he said, "We are the survivors". So I am glad to join in the Chair's compliments to the Class of 1968.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Wise: that Bill C-58, an Act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I took note of your remarks earlier with reference to the Class of '68. I would just like to utilize this opportunity to congratulate those people who were victorious, from all Parties, of course. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I well recall the year 1968 back in my riding of Elgin. Good fortune did not come our way in the riding of Elgin back in 1968. Two things happened on that day back in 1968, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
June 26, 1985
Advance Payments for Crops Act Speaker, first, it rained torrents from early morning until late night and, second, when the ballots were counted, our Party ended up with the short stick. So the good days in the riding of Elgin did not take place for us until the election of October, 1972.
On my travels across Canada, Mr. Speaker, in the past several months, I have been asked by many farmers and farm organizations if and when the federal Government would bring forth legislation to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act. They told me it is a good program but it is out of date. It is based on farming costs and commodity prices from almost a decade ago. My answer to those people has always been "very soon". Well, Mr. Speaker, "soon" is right now, before our deliberations end for the summer.
It is in this regard today that I want to introduce for second reading a Bill to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act. Before discussing the proposed amendments, I should first remind the House what the Advance Payments for Crops Program is all about. The object of the program is to assist in the orderly marketing of agricultural crops in all parts of Canada. It does this, as the title implies, by advancing interest free payments to producers for storable crops prior to harvest time. This gives producers the financial flexibility to market their crops over the full marketing season when returns are normally higher than at harvest time. When the crop is sold, the money is repaid to the federal Government. In other words, this program provides farmers with some cash to see them through the period from planting time to the time they are able to sell their crop. In the case of some crops, that can be many, many months. Consider, for instance, the British Columbia apple, the Ontario rutabagas and the Prince Edward Island potatoes which are in the stores now. They were not harvested in June, 1985. They probably came out of the field in September, 1984. Where have they been for the past nine months? Most likely they were not sitting in a supermarket or a wholesaler's warehouse. They were probably stored in farm cold storages across the country. In all that time the producer was not paid unless, of course, he received an advance payment under the very Act which I propose that we amend today.
There have been no changes made to this piece of legislation since it was enacted in 1977. It is now time to amend this Act in order to optimize its marketing potential. The first amendment would double the maximum level of advance payments allowed under the Act in any crop year from $15,000 to $30,000 per individual producer, and from $30,000 and $45,000 for business organizations to $60,000 and $90,000. Under an Appropriation Act, these levels could be raised to amounts fixed by Parliament.
This amendment would bring the maximum advance levels in line with those under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Program. The present inequities between the two programs has caused confusion among producers concerning the two programs in western Canada. Understandably, producer organizations have been asking Agriculture Canada to eliminate these inequities.
The present maximum levels under the Advance Payments for Crops Act were set in 1977. Over the past eight years, producers' input costs have risen at a much faster rate than their market returns. Thus, a smaller portion of the producer's crop is now covered by the program. Over the past eight years producer input costs have risen at a much higher rate than market returns. Thus, a smaller portion of the producers' crop is now covered by the program. This has reduced the producers' marketing flexibility and therefore his return. But amending the advanced levels will serve no purpose unless the total size of the program is increased. For each of the past three years the total guaranteed amounts approach the present $200 million maximum contingent liability. Thus, this legislation doubles the Government's contingent liability from $200 million to $400 million.
It is only reasonable that the size of the program should double since there is increased interest in it by producers and producer organizations. They see the advance payments for crops program as one which helps them to lengthen the marketing season for storable crops, improves their cash flow positions, and helps defend against variable interest rates. When producers are able to store their crops and market them over an extended period, this helps to expand the domestic market as well as develop export markets.
In the past few years producers have become very involved in the marketing of their crops in order to improve their market return. They have learned that it does not pay to sell to the first buyer who comes along if they can hold their produce longer. Many producers' organizations have compared their returns to producers who participate in the Advance Payments for Crops Program with those who do not. It is noteworthy that the cost of the program is far less than the increased market return to producers.
Not surprisingly, participation in the program has increased considerably in the past few years. In the first year of the program, only eight producer organizations across the country participated. For the 1984-85 crop year, close to $190 million was guaranteed under the program through some 47 producer organizations. More than 18,000 producers benefited as a result of this program.
In addition to doubling the maximum size of this program, the proposed legislation includes several housekeeping amendments which could make the program more flexible. The first of these would clarify the definition of a buyer-broker and would specify who names them. This is necessary to allow producers greater flexibility in developing a marketing system that is best for them. Without that flexibility they tend to develop marketing systems that would make them eligible for payments under the Act.
The second housekeeping amendment would improve the means and fairness of collecting defaults and would permit the federal Government to pay associated legal costs. Under the Act producers' organizations are currently responsible for collecting bad debts or defaults. This means that all participat-
June 26, 1985

ing producers have to pay the expenses for those who default. The proposed legislation would allow the producers' organization to recover the collection costs from the producers who default. Failing that, their legal expenses would be paid for by the federal Government. Any legal expenses, however, would be offset by the savings on the interest charges on outstanding defaults. On this point I want to take a moment to reassure the House that the level of defaults is extremely small. In the seven years that the program has been in operation, the average total of the defaults is less than one tenth of 1 per cent of the total value of all payments guaranteed. The lending institutions consider their percentage of defaults in the agricultural sector as a good rate.
In addition, the proposed Bill includes a number of other housekeeping amendments that will help streamline the administrative process and allow for negotiation of lower interest rates. This should result in significant savings to the federal Government. All of the proposed amendments have been developed in concert with producer organizations and are generally supported by them. At a time when crop producers are under great stress from rising production costs and fluctuating market prices, the Advance Payments for Crops Program is more important than ever. By doubling the maximum advance payment level, the federal Government is providing the producers with a greater marketing tool and greater marketing opportunities. The Advance Payments for Crops Program has proved to be very worth-while and indeed a very necessary program. It is not as useful as it could be. It is a 1977 model which has not kept pace with 1985 market conditions.
It is for all of these reasons that I urge Members of the House to approve this Bill to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister mentioned the Class of '68. He was elected in 1972. As I recall, that was not particularly a good year for our side of the House. However, within 18 months we recovered sufficiently to continue on for another 12 years. I just thought I should draw that to the Minister's attention because I believe he has been here most of the time since then.
In a more serious vein, I wanted to indicate the support of the Official Opposition for the Advance Payments for Crops Act. This legislation was brought in back in 1977 when our Party was the Government. It is good Liberal legislation. Indeed, it was a plank in our election campaign platform last year that would have seen these payments doubled from $15,000 to $30,000, from $30,000 to $60,000 and from $45,000 to $90,000, depending on the number of producers involved. I have had representations on this legislation from the Ontario Soybean Growers Marketing Board in Chatham and the Ontario Corn Producers Association. The have requested in the strongest possible terms that this legislation be passed this year so it would be available for crops in the coming year.
The legislation will provide assistance to non-Wheat Board commodities which are storable. It will help producers to
Advance Payments for Crops Act
stabilize their prices by not forcing them to put crops on the market during low price periods or to provide cash flow immediately after the crops have been taken off. It will as well avoid the forced sale of commodities, which often reduces the price. I believe it is important legislation. It has been on the books for a number of years, and these amendments will bring it up to date to meet the needs of 1985 and the future.
When the Minister was speaking he indicated there would be an opportunity in the future to increase the total amounts by way of an appropriation Bill rather than by bringing in a new Bill. When we go into committee stage I would be interested in learning the details of that and whether it would be done by a one dollar item, which I thought had been determined not to be acceptable to the Speaker. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain that during committee stage of this Bill.
Over the past number of years this legislation has promoted development of crop storage facilities, because having the cash available and the interest of the federal Government is of great assistance in that regard. As I understand this legislation, it will increase the number of people to whom a producer can sell his crops. This will codify the existing situation. It is my understanding that in the past producers could only sell to a producer association or a co-operative but not to a neighbour. This legislation will provide for that.
Another important aspect has been that funds were often actually lent to associations such as the Ontario Corn Producers' Association and the Ontario Soybean Growers' Marketing Board. This legislation will assist those producers' associations to recover funds when the advance payment is not properly made. The interest costs under the existing program have been about $6 million a year. I understand that the Government will have to make provision for approximately $12 million a year under this program.
I would like to indicate the support of my Party for this legislation. It is useful legislation although it does not solve some of the major problems facing the agricultural industry in Canada today such as lower prices for many grain crops due to the American bonus plan for their grains. However, it allows producers to withhold from the market, during slump periods, those crops which are being adversely affected by that program in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I want to lend our support to the expeditious passage of this legislation in order that the benefits can be made available to the various producer groups which are affected.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for interrupting this very important debate, but there have been consultations between the Parties. I think that if you were to ask the House you would find unanimous consent to revert to Motions in order that I could present some Motions with respect to references to committees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to reverting to Motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 26, 1985
Procedure and Organization



