1985-05-17

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre), responsible for handing out untendered government advertising contracts, short-changed the people of his riding of Calgary Centre during the last election campaign. The Hon. Member introduced to his constituents what he called the Liberal shrinking dollar, which he said was worth 75 cents U.S. After having promised these to his constituents, the Hon. Member should do the honourable thing.
Now that the dollar has decreased by 2.5 cents since the election of his Government, I figure he owes his constituents $1,367.40, since there were 54,696 voters in his riding and each one of them was short-changed 2.5 cents. I am sure that the people of Calgary Centre are anxiously awaiting their cheques. The people of that riding are entitled to be compensated for another Conservative dwindled dollar, now only worth 72.5 cents. On behalf of the people of that riding I express my gratitude to the Hon. Member for making a suitable contribution worth $1,367.40 to the charity of his choice.


COMBINES
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) recently announced a 10-person special advisory committee to examine amendments to the Combines Investigations Act. We know our present anti-combines law is unworkable, and in view of court decisions there is virtually no likelihood of convictions for conspiracy to restrict competition. In view of this disgusting record I find it unbelievable that the Minister would appoint a special advisory committee, to examine proposed amendments to the law, consisting of six private lawyers, three business executives, and one business journalist. I have very
little hope for the value of the amended Act after it passes through this laundry.
I wonder about the larger public interest, and whether the Minister could not have found some dispassionate academics with an interest in the area. Also, could there not have been representatives from the public interest, consumer, credit union, co-operative, and labour sectors, all of whom have an interest in this legislation? Surely the Minister realizes that better anti-combines legislation for Canada will not be arrived at by allowing the pro business committee simply to vet and gut any proposals which could check the alarming corporate concentration and takeover mania which is the hallmark of our economy.


SPACE WEAPONRY
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, ever since the United States announced the proposed Strategic Defence Initiative, many opponents have named it the star wars program. This I find most misleading. The basic premise of SDI is to eliminate the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles, and search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war. SDI would eliminate the necessity of using nuclear warheads as a deterrent. Furthermore, once SDI research is employed the value of offensive nuclear weapons would be reduced, thereby creating both military and economic incentives which would encourage negotiations for nuclear weapons reduction. In addition, an estimated $25 billion would be injected into research for the SDI program. This will undoubtedly develop technology for peaceful application in Canada, Europe, and the United States.
We should no longer be lukewarm about our involvement in the development of SDI. The only logical thing to do is to participate and promote SDI's less menacing concept of preventing nuclear war in the years to come.


TRIBUTE TO CANADIAN ATHLETES
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, last evening at Ottawa's Congress Centre I witnessed, along with some of my colleagues from all Parties in this House and some of our hard-working pages, a wonderful tribute to our 1984-85

May 17, 1985
Olympic and world champions. What an evening of pride and accomplishment. It was a night of nostalgia as we saw replays of Gaetan Boucher in Sarajevo, and Alex Baumann in Los Angeles. Jack Donohue, our men's basketball coach, warmed up the audience with his usual style of humour and grace, followed by our former Governor General, Roland Michener, who underlined the importance of fitness and good health which comes with sport participation.

The remarkable individual and collective success achieved by young Canadians during the 1984 Olympics and this year's world championships attest to our vigour and determination as a nation.
I congratulate all those who received prizes awarded by the media-retired athletes, coaches, our champions, and Shawn O'Sullivan who proved to be a winner when he accepted a prize for great distinction.

I also salute Canada's Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) and his staff for a world class performance in saying "Thank you"


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to present the Patronage Award of the Week, the PAW award. A lot of people have worked very hard in the past with the hope of some day obtaining their reward at the trough. To those who have not yet been nominated, I say keep on oinking.
The candidates for this week's PAW award are Mr. Bud Sherman for his defence of the bilingualism issues; Mr. Jack McNie, former Ontario Tory Minister, now chairman of the R.T. Kelly advertising agency in Hamilton, for the contract on previously advertised material; Camp Associates Advertising Ltd., who need no further introduction, for their $30 million advertising contract. May I have the envelope please? And the winner is Mr. Bud Sherman.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Sherman therefore is the winner of the PAW award of the week. Mr. Sherman receives a sweater of the French Canadian Association of Ontario which he hopefully will wear in the course of his duties with the CRTC as a reminder that we are a bilingual country.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's largest steel industry, Stelco, with head office in Toronto, is apparently planning to close three of its Quebec plants with the result that some 550 employees might be permanently laid off.
Worldwide overproduction threatens the steel industry throughout Canada, Mr. Speaker, and that applies to Sidbec as well.
Therefore Stelco is making radical changes which, unfortunately, will entail closure of some of its plants, including three in Quebec. This is a regrettable and unfortunate situation, and we are convinced that other alternatives must surely exist.
Will the Government of Canada let Quebec's steel industry worsen without reacting, without offering assistance? It did help Domtar, so why not do the same thing in this case? The Government is open, too much so to foreign investors, but it is not doing anything to prevent Canadian companies from giving up, closing shop and laying off hundreds of workers. Is that the Government's new economic development policy for the country?
Mr. Speaker, I dare hope that officials of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion have been in touch with Stelco management in their quest for a solution which would be more helpful to Stelco workers and the Quebec economy.


THE FORMER ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, frankly we are a little surprised at the presentation of another PAW award this morning, right after our first SOW award on Monday pointed out that the pot is indeed calling the kettle black. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the official Tory rat catcher on my desk. It is a blue rat trap, with a red rat.
This leaves us no alternative but to ask once again for the envelope, please.

Mr. Speaker, the survivor of the week . . . which in French could be: la truie.

This week it is-

-the former Member of Parliament and Minister of the liberal Cabinet-
May 17, 1985



-still the President of the World Food Council, Eugene Whelan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of great importance to the people of Niagara Falls and all of the people of Canada. That is the matter of the contamination of the Niagara River.
All evidence indicates that the level of PCBs and other toxins is increasing. Up until now our American friends have refused to move on this issue. That is why I congratulate the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) on her recent trip to Washington. Her obtaining of an agreement to setting an agenda for clean-up of the Niagara River is a tremendous step forward.
As for the Official Opposition, its sudden interest in this area is rather surprising, but it is not kidding anyone. The people of my area know that for 15 years the Liberal Party of Canada did nothing to clean up the Niagara River. That is why the actions of our Minister of the Environment are applauded, not only by the people of Niagara but by all Canadians.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House once again the case of Bruce Curtis, a 20 year old Nova Scotian now in the second year of a 20-year prison sentence in New Jersey in the United States.
As many of us here are aware, Mr. Curtis is a graduate of a private school in Nova Scotia. In July of 1982 he paid a visit to a school friend's home in Loch Arbour, New Jersey. That friend, Scott Franz, lived with his step-parents, Alfred and Rosemary Podgis. On the evening of July 4, following a week or more of domestic violence, during which Mr. Podgis had repeatedly threatened both Scott and his wife, Curtis and his friend slept with loaded rifles by their sides to protect themselves. The next morning Scott shot and killed his stepfather. In the confusion that followed, Bruce Curtis claimed that he fled in panic. He said that in doing so he stumbled into Mrs. Podgis and that the gun he was carrying discharged accidentally, killing her instantly.
At the trial of the two young men in March of 1983 Scott Franz secured a reduction of his 30-year sentence for murder
to 20 years by plea bargaining with the prosecutor, who allowed Scott to name Bruce Curtis as the master planner behind both deaths. Since perjury and plea bargaining were employed in the original trial, both the conviction and the unduly harsh sentence that followed have left a wrong that needs to be righted. I call upon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay), and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to employ every means at their disposal to see that justice is done in the case of Mr. Bruce Curtis and his family.


COMMEMORATIVE VISIT TO EUROPE
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, a number of days ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), and other leaders in the House commemorated VE Day. Yesterday I returned to Canada following my participation with a parliamentary delegation to the Netherlands and Italy marking the end of World War II. This delegation consisted of outstanding generals, an air marshall, navy commanders, colonels, privates, and ordinary citizens. It would take an hour for me to explain my feelings about this trip. It was an experience I shall never forget.
The Dutch people of Holland demonstrated their love and appreciation of Canadians, the people who liberated their country. The delegation was treated royally by Princess Beatrix, the ambassadors, mayors, and hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens.
[DOT] (U15)
Our delegation, under the leadership of one of our Canadian heroes, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees), visited cemeteries where we paid fitting tribute to our fallen comrades. We sought out the graves of our lost friends. We offered our prayers of thanksgiving; we shed tears in their memory.
On May 4 the Dutch people have a day of official mourning when they honour their war dead and the peace of the last 40 years. After the silent march and dedication, a young girl walked up to me, extended her hand and said "Thank you". "For what", I asked, perplexed. "For our liberation" she said, and walked away. Even the young people of Holland know what freedom truly is. I am proud to be a veteran.


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

May 17, 1985
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
CONTAMINATION BY PCBs-MEASURES GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment.
This morning we heard that according to a report by the Quebec Department of the Environment, contamination by PCBs affects nearly all Quebecers. This includes infants who are breast-fed, people who eat fish, factory workers and so on down the list. All Quebec families are affected by this situation. My question is therefore as follows: Could the Minister inform the House and the men and women of Quebec about what she intends to do to deal with a situation that is worrisome, to say the least?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition for his question. It is a situation that concerns us all and it is clear that we must take immediate action. That is why I have called a federal-provincial conference on how to dispose of the PCB wastes lying around the country.
The Quebec study was based on U.S. studies and reveals something we have known for a number of years, namely that if we were to make an exhaustive study of all human beings alive today, we would find that their fatty tissues contain traces of PCBs. The situation is therefore very urgent.
CONTAMINATION BY PCBs


John Napier Turner: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Now the Minister is saying the situation is very urgent, but this conference is being called very late in the day.
The Minister does not seem to be concerned about the gravity of the situation, any more than she was yesterday when she said that PCBs did not cause cancer.
Does the Minister feel that the situation is peculiar to Quebec or is it more widespread? Does it concern all Canadian men and women and is this not a national issue rather than an exclusively provincial responsibility, as she said before?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I think that the presence of PCBs in the fatty tissues of the human body concerns the entire planet and obviously concerns all Canadians, and that is why we have called an emergency federal-provincial conference for the end of May, something the Liberal Party never did during the fifteen years it was in power.


DEPARTMENT'S RESEARCH INITIATIVE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is the opinion of those of us on this side of the House that such a conference should have been called right after the first PCB spill.
The Minister's position is full of holes. The World Health Organization believes that PCBs should be treated as cancer causing agents, but the Minister does not. Her Department believes that the situation in Lake Ontario is serious, but she does not.
If the Minister really believes that we need more research into PCBs, why did she cut the research initiative in her own Department on these particular chemicals? How would she explain that to the people of Quebec who are now concerned about it? How would she explain it to the people who drink water from Lake Ontario, and particularly to people in northern Ontario who were faced with that recent PCB spill?