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the first motion is with respect to MPs' pensions. I think there would be unanimous consent to accept this motion without debate. That is:
That the matters related to M.P.s' pensions and double dipping referred to in the Budget of May 23, 1985 be referred to the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services;
That the Committee present an interim report on the question of M.P.s' pensions no later than October 15, 1985;
That the Committee present its Final report no later than December 31, 1985; and
That, notwithstanding the practices of this Flouse, if the House is not sitting when an interim or final report of the Committee is completed, that the Committee shall report its findings by depositing its report with the Clerk of the House and that it shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid upon the Table.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I just want to indicate that we are glad to give consent for the introduction of the motion. There have been consultations and we agree with the content of the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my second motion also relates to a budgetary reference as it relates to the Canadian budgetary process. If you were to seek unanimous consent I think you would find consent for the presentation of this motion and its acceptance without debate. The motion is as follows:
That the document entitled "The Canadian Budgetary Process-Proposals for Improvement", tabled in the House on Thursday, May 23, 1985 (Sessional Paper No. 331/320), be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have unanimous consent of the House to introduce this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there anything the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) wishes to say? I know I have been absent for three or four days, but I do understand that when he rises he is only trying to bring something to my attention, and I appreciate that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we were all very concerned for the sake of your health and we are happy to see you back. You must accept that sometimes I am like a Pavlovian dog in trying to follow the procedures here. There are certain things to which we are conditioned in the House and the question must be put in a certain way. That is what I was trying to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I really appreciate that. My condition is just great and I am honoured that the Hon. Member would bring that up. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my final motion is with respect to a reference to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. If you sought unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of this motion, I believe it would be forthcoming and that the motion, when presented, would be passed without debate. It is as follows:
That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs that, in relation to the Committee's Order of Reference of April 18, 1985, the Committee consider the document entitled "The Regulation of Financial Institutions: Proposals for Discussion", dated June 1985, (Sessional paper No. 331-7/24), Tabled on Tuesday, June 25, 1985, before making its final report and, that for the purposes of this study, the said document shall stand referred to the Committee; and
That it be a further Instruction that the Committee be empowered to travel to Vancouver, Calgary and Winnipeg on September 3, 4 and 5 and to Halifax on September 30, 1985, and that the deadline for submitting the Committee's final report be extended to October 30, 1985.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 26, 1985


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise that Bill C-58, an Act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to give my Party's approval in principle for the proposal which the Government has brought forward, namely, to double the amount of interest-free cash advanced to producers of agricultural products outside of the Canadian Wheat Board area. This brings the rest of Canada into parity with producers who grow wheat, oats, barley, rye, and oil seeds in the western region. It permits them to make out an interest-free cash advance after harvest to a maximum of $30,000 per farm. It could be up to a maximum of $60,000 or $90,000 if there are two or three major operators on that farm.
As the Minister has pointed out, the losses through this program have been less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. It does provide ready cash for producers and enables them to withhold their products from the market immediately after harvest. They are able to ease their products on to the market over the course of the year.
This Bill does only good things from the point of view of agricultural marketing. It goes hand in glove with other programs of the last 15 or 20 years carried out by the Department with regard to storage of agricultural products. We approve this approach to agriculture and support the Bill heartily.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Wise moves that Bill C-58, an Act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I believe you will find a disposition to amending the
Advance Payments for Crops Act motion as presented by substituting Committee of the Whole for the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
I understand there has been a firm undertaking to deal with this matter expeditiously in the Committee of the Whole so that we can move on to the next item of legislation. With that understanding, we would be glad to proceed to Committee of the Whole now.


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


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. Paproski in the Chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-58, an Act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act.
Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. The Minister of Agriculture mentioned in his speech that in future, the limits of the advance payments could be increased by an Appropriation Bill rather than a Bill in the House. How does he propose to do that? Will it be by a one dollar item in the Appropriation Bill?
It has been my understanding that the Speaker has ruled against dollar items being presented in Appropriations Bills. Yesterday we were dealing with a clause by clause study on another Bill. The Minister did not have his officials, but I hope that today he will have his officials with him in Committee of the Whole so that we can get the details on these items.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member refers to a Bill that went through the House yesterday and mentioned the absence of my officials. I think I was able to supply all of the information that was requested of me by Hon. Members. If it has not been supplied yet, I will make certain that it is.
I never professed to be an expert on House procedures on matters of this kind and never will. However, it is my understanding that we go through a process in which there will be a presentation of a Cabinet document, approved by the Department of Finance, allowing us, as we did this time, to go up from $200 million to $400 million.
If we decide in the future that the Act should receive greater utilization than it does now and we require additional contingent liability to extend additional opportunities to producer organizations across the country for the greater utilization of this piece of legislation, we would simply go through the longstanding process that we went through this time. I believe my Cabinet colleagues would go through the same procedure if they found themselves in the same situation that the Hon. Member describes. We would simply seek consultations with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and request that additional contingent liability be granted to us by Cabinet.

June 26, 1985
Advance Payments for Crops Act
I am not exactly sure what vehicle we would use on the dollar items or why the reference was made to an Appropriation Bill. I would think that what I have described would be the normal course that would be followed. In securing an increase in the contingent liability in this case from $200 million to $400 million, as far as I am aware we went through the normal process.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, when the Minister spoke earlier I thought that the Appropriation Bill would be the technique used to increase the levels of the advance payments, to increase the $30,000 for a single farmer to a higher figure, for example. Was he talking about the contingent liability of $400 million or about the maximum levels of advance payments that can be made?
Yesterday he offered to provide a breakdown of the funding under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the amounts and the provinces where that funding was provided. I hope he will do that soon.
Would he provide a breakdown of how much of the $200 million contingent liability is outstanding now under the present Act? Would he be able to advise the House of the amount that has been utilized by each of the province? I assume it is just Ontario and the provinces east of Ontario because it is not in the Canadian Wheat Board area of commodity items. Could he provide the breakdown for Ontario, Quebec and the other provinces?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I believe when I talked about contingent liability in my opening remarks I was under the impression that I was referring to it in the sense of increasing the amount from $200 million to $400 million. According to my notes, I believe that is indeed correct.
With reference to the information requested yesterday, I asked that the information that I had in my hand involving six or seven tables be made available. It was my understanding that I had requested someone at the Table to table the information and was told that if I did so it would be appended to Hansard. I checked today's Hansard but I do not see it appended. I do not know what went wrong, but I would be happy to do the same today with respect to the details regarding the Advance Payments for Crops Act.
The document referred to is the financial status report of June, 1985. It will not take too long to detail.
There is the B.C. Tree Fruits, dealing with apples, Bartlett pears and Anjou pears; B.C. Vegetable Co-op Association, dealing with onions, rutabagas and potatoes; the Okanagan Fruit Producers and Shippers Association, again dealing with a wide variety of fruits and vegetables; the Island Vegetable Co-op Association, primarily dealing with potatoes. We have the Interior Vegetable Agencies Limited, again dealing with potatoes, onions and rutabagas. We move into Alberta, primarily potatoes. Then we go to the Alberta Honey Producers, the Alberta Beekeepers, the Alberta Wheat Pool dealing with field beans, flax and canola. They would take advantage of the other piece of legislation because we are getting into the Canadian Wheat Board area. We move on to the
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, again with canola. In Manitoba we have CSP Foods, sunflower seeds; the Manitoba Vegetable Producers Marketing Board with potatoes, onions and rutabagas. It goes across the country. We have the Manitoba Co-op Honey Producers, the Manitoba Corn Growers Association, the Manitoba Honey Marketing Board, the Manitoba Pool Elevators.
OO)
Moving into Ontario we have Blue Water Storage, Norfolk Fruit Growers Association, primarily apples. We have the Ontario Soya-Bean Growers Marketing Board, the Ontario Apple Marketing Commission, the Ontario Burley Tobacco Growers Marketing Board, the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Board and the Ontario Corn Producers Association. I was interested in the representation which the Hon. Member for Algoma was reading on behalf of the Corn Growers of the province. The individual making that presentation was a long time friend, a supporter and a constituent of mine.
Moving into Quebec, we have apples, grains, corn, onions, leeks, rutabagas, cabbage, carrots, honey, tobacco, potatoes. There are a number of marketing co-ops in the Province of Quebec that utlize this legislation.
Moving to Atlantic Canada, all provinces utilizing it, we have apples, potatoes, tobacco, wheat, soybeans, feed wheat, oats, rye, barley. The list goes on and on.
I would be happy to copy this information and to make it available to the Hon. Member and indeed to the House. I do not see when we are in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Chairman, that this cannot be done. I requested yesterday that the information I had should have been made public to Members of the House and that it be appended to Hansard. Maybe it is in Hansard. My First quick check was that it was not there. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, why that did not happen. I am going to give you another chance, Mr. Chairman. I will ask that the same thing be done this time. I hope tomorrow I can see this information in Hansard.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I believe under the existing legislation if there is a default by an individual producer in repaying the advance payment then the producer association or marketing board has to pay the legal fees and as well absorb the loss. I thought when the Minister was speaking he indicated not only would the federal Government provide the legal assistance to the marketing agency or Producers Association to recover those fees, but if the individual producer was in bankruptcy or ultimately was not able to repay the advance payment, then the federal Government would absorb it as well.
Can the Minister clarify if the arrangement is that all the legal fees and any defaults which occur will be absorbed by the federal Government? Can he advise, since we have been going through a rash of foreclosures and bankruptcies during 1984 and early 1985, just what the losses were during 1984 to producer associations and other groups under this legislation?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I want to answer an earlier question put by the Hon. Member for Algoma. I think he
June 26, 1985

requested what percentage or how many dollars were utilized at the present time under the Act providing the $200 million ceiling. My information is that $183 million at the present time is utilized by the 47 producer organizations across the country.
I believe at the moment there is about $1 million in defaults.
I think it is about one-tenth of 1 per cent. I have it here in a chart, but 1 have so many charts it takes me some time to go through them. I believe the information I am supplying is accurate.
With respect to the changes in the Act dealing with the defaults, the current system places full responsibility for collecting defaults, including costs, on the producer organizations.
I think this is the observation which the Hon. Member made. This is very expensive for them and these costs are shared by all producers participating in the advance program by way of an administrative fee. The result is producers that repay their advances pay a higher fee to pay the expenses of those producers who default. These amendments will allow the producer organizations to recover the collection costs from the producer. If this cannot be done, the legal expenses will be paid by the federal Government and savings on interest charges on the outstanding defaults should offset any legal expenses that will have to be paid. I believe that should answer the questions raised by the Hon. Member for Algoma.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, the Minister will know that this particular Act applies to everything except wheat, oats, and barley sold under the Wheat Board, and there is a separate cash advance for those crops. There is a certain amount of crop utilization. On the Prairies where we grow some of the oil seeds, we use this Act, and we can still use the other cash advance for our wheat, oats and barley sold through the Canadian Wheat Board.
I am a little curious especially because this Act covers such a wide range of products. Can the Minister tell us what sort of information gathering system is used to make certain that an individual does not exceed the $30,000 maximum? While he is at it, can the Minister tell us whether it is possible for a farmer in my region, for instance, who might have borrowed $30,000 against his wheat, oats and barley through the Wheat Board, to take in addition a $30,000 cash advance on his potatoes? How do you monitor the differences to keep it down to $30,000 each as per the Act?


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that one would be eligible to participate in one program or the other. This I believe is correct.
It is my understanding that the administration of both Acts is carried out by Agriculture Canada, and I would suspect by the same people within Agriculture Canada. Therefore, sufficient checks would be in place to ensure that the situation which the Hon. Member described should not happen, as far as I am concerned.
Advance Payments for Crops Act


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Minister is not saying that a producer could use $15,000 out of the wheat, oats and barley fund and an additional $15,000 for rapeseed and flaxseed, to get to his grand total of $30,000. I think some farmers are doing that now. However, I am curious to know what sorts of procedure is used for commodities other than Wheat Board grains.
I know from experience that the Wheat Board has to delay the issuance of cheques for the balance of advances for something like two weeks,to make certain that producers have not applied at three of four elevator companies for cash advances. It is possible for producers to take out advances at virtually any delivery point. It is possible for them to obtain half the advance for which they are eligible at three of four different points. The Wheat Board sits on the final issuance of cheques, monitors all applications and decides whether in fact a particular producer is eligible for the final amount.
Is a similar process in place for these advances? Can a participating organization or broker issue half the advance almost immediately, with the balance coming from a central organization through Agriculture Canada? What process is used?
I ask these questions of the Minister because there may be some producers watching this debate who have yet to set up agencies to provide for these advances. My next question will concern how they go about doing this, but I wanted to start with some of the procedures in place so that we would have that information on the record.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could talk about a few other minute details of the Bill. That would provide me with a moment or two in which to receive the detailed information requested by the Hon. Member, or at least have it sent to me. As I indicated in an earlier answer, if an individual wanted to participate in the two programs, it is possible, providing that he does not exceed the old 15 and the new 30, 60 and 90 levels.
I am assured that adequate administrative requirements are in place to ensure that duplication does not happen. I did not make a note of the Hon. Member's third question because my officials signalled me, indicating that that would not happen and that everything we need was in place for the proper administration of the program.
In the absence of any black and white information, the fact is that the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Program has been in effect for a good number of years. It has worked well. I cannot recall having encountered any serious difficulties with it. The Hon. Member is in a better position than I am to indicate what problems there have been with that piece of legislation, because he represents a part of the country which has received the benefits of that program for quite some time.
This Bill came along later, in 1977. To my knowledge there were only two problems. One was that levels were not high enough and the other was that participating agencies were concerned about some defaults. We are trying to deal with these two problems by increasing the maximum levels and by changing the way in which defaults are collected. We are

June 26, 1985
Advance Payments for Crops Act
sharing some greater responsibility in that area by picking up the legal costs.
I should like to indicate some additional information. By reducing the potential liability to producer organizations from 5 per cent to 2 per cent, a better interest rate can be negotiated. This measure will reduce the average interest rate by up to one half or 1 per cent. No producer organization has exceeded the final default rate of 2 per cent over the last seen years of the operation of the program. As I indicated earlier, the average of defaults is less than one tenth of 1 per cent. That pretty well tells the story about advance payments, both prairie grain advance payments and the advance payments for crops with which we are dealing now.
It would appear to me that the necessary mechanisms, administrative personnel and procedures must be functioning reasonably well, or we would have heard about it by now. If the Hon. Member has some specific examples to raise, I would be happy to take notice of them, have my officials check into them and report back to him as soon as possible.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I wonder if the Minister could quickly go through the steps or rules for producers of commodities who are interested in negotiating an agreement for setting up an interest-free cash advance program. What steps would they have to go through? What volumes are required before a group or agency would be acceptable under the program?


John Wise: I cannot give the Hon. Member the detailed requirements to which a marketing agency or marketing commission would be subjected. When the Bill was first brought forward in 1977, the Ontario Corn Council lobbied the previous Government unsuccessfully, to no avail. We took the position at that time that although the Ontario Corn Council was not a marketing board or marketing commission, it had the administrative powers, personnel and so on to take advantage of the advance payments for crops legislation in 1977. However, the Government of the day said no, rightly or wrongly. The Council has continued to lobby and of course has changed its organization. It has met the criteria of the Bill and has been participating in the adance payments legislation for the last two or three years, or about that period of time.
Existing marketing boards and commissions are in a position to take advantage of the legislation. A marketing board, commission or co-op would simply send the information to us. In fact, it could be sent to the Hon. Member, the Hon. Member could forward it to us, and we could take a look at the organizational structure to see whether or not it meets the criteria. If it meets the criteria, then of course it would participate in the program. If we look at the marketing organizations which have participated, they run from co-ops to marketing agencies, commissions and wheat pools. The list goes on and on.
If there is a marketing group or organization-probably not an organization, I think that terminology is a little too loose- we will have a look at it. Generally they have to be legally
incorporated and included in the marketing of a crop. They must be able to administer the program and must represent a significant portion of the production in the area. These are general criteria that are laid down by the Bill. Again, we would need to have evidence that they were legally incorporated, included in the marketing of a crop, able to administer the program and represent a significant portion of the production in that area.
That is all the information that I can give to the Hon. Member, so I say to him again, let them contact us and we will sit down with them and find out whether or not they meet the criteria. If they do, fine and dandy. If not, maybe we can work together and change their organization so that they will meet the criteria.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister can give us an approximation of how many such groups have been established since 1977, to which cash advances are now in effect.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I think I touched that in my notes. I indicated that the program had grown quite rapidly over the years since 1977. I believe I indicated that there was a very small number of co-ops and marketing agencies that participated in the program in the first year and, I believe, I indicated that last year we had 47 organizations in the program across the country. In the first year of the program, only eight producer organizations participated, and for the 1984-85 crop year close to $190 million was guaranteed under the program to 47 producer organizations and more than 18,000 producers benefited from the program.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That Bill C-25, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 36 to 39 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"commodities for any period or region bear a fair relationship to the estimated
production costs of such commodities for that period or region."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a moment on my amendment. During the course of this Bill, we heard representation from right across the country and there was some disturbing testimony, to my mind.
June 26, 1985

As you will know, Mr. Speaker, from having read the Bill and being thoroughly acquainted with it, this Bill is permissive legislation which sets out an umbrella under which producers, the provincial Governments and the federal Government can go together to strike a tripartite agreement to stabilize farm prices.
One thing that we heard most often from provinces across the country was that they were concerned about going into these agreements without having some feeling of acceptance or right to raise the possibility of variations in production costs from one end of the country to the other. They felt that there should be some way that would enable them to bring to the discussions the question of the particular costs that they have that are particular to their region, to put those on the table and negotiate the kind of system that is needed for a tripartite system across the country.
Because this is a government Bill, and the motivation is here and the expenditure plans that limit what a private member or an opposition Member can do, this is one of the few places where it is possible to bring the question of regional costs into the discussions. It would be under the section of the activities of the board that was established to look at the costing formula, either for those products that come under the program under the old Agricultural Stabilization Act or products which would come under by tripartite agreements between the various producer groups in the country, some or all of the provinces and the federal Government. This is one of the few spots where it is possible to mention the fact that regional costs can be a concern.
This would put a discussion of these various costs onto the table and permit the various groups to discuss costs that are unique to their parts of the country. For instance, there are high energy costs paid by Prince Edward Island farmers who produce hogs or dairy products. These farmers are required to spend a great deal of money on electricity to run the machinery and sometimes even to provide additional heat.
Representatives from other regions of the country mentioned that feed costs were relatively higher in their regions than in other parts of the country, and they said that they would like to be able to discuss this in the negotiations that take place prior to agreeing to a tripartite system. In fact, they mentioned that they would even like to be able to permit some slight variation with agreement from all of the participating groups as part of the final agreement.
In committee, we heard from representatives of the Province of British Columbia, a province which has had the most experience with an income stabilization program. Those representatives told us that when that program began, there was some allowance for regional differences in costs from one valley to another for the various payout levels in the production of tomatoes and other such crops. However, the representatives went on to point out that as time went on, it became obvious even to the producers that some of these cost disadvantages were offset by advantages in other portions of production
Agricultural Stabilization Act
costs and that eventually regional cost variations were seen to be unnecessary. Therefore, the producers themselves took regional cost variations out of the program.
It is my contention that once producers can see all of the various cost items that producers from their areas and other areas have to face, they will see that there is a real reason for their particular product being produced in their particular corner of the country. There is no doubt that hogs will continue to be produced in Prince Edward Island, Quebec and right across to British Columbia whether or not there is a tripartite stabilization program. While Quebec may have some disadvantages in the area of feed costs, it has an advantage over other parts of the country in labour costs, in the technical programs that are in place and because of the fact that its production units are somewhat superior to those in other parts of the country. That would balance off against the relatively lower cost of grain in Saskatchewan where the production units may not as a general rule be quite up to the competitive standards of those in Quebec.
I maintain that it all evens out. What I am fearful of in permitting this Bill to go through the way it is written without some recognition of regional cost variations is that we will leave the impression on those groups that think they have a particular cost disadvantage that there is no point in coming forward to the bargaining table to participate in the process. The idea behind this particular amendment is to make the umbrella slightly larger so that more producer groups from more provinces will feel comfortable under that umbrella and will begin the discussions preliminary to the establishment of a tripartite program. I think that this amendment sends the message that all producer groups from all across Canada are welcome under that umbrella and that their particular viewpoints and problems will be discussed fully. It will not leave them with the impression that we are excluding some groups while accepting others. That is why I have moved this amendment to the Bill.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) has moved an amendment proposing that the commodities for any period or region bear a fair relationship to the estimated production costs of such commodities for that period or region. In committee, we heard a great many representations regarding regional cost differences. Those from the Maritimes mentioned the differences that exist in input and feed costs there and made very strong representations that there be some consideration for that. It seems to me that there should be some way of taking that into account.
Clearly, if there is going to be hog production in the maritime provinces, one of two things must happen. Either there must be a mechanism in the formula or the Government must come forward with a program of feed freight assistance, perhaps coupled with a program for self-sufficiency in feed grains for the Atlantic provinces, otherwise those who live there will be faced with a sharp disadvantage when producing hogs. Most Altantic provinces, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, do not produce more than what they actually