Hod. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition has been misinformed by his environment critic. If his facts had been correct, he would know that we did not cut off research on toxic substances such as PCBs. In fact, we have taken over the research on the state of scientific literature on the effects of PCBs which had been done at the National Research Council. The study is being put together in my department and will be published this summer.


REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF FUNDING
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of the Environment. She never ceases to astonish us on this side of the House by the speed with which she reverses herself-from her lack of sensitivity yesterday in committee in answering questions on PCBs to her full endorsement this morning of the importance of PCBs to human health.
Let me ask the Minister once and for all whether she will admit her mistake in allowing such substantial cuts in Environment last November, and whether she will re-establish the funds she cut in Environment Canada for the protection of the long-term health of Canadians.


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, ever since I became a Member of this House, the hon. environment critic for the Liberal Party has been constantly referring to my lack of sensitivity. Is this supposed to make up for his lack of effectiveness during the nine months he was himself Minister of the Environment?
May 17, 1985


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, we can only judge people by their performance-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: -and it is pretty pathetic to hear that.


ROLE OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I must turn to the Minister of Science and Technology. Will he restore the cuts he allowed to the programs at the National Research Council that had to do with health, PCBs, and the long-term effects on human health, programs that were sponsored by his Department before the cuts were announced last November?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, any and all research relating to the health hazards and potential health hazards of toxic substances in which the NRC has been engaged will be continued.
The only cut to which the Hon. Member referred if he were to be fair, was the decision to eliminate the environmental secretariat, which was not doing research but merely compiling data. My hon. colleague has indicated that that type of work will continue in her Department.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Crosbie:: You got creamed yesterday. Do you want to have it happen again?


John Edward Broadbent: The Government's position on the timing of the decision on star wars and the role of the proposed committee looking into a possible review of foreign policy remains unclear, some might say confused.
Yesterday the Minister said outside the House that the Government is prepared to wait three or four months before making a decision on star wars. If this is the case, why does the Government not request the proposed committee to make an interim report on the star wars portion of its mandate before the Government makes a decision itself on star wars?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada is, as it has been, that we expect to take a decision on the limited question of the American initiation to participate in research into the Strategic Defence Initiative sometime in the next three to four months. We would greatly value the advice of individual Canadians and interested Canadians on
Oral Questions
the strategic Defence Initiative question prior to that time. That is one of the reasons why we want to have the joint committee sitting to allow the public to speak.
I have a question for the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Will the New Democratic Party stop boycotting the joint committee? Will Members of the NDP stop opposing the right of Canadians to be heard on the Strategic Defence Initiative?


Mr. Rodriguez:: You are supposed to answer the question.


John Carnell Crosbie: You answer that one.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to answer the Minister of Justice as well as the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Our position is clear. We will participate in a committee that really intends to listen to people in the context of having input in the decision. We will not support a sham process. That is our position.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Yes or no?


PROPOSED COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS
John Edward Broadbent: I have a question for the Minister who is responsible, not the one who is talking over there, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think he is responsible. If he really does want the committee to perform a useful function, he knew when he was on this side of the House, and when he was Prime Minister and showed some respect, and I emphasize that, for committees, that if you want respect you have to listen to what a committee recommends. Therefore, if the committee has input on the star wars decision it must make a recommendation. Why won't the Government request the committee to make an interim report on the star wars position?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I respect committees of this House. That is why I want to establish one, so that the people of Canada can be heard on this question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I also respect the traditions of the House which indicate that when committees are established they function most effectively when they are not severely limited by detailed instructions from the Government.
If the NDP and the Liberal Party will stop opposing the idea of public hearings, the committee can establish its own agenda. I have made the Government's own view clear. The Government's own view is that we would not oppose-indeed we would encourage it-discussion of the Strategic Defence Initiative and of other questions on which the Government has to take decisions urgently. That is the committee's business, and I ask the opposition Parties to let the committee do its

May 17, 1985
Oral Questions
business-stop holding up Parliament, stop holding up the right of the people to be heard.


KROEGER INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that he is doing what we sometimes affectionately describe in this House as indulging in stonewalling. He has not dealt with the issue. If the committee is to be relevant, if it is to be serious, and if we are to take the opinions of the people of Canada seriously in a decision making sense, it should make an interim report, and the Government should make a commitment that it will not make a decision on the matter until it sees that report.
Since we have now learned that Dr. Kroeger, who is heading a committee to investigate the star wars project from the Canadian point of view, is reporting directly to the Prime Minister, and since we have had a different view of the committee's role, even from the Minister himself as expressed by the Defence Minister, does the Secretary of State for External Affairs speak for the Government on this matter, or will whatever he decides ultimately be ratified, possibly revised, changed, and reversed by the Prime Minister?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking two questions today. Let me answer the first one in my capacity as Acting Prime Minister and Acting Minister of National Defence.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: In those capacities we have absolute confidence in the judgment of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and we can offer that categoric assurance to the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Stonewalling is the practice of people who stop progress.


Some Hon. Members:: That's right.


Charles Joseph Clark: We want to establish a committee that will let the public be heard. The Liberal Party is stopping that committee. The New Democratic Party is stopping that committee. They are stonewalling. We are saying that we want to follow the unusual practice of establishing a joint committee which will let the public be heard, and we want to follow the normal practice of letting that committee establish its own agenda.
1 have indicated our views on the kind of agenda that we would welcome. We would welcome discussion on SDI, we would welcome discussion on trade and on other questions. Most of all we would welcome a committee, and we would ask why the opposition Parties continue to refuse to let the people of Canada be heard.


TIMING OF GOVERNMENT DECISION
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is difficult enough trying to figure out what his position is when he holds one position; today he is holding two positions and I suppose the pregnant question is this: Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs consulted the Acting Prime Minister? He has not yet clearly stated his position and the position of the Government. He has said that the Government will make a decision sometime in the next three or four months. Will he tell us what will be the date of the Government's decision, so that this supposed committee will be able to plan its work? Will he assure us that the Government will await the conclusion of full public hearings on star wars before coming to a decision?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to give a precise date. What I have given is the period of time within which the Government expects to be called upon to make a decision, in the Canadian interest and on the Canadian timetable, on the American invitation to participate in research in the Strategic Defence Initiative. We have already told the Americans that we will not accept their artificial deadline, and I think we would be foolish to impose other artificial deadlines on a process which must come to a decision.
Surely the Hon. Member must know that if Parliaments or Governments are interested in delaying decisions, there are innumerable ways to do that. The Party of which he is a member delayed for years a decision on the North Warning System. Not only did they not bring it to Parliament, they did not bring it to decision. The New Democratic Party has been debating for eight years its position on NATO. They still have not made up their minds.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, we have.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member for Oshawa has made up his mind. The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam has not made up her mind. The process can go on, and on, and on, without decision. Governments have a duty to decide. They also have the duty to allow the people of Canada to be heard. That has not been allowed in the past.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE PROPOSAL
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to figuring out ways to postpone decisions, the Government is developing a certain expertise. In the area of defence the most important question facing Canadians today is star wars.
There is another question which the Minister has addressed in his paper. That is the question of free trade, which will affect every aspect of Canadian life. Considering that free trade with the United States will mean major changes in our
May 17, 1985

economic, social, cultural and political life, which merit extensive public hearings, will the Minister postpone any decision on that subject until the views of Canadians are fully canvassed?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, once again we would welcome Canadians taking advantage of the special committee process to express their views on trade questions, if the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party would allow the committee to sit, and allow the people to be heard.
Let me take the implications of the Hon. Member's question. This committee that we want to establish and which the opposition Parties refuse to let us establish, reports at the end of May next year. That is a year hence. The Liberal Party is now proposing that we delay any decision on trade matters for at least a year, in other words that we wait a year while thousands and thousands of Canadian jobs are threatened by protectionism in the United States. We are not going to put at risk thousands and thousands of Canadian jobs as the Liberal Party suggests.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister as well. It has to do with a memorandum from Jerry Lampert, the national director of the Progressive Conservative Party, to the various Progressive Conservative constituency presidents, suggesting that party headquarters will be preparing the following material to be available, prepared radio material, press releases, speech notes, background packages, to riding associations on budget night. In the spirit and the tradition of budget secrecy, will the Acting Prime Minister explain how it will be possible to get information to party headquarters and those kinds of releases unless the secrecy provision is broken?


John Carnell Crosbie: You have to be quick.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I remember some of the issues in Kamloops-Shuswap in the last election campaign and I won't ask how the Hon. Member happened to get on the Progressive Conservative mailing list. Let me simply assure him that the principles of budget secrecy will be fully respected in the presentation of the Budget by the Minister of Finance on May 23.


METHOD OF PREPARING MATERIAL
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance is going to give his speech late
Oral Questions
Thursday afternoon, up until six o'clock. How will it be possible to have prepared radio material available, a background package of speech notes, and budget information for Members of Parliament, constituency presidents and others, all within a matter of hours? How could this be possible unless there has been a leak of party officials that in fact budget material would be moving out of the Department of Finance and into party headquarters?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it may be that the New Democratic Party communicates by semaphore, if it communicates at all. 1 simply repeat my assurance to the Hon. Member that the principles of budget secrecy will be respected absolutely by the Minister of Finance and this Government when the Budget is brought down on May 23.


WAR CRIMINALS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I would like to ask him about his Government's war criminal policy. When the Deschenes royal commission was established the Minister told this House that the Government would continue to be active in dealing with war criminals while the commission was working. I know that the Minister and the Government like to criticize the former Government on war criminals, but we have an example here of this Government breaking its commitments on the subject of remaining active on war criminals.
Is the Minister satisfied with the Secretary of State for External Affairs deciding that the question of extradition to Israel should be referred to that royal commission, instead of taking up Israel's interest and acting on it now? Is he satisfied with a decision announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration that the Kisielaitis case would be referred to that royal commission for study, instead of being referred to the police for action?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I frankly do not know how the hon. gentleman has the gall and the audacity to ask any questions on this subject. After 35 years of Liberal indifference, obfuscation, twisted immigration policy and all the rest, we have taken firm and decisive action on this matter. We have a commission studying these issues that will report back by the end of the year. I am quite satisfied that they are doing well. They are making good progress. These issues should be studied by them. That's why they are set up. For the first time since 1945 this whole matter is having a proper ventilation and some decent action.