June 26, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
consume in their own provinces and perhaps some produce considerably less than that. I am interested to know if the Minister is prepared to give some assistance in that regard.
It seems to me that the obvious solution to the problem of regional input costs would be an interim feed freight assistance program that would be put in place for a number of years, combined with a feed producing capacity development program so that the disadvantaged provinces would be able to grow their own feed and would not have to depend upon feed freight assistance. This amendment recognizes that in some way, but I do not think it goes the whole distance by providing regional differentials in payments under the proposed red meat stabilization program.
I was not able to move this motion, but as we had very strong representations before the committee, I recommended that we add potatoes to the list of named commodities. At a later time, I will be raising the matter of the possibility of the Government accepting such an amendment.
Other amendments were moved dealing with regional commodities in B.C. There was a strong recommendation from the committee that apples be named as a commodity. There were representations from Quebec Members that pigs be added to the list of named commodities under the Act as well. The Minister has already added a number of items to the list like lamb, wool, spring wheat and winter wheat. With the kind of strong representations that came from the committee, I would hope that the Minister would be willing to consider my amendment with regard to adding potatoes to the list. I believe Hon. Members from British Columbia and Quebec may want to put forward the recommendation of other items as well to be named-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There seems to be a few conversations going on in the House. I would hope that perhaps those Hon. Members would go behind the curtain so their voices would not carry in here. I am having difficulty hearing the great speech of the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).


Maurice Brydon Foster: I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, you realizing what a great deal of information I was providing to Hon. Members.
The Bill before us today also deals with the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre really puts forward an amendment which the Minister proposed to the committee last Thursday afternoon. No one has been quite able to understand exactly what it means. It does propose to deal with top loading and bottom loading of production and stabilization formulas. Cattlemen are very uncertain as to exactly what the amendment put forward by the Minister means. The Minister claims that his amendment will allow the provincial groups to come into the tripartite stabilization agreements provided that their level of support and stabilization is not any greater than that provided by other participants in the proposed agreement.
I suppose that would take into account the stabilization programs the provinces were running relating to transportation, provided they were not greater than the stabilization or assistance being provided by other provinces, say, for fertilizer subsidization or cheaper electrical rates or, as Ontario does, paying half of the farm taxes. That is the proposal in the amendment, yet when one reads the Minister's amendment, it seems to refer to stabilization provided under a tripartite red meat stabilization agreement as not being greater than that provided to any other producers in the country, whether they be assisted by their provincial Government or provincial marketing agency. There is a great deal of confusion about that amendment.
The four participating producer groups from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario are not clear what the amendment means so they are very concerned. Since they do not know what it means, they are not in agreement with it. The UPA in the Province of Quebec is not satisfied with the amendment. As far as I know, the provincial Government and groups in Prince Edward Island are also not satisfied. Therefore, we really have difficulty knowing exactly what that amendment means or what the impact would be if the legislation were passed.
The provincial Governments in Atlantic Canada want to see some recognition of regional input costs, especially the costs of feed freight assistance. Perhaps when the Minister speaks he will be able to indicate whether or not he is prepared to put in place an interim feed freight assistance program which will take place during an interim period while the federal Government is assisting the provincial Governments in developing grain input production capacity in those Maritime Provinces.
This is an important Bill. It may be that it is only enabling legislation but once it is in place, the federal Government has a commitment to support these producer groups. There has been agreement for the last year in which the four producing provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, have agreed to participate in a tripartite red meat stabilization program covering beef, veal, lamb and pork.
It is very unclear whether any of the producer groups in those four provinces will support the legislation as it was passed in the committee, so we are going to have to see whether they will support the legislation and what the prospects are for other groups such as the Quebec hog producers and the Maritime producers. In the interim, the Hon. Member's amendment seems to only take into account regional commodities, and these commodities bear a fair relationship to the estimated production costs of such commodities for that region.
I hope that we will have a chance to vote on this amendment. I would as well like to hear from the Minister as to exactly how he proposes to satisfy and reconcile the various positions across the country with regard to the hog, beef, and lamb producers because they seem very uncertain as to whether the amendments which were introduced last Thursday would have the impact of really destroying the agreement which did exist. At the same time, it does not seem to have
June 26, 1985

satisfied the UPA and the hog producers in Quebec or the producers in Atlantic Canada. The Bill is very unclear at the present time. Perhaps we will be hearing just how those differences can be reconciled.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion presented by the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party. I may say that the Hon. Member's intentions are entirely laudable and that consideration of regional costs is certainly one objective we can all support.
Mr. Speaker, in committee, and especially at the committee meeting last Thursday, Members had a chance to ask some very serious questions about the Government's intentions, and especially about the consultation process initiated by the Government. We were told by Quebec producers that the legislation was tabled without prior consultation and that there had been no formal consultation with the President of the Union des producteurs agricoles.
We also heard that Progressive Conservative Members had tried to persuade the Minister to change his mind about this Bill and delay consideration until comprehensive consultation had taken place, but unfortunately, the Minister refused to consider these requests.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment before the House provides an opportunity to discuss regional differences in Canada, and I know the minister is one of the true believers in the community of communities theory. During the few years when the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) was Leader of the Party and Prime Minister, the Minister supported his community of communities theory. However, it seems the Minister has a very short memory, because now he would like to stabilize poverty, as it were, by providing for uniformity over and above regional differences. However, considering how well the Minister knows the country and its regional differences, I am confident that he will find this amendment acceptable. In committee, the Minister spent some time on this issue, and I hope that today, he will be able to give us a definitive answer and vote in favour of the amendment. In fact, this amendment gives us a chance to reopen the whole debate on the constitutional responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments for agriculture. In this respect, the Bill before the House and even the amendments presented by the Minister in committee are not likely to be satisfactory to the provincial parties.
The Minister is well aware that his Quebec counterpart cannot accept the provisions of this Bill. He knows perfectly well that Quebec producers object to the prerequisites imposed by this legislation. Nevertheless, he insists on using his party's overwhelming majority and the silence of Quebec Conservative Members to impose his vision of uniformity across the country. Mr. Speaker, I still think that the Minister has a chance, today
Agricultural Stabilization Act
at the report stage and in the next few days at third reading, to show that he has really been listening to his colleagues from Quebec, instead of hoisting their arms and asking them to keep quiet, and that he has been listening to the caucus and as a result will have a far more satisfactory solution to show for it.
Mr. Speaker, we heard from representatives of the UPA, the Federation of Pork Producers, the Federation of Lamb Producers, and people in the cattle industry, and from their testimony before the committee, it was clear they wanted us to recognize two principles.
First, they said they were convinced that it would be better for Canadian agriculture to have income stabilization than price stabilization. Of course there is a very basic difference of opinion on this principle. But they also said, in referring to the provinces that within their respective jurisdictions had decided to implement specific agricultural policies to protect their farmers that they were anxious to see these provinces continue within the framework of the national system, to administer the programs they initiated and were supporting with their tax revenues.
Mr. Speaker, this debate has been going on for a long time, and I am referring to the right of the provinces to make decisions with respect to agriculture policy. The Minister knows perfectly well that for instance, in the case of Quebec, its policy of food self-sufficiency may well be jeopardized by the passage of this Bill. The Minister realizes this and I know his Quebec counterpart has said, and I quote: I am trying to show that the approach you have opted for with respect to red meat stabilization is dangerous and discriminatory.
He is saying: You take a discriminatory approach when, on one hand you refuse to give pork producers the money owed to them or to acknowledge the right of the provinces to manage their own stabilization programs-for fear that the Americans might retaliate-and, on the other hand you give hundreds of millions of dollars to western grain producers. Besides your attitude might very well jeopardize the interests of pork producers and processors in their current conflict with the American Government. The provincial Minister goes on to say: The Canadian Pork Council and the Canadian Meat Council are spending tens of thousands of dollars to hire lawyers to defend them. Those lawyers are trying to prove to the American Government that funds received under stabilization programs must not be considered as prejudicial grants since they are in fact permanent insurance measures partially financed by the farming community and whose benefits must be spread over a long period of time, in keeping with actuarial principles. The Minister is saying: Through your statements you demolish the thesis they defend, you condemn Canadian pork producers even before American and international courts of law have made a judgment. I am drawing inspiration from a document drafted by the Quebec Government. He goes on to say: On behalf of Quebec pork producers we are entitled to expect more from the Canadian Minister of Agriculture whose re-

June 26, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
sponsibility is to uphold the interests of Canadian agricultural producers no matter the sector where they try to earn a living or the province where they live. You must stop taking advantage of the current predicament of pork producers to rush this Bill through. That is the key word, and that is what we are witnessing, Mr. Speaker. They are trying to push this measure right through, but I am sure they will be up against stiff opposition in the next few hours and days because we are determined, Mr. Speaker, to use all our parliamentary rights to bring the Minister to his senses or at least convince him to go back to the consultation process.
The Minister knows as well as I and all other Members of the House do that this Bill is unacceptable to the producers of a province and to many others. The list is getting longer every day and we are trying to make him understand that he is being overly hasty. He is acting today against the best judgment of everybody. He may be able to get his own colleagues to stand still for this, but he will not be able to prevent the producers from speaking up. Instead of trying to put them before a fait accompli the Minister should make sure that the producers have their say before he imposes this measure.
After lengthy discussions, Mr. Speaker, the Minister finally introduced an amendment in committee, but I voted against it because it did not satisfy anyone. The Minister came up with an amendment which apparently was quite satisfactory to Department of Justice officials, but they were practically the only ones to feel that way. I have yet to hear from one producer or one organization that would be prepared to support the amendment. I certainly hope the Minister will be able to produce a series of supporting telegrams he received in the last few hours. If the Minister can convince me that this amendment is acceptable to the farmers I represent, I would be prepared to reconsider my position because I think my duty here is to speak for the producers who came to see me and urged me to prevent this Bill from being pushed through. We have nothing against the principle of stabilization, but the Minister will have to show more flexibility if he seeks to rally the various interests. The Minister did not listen to his colleagues and I am afraid he will not listen to Opposition Members either, but he will learn his lesson in the field, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister cannot be more flexible with us, I would ask him to be flexible and almost courageous with his American friends because it does look as though the Government wants to use the pork crisis as an excuse to push this Bill through and make us believe that it has to be the ultimate solution. But, Mr. Speaker, no one in the farming sector believes that this is the answer to everything. The Minister may say that, at the time, the Liberal Government had introduced a similar bill, but that could be one of the reasons why there are now fewer of us on this side. The Minister should learn from what happened after the last elections. He should remember the promises of his colleagues who said that
this measure would be amended. Where are those amendments?
The Minister tried to pass off a facsimile of what his predecessor had introduced. At the time, we of the Quebec caucus had officially objected to this legislation because we believed that it was unfair and not quite finalized because there had not been enough consultation and flexibility.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Minister seems to believe he is the only one with the answer. He says that he alone holds the truth: Pass this Bill and we shall see later!
Mr. Speaker, it is not that I do not trust the Minister, because I know that he is an honest man and has a very good reputation, but I am not convinced that I want to give him a free hand. If we pass this Bill in haste and give a free hand to the Minister, we shall jeopardize the existence of provincial programs established under the jurisdiction of the provinces as defined by the Canadian Constitution. Mr. Speaker, as you know, you can be for the Constitution as you can be for virtue and motherhood. In this optic-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I am sorry, but the ten minute period has expired.
The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred to spend these few minutes asking some questions to find out whether my colleague for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) speaks the truth or whether he is voluntarily trying to mislead the House by reading such things as a paper which he says comes from Quebec Agriculture Minister, when, to my knowledge, no paper has been released on this issue by the Quebec Minister. In my opinion, the document quoted by my colleague was prepared by somebody else and I believe that it is a trick more than anything else.
If my colleague for Shefford is basing his whole argument-


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have the document here and I am willing to table it. The stationery is-


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


François Gérin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for disregarding the comment made by my hon. colleague, because the document which he has shown around and which was in fact never signed by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture but by an unknown departmental official, is clearly nothing more than a proposal. I suggest, therefore, that as such it is entirely worthless.
Under these circumstances, I am somewhat disappointed that the Committee members never had the opportunity to hear the Quebec Minister of Agriculture who could have
June 26, 1985

enlightened them about the best solution for Quebec producers generally and Quebec hog producers in particular.
It is clearly a matter of... In Quebec, we have a stabilization program which is considered very good and which is the result of many years of effort on the part of the provincial government. It is a fact that several Quebec producers would like to see at the federal level, a stabilization program similar to the one they have at the provincial level. We must realize, however, that the proposed program will be national in scope and reflects a consensus if not of all, of a majority of provinces and producers. Last Thursday afternoon, the Minister moved in our Committee of Agriculture a major amendment which meets one of the two basic conditions insisted upon by Quebec producers generally and Quebec hog producers in particular.
As for the second condition, I would tell the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) that those are the very words of Mr. Scalabrini, president of the Quebec Federation of Pork Producers and of Mr. Proulx, president of the A.P.U. I consider that, therefore, as an excellent reference.
As for the second condition laid down by Quebec pork producers and farmers before they support the Bill, it was not stated as such in an amendment to the Bill. However, it was given through commitments made by the Minister according to which no stabilization plan will come into effect without a consensus being reached among producers. Such a consensus, of course, would not be reached unless pork producers in eastern Canada give their approval. If there is no tripartite plan on which to reach a consensus, there would simply be no stabilization plan. Only the present provincial plan would remain, but it seems to satisfy Quebec farmers. Under those circumstances, I should add that I would have like to use those ten minutes to put questions to my colleague and ask him to withdraw his comments about the report which was allegedly written by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, because I made my own inquiries on the matter and the Quebec Minister of Agriculture and his officials have flatly denied having written any official paper on agricultural stabilization.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that it be duly noted and understood by all Hon. Members in this House that there is no statement by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture about that Bill and that we should trust the Quebec Conservative members and the Quebec farmers, who find the amendment moved by the Minister on Thursday afternoon satisfactory as far as one of the two conditions laid down by the farmers are concerned. With respect to the assurance made by the minister that no plan will be approved in the absence of a national consensus, I feel that Quebec farmers and more especially pork producers find it to their satisfaction.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in this debate immediately following the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) and to tell him that I agree with just one of his points, namely that it is most unfortunate that the Quebec Minister of
Agricultural Stabilization Act
Agriculture was not invited to appear before the Standing Committee to discuss Bill C-25.


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


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


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) is not justified in saying that for he did not attend the committee meeting, otherwise he would know that the Minister had been invited to appear.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member just said he regrets that the Minister did not appear. I agree with him we should have heard evidence from the Quebec Minister of Justice because certainly the Minister, had he appeared, would have strongly opposed Bill C-25.
The amendment put forward by my colleague from the NDP should be supported by this House. I do not know what the Minister will decide on this amendment, but I feel he should accept it. It is very important in my view, and I would simply like to quote from an editorial written by Evelyne Dumas in La Terre de chez nous, which deals with the amendment introduced by the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party. Evelyne Dumas had this to say:
Ten years ago, Quebec farmers were getting income stabilization programs from their provincial Government.
-very important ones that have been and still are extremely worthwhile and useful to Quebec producers. Now, Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, may seriously hinder those provincial programs, and she said in her editorial that Quebec producers are asked to drop the substance for the shadow. Clearly this is what would happen, and this is what will happen if the Progressive Conservative Government persists in its attempt to push Bill C-25 through.
One of the aspects considered by Evelyne Dumas in her editorial is this:
That shadow, a possible exclusive federal stabilization program of animal products, we know some of its aspects, however. We know for instance that payments that would be generated would be lower than those provided for under the provincial programs.
This is why, in her editorial, she says that the Quebec producers are being asked to give up a sure thing for an uncertain proposition. How can the Quebec producers be asked to give up a provincial program which is more generous than what the Progressive Conservative Government wants to offer them? The editorial continues:
Other aspects remain more obscure, but what is known about it is a source of concern for the producers. For instance, there is every indication that the payments would be made only on the basis of product prices and not of production costs. In any case, nothing in the Bill requires that the production costs be taken into account. What is more, it does not contain the least requirement for the partners to consider the production cost variations from one