May 17, 1985
Oral Questions


CITIZENSHIP STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO SOLICITOR GENERAL
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me as if the Minister is reneging on the commitment that he made in the House that the activities of the Government would continue while the commission is working. He is now saying that he is satisfied to let the commission do the work. Does he agree with the Solicitor General, who recently said that seeking to take away Canadian citizenship from war criminals here in Canada was too complicated and that it should not be done, without even waiting for the royal commission's views on that remedy?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, during the whole period from 1945 to 1957 and from 1965 to 1985, during all of which time the Hon. Member's Party was in office with the exception of eight brilliant months, rudely terminated for the wrong reasons at the wrong time, the Immigration Act was never used by that Liberal administration in this connection. Now the hon. gentleman complains that it is not being used at the moment. It is not being used at the moment because, as he knows, of the difficulties in providing evidence, and because under that administration the documents were destroyed. Records were destroyed, and you cannot show what statements were made when people were admitted here as immigrants back in the 1950s, 1960s, and so on. The Hon. Member's administration made it impossible for that to be an effective device. Surely he should wait until the end of the year to see what the royal commission recommends. Now that he is the Opposition, he is carrying on as though he were intensely interested in this matter.


SPACE WEAPONRY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the star wars initiative, the Strategic Defence Initiative and the evaluation now taking place in Canada. I want to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Acting Prime Minister and Acting Minister of National Defence. Can the Minister explain why it is that despite the scientific implications of any Canadian participation in the research program of the United States for the SDI, and the fact that research by Canada could suck dollars away in a major way from other Canadian research and development, and therefore have grave implications for Canadian scientific R & D, the Minister of State for Science and Technology in the Cabinet has had no involvement, has not been approached, and does not anticipate being involved in any significant way with the work presently under way to evaluate the invitation that Canada has received from the U.S. administration? Why has that Minister been excluded when he is the chief-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Hon. Member has not been paying attention or if he has suddenly developed an interest in this question. The situation is that a senior Canadian public servant has been sent to the United States to seek detailed information on the implications, including the scientific implications, of the invitation for Canada to take part in research into the Strategic Defence Initiative. That official will report his findings back to the Cabinet of Canada, and the Cabinet of Canada includes, very prominently and actively, the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Cabinet of Canada, including that Minister, will then take its decision.


EVALUATION OF SCIENTIFIC IMPLICATIONS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps 1 could let the Minister know that earlier this week the Minister of State for Science and Technology said the following at the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee:
-nor do I anticipate being involved in any significant way with the work which is presently under way to evaluate the invitation that Canada has received from the U.S. administration.
Why is it that no effort is being made here in Canada to evaluate the scientific implications? Why are we simply sending someone to the United States to look at the Americans' evaluation of the scientific implications?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of State for Science and Technology, the Prime Minister, and 1 have been saying is that we have asked a senior public servant to seek particular information about the implications of an invitation. That is the job given to Dr. Kroeger and the team he assembled. There is no need at all for Ministers of the Crown to duplicate the work that we have assigned to him.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as Minister responsible for the National Capital Commission. Can the Minister confirm press reports that the NCC general manager has taken a leave of absence from his job pending the conclusion of an investigation by the RCMP into possible criminal activities in the letting of contracts by the Commission? If so, can the Minister comment on the status of this matter?
[ Translation]


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say for the time being is that on May 15,
May 17, 1985

investigators from the RCMP reported to the National Capital Commission's headquarters. The same day, the General Manager of the NCC was suspended. The investigation is continuing, and the Hon. Member will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to make any further comments at this time.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Has the Minister received a formal request for funding from the Province of Nova Scotia for the second phase of the business plan for the modernization of Sydney Steel Corporation? If so, what type of steel-making process is the province recommending?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members know, I did meet with the Premier of Nova Scotia last week. At that time the question of future funding for Sydney Steel Corporation was discussed. It is now under review, and I would have to say that, as far as any requests from the province are concerned, there are two and possibly three alternatives that are under review.


TIMING OF GOVERNMENT DECISION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I think the people of Sydney who depend on this steel plant for their livelihoods want to have more definitive information. When will the federal Government let the people of Sydney know when the second phase of the modernization will begin?
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, very soon.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Section 16(6) of the Unemployment Insurance Act provides for a variable entrance requirement which allows people to participate in the unemployment insurance fund in different ways depending upon the unemployment rates of their particular regions. That provision comes to an end on June 4 unless it is approved by an affirmative resolution of Parliament. Does the Minister intend to introduce such an affirmative resolution to the House of Commons?
Oral Questions


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that an announcement regarding that matter will be made very shortly.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's answer is totally unacceptable in view of the fact that June 4 is the deadline for the new affirmative resolution. If the affirmative resolution is not passed, the requirement of 14 weeks will be in effect across the country. Does the Minister think that that is fair and reasonable in light of the fact that there are many people in regions of the country with high unemployment rates who must know the answer to that question because they may very well be laid off in the next week or two?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Government is very well aware of the consequences of the difficulties that arise with the expiry of the VER on June 4. Once again I would say to the Hon. Member, and to those who are concerned, that the Government will be making its decision known in that regard within a very short time.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General my question is directed to Premier Hatfield's friend, the Minister of Justice, and concerns the MacKay-Hatfield affair and the internal RCMP report which we have been promised and promised. On February 25 the Deputy Prime Minister said that the report would be ready as early as that week. On March 5 the Solicitor General said that the report was substantially complete. On March 14 he again said that the report was substantially complete. On March 26 he promised that the report would be ready within a week or two. On May 3 he said that the report was just about complete. On May 8 he promised that the report would be made public within a matter of days.
Why the stonewalling? When, specifically, will the report be made public? Does the Government intend to abort justice twice on the same day by releasing the report on budget day to avoid as much publicity as possible?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that is an ingenious suggestion. I will pass it along to the Solicitor General.
The main difference between my hon. friend and myself is that I have at least one friend.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Name him, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: My wife.

May 17, 1985
Oral Questions
We have been awaiting with trepidation all week the charge of the rodent brigade. I will pass this request from the hon. gentleman to the Solicitor General who will, I am sure, next week around budget day, respond to him.


CONTENTS OF REPORT
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, with friends like Premier Hatfield, who needs enemies?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: On May 3 the Solicitor General promised that the report would be comprehensive. Would the Minister of Justice therefore confirm that the report will reveal if there is any substance to the allegations made by Premier Hatfield that the RCMP was part of a conspiracy to overthrow his Government? Will the report detail full particulars of the secret meeting at the Chateau Laurier held on October 7 between the Solicitor General and Premier Hatfield? Will the report indicate precisely why the RCMP waited 30 days before they charged Premier Hatfield, or will the report be nothing but a fraud, a sham, and a deceit?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, for the first time, words fail me.


John Napier Turner: But not for long.


John Carnell Crosbie: I think it is for the first time. The Commissioner of the RCMP is preparing this report, and I think that if there is one thing of which this House can be assured, it is his complete integrity and impartiality.
The report will deal with the RCMP investigation, whether or not there was a leak that could be traced in any way to the RCMP, and the issues into which the Commissioner was asked to look. 1 am sure that if the Solicitor General feels that it is in the public interest to reveal the report, it will put the decisive lie to the various allegations and suggestions so improperly contained in the hon. gentleman's question.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. We are all happy with the decline in interest rates. Can the Minister tell the House why interest rates on charge cards such as Visa and Mastercard, which rose dramatically when interest rates were at 20 per cent or more, remain today at 18.6 per cent, as they have remained for the past year, at a time when the prime rate of 10.75 per cent is the lowest it has been since September, 1978? What action, if any, is the
Government planning to take to ensure that these rates come down as have other interest rates?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the best thing that the Government can do for consumers and for interest rates is to ensure that we get our own house in order so that rates can come down, and that is happening in the market-place now. Consumer rates, I am sure, will follow other rates down. The Hon. Member himself has indicated that they are lower than they were. 1 should think consumers would be happy.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, what I am asking the Government to do is to try a little persuasion or pressure. The Government supposedly believes that the market will do these things. Since the Minister knows that there are only two charge card companies in Canada, Visa and Master Card, and that they set the terms and conditions for all agencies which issue their cards, can the Minister tell the House when the Government intends to ensure that these terms and conditions permit genuine price competition and, therefore, lower interest rates, which we should have now on these cards?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member will be happy to facilitate discussion and legislation around my financial institutions proposals, and that will help us get more competition in the market.


David Orlikow: Don't hold your breath for that.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On April 23, 24, and 25, during the heat of the Lawson-Murray-Wilson family affair, the Prime Minister promised this House that the new- n-e-w-conflict of interest guidelines respecting the conduct and behaviour of Cabinet Ministers would be filed in the House within a few days. Nearly one month has passed since the Prime Minister made that commitment. Will the Acting Prime Minister provide Hon. Members of Parliament, and through Hon. Members of Parliament, all Canadians, with a copy of those new conflict of interest guidelines respecting the behaviour and conduct of members of Cabinet?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the rodent has it wrong again. The Prime Minister indicated that the Deputy Prime Minister was seized of the report prepared by the Sharp-Starr Commission and was
May 17, 1985

examining it. With respect to the question of guidelines respecting advertising which were promised within a few days, they were delivered within a few days. They are now a part of the Treasury Board policy manuals, a new chapter 485, I believe. They are available at any time. I am sure that one of the Pages will get them from the Library for the Hon. Member if he wants to read them.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is pitifully easy to set a trap for a donkey. On April 24 the Prime Minister said that he had written to the Deputy Prime Minister asking him to review all of the guidelines with regard to Ministers of the Crown and their conduct, with a view to enhancing them and tightening them up. He said: "The Deputy Prime Minister has done that", and that those guidelines would be filed very shortly.
The Minister of Supply and Services has it wrong, as usual, and is trying to confuse the issue, as usual. We have been told that new guidelines had been prepared. We were promised on three different occasions-


Mr. Speaker:: Question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I would be glad to provide a copy of Hansard where it says that the new guidelines respecting Ministers would be filed. I ask again, will the Government release those new guidelines to Hon. Members of Parliament today? And, if not today, when will they be tabled in this House?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between the Hon. Member's first question and his second.


John V. Nunziata: No, no. Wake up.


Don Boudria: It was slower; that's all.


Harvie Andre: The rodents should pick up their ears.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Answer the question. It is a serious question.


Harvie Andre: The first question was a promise of guidelines within days. As I told the Hon. Member, the guidelines respecting advertising were promised within days and were delivered within days. In his supplementary question the Hon. Member said that the Prime Minister promised guidelines respecting Cabinet Ministers soon. They will be given soon.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It's been a month.
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
CONTAMINATION BY PCBs-URGENT MEASURES THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. This morning, the Minister said there would be a federal-provincial conference on environmental problems in this country. However, a conference will not resolve the immediate and alarming problem existing in Quebec and the rest of Canada, the problem of PCB contamination. My question is as follows, and it is very specific: What is the Minister going to do now? What is she going to do right away to deal with a problem that is a potential danger to all Canadians?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party for his question. I believe there is a misunderstanding. The federal-provincial conference I called for the end of May will deal exclusively with the problem of PCBs.


REQUEST THAT FUNDS BE MADE AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, there will be a conference on the PCB problems in this country, but could the Minister inform the House this morning whether sufficient funds will be made available to seek a solution to this problem? It is a very serious problem in the Province of Quebec and in the rest of Canada. Will the necessary funds be released now, right away?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I realize the gravity of the situation, and that is why when we were still cleaning up the environment after the Kenora accident, I immediately asked for a federal-provincial conference to discuss PCB disposal sites, and I have asked my provincial colleagues to reach a consensus on what should be done.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of Finance seemed disappointed to find out that we have our doubts about his consultation process and that we are firmly convinced that he would rather lend an ear to financiers than to ordinary Canadians. I am wondering whether the Acting Prime Minister would tell us if his Government will commit itself to endorsing the recommendations made by 45 organizations throughout the country-including the National Anti-Poverty Organization, the National Adviso-

May 17, 1985
Oral Questions
ry Council of Senior Citizens and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women-which have been urging the Government to make the spouse's allowance available to all needy persons living alone and aged 60 to 64, so as to avoid discrimination against single and separated persons as well as widows?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not a newcomer to this House. I am delighted that, being now in the Opposition, he is finally showing interest in matters about which he was unconcerned when sitting on the Government benches. Surely he appreciates that he must wait until the Budget is brought down before we can comment on it, and that the Budget to be tabled next week has been the subject of more consultations than ever before in the history of Canada.


CONSULTATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: With respect to the remarks of the Minister, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that I have a respectable reputation, but that he is known to be prone to blunder.
Here is my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How can you expect the people and Hon. Members to have faith in this bragging Government when the Minister talks about having more consultations now that consultations did take place? Witnesses appeared before the committee to urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to eliminate discrimination against elderly Canadians. How can you expect Canadians to react positively to the Government's consultation process if you fail to come up with answers?


Charles Joseph Clark: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that as far as the contents of the Budget is concerned, the Hon. Member knows he has to wait until it is brought down.
Second, with respect to the other Government policy, as the Minister of Finance pointed out and as the Government has often indicated since coming into office, we are prepared to consult and talk directly to people who are worried, and we seek their advice. Concerning the points raised by the Hon. Member, I can only hope that the Liberals will show a willingness to hold public consultations, something which is not apparent in the field of international relations where the Liberal Party wants to deny-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a very short question to the Minister of National Revenue.


Mr. Beatty:: Hurray!


Simon Leendert de Jong: As the Minister will no doubt have noticed, last week the Law Reform Commission made some important recommendations concerning the tremendous powers of search and seizure his Department has. When in opposition, almost one year ago today the Minister invited the Government to introduce legislation which would do away with those powers. He assured the Government of the day that the legislation would be passed within a day. I am giving the same assurance to the Minister now. Will he introduce legislation which will take away that awesome power from his officials and bureaucrats?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, weekday after lonely weekday I sit here waiting for questions from my hon. friend. However, this is worth it, and I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. The answer is yes, I will, and yes, I will be delighted to receive the Hon. Member's support. I have already limited the powers of the Department under Section 231(4); we are now seeking search and seizure warrants under the Criminal Code. We will be introducing amendments which will curtail the powers of the Department under Section 231. It is our goal to ensure that they are brought into line with basic civil liberties, and I appreciate the Hon. Member's support.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: No more questions for you this year, Simon!


Some Hon. Members:: More!


John V. Nunziata: By unanimous consent, they want more questions.


Mr. Speaker:: A lot of people around here want more, I have noticed.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, May 16, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
May 17, 1985



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: Some time ago I was asked by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) to provide a ruling to the House with regard to petitions. For reasons outside his control and mine, there was a delay in the presentation of this ruling.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond raised a point of order on March 28, 1985 during Routine Proceedings, concerning the time of the presentation of petitions, namely, that Members should be able to present petitions at any time after Oral Questions and before the Introduction of Bills. Thereby, the waiting time between the end of the Question Period and the presentation of petitions would be greatly shortened. The Hon. Member was concerned about occasions when Ministers make statements and Members who wish to present petitions have to wait for lengthy periods of time. Standing Order 71(2) reads as follows:
Any Member desiring to present a petition in his or her place in the House must do so during Routine Proceedings and before Introduction of Bills.
In our practice, the expression " ... before Introduction of Bills" has been understood to mean immediately before the Introduction of Bills. This is easy to verify in the proceedings of the House since 1980. Before that, since the number of petitions presented was small, the time of presentation never caused any inconvenience to Members. A search of the records of the House has found no ruling on this subject.
I suggest that the Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons or the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization might look at the matter. In the meantime, Members who cannot be in the House for the presentation of petitions can always present their peitions by Filing them with the Clerk of the House, as stated in Standing Order 71(1); which reads:
A petition to the House may be presented by a Member at any time during the sitting of the House by Filing the same with the Clerk of the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I should like to present a petition from 28 residents of St-Bernardin, Ontario, and members of the senior citizens club of that area protesting against the discriminatory provisions of Bill C-26 which the Secretary of State for External Affairs
Petitions
refused to hear this morning when stated by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).
Mr. Speaker, I also have another petition signed by residents of Alexandria in my constituency. They want to express their disagreement about the discriminatory provisions of Bill C-26 and demand that allowances be paid to needy people between 60 and 64 years of age.
I also have another petition, Mr. Speaker, signed by 22 residents and members of the Union culturelle d'Alfred and those people also reject the discriminatory clauses of Bill C-26 and they demand that the government take the necessary steps to apply the legislation to all needy individuals between 60 and 64 years of age.

I also have a petition signed by 19 people of the village of Alfred. They request that the discriminatory provisions of Bill C-26 be corrected forthwith so as to permit all needy people between 60 and 64 years of age to receive benefits.
I also have a petition signed by 22 residents of the village of St. Albert, Ontario, in my riding, who wish to express their displeasure with the discriminatory provisions of Bill C-26, and the effect these provisions will have on the people of our area.
I have one Final petition signed by 29 residents of Alfred, Ontario, and they are once again protesting the discriminatory provisions of Bill C-26 which deny benefits to single, divorced and separated people between the ages of 60 and 64. They ask that the Government immediately correct these discriminatory provisions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present on behalf of a number of residents of Vancouver, Delta, Clearwater, White Rock and North Vancouver a petition calling upon Parliament, and particularly the Minister responsible for Canada Post, to intervene in order to ensure that the National Postal Museum is retained; to find a new location near Parliament if it has to move from 180 Wellington; and to ensure that its staff continue to serve the public in their present capacity.


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present to the House a petition from my constituents of Quebec-East. It includes 709 names collected by the Regroupement des citoyens et citoyennes de Ville-Vanier and demand the construction of low-cost housing units for families.
I will personally deliver a copy of that file to the minister responsible so that he may take action.

May 17, 1985
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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 questions will be answered today: Nos. 161 and 274.


Mr. Orlikow: Has the Department of National Health and Welfare cut any projects in its science and technology programs in order to absorb the reduction in its expenditures required by the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance in the House on November 8, 1984 and, if so, what are they and what are the projected
costs?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, three scientific projects were cut by Health and Welfare Canada as a result of the reduction of funding from the National Energy Program announced on November 8, 1984. Their titles and their projected costs are as follows:
1.	Field validation studies on radon entry into buildings ($80,000).
2.	Characterization of hazardous aromatics from the combustion of wide boiling range distillates ($57,000).
3.	Characterization and mutagenic potential of air samples in coal liquefaction facilities ($50,000).
The remaining nine Health and Welfare Canada projects funded by the National Energy Program will continue but the funding has been reduced by approximately 40 per cent.


Mr. Greenaway: For the year 1984, by province and by month, how (a) many audits of farmers were initiated by the Department of National Revenue (b) much money in back taxes was assessed against farmers by the Department (c) many extra personnel were hired by the Department to aid in the auditing of farms?


Henry Perrin Beatty: During 1984 the Department completed audits on (1) farmers, (2) farmers whose chief source of income is not farming, and (3) hobby farmers who have full-time occupations yet carry on farming activities. The 1984 audit statistics, set out by province and by month, relating to questions (a) and (b) include all three types of farmers.
(c) No additional personnel were hired to carry out these audits; staff assigned farm audits are also assigned audits of taxpayers in other categories.
[See Table Page 4865.]


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) what business he proposes to call for Tuesday.
I also want to tell him that, pursuant to the suggestion made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), I will certainly be ready to meet with him to discuss how an agenda for the proposed special joint committee of the House and the other place on the Government's Green Paper on foreign affairs can be worked out so as to enable the people of Canada to be heard prior to decisions on issues raised in that paper being taken. I want to stress that our attitude in these discussions with respect to whether we will participate in the work of such a committee will be determined by the degree to which the Government is willing to give a firm and public commitment that it will not take decisions on, in particular, matters concerning the Strategic Defence Initiative, star wars, or trade relations with the U.S. before the views of the people of Canada are heard and fully considered, including the report of that committee, by the Government.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Hon. Government House Leader to confirm that, contrary to what was suggested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Question Period, the consent of the opposition Parties is not required for the Government to place a motion on the Order Paper to create the type of joint committee I just referred to, nor to call that motion for debate and for decision of the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the business of the House for next week, we will, of course, not be sitting on Monday. Today we are going to commence consideration of Bill C-25. There is the prospect of making progress on that Bill today. I am hoping that we can attain second reading of that legislation.
I had indicated a sequence of Bills which would be debated on the days on which the House sits next week. These Bills involve amendments to the Divorce Act and enforcement of maintenance orders as well as amendments to the Fisheries Act. I had hoped that we would be able to deal with the Fisheries Bill early next week. I would ask my friend to