June 26, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
region to the next. As far as pork is concerned, for instance, higher prices in Toronto and lower production costs in the Prairies will contribute to set up a national chart which will not take into account the actual situation in Quebec and, as a result, the compensations under the proposed federal system will be reduced to a minimum.
However, Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by my colleague of the New Democratic Party deals specifically with the need to take into account clearly and precisely the estimated production costs of farm products in a given region, and such an amendment is essential. If we want to have a fair program which will satisfy all producers in all regions of the country, the real costs in each region must be taken into account. I am surprised that the Government does not accept this amendment. I believe that it is essential if we really want to have a fair program.
During the few minutes left to me, I would like to come back to the comments of the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin), who criticized my colleague for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) for having referred to a working paper prepared by the Quebec Department of Agriculture. It is a fact that what my colleague from Shefford quoted was a working paper and not a letter duly signed and sent by the Minister to his federal counterpart, but this working paper, which has been made public, is quite revealing, and I would like to quote just a few words from it to show to what extent this so-called spirit of co-operation between the Governments of Canada and Quebec seems to have dissolved, at least as far as agriculture is concerned. The Quebec Minister of Agriculture had no need to send a letter to state publicly that, in his opinion, the federal Government and especially the Minister of Agriculture have not done a good job in the interests of Quebec pork producers, that he felt the Government of Canada could never solve the problem our hog producers are faced with because this Conservative administration seems unduly concerned about antagonizing the Reagan administration. Ever since it assumed power, this Conservative Government has repeatedly emphasized the need to develop and maintain good and friendly relations with the American President. That is fine and dandy, provided that they benefit Canadians in the long run. A good place to start could have been in respect of Quebec hog producers who have been wronged and completely deceived during the last election campaign by Conservative candidates with a promise of additional cheques. They are still waiting for these cheques from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) who made this solemn promise to Quebec hog producers, and now the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) would like the House to rubber-stamp Bill C-25 with a total disregard for the objections raised by Quebec farm producers and their own interests.
The document which my colleague the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) referred to needs no comments. For instance: "In order to push through Bill C-25, the Government is bent on creating the impression that the continuation of provincial programs could mean a complete disaster for producers, and that failure to adopt this Bill now before the Summer recess could start a bloody war between the provinces". If we continue with our provincial programs-I conclude my remarks with this, Mr. Speaker-the next move the United States could make could be higher taxes, increased import quotas or even an embargo. That borders on blackmail, and I ask the Minister of Agriculture to show his good faith by delaying the adoption of this Bill in order to consult all interested parties. And if the Conservative Government wants to remain on friendly terms with the current Quebec Government, he should ask the Quebec Minister of Agriculture to appear before our committee and say what he really thinks of Bill C-25. Until then, I think that Quebec producers will suffer as a result of this Bill which will cause them irreparable damage.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about Bill C-25. I have a great deal of concern about the Bill and I must say that I will not be able to support it simply because regional costs are not taken into consideration.
I have with me a telegram that was sent to me by the Minister of Agriculture in the Province of Prince Edward Island, the Hon. Prowse Chappell. The subject of the telegram is the red meat stabilization Bill, Bill C-25. He indicates in the telegram that on June 6, 1985, his Department made a presentation to the Standing Committee on Agriculture regarding the Bill.
He stressed two points at that time of very vital interest to the Province of Prince Edward Island. First, potatoes which is the number one commodity in agriculture production in Prince Edward Island, should be included in the list of named commodities, thereby qualifying our most important commodity for mandatory support under the Stabilization Act.
The importance of potatoes to the Province of Prince Edward Island and the Province of New Brunswick, he goes on to say, would be compared to grains in western Canada, for which we all know separate legislation is in place under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. His second recommendation is that Bill C-25 be amended to permit the recognition of legitimate regional costs in national plans. Regional costs do not exist, and failure to address them on an equitable basis will frustrate-this is what the Minister is saying to me in a telegram-our common objectives, our harmonizing support programs. By way of amendment, P.E.I. has suggested the deletion of Section 8.10.1(3) and the addition of the following Section 8.10.14(A): agreement must specify and take into account regional production costs. That is signed by the Hon. P. Chappell, Minister of Agriculture, province of Prince Edward Island.


Jean-C. Lapierre: He is not a Liberal.
June 26, 1985


George Roland Henderson: He is not a Liberal, no. But I want to get back to the regional costs. If you have a national program that does not take into consideration-and I hope the Minister is listening very carefully to this-


John Wise: I am always listening.


George Roland Henderson: -the difference in cost of production of hogs, beef, whatever, but certainly hogs in the Province of Prince Edward Island, what use is it? In my province, Prince Edward Island, it costs probably $15 to $20 more to produce a hog than in the Province of Alberta. I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) shaking his head.


John Wise: I am not agreeing with you. I am listening.


George Roland Henderson: He says he is not agreeing with me but he is listening. If the Minister is not agreeing with me, then he is not agreeing with the Minister of Agriculture in the Province of P.E.I. either.


John Wise: That could be.


George Roland Henderson: Where is this so-called consultation which this Government has gone on about for so many months and the great harmony between the provinces and the federal Government? The Minister has to admit in this Chamber today that consultation is a one-way process as far as this Government is concerned.


An Hon. Member:: Tory arrogance.


George Roland Henderson: It is a one-way process.


John Wise: No.


George Roland Henderson: You are not listening to the Minister of Agriculture for the Province of Prince Edward Island. Therefore, the Minister of Agriculture is not listening to the farmers of P.E.I. or Atlantic Canada.
Let me give an indication of the excessive costs that we have to bear as farmers in Prince Edward Island. First, we have the extreme high cost of electricity. Hon. Members know very well one has to take into consideration electricity costs, transportation costs and feed grains. When one adds up those costs, my province finds it is impossible to compete with other parts of the country when it comes to hogs.
My province and the Government of Prince Edward Island, which is of a blue stripe, has tried to promote the agricultural industry to the point where I think it is crazy to go ahead with the kind of kill and chill plant it is considering. I think most farmers in my province will agree that it is too grandiose for the situation as it is today in Prince Edward Island. It is a legitimate Government and I might say the actions that have been carried on in the last while will not allow it to be the Government for very much longer.
Having said that, it is the Government, the legitimate Government of P.E.I. I am amazed, I am astounded, that the Minister of Agriculture is not listening to the Minister of Agriculture for the Province of P.E.I. Why would that
Agricultural Stabilization Act
happen? I can tell the Minister something else. Here is a telegram that I have received from Mr. Keith Russell, Executive Secretary, Maritime Farmers Council. It is dated June 24. It reads:
Please be reminded that the National Red Meat Stabilization Plan will need to reflect regional variations in production costs in order to be useful to Maritime livestock producers.
I guess that says it all. If you were a hog farmer or a beef farmer in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, then I think you would be very reluctant to get into a program that had as an average cost something far above the cost of your production. Too long have farmers in Canada been producing crops and selling them at below the cost of production.


Mr. King:: That is right.


George Roland Henderson: This stabilization program which the Minister is talking about in Bill C-25 does nothing to alleviate that situation. In fact, as my hon. friend just mentioned, it stabilized poverty for those people in those areas. I am amazed my good friend, the Minister of Agriculture, would bring in a Bill at this time that would not reflect the realities of this great country of ours. There are areas where you can produce goods, farm produce at one price and there are areas where that costs more. It is unfortunate that we happen to live in an area in Atlantic Canada that is a little far removed from the mainstream of the population. We are geographically dislocated, if you will, from the market.


Frederick John King: What about B.C.?


George Roland Henderson: Yes, B.C. At least B.C. stretches a little north and south, but B.C. as well. I agree with the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King). I know the great apples his agricultural community produce in B.C. Certainly I do not see anything in this Bill that would do anything for his apple crop.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Nothing.


Frederick John King: That is not right.


George Roland Henderson: I cannot understand my friend. He says it is not right. I hope he will stand in his place and tell me why it is not right because I do not see anything in this Bill that says you are going to get one iota from Bill C-25.
The Minister has brought in a Bill to say that he has done something for the agricultural community of the country. I am afraid it is nothing but a sham. He is not taking into account regional costs and not taking into consideration potatoes, and he is eliminating a number of other situations when it comes to feed grains coming east. The economic statement in November and the Budget sort of alluded to the fact that some of these subsidies may well be dropped. Some of the great benefits that we enjoyed over the last number of years were beginning to erode. Unless the Minister starts to take a fresh view of this, then I think he should scrap this Bill right here today as far as I am concerned and as far as P.E.I. is concerned. He should

June 26, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
bring in a Bill relevant for all of Canada and not just relevant to one or two provinces in the country.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is nonsense, absolutely flap-doodle.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, agriculture has changed. It has changed on a world-wide basis and on a national basis, but particularly on a national basis. I am sure that my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island is quite aware that there have been pleadings in this Chamber and in committee meetings in the last 15 years that the Government should address the price stabilization programs which it was authorized to operate. The Government of the day refused to do it, and it continued to do that on a declining basis.
Historically, as long as there was meaningful price stabilization action on the part of the federal Government, massive bankruptcies were avoided in the farm sector. Rarely, if ever, did it contribute to profit, but it served as a "stop loss" operation. Those commodities which required price stabilization in a given year may have experienced a 1 per cent or 2 per cent reduction and may have been compelled, by virtue of the fact that there was no profit, to reduce their production. As a result of the nature of that program and without massive hardship, production of agricultural products in Canada was controlled to meet market demands. For most people agriculture was never a supply of wealth, but it supplied an average income for people who persisted in that sphere. Few became wealthy and, historically, few went broke.
However, when the concept of price stabilization was abandoned, we got into difficulty because the provinces of Canada entered the field. When they became involved in the maintenance of the agricultural industry province by province, they were not satisfied with that. Instead, they not only tried to maintain the production of individual commodities, but tried to expand them. That is understandable. Thus we have within this nation a quarrel among the provinces as to who will produce what and how much.
This is the first piece of legislation which has given Agriculture Canada, provincial Ministers of Agriculture and farmers an opportunity to sit around a table and judge for themselves what is in the best interests of various commodities in the long term and how they can find the stable position of production with assured income so that they can continue to farm. If we continue in the interprovincial battle, there is no question that agriculture would be totally dislocated, that geography, climate and soil capability would be ignored, that we would be producing products in some parts of Canada which were never intended to be produced there by nature, and that man would spend a fortune in an effort to produce what nature did not plan. That is with what we are faced.
The first real breakdown in the refusal of the Liberal Party as a Government to come to the aid of agriculture was when the cattle industry asked for a price stabilization program. The initial estimated cost of that program, just as a break even
deal, was $300 million. It was rejected out of hand by the Liberal Government of that day. Since that point in time, the red meat industry has been in difficulty and provinces have been competing with one another, using farmers as their tools.
I say to the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) that basically the requests of Atlantic Ministers of Agriculture have been recognized. There is now judgmental opportunity in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to consider provincial differences. However, what is more important is the piece of legislation which is in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. It can properly start negotiations with the producers and the Ministers of Agriculture of all provinces, regardless of their political stripe. The consultative process which this puts in place gives some opportunity for avoiding war between the provinces and disparate conditions for individual farmers and their individual products.
For instance, I refer to the case of apples. The trade picture is not as it was. Trade agreements have been made which allow subsidized products to come into Canada to the detriment of the farming community. Whether it be apples or apple processed products, whether it be red meat, whether it be grapes, wine and wine products, they are coming into Canada on a free access basis, without constraint, as a result of utterly and totally ridiculous international trade agreements which were made against the advice of organized agriculture in Canada for the last 25 years. The policy of the Government of Canada has been: Let us trade off agriculture trading opportunities and let us build the manufacturing industry of Canada. As a result, the Canadian market has been glutted with imported food and we have a $10 billion to $15 billion trade deficit in manufactured products. We lost at both ends of the scale.
The international production figure has changed. No statistic was presented to the committee, as it considered this Bill, which emphasized that any more than the following facts. Fifteen years ago Canada was trading apples and exporting as many as it was receiving. Perhaps in most years it exported more than it imported. Today we are importing many more than we are exporting because of bad trade agreements and because of increased production which is subsidized in such places as the Pacific Rim by the Governments of those areas which no longer need our apples.
The potato industry finds itself in the same position. It is constrained by artificial barriers to trade, as the Hon. Member for Egmont well knows. We find ourselves, commodity by commodity, in a position which is uncomfortable and one which can only be addressed by consultation. We cannot continue any longer without joining forces in Canada on a non-competitive basis, with an urge for a province to own a product and its production.
I have particular fear for Atlantic Canada because it does not have the money to compete with the other provinces. Agriculture will suffer more than it can stand under those circumstances. I believe that the Ministers of Agriculture of Atlantic Canada are not totally satisfied, nor are they totally satisfied in Alberta or Ontario. This piece of legislation does not particularly fit the plan or wish of provinces, but it sets up
June 26, 1985

a framework under which they can all sit around the table to discuss it, something which could never be accomplished before.
I can speak for the Province of New Brunswick and its hog industry because I have consulted with them. The magnitude of the changes to this Act versus the way in which it was introduced does not totally please them. It does not totally please the Hon. Prowse Chappell or the Hon. Malcolm MacLeod. However, it is a compromise with which they can live and which will serve Canadian agriculture better than any other solution which I have heard proposed in my lifetime in this House.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Hamelin):: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has the floor.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your admirable introduction.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the amendment presented by the Member of the New Democratic Party and perhaps take advantage of this opportunity to speak to the Bill in a more general way.
Mr. Speaker, the riding I represent in Ontario is in a region that differs somewhat from other regions across the country, and I am sure that every Member in this House feels the same about his riding or region, which I think is quite normal and quite human.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate on this issue of regional differences. As you know yourself, Mr. Speaker, since you represent a riding about 100 miles from my own, which is pretty close, the situation in agriculture in Eastern Ontario is not only rather different from the rest of the country but also differs from the rest of the province, and perhaps I should explain. For instance, hog producers in my riding sell their products on the Quebec market, and their production costs are similar to those of Quebec producers. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Quebec is across the fence, as it were, from my riding, since my riding is on the Quebec border, so that producers in the region I represent are quite a distance from Southwestern Ontario, for instance, which grows most of the feed grains for hogs and where feed prices are much lower than in my riding and in Quebec. However, the region I represent does not benefit from the various provincial programs existing in Quebec, which is quite normal because we are in Ontario. So we see the people in my riding, with a market, prices production costs similar to those in Quebec, being offered the very marginal profits available in the province of Ontario. This means that a region like mine can be at a great disadvantage if regional differences in production costs are not considered. In my view, when we are talking about regional differences in production costs-and I do not mean provincial, although in this context, regional is often used to
Agricultural Stabilization Act
mean provincial-if the region I represent is not accommodated in some particular way within the Province of Ontario, we will again find ourselves at a definite disadvantage, similar to the situation in the Gaspe as compared with the rest of Quebec. So this is a phenomenon we find in certain regions in the outer reaches, as it were, of certain provinces. That is why there must be a mechanism to allow for differences in production costs, as I said earlier, but this mechanism does not necessarily have to apply strictly throughout a particular province. I think there is a case for designating certain regions within provinces, in order to allow for certain situations as is already being done through a number of joint programs on the Ontario side, for instance, where we have the Eastern Ontario Development Corporation which helps farmers make drainage improvements priced at a rate that differs from the going rate in Southeastern Ontario because there are special reasons for doing so. They are providing certain benefits for this disadvantaged region, and my point is that it has created a precedent for doing the same thing in other areas in agriculture and also in other sectors in industry, for instance. What we should do, as I mentioned to the Minister in committee and to his Parliamentary Secretary who is here in the House today, is to accommodate these regions in some way so that producers are not at a disadvantage. One of the problems, and the Minister is probably aware of this, is that it is very difficult to find out what advantages do exist in certain regions, although it may be easy in some cases.

For instance, if we are discussing top loading programs, it is fairly easy to identify where they exist and where they do not. On the other hand, if some regions offer other programs such as bottom loading and side loading programs and so forth, they are sometimes quite a bit harder to identify. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why such programs have not been as open to countervailing as others and have not been seen as having so many advantages or disadvantages.
I will give you an instance, Mr. Speaker. In the Province of Ontario, rural hydro rates are roughly 20 per cent to 25 per cent higher than urban rates. That is not the case in every Canadian province. If in a province the rural rates and the urban rates for electricity are the same, some people will argue that it costs more to service a rural area. Is that rural area then deemed to have received a subsidy on its electricity, for instance? I would argue not. I would argue that right now farmers of Ontario, through past provincial Conservative Governments, have suffered immensely because of this hydro policy. I see that the Minister is agreeing that the rural hydro rates in Ontario should be equal to the urban rates. I am glad to see that he is agreeing with that. I am sure that the new Liberal Government in Ontario will take note of that approval and hopefully will correct the shortcomings of the previous Tory Government very shortly.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) will recognize in the way that I have explained it, I hope, that it is difficult to determine which areas receive other advantages. It is difficult

June 26, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
in some cases to determine the cost of production because not every province at the present time uses the same formula to determine it. It is a difficult proposition and everyone recognizes that. I am sure the Minister does. Nevertheless, the farmers that I represent in the existing situation, where they are losing money every day that they operate, in comparison with others in other parts of Ontario, need to have a mechanism by which their regional differences are accommodated.
One member on the Standing Committee of Agriculture said that is fine. What if somebody wants to start a pork production industry in a totally remote area? Are we then going to accommodate with special subsidies that very remote area which has not been producing before? I recognize that that could potentially be a problem.
However, the area that I represent has been producing pork for some time. Therefore, the problem is not that the area is remote, or new in terms of having that production. The Minister will recognize that the problem is that when times were good our farmers were making less money than others, but they were still making a profit. Now that times are more difficult, other farmers in certain areas are either making just a little bit of money or losing just a little bit and ours, with the disadvantage that is there, are losing even more. That is what puts the farmers of the area that I represent at a disadvantage, and that must be recognized and corrected in any legislation.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I also welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-25, and of course on the amendment presented by the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may-and I think I should, at this stage-digress somewhat and try to put this debate into context. I think we should recall that a month from now, we will be celebrating the first anniversary of the start of the election campaign. At the time, Hon. Members opposite were travelling around the rural ridings, meeting farmers and promising them security, stability and a good future in agriculture.
Admittedly such a commitment may at first have appeared quite challenging and quite attractive. I can therefore understand why a good many agricultural ridings voted for the Conservative candidates, sincerely believing as they did that a new Government would advocate measures and programs designed to stabilize and make more secure such a vital and strategic sector of the Quebec economy as agriculture. That same Government kept repeating during the last few weeks before the election: We are firmly committed to consult all interested parties, we are firmly committed to co-operate with all provincial Governments. Those were very challenging commitments, a sort of preview of what the very important agricultural sector might become.
Shortly after the election the Government introduced Bill C-25. In my opinion, the amendment of our colleague has to do with one of the most important aspects of this Bill. Before the committee and the commission there was a lot of talk about the major obstacles and barriers with respect to diversity, disparities and the fact that the same kind of production cost a lot more in the east than in the west. That is indeed one of the aspects of this Bill which has been the subject of many comments and strong opposition. As to the Minister, he tried to use a problem which is also very important to Quebec, namely the current instability of pork production.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote the Minister of Agriculture who I should think is a very reliable spokesman for Quebec's agricultural community. Referring to the attitude of the Government concerning the pork issue, he said that the federal Minister had used this threat-obviously the American approach to this matter-had used this threat to sell a controversial red meat stabilization Bill instead of defending the interests of pork producers. He-still referring to our Minister of Agriculture-used the American threat to defend his own Bill. So the Minister concluded that there is a conflict of interests.
Not long before he said that, Mr. Speaker, the same Minister of Agriculture of Quebec had stated-and this can be readily understood-that the Government had been less enthusiastic in defending the interests of Quebec pork producers faced with the American surtax.
Quebec Agriculture Minister Garon pointed out that this case had been very badly defended by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) and by the Minister of Agriculture. Naturally this is a current problem which is of major importance to the Quebec producers, so the Minister took that as an example to try to make us believe that with a stabilization measure such as Bill C-25 there would be no more problems with the American administration. Indeed the same Minister said in committee that he had consulted the Americans and discussed with them to try to anticipate what might be their reaction should Bill C-25 be adopted. I find it amazing and quite unacceptable that the Minister of Agriculture of Canada would rather listen to our friends to the south, the Americans, instead of taking the advice of every single APU farmer, an organization which happens to be the main spokesman under these circumstances. The Minister of Agriculture is trying to push through a Bill which is clearly and totally unfair to the Quebec agricultural community, unfair for a number of reasons.
First, everyone is aware of the fact that Quebec has stabilization programs which have been developed, put together, amended and improved throughout the years, to such an extent that Quebec ahas had in recent years good and even excellent stabilization programs which have provided some stability and security to the producers who make use of them.
June 26, 1985