FARM AUDIT STATISTICS JANUARY I TO DECEMBER 31, 1984
[Stage Direction]
NEWF	OUNDLAND	P.E.I.	NOVA SCOTIA	NEW BRUNSWICK	QUEBEC	ONTARIO	MANITOBA	SASKATCHEWAN	ALBERTA	BRITISH COLUMBIA	ALL CAN ADA	Month	ft of audits	Additional taxes	ft of audits	Additional taxes	ft of audits	Additional taxes	ft of audits	Additional taxes	ft of audits	Additional taxes	ft of audits	Additional taxes	ft of audits	Additional taxes	U of audits	Additional taxes	ft of audits	Additional taxes	ft of audits	Additional taxes	ft of audits	Additional taxes$	S	S	S	$	$	S	S	$	S	SJanuary	i	0	12	26.841	25	65.846	9	6,375	88	637.067	211	1,369,930	55	170,686	212	805,105	132	1,252,756	60	329,803	805	4,664,409February	4	8,133	9	28,581	9	18,614	13	17,434	68	392,337	160	808,965	43	283,047	145	396.922	94	653,038	25	185.299	570	2.792.370March	0	2,223	3	17,922	3	7,701	II	10,728	41	119.965	95	446,015	30	16,189	163	413,705	86	382,830	20	140.377	452	1.557.655April	0	0	1	1,383	8	15,613	8	15.799	47	31,592	65	274,319	27	69,460	90	210.382	60	462,902	15	25,794	321	1.107.244May	1	3.195	9	12,713	14	65,828	16	67.561	87	193.328	170	438.753	79	203.747	137	408.300	109	703.166	47	221.746	669	2,318.337June	1	23	9	7,539	9	3,509	9	7,741	82	168.134	144	266,252	68	136,640	180	727,227	116	4,231.381	58	329.144	676	5,877.590July	0	0	7	5,695	3	2,341	23	10,312	51	113.223	135	350,360	54	131,280	143	406.560	126	923,832	36	210,534	578	2,154,137August	0	0	14	6.164	17	17.862	II	20.515	93	157.040	153	381.478	84	544,051	132	828.032	72	408,704	40	179,881	616	2.543,727September	0	0	8	6.104	10	16.632	3	2,581	92	59,871	139	303,198	34	83,416	133	332,353	III	311,008	32	222,293	562	1,337,456October	1	636	9	6.510	13	43.662	8	9.877	104	153,176	130	386.753	43	92,996	141	284,797	108	373,960	25	49,906	582	1.402.273November	5	39	4	1,095	8	25.949	4	516	71	81.326	148	451.811	49	(3.727)	117	290.115	113	332,199	27	167.997	546	1,347.320December	1	0	3	11,208	9	18,239	0	0	61	131.555	116	436,762	56	63.741	148	315.804	89	328,485	14	86.138	497	1,391.932Total	14	14.249	88	131,755	128	301,796	115	169.439	885	2.238.614	1,666	5,914,596	622	1,791.526	1.741	5,419.302	1,216	10.364,261	399	2,148.912	6.874	28,494,450May 17, 1985_________________COMMONS DEBATES	4865
May 17, 1985
Business of the House
consider moving on that legislation if we can arrive at an agreement with respect to the nature of amendments which might be acceptable to the House.
Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate if the first item of business on Tuesday were to be Motion No. 22 standing in the name of my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), which relates to Bill C-15. Once we have disposed of that motion, we will continue with the sequence of legislation which I indicated earlier.
With regard to the ongoing consultations with respect to the committee for the study of foreign affairs and the Green Paper presented by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), I appreciate the indication by the House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Gray) that he will be prepared t6/give me an answer to the inquiry I made of House Leaders at our last meeting, which was alluded to by the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) yesterday. We are interested in determining what the proposals of the Official Opposition are. The Hon. House Leader will be the first to admit that the proposals put forward by the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party have varied from day to day. It is difficult to get a handle on what they really want from one day to the next.
I looK forward to receiving a concrete proposal. If we have an opportunity of getting together on Tuesday, I hope the proposal will be the same. However, it may be that it will change over the weekend. Whatever the proposal, we will be receptive to getting this committee on the road.
The final inquiry dealt with how we are to deal with the motion. As the Hon. Member knows, we could move a motion with respect to the establishment of the committee. The most desirable way to proceed with the creation of the committee would be to get consent to deal with the matter without using up the very limited time of the House. The Hon. Leader will know that I have been unable to get any assurance with respect to how long this reference would take. In other words, the intimation I received was that this would very definitely not be agreed to and that there would be an open-ended debate in the House of Commons, which would preclude us from dealing with important items of legislation. Yesterday I was asked to bring forward items of legislation for early consideration. However, the effect of the refusal of the Opposition to agree to the resolution is to preclude us from proceeding since we have only a limited amount of time for Government Orders.
We try to proceed on the basis of reasonable opportunity for discussion of all matters. However, an indefinite term for debate has the effect of vetoing anything we may propose in the interest of consulting the people of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 8, 1985, consideration of the motion of the Hon. Don Mazankowski (for the Minister of Agriculture), that Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to present this Bill which is aimed at amending the Agricultural Stabilization Act.
I think everyone will agree that since the last major amendments to the Act ten years ago, agriculture has changed a great deal in Canada, and that during that time, the shortcomings of the present version of the Act have become increasingly obvious. The Bill before the House today should have been tabled a long time ago.
Actually, the Bill has been under consideration for over ten years, since 1974. The provincial Ministers of Agriculture, provincial and national producers' associations and the Federal Government have all worked very hard, during long and sometimes frustrating meetings, to try and reach a compromise that will provide real stability for red meat producers and put this entire sector on a firm basis.
Mr. Speaker, this is a grassroots Bill. It is based on the views of farmers who are not only aware of the shortcomings of the present legislation but also of the inequality that exists among the various provincial stabilization programs. The legislation was prepared by the provincial and federal Ministers of Agriculture, who acknowledged that they were getting mired in a morass of overkill as a result of these programs.
The House will recall that harmonizing stabilization programs was the first item on the agenda when the Minister of Agriculture met with his provincial colleagues in 1979, over six years ago.
Today, we are very glad to have this opportunity to settle the long-standing problem of agricultural stabilization. As the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) said earlier, it is indeed one of the Government's priorities. For the time being, as a result of the decision made by the Canadian people on September 4th last year, it is of course up
May 17, 1985

to the Government to decide in what sequence its priorities will be put before the House.
Price stabilization is one of the cornerstones of federal agricultural policy, together with crop insurance, research, market development, regional development, inspection and grading.
Since price stabilization is such a basic and important part of agricultural policy in Canada, I think it would be useful to approach the subject by attempting to answer four questions that would put the proposed legislation into context.
First, why is it useful and why are we so concerned about stabilizing agricultural prices?
Second, what are the programs currently in effect and what are the problems?
Third, how does the proposed legislation attempt to improve the situation?
And fourth, does the Bill have the support of the farmers and the provinces?
The first question is: why does agriculture require stabilization? Agriculture is vulnerable to two major destabilizing forces: first, the natural hazards of production such as frost and floods, insects and diseases; second, market fluctuations. Crop insurance is the federal Government's major vehicle for helping farmers to cope with production hazards. Our major vehicle for helping farmers to cope with market risk is the Agricultural Stabilization Act along with the Grain Stabilization Act.
Prices for many agricultural commodities change on a daily basis, reflecting real or perceived changes in supply and demand. For a non farmer to appreciate what that means, one only needs to imagine going to work in the morning without knowing what you are going to earn or even if you will earn anything at all.
Agriculture is also subject to large cyclical price fluctuations. Farmers frequently see their prices dropping by half from one period to another, while their costs of production continue to rise. Even the most productive producers go into the red in such circumstances.
Of course, agriculture is not the only sector of the economy that exists in such a wide open market environment, but it is one of the very few. It is certainly one of the most dispersed and diverse, composed of more than 300,000 individual operations across Canada. Except for a small handful of these operations-less than one-half of one per cent-these are family farms and our very existence depends on them. That is a very important fact, Mr. Speaker.
In 1983, 476,000 people were employed in farming-4.4 per cent of the Canadian labour force. Only 30 years earlier, that proportion was 18 per cent. The exodus from the country to the city has left fewer farms, but they are larger and more
Agricultural Stabilization Act
efficient. In constant dollars, production per farm has risen nearly fourfold in the past 30 years.
These highly mechanized farms have relied increasingly on off-farm inputs, generating jobs throughout the economy. When one includes processing, distribution and retailing, about one-sixth of all Canadians now depend on agriculture for their livelihood.
Moreover, all Canadians have benefited from the accomplishments of our agri-food industry in that it has provided food for only 16 per cent of disposable income, which is the second lowest cost in the world. At the same time, the agrifood industry has been bringing in more than $10 billion a year in export revenues.
In summary, we must recognize the central importance of agriculture and its unique vulnerability. As public policy, we must ensure that efficient operations have a good chance of surviving and prospering. That is our best insurance for maintaining a healthy rural Canada, jobs in the agri-food industry and a continuing supply of reasonably priced food for all Canadians.

Second, Mr. Speaker, what are the programs in effect today? I assume that the ideas I have just mentioned would be supported not only by our provincial counterparts but also by all Members of the various legislatures across Canada and even by the Ministers of Agriculture of most countries.
We all agree that agricultural stability is a must, and that is why we now have so many stabilization programs at the provincial, federal and international levels. Indeed, again last evening I attended a meeting with the French ambassador to Canada who agreed that it is imperative for our country to aim at achieving greater price stability here than do other agricultural countries that must rely on export markets, quickly stabilize their prices, and maintain production and exports at certain levels.
Here is now a summary of existing programs. The Agricultural Stabilization Act was adopted by the Progressive Conservative Government in 1958. It set the support price of Canada's major agricultural products to 80 per cent of the average price over the ten previous years. In 1975, the Act was amended-


Don Boudria: By the Liberal Government.


Pierre Blais: -to raise the support price to 90 per cent of average market prices over the five previous years-


Don Boudria: Under a Liberal Government.


Pierre Blais: Indeed, just before the previous administration began to bring us a series of deficits, from 1975 until this year when we are up to $226 billion. It is indeed an important date. That was when we began to sink ever deeper into huge deficit