Bill C-25 expressly and clearly states that, to join the program, it is absolutely essential to forget or to put aside the provincial program. This is completely unacceptable. It seems to me that this Bill could have provided something really interesting, positive and with great potential. If the Government had introduced substantially the same measure while allowing the provinces to keep their own stabilization programs, if the measure had explained how production costs would be taken into account, if, as my colleague from the New Democratic Party would like, some allowance had been made for the diversity which typifies Canada, I believe that we would have had a very acceptable Bill, for the greatest good of agriculture. However, the Minister seems adamant in wanting to have this Bill passed when we know that it constitutes an absolutely fundamental obstacle to agricultural choices in Quebec for many production sectors, such as pork, and to accept and endorse or support this Bill would be an incredible affront to the Quebec farming community. Mr. Speaker, agriculture comes under federal jurisdiction, but no one would dare to suggest that it is exclusively so. The provincial Government shares jurisdiction in this area, and in my opinion, if we want to respect this sharing of jurisdiction, we must recognize the possibility of also having provincial stabilization programs.
Obviously, because of its climate, of its differences as far as certain productions are concerned, Quebec must face substantially higher costs than our Western friends, and I believe that to give a uniform price or to contemplate or hope for uniformity is to discriminate clearly against our producers.
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec producers, of whom many came to meet us and who, I know, have met many of our friends opposite, strongly object to this Bill because it jeopardizes many sectors of the agricultural industry in Quebec. At a time when we need jobs and security so badly, when we need this economic sector to be the most prosperous in the world, we have to support Quebec producers in their requests that they be entitled to a minimum. Everyone recognizes that the purpose of this Bill is not to stabilize income, but rather to stabilize prices, and in this regard, as Canadians, we have naturally a duty to allow uniformity, but only if we take into account individual characteristics which are extremely numerous in the agricultural industry. If the Government was honest and sincere when expounding its desire to operate in an atmosphere of openness, communication and consultation, it can certainly not ignore the consensus surrounding this Bill in Quebec and must take into account what all the members of the farming community want, namely adjustments which will allow them to keep their own stabilization programs, and this for the greatest good of agriculture.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-25. Like my colleagues who spoke previously, I must say that I have some grave reservations about the content and, indeed, some of the omissions
Agricultural Stabilization Act
from Bill C-25. I don't like to use the word "errors" but certainly there are some omissions.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is aware of what the Government of Prince Edward Island has said about the inclusion of potatoes in Clause 1(1 )(a). I hope that the Minister will act on his comments forthwith. The Government of Prince Edward Island also went on to talk abouit other sections in the Bill which we find very disturbing, particularly as they affect those farmers who reside and operate in Atlantic Canada.
I am also in receipt of a telegram from the Maritime Farmers Council which expresses grave concern about the lack of content in Bill C-25. In addition, the Federation of Agriculture in Nova Scotia has expressed some deep concerns which I believe are justified. It believes it is imperative, on behalf of the pork producers in Nova Scotia, that Hon. Members oppose the Bill in its present form because it does not allow for regional cost of production or the continuation of its provincial hog stabilization program.
I know the Minister has attempted to embark on a consultative process and that has gone on all across the country with various interest groups. I want to convey to the Minister with sincerity and frankness that the farmers in the Maritime provinces are particularly concerned. There is not very much Clause 8, Section 10.1(3), to protect the livelihood of those farmers in the Maritimes. I think that is an omission. If it is an error, the Minister has the opportunity to right this wrong, but I believe it is an omission which has to be corrected.
It is my belief that the evidence which was given before the Standing Committee on Agriculture by the Maritime Farmers Council clearly indicates it would be supportive of the Bill, but it has a number of caveats which I believe are legitimate. I don't believe it is being partisan. I think it is speaking with the united voice of farmers in the Maritime provinces. I believe Hon. Members of Parliament on all sides of the House should concede to its requests.
The Council has said it is prepared to participate in such a program as outlined in Bill C-25 provided that the program adequately reflects the variation in the cost of production among the various regions of Canada so that its net benefits will be equalized among livestock producers all across the country. That is pretty fair and reasonable. That is something which emanates from the Charter and the new Constitution when we talk about equal opportunity. I know Hon. Members opposite may laugh at that, but it is a pretty serious issue to the Maritime farmers.
I want to say to the Minister that the major factor in calculating the cost of production in the livestock enterprise is the cost of feed. In the Maritime provinces this is particularly evident in the cost of production of pork because hogs are fed on grains and protein concentrates. The Maritimes only produces 42 per cent of our feed grain requirements and less than 5 per cent of our vegetable protein concentrates. The rest is imported from western and central Canada.

June 26, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
The Minister has a proposal before him which is supported by the Maritime Farmers Council and all of its organizations. It is supported by the provincial Governments of those provinces. It has tremendous support among the rank and file who are united in their particular cause, a feed cost self-sufficiency program.
I do not want to charge that the consultation process on which the Minister has embarked is a fraud. I don't want to say that, and I don't want to believe it. I would hope that the consultative process would result in meaningful changes to the legislation. But we do not see any changes, even with respect to potatoes, and that was a recommendation made by the Government of Prince Edward Island. We know what the Maritime Farmers Council is proposing. But the Minister has not acted on it. He can tell us he is going to study it, he is going to review it, but how long does the Minister need? Does he need another two years or 24 months? The Minister says he needs that much time. But he has been telling the farmers in the Maritimes that since the time the Conservatives took office.
The issue is a very serious one, Mr. Speaker. Fifty per cent of those individuals involved are on the verge of losing great sums of money as well as jobs, and all we get from this Minister is a promise that it is going to happen tomorrow or the day after, but nothing gets done. That is totally unacceptable. The Act is totally unacceptable because it does not contain the safeguards which we in the Maritime provinces want.
I heard the Hon. Member from New Brunswick speak very eloquently about this being a good first step. But that is not enough. If the Government can bail out the multinational oil companies to the tune of $1.3 billion, and if it can give $300 million of the taxpayers' money for capital gains-$600 million next year and over $1 billion in 1990-surely to God the Minister would have the courage of his convictions, and the support of his cabinet colleagues, to stand in his place tonight and announce a new program which will provide feed self-sufficiency in the Maritime provinces. But all we get from this Minister is promises, promises, promises.


John Carnell Crosbie: Louder.


David Charles Dingwall: We get absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker. It was worse when the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was in the chair of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). We received far less. But I don't know how much more we in the Maritime provinces can take with this Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. It is not fair or equitable and it is not in the best interests of our region. But I'm not surprised. I am saddened, Mr. Speaker, to see so many Hon. Members of Parliament who attended the meetings of the Maritime Farmers Council and agreed with what was said, when it comes time to vote not voting in accordance with the proposals they are advocating. I find it utterly shameful that this legislation has so many omissions which will affect Maritime farmers in such a devastating way.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the-


Don Boudria: I think it's close.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member says it is close. Well, for his information, in my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


John Wise: that the Bill be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
When shall the Bill read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?

June 26, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Might I intrude on the House at this time? The Standing Committee on Transport has concluded its deliberations with respect to the Western Grain Transportation Act amendments. We are very grateful for the hard work of Members from all Parties in this regard.
I have had consultations with Opposition House Leaders with respect to reverting to the presentation of reports at this stage so that the report of that committee could be tabled tonight and Members would have the benefit of it over the course of the evening.
It seems that I have the consent of the NDP to proceed in this fashion and I would ask the House Leader of the Official Opposition whether he is prepared to give that unanimous consent, in the interest of Members of the House of Commons, so that this report could be tabled at this time, and we may in fact proceed with debate on that matter at the earliest possible date-even tomorrow.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I know that there is a great deal of interest in this matter. I think it is for that reason that we should proceed in a calm, deliberate fashion and have the report tabled as provided for by the rules.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move forward with Bill C-49, an Act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to prostitution.


CRIMINAL CODE
John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-49, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an unexpected pleasure to have this opportunity to introduce this Bill here tonight. However, I know that sitting opposite we have many people who are familiar with this subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I have no doubt that it is a subject with which they will find themselves busily engaged in the next few hours.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are the only John in the House.


John Carnell Crosbie: The last time I had much to say in the House it had to do with brothers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In the interest of the House, it being nine o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 27, 1985