May 17, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
financing where we have been stuck for over ten years. An important date indeed.
The strength of the program lies in the fact that it made it possible to maintain a national support price structure geared to markets, a security net which, owing to its retroactive connotation, had no bearing on decisions of farmers concerning production. Unfortunately it is its weakness as well. The program would offer more stability if its support were more regular and predictable.
The current sluggishness of the federal program and its dependency with respect to previous costs and average market prices in Canada are two of the reasons why certain provinces came to the conclusion that their agricultural sector was not properly protected against the constraints of the cost-price squeeze. As a result of this situation, provincial stabilization programs came into being, first in British Columbia in 1975, then in Quebec and in other provinces. Those schemes vary as far as eligibility criteria, support levels and premiums to producers are concerned.
The provincial governments are surely entitled to set up such schemes in response to what they consider their own special regional conditions. However, from a national point of view, they have given rise to confusion and competition among provinces on the domestic as well as on the international markets. In some cases, those schemes have encouraged a greater production than economically justifed. In some other cases, the provincial stabilization schemes have literally collapsed because they were not actuarially sound. Those setbacks probably had a considerable unsettling effect.
It is interesting to note that Canadian agriculture has equally suffered from disparities and disturbances as a result of unduly high price support programs abroad. We are well aware of this and I think that during the past few months or weeks, the steps taken by the government in Canada with its trading partners in America, in Europe and elsewhere are specifically aimed at a closer co-operation between the countries to solve the problems of surpluses found all over the world at present. In the United States for example, some $22 billion was earmarked for the agricultural price support program in 1983 alone.
The best known, the Cash Crop Payment Program in the United States, brought an increase in the price of grains in 1983, but discouraged pork production in the United States. In Canada, thanks to relatively large grain crops, especially in Western Canada, we could develop our production and increase our pork exports to the United States. But those increased exports caused a trade conflict that now opposes our two countries.
The other significant example is the common farm policy of the European Economic Community. It has hindered Canada's farm exports while causing huge surpluses that must be sold on world markets, including ours, at highly subsidized prices.
Last year, the huge increase in CEE-subsidized beef exports to Canada exerted a strong downward pressure on Canadian beef prices. This compelled the Government to use the Meat Import Act to limit beef and veal imports into Canada in 1985. We pursued the talks with the parties concerned and finalized an agreement that may not please everybody, but that should for a while allow a certain amount of stabilization in that area. However, this shows how much the CEE's stabilization programs can disrupt Canadian markets, and how important it is to have mechanisms in place that protect our farmers when the need arises.
We could discuss at length the problems associated with stabilization programs in Canada and elsewhere. However, I feel I have covered some of the basic points. I hope this will help you understand why the changes we are proposing to the Farm Stabilization Act are a model of responsible, co-operative and efficient public policy.
The third point-
How is this Bill an improvement? To begin with there are really two parts to this legislation. First, there are a number of minor housekeeping changes to the Agricultural Stabilization Act. These changes are not contentious, and they could go into effect immediately after the Bill is passed. I will list them in a moment.
The second part of the Bill is enabling legislation allowing for some major changes in Canada's approach to agricultural stabilization. However, I cannot over-emphasize that it is the first step in a co-operative process involving the federal Government, provincial Government and producers. Major changes to the stabilization programs will go into effect only after they have been thoroughly discussed in committee, after in depth consultations have been held with producers, after federal provincial agreements have been held with producers, after federal provincial agreements have been reached, and after the Governor in Council has ratified these agreements.
To return to the first category of changes, we have received a legal opinion that there may be flaws in the existing statute, which raises questions as to the Government's authority to issue stabilization payments for a past marketing period using the existing formula. The Government would like to ensure that the wording of the Act is clarified to reflect the intent of Parliament.
There is another rather technical reason for passing this Bill. As the Act now stands, employees of the Agricultural Stabilization Board are not included under the terms of the Public Service Employment Act, a provision of the old Agricultural Stabilization Act which was needed many years ago but which needs to be changed. The Bill also proposes that we include wheat produced outside the Canadian Wheat Board area as a named commodity receiving mandatory support, as was the case prior to 1975.
May 17, 1985

Lambs and wool would replace sheep in the list of named commodities, thereby solving a problem we have with providing stabilization for both sources of the sheep producer's income.
Currently, the support period must be for 12 consecutive months. We are proposing to authorize periods of support shorter than a year, but not less than three months, so we can react more effectively to shorter term cost-price-squeeze situations.
Finally, when passed, the Bill will delete the restriction on the amount which the federal Government may spend under the Act in any year, a holdover from the days of Financing the Act from a revolving fund.
Now I will move on to the enabling aspects of the Bill. This is really the heart of the Bill. As I said before, we are asking Parliament to provide, through this legislation, the framework for much more effective and efficient stabilization programs, programs that are going to constitute the basis for a true partnership with farmers and provincial Governments.
Section 10 of the existing Act allows for the federal Government to enter into stabilization agreements with the provinces and producers. But while the wording is, at first glance, quite open-ended, there are problems with it. For one thing, it does not allow for the creation of a jointly funded program. For another, it does not allow for the use of different formulas for calculating support prices, and therefore it does not respond to the unique nature of each commodity. The proposed amendments would do so.
If federal-provincial agreements can be achieved, the Bill will enable us to reduce the problem of interprovincial competition over stabilization programs and their resultant disruptions in production and marketing patterns. It would put our livestock industry on a more solid, competitive, and therefore secure, footing.
The new program would also reduce our trade difficulties with other countries. It specifically excludes from coverage the portion of a commodity that is marketed abroad. Furthermore, it would lead to fewer ad hoc programs, which disrupt normal production and trade patterns.
The Canadian program would avoid the problems encountered in the U.S. and with the EEC programs by limiting the amount of money the federal and provincial Governments would contribute to the program. Support levels would not constitute an incentive to over-produce, the programs would be actuarially sound, and there would be an automatic review of each stabilization plan every five years.
I do not want to go into the details of the red meat plans which have been drafted in consultation with the provinces and producers because they will have to be refined and finalized after the enabling legislation has been passed.

Of course, those are new terms that were unknown to us in previous years-consultation, arrangements, negotiations with the Provinces and with producers. They had disappeared from
Agricultural Stabilization Act
the Canadian landscape, from Government policies. That in my view is a change for the better.
Fourth, Mr. Speaker, is the legislation winning popular support? I want first to point out that this legislation is a fair compromise. Quite honestly, we must admit that it will not please everybody. We are aware of it. However, I want to assure you that the Bill is not cast in cement, to use that phrase. As any other proposal, it is subject to improvement. Indeed we expect that it will be scrutinized by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which will be in a position to start discussing it, hearing the views of and consulting Canadian producer groups as soon as possible. That is where all the views that have been expressed concerning the Bill over these last few years can be aired and analysed.
We are quite aware of regional differences. This is both the difficulty and problem and the greatness and richness of this great land of ours. The problem has been raised by many Provinces which have not yet given their support to the changes contained in the Bill.
We all know that in Canada, the spectrum of natural resources and the access to markets vary from one region to another. The same goes for production costs and commodity prices. In other terms, Mr. Speaker, all the regions of Canada do not have the same ability to produce any given commodity. However, the ability to efficiently produce is something that can be acquired.
It is also possible to fill the gaps between regions by way of research. When controlled by farmers, research can enable them to increase their productivity-the productivity of lands, crops, animals, manpower and capital. When a part of the tax dollars is channelled into research, permanent solutions can often be found to the problems of regional disparities. As a general rule, all the producers of any given commodity are affected simultaneously by a cost-price squeeze. This is especially true in the case of red meat, because there is a close link between the markets and the main production factors of those products. Price and cost fluctuations are a national rather than a regional reality. I think we are all aware of that. For all those reasons, it is important that we should have a national program.
Moreover, we are pleased to note that the regional concerns are both valid and sincere. We feel that the bill should be considered at length when it is deferred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture in the days to come. I remind you that the government is open to innovative solutions provided that they do not violate national policies on which the bill is based.
It should not have forgotten that we have reached the best consensus of our history after ten years of negotiations. The four provinces which have already joined the national tripartite program for the stabilization of red meat prices represent 94 per cent of beef cattle; 88 per cent of cow-calf operations;

May 17, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
57 per cent of hog production and 79 per cent of sheep production in Canada. It is indeed the best consensus reached for over 10 years.
The Canadian Association of Beef Producers, the Pork Marketing Boards in the four participating provinces and the Canadian Sheep Breeders Association have ratified and supported the program. In short, we have the necessary support to develop the best national tripartite stabilization program. Red meat producers will be the first to benefit from it. In fact, the most important aspect is that the program will in the first place be beneficial to Canadian producers. Who knows, other producers may follow their example.
I sincerely hope that with the goodwill of Parliament we will provide the opportunity for this program to become a reality in order to give Canadian farmers more stability at a time when it is genuinely needed and at a time when Canada needs a stable agricultural industry.
[ Translation]


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to deal with Bill C-25. I wanted today to take this opportunity to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) several questions, but things being as they are and without being more specific because it is not allowed, I will say only that I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will say hello to him on our behalf.
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated in his remarks that agriculture was a high priority of this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: How sweet it is to hear such loud applause, Mr. Speaker!
Yet, I find it strange that this Government which has agriculture as a high priority and which introduced on January 24 this Bill to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act needed as long as three and a half months to wake up and move its second reading. Thanks to the Government, the Opposition Members have had more than enough time to peruse this 9-page long Bill, but they did not really need quite as much time as that. Even a Conservative Member would not need three and a half months to read it. Yet, this Government claims it has agriculture as a high priority. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for saying that the Government regards Bill C-25 as a major piece of legislation. He has just stated that the House spent a long time dealing with Bill C-15, and that is the best excuse he could find for the Minister of Agriculture dragging his feet on this Bill which is so important to Canadian producers.
The Parliamentary Secretary will have to come up with a far better excuse to explain why he and his Minister dragged their feet on this, because both you and I know, Mr. Speaker, that we have been waiting impatiently for the Government to introduce legislation, so that the House may go on with its work.

This is the first piece of government legislation on which we have deliberated this week. Perhaps it is new Conservative policy to start working on Friday. We have spent all this week in the House, and the Government refused to bring forward legislation until today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: I seem to have touched a tender nerve. It is nice to know that they will at least be awake for the weekend.
As I said previously, this Bill was introduced on January 24. It took the Government three months before deciding to deliberate on it at second reading, and three months is what the Government thinks is a reasonable amount of time to debate what the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier today was a priority of the Government. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) applauded the delaying and the dragging of their feet for three months on an agricultural Bill. Let the record show that this is what the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona is applauding, a three-month delay.
This Bill was promised by the Conservative Party during the election campaign, as it was by other political Parties. All Parties were in favour of tripartite stabilization. I remember it well. I heard it a lot during the campaign. I promised it myself. Things being the way they are, it is up to the Conservative Party to present government legislation. It has taken it this long to bring it forward.
This will assist the agricultural industry once it is passed. However, it is not the totality of what is needed. In listening to the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary, one would almost think that the Conservative Party is actually the author of this legislation. It is guilty of its usual plagiarism. What Conservative Members are doing is introducing a Bill that had been presented by the previous Liberal Government. It was an omission or oversight by the Parliamentary Secretary that he neglected to bring that to the attention of the House. So that you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, I thought I would remind you of the fact that essentially the same Bill had been presented by the Liberal Government in the past.
There is considerable division in thought in the country as to just how the stabilization Bill or stabilization legislation would deal with agricultural problems. In many regions there are higher costs of production. Coming as I do from the Province of Quebec-I am sure the Hon. Member knows that-I know that some farmers feel that because of their higher cost of production, they should be able to get supplementary benefits or be able to top-load the program on provincial programs.
May 17, 1985

That is a very difficult issue to deal with, principally because the minute the program can be top-loaded by anyone, we are right back at the point where we started where individual provinces could compete against each other for subsidies. The net effect would be to lower the prices and bring back the whole issue to where we started. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is very much aware of this issue and has given it some thought, as has the Minister.
We must do other things in addition to this Bill in order to provide good price stabilization to our agricultural industry. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to that issue during the latter part of his remarks, and rightfully so. There are issues now on which the agricultural industry needs answers, and very clear answers, from this Government in order to have any kind of stability in agricultural commodity pricing.
We need to know what has been done by this Government with regard to the United States countervail. That countervail duty of 5.3 cents a pound, as I understand it, has had a devastating effect on the price of pork in Canada. More particularly, it has had tragic effects in the riding that I represent. Pork producers need assurance that this Government is doing its job.
Not long ago the Leader of the Government said in Quebec City that the President of the United States is as close to him as the phone, that he could reach him at any time and discuss issues which affect our country. We have an example here with this countervail duty. We have asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on several occasions whether he has telephoned the President of the United States. Has he contacted U.S. authorities to ensure that this countervail duty will not adversely affect our producers? We know the answer from the mere fact that the countervail was imposed. It is having a terrible effect. It has completely depressed prices. Representing an agricultural area, Mr. Speaker, as does the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle), who is quite notorious for his discussion with farmers, you will undoubtedly be aware of all this.
[ Translation]
Because the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) is quite famous for his conversations with farmers. For instance, I read here: "Quebec hog producers want Roch La Salle to fulfil his commitments". We are aware that if he is very much interested in agriculture, although he may not be very anxious to fulfil his commitments. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Supply and Services-I should say the Minister of Public Works: because of their patronage tendencies, I am inclined to mix them up. The Minister of Public Works is very much interested in agriculture, and Quebec hog producers are certainly anxious to get their cheques. Moreover, Quebec and Eastern Ontario hog producers-


Roch La Salle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Public Works on a point of order.
Agricultural Stabilization Act


Roch La Salle: I realize that the Hon. Member was not here last year, but he should know, first, that his Government had refused any assistance to pork producers. Second, as concerns the subsidy to pork producers, the Hon. Member should know that we have a problem-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe that this is a point of order. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are quite right, it is not a point of order, and it is not even a good point because, as we all know, the point is that the Minister himself made some commitments and did not meet them. That is the point.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister was right, however, when he said that there were problems between Canada and the United States, but as the Prime Minister himself has said, he is just a phone call away from Washington. All he has to do is to take the phone and the solution will be instantaneous. Just add water and the solution will be there. What is the answer to help pork producers? Is it to charge an artificial customs duty of 5.3 cents a pound for Canadian pork? That is not the answer.


Pierre Blais: Do you have the answer?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to know that the Parliamentary Secretary has finally admitted that his Prime Minister does not have an answer. When he told the Canadian people that he had answers following the Quebec Conference, it was not true and I am glad to know it. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will at least have the courage to tell his Prime Minister that he was wrong and that, next time, he should tell the truth. I am happy at the present attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary and I congratulate him on his courage, Mr. Speaker. I trust that he will be able to show the same attitude when he meets the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, it is good to see at least one Progressive Conservative Member with such courage.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture recently sent to Members of Parliament its annual revised edition of its policy manual. It brings to the concern of legislators, federal and provincial in the Province of Ontario, issues which affect the agriculture industry in general. It indicates how we need price stabilization in Canada. I wish to read briefly from the manual. I quote:
Stabilization programs must provide enough security to encourage farmers to make long-term management decisions. A good stabilization plan is forwardlooking; gives timely signals of the desired level of production;-
In terms of production, we are not addressing this issue now. I see that we are nearing one o'clock. Perhaps I should continue later this afternoon briefly with the rest of my remarks.

May 17, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) had the floor.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly, at one o'clock we had all agreed that the Parliamentary Secretary was indeed very courageous for having told the Prime Minister in this House that the Prime Minister had not respected his campaign promises and that the Parliamentary Secretary was going to see to it that he did so in the future. I believe that was the point at which we were when the House rose. I simply wanted to refresh everyone's memory to that effect.
We are indeed very proud of the Hon. Member and we are glad to see that at least one Tory Member is willing to stand up to this nasty Government.


Pierre Blais: Do you agree?


Don Boudria: I am in agreement with the Hon. Member when he says that the Prime Minister has not delivered on his promises. I am in full agreement with him when he says that and I want the record to show that.
There are a number of other issues which we should raise here today while discussing the entire issue of price stabilization and how prices of commodities in particular need to be enhanced. The Parliamentary Secretary will undoubtedly know that there is a tremendous threat, particularly to the beef industry, from foreign imports.
It is interesting that this discussion is being brought to light now after the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) made what could almost be called a free trade speech yesterday. I do hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais) will be able to respond by assuring all Hon. Members that the previously fixed quota of 5.9 million pounds of imported beef will be respected and that Canadian producers and farmers will not find themselves in a very difficult situation, which will undoubtedly affect them if the quotas are increased to 17 million pounds. As I said previously, this, of course, would have a depressing effect on the prices.
So I am looking forward to the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary with respect to the imports of beef from the European Economic Community, because we know that in terms of price stabilization, it does not matter what we do to prices if we are going to keep on flooding the market with
subsidized imports. We could have subsidies of 75 cents a pound on beef, but if someone has double our subsidy, we will never be able to compete. Obviously, we have to be assured that the quotas of beef from the European Economic Community will be left at the level which had been previously set. I believe it was in the order of 5.94 million pounds, and not the 17 million pounds which the rumour mill has us now faced with.
These are some of the issues I wanted to raise, and I just want to refer briefly to the pork producers in the area I represent. I received a letter from a pork producer in my riding on March 22.
[ Translation]
I would like to read part of the letter, Mr. Speaker. I want the Parliamentary Secretarty to be aware of this, he who said earlier that agriculture is one of the Government's priorities, that the Government wants the House to proceed with the study of Bill C-25 so it will become law. As I pointed out a moment ago, we know that the Government has been dragging its feet for months about Bill C-25, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that the Government behaviour is totally unacceptable.
Here is what one of my constituents wrote to me in a letter dated March 22:
There have been many newspaper articles about Bill C-25 to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act. We do not know anything about this Bill, but we hope that problems related to pork production will be dealt with so that:
(1)	pork will be included in the list of "named commodities"-
And so it is. I continue the quotation:
(2)	assistance will be geared to the cost of production-
So a farmer in my region told us he wants the assistance to be geared to the cost of production, not to the resale price as is the case now. Apparently, this opinion is shared by some producers in other provinces. Needless to say, we cannot have at the same time a program tied to the cost of production and a program tied to the resale price. It has to be one or the other, and it is not always possible to have the kind of program mentioned by my constituent.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that my constituent was wondering about the Bill last March 22. He wanted to know why nothing more had been heard about Bill C-25 which was introduced on January 24, I think. Well, we never did hear anything more about the Bill after January 24, but here we are today, Mr. Speaker, May 17, and we are just beginning to talk about Bill C-25. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to be aware of that fact.
I am sure you remember this, Mr. Speaker, but in case you are not too sure, I will try to refresh your memory. This morning the Parliamentary Secretary talked about our deficits. He said that agriculture is stagnant as a result of deficits and useless expenditures which, he said, were attributable to the previous Government. Well, Mr. Speaker, you know that I
May 17, 1985

cannot miss such an opportunity to prove that it is the Conservative Government which is guilty of making useless expenditures. It is common knowledge, for instance, that since last September there have been over 1,200 partisan appointments. Some were less partisan than others, perhaps one per cent- and I am being generous-but the fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that most appointments were extremely partisan and that a lot of money was spent in the process. I may also recall that the new Prime Minister increased the budget for his own office by 57 per cent. And this was done by those people who told us earlier that previous governments had spent money unnecessarily. Not them. Perish the thought! Remember Mr. Lawrence Hanigan, a defeated Progressive Conservative candidate, who was appointed to VIA Rail and received a salary increase of $38,000 per year. Not bad for a defeated candidate, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that many Progressive Conservative backbenchers must be wondering whether maybe they should have lost in the last election.
This morning, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais) informed the House that the previous Government had been guilty of wasteful spending. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary spoke to his colleague, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), the "courant d'air national", about his trip to the Middle East which cost $57,000. Mr. Speaker, as you see-


Mr. Fontaine:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine), on a point of order.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I do not think the Hon. Member's remarks are relevant to the subject before the House today. He should stick to the subject being debated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Considering his experience in the Ontario Legislature, I am sure the Hon. Member for Gtengar-ry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) will be able to make his present comments relevant to the proposed legislation.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I was simply reacting to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture said in his relevant speech about the fact that the previous Government had wasted taxpayers' money. And I think it is passing strange that the Hon. Member who just spoke should accuse the Parliamentary Secretary of not being relevant this morning. I am sure he will have something to say to him later on. I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker.
In any case, perhaps we could change the subject, but I am sure we can look forward to the discussion these two Members will have later on, and I am sure the Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais) will not let it be said by his colleague that he is not relevant.
Agricultural Stabilization Act
In any event, it is interesting to note that people who accuse others of wasteful spending can turn around and waste taxpayers' money on rewarding their Conservative friends.

Just before the lunch hour, Mr. Speaker, we were discussing the fact that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in its policy manual, which is circulated to Hon. Members of Parliament every year, made many recommendations to us. Of course, it greatly advocates the implementation of a plan of stabilization, with which our Party agrees. But I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary must clarify certain points to the House, particularly vis-a-vis the position of the various provinces. We know that some provinces are in favour of the Bill as it stands now, and our Party supports this type of legislation. We know that other provinces want clarification. Even as of late, Mr. Speaker, they are not convinced that the Bill should be in exactly the same form in which it is now, particularly, as I said previously, as it relates to the formula to be used to determine compensation. And, again, other provinces are against it.
I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary, in his opening remarks, referred to the fact that various commodity groups, in different proportions, had indicated their support for this Bill. He said that the provinces representing 54 per cent of pork producers were in favour of the Bill. This also means that the provinces representing almost half of the pork production are against it. With regard to pork production especially, because it affects my riding to a large extent, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could indicate to us what are some of the difficulties. Which provinces are still reluctant and why? 1 wonder if we can get some sort of clarification in that regard.
I have a final point to bring out, and I do so somewhat reluctantly. There is, of course, the continuing issue of beef coming from the European Economic Community, but over the last couple of weeks we have had the stalemate between the United States and Nicaragua regarding trade. We know that beef originating in Nicaragua was being sold in the U.S. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary has any idea of what effect the U.S. embargo on trade with Nicaragua will have as it pertains to potential sales of beef to Canada originating in Nicaragua. If there are such sales and they will be increased, what effect does he think that will have on domestic prices of beef in Canada? I ask that with some reluctance, recognizing the gravity of the situation in that country, but nevertheless I would like to know the effect of such sales in Canada, if any. If he does not have any information right now, perhaps later on in correspondence he could indicate to members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and others interested in this issue whether any increases in sales of this commodity are expected.
I am looking forward to the Bill going to committee so that we can have a full and thorough discussion on the whole issue of price stabilization, Mr. Speaker. I must say in closing that I and all members of the committee are looking forward to what

May 17, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will do with the report he received recently concerning farm financing. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will seize the occasion and jolt the Minister of Finance a bit to ensure that the Budget will address the three Conservative campaign promises which were made to the farmers concerning farm financing, Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, and of course the agri-bond issue. We are really looking forward to the Parliamentary Secretary using his influence and muscle on the Minister of Finance to ensure that the farmers of Canada get the best deal out of this Budget.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The Hon. Member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I see terrified Tories across the way.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Shaking.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They are shaking in their boots.
Bill C-25, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, affects the farmers of this country. It is very similar to the Bill introduced by Mr. Whelan when he was Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps that shows there is no real difference between the Liberal Party on the one hand and the Conservative Party on the other.


Don Boudria: I would not go that far. Just call it plagiarism on their part.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We have now had that confirmed by my Liberal friend on the right saying it is plagiarism. So it is a carbon copy of Mr. Whelan's Bill. Maybe that is why the Tories are so quiet. I challenge you, Mr. Speaker: if you can tell me the difference between the two Bills, I will sit down and not even speak today. There is no fundamental difference whatsoever. It is Mr. Whelan reincarnated; all that is missing is the big green Stetson. You are sitting in a big green chair, Mr. Speaker, so maybe that is a substitute. But there is really no difference whatsoever between the two.


Mr. Tupper:: It was never a priority for Whelan.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am not sure of that; I do not know whether or not it was. Certainly it was not a priority for the Liberal Party. But my dear departed friend, Mr. Whelan, was quite popular with a lot of farmers across this land so I would not be that rough on him.
The Bill itself is designed to stabilize farm incomes in the short run, particularly regarding red meat products like beef and hogs. As I said before, it is identical in principle to the Whelan Bill, as well as in most of the details which this Parliament discussed in the past. The Bill would establish a framework to negotiate agricultural stabilization agreements between the federal Government and the provinces. This is particularly important to producers of red meat products, as I
said before. The stabilization plan would be voluntary and tripartite in nature, involving the provinces, the federal Government and the producers. It would stabilize farm incomes at 90 per cent of their previous five-year average.
We in this Party have some serious problems with the Bill as drafted. We had serious problems with the Whelan Bill last year, and those problems have not gone away. In many ways this Bill stabilizes poverty. If prices continue to go down, there will not be an increase which is in any way whatsoever relevant to the cost of production or to what a farmer needs to make a living in this country. If, for example, the price for a certain commodity were $50 one year, $50 the next year, $50 the third and fourth, then it fell to $35, then stabilization would bring it up a few dollars. The next year, let us say, it is $35 again, and stabilization brings it up a few dollars, but the average continues to slide. The lower the prices go, the lower the stabilization price drops because stabilization is 90 per cent of the previous five-year average. So that does not do anything for the farmer except maybe for a small step or creep forward. That is about all it does for the farmer. It stabilizes his low prices at a very low level.
I am very surprised to see the Conservative Party reintroduce the old Whelan Bill, lock, stock and barrel. I remember that it got very upset about this. The Conservatives used to scream about it, speak out against it, and-it is too bad the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) is not here. I remember very well that when he spoke on this Bill when it was introduced in the last Parliament, he was very articulate in saying it was a horrible Bill. It was going to do great harm to the pork producers in the Province of Quebec. By the way, that provision is still here. I am sure, as a Member from Quebec, Mr. Speaker, you are very concerned about that because this Bill will not allow hog producers in Quebec or certain other producers in B.C., where there are provincial insurance plans for income, to participate. They are precluded from participating in this particular plan. So if there is a pay-out from the federal plan, it would not be done provincially because producers already have provincial insurance plans. I remember very well in the election campaign the-

During the election campaign, the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), if I remember correctly, gave a symbolic cheque for $13 million to the Quebec Farm Producers Association-$13 million! Maybe the Hon. Member for Joliette is a very rich man and has a lot of money, Mr. Speaker, but during the election campaign, he said that he was against the Whelan Bill, that he was very much opposed to this Bill. He told Quebec families: Vote for the Progressive Conservative Party and I will change the Bill... I have here a symbolic cheque for $13 million for Quebec's pork producers and beef producers and for Quebec farmers. But now he is a Member of Cabinet, things are different, and the same Bill Mr. Whelan brought forward is now being introduced again by the Conservative Government, and as I said before, what is the difference, why the same Bill, Mr. Speaker, why has the
May 17, 1985

Progressive Conservative Party broken another election promise?
I know that my good friend, the doctor from Ontario, is very upset by this breach of election promises. I am sure he is very anxious to get to his feet to denounce the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) on this particular law now before the House. When he was in opposition he supported and applauded speeches against it. He even applauded our speeches once in a while, but now he is silent. He is the docile doc sitting in his corner of the House. I am sure that in a few more months he will have the courage of his convictions and will rise in the House like a tiger to denounce the Government which has broken so many election promises.
We are concerned about the Bill for two or three reasons. First, we believe that the Bill is inadequate. It is a rehash of the old Whelan program. Although it is a stabilization of farm incomes for certain products, it is nothing more than a stabilization of poverty or a stabilization of farm incomes at a low level. We believe that the solution is to pay the farmer a price based on the cost of production and a fair return for what the farmer is paying. In other words, we want an income insurance plan or parity price that would provide the farmer with real income with which to look after his farm and raise his family.
Second, I appeal to my friends in the Liberal Party not to support this Bill holus-bolus. We should send this Bill to committee and have very open committee hearings. We must have a process which allows the farmers of Canada to appear and make their arguments to convince the Government to be open to change and to amend the Bill which is before us today. The Government is headed in the wrong direction. Its solution is inadequate and does not solve the underlying problem of low prices for farm products and high input costs to produce a crop.
One of the problems of farmers is that their farm input costs are so high. When I was in my riding recently a farmer showed me a little worm gear from an air cleaner on a combine. This tiny worm gear is made of plastic, weighs about an ounce, and is about one and three-quarters inches long. That particular item costs $32. He told me that he would have to sell 480 pounds of wheat in order to pay for this small item for the air conditioner of his combine. He asked why he could not get a return for his product based on his cost of production.
Any agricultural debate in the country is very important for a number of reasons. Agriculture is the basic and most important industry in the country. If the farmer is better off, the rest of Canadians are better off. If the farmer on the Prairies is better off, my friend from Nickel Belt is better off in the big City of Sudbury. If the farmer in Quebec or Ontario is better off, the worker at White Farm or Massey-Ferguson in Brantford is better off. If the farmer in British Columbia is better off, there are more jobs in the towns and cities for the young people of the country.
Agricultural Stabilization Act
In order to create jobs we must stimulate the farm economy and other basic resources such as the forestry and the fishery. We build on what we have. As the Prime Minister of the country has said so often, "You dance with who brung you". He is not perpetuating that in legislation, and I know it is not proper grammar, but that is what he said. We must start with the basic industries in the country, namely, agriculture and mineral resources.


John R. Rodriguez: With nickel.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My friend behind me says "nickel". I think he has nickel on the mind, but I am not really surprised since he comes from Nickel Belt.
That is where we must start, Mr. Speaker, but I have a feeling that the Government is not going in that direction. It wants to rebuild the country relying on two things only; big business and its friendship with Ronald Reagan and the administration in the White House.


Don Boudria: Don't forget their relatives.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Well, there are lots of relatives and lots of patronage, but they learned that from the Liberal Party and nothing has changed.
The Government relies on big business and its friendship with the Americans. Many people thought that with the new Prime Minister and his rhetoric about "good old Ronnie down in the White House" we would have a tremendous relationship with the United States which would help us here in the north. They had a conference in Quebec City and talked about free trade-

-free exchange of goods between Canadians and Americans, free trade for our agricultural commodities and manufactured goods.

No sooner had the wheels gone up on the aircraft carrying President Reagan back to the White House, than his administration in the United States slapped a 12 per cent tariff on Canadian hogs going across the border into the United States. No sooner had he returned to Washington after all this great rhetoric about free trade and after the expensive songs that Brian sang in Quebec City which cost taxpayers over $.5 million-


Mrs. Mailly:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows full well that he must refer to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) by his name rather than "Brian".

May 17, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) does not know the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as well as I do. I have known him as Brian for a long time and he knows me as Lome. The next time I have a chance I will introduce her to the Prime Minister of Canada.


Claudy Mailly: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid this is abusing the House. The Hon. Member is really making a mockery of our rules. It is for the sake of decorum and for the protection of the House that we have certain rules. I do not see how the Hon. Member can think he can get out of that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I would remind the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) that the Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) is right in her point of order. I give the floor to the Member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I suppose that comes from her vast experience. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
We had a conference in Quebec and a lot of talk about free trade, improved relations between Americans and Canadians, and how this would be of great benefit for Canada. Yet, as soon as the President left, there was the announcement of a 12 per cent tariff on Canadian hogs. The Canadian hog industry is worth around $2 billion per year to the Canadian economy. Only a few days ago there was an announcement that States such as Iowa, Nebraska and Oklahoma were banning the importation of Canadian hogs. Where is this new relationship, Mr. Speaker? What does free trade mean for this country? Is it free trade for Canada but protectionism for the United States?
It is due to such actions as I described that farmers of the country need more protection and more money. For that reason I recommend that the House introduce legislation to provide farmers with a guarantee on cost of production and a decent return. I was very pleased that the House referred to committee the subject matter of Bill C-235 on parity pricing. That Bill would provide farmers with their costs of production and a decent return. It would cover wheat, oats, barley, hogs, and beef. For the portion consumed in this country the farmer would receive a parity price based on the cost of production. I do not think that is asking too much. It is asking for no more than what other Canadians receive for the work they do. As Members of Parliament we are often criticized for our high salaries. Perhaps the Canadian population is right that we are overpaid for what we produce. Obviously, that was the opinion last summer because over half the Members did not come back. However, MPs' salaries are adjusted every year according to the cost of living, as is the case with other people in our
society who have collective agreements. Even senior citizens get a minuscule increase of $3 or $4 every three months on their pension cheques if the cost of living goes up.
The argument made by our Party and by an increasing number of farmers in Canada is that they too should be paid a price that has some relevance to what it costs them to produce a bushel of wheat or raise a hog on the farm, a price that has some relevance to the cost of repairs on their tractors or to the interest rate or price of fuel in this country.
That is what farmers are telling this Parliament. The concept of parity pricing means that farmers do not want a subsidy, a hand-out or a charity. All they want is a fair price from the market-place so that if interest rates, fuel or the price of machinery go up, the price that a Canadian pays for a loaf of bread or a bottle of beer will go up as well. I do not think that is asking for too much. Let us use wheat as an example. If the price of wheat goes up $5 a bushel and the farmer were to receive the entire $5 a bushel for the increase in the price of wheat, the price of a loaf of bread for the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) would go up eight cents a loaf. I ask: is an extra eight cents a loaf too much to pay to give the farmer an extra $5 a bushel for the wheat he is producing to make that bread? Perhaps the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) indulges from time to time and wants to have a beer.


John R. Rodriguez: I don't drink.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Let us say the Member from Newfoundland wanted a beer. If we raised the price of beer by 40 cents a dozen and gave all of that 40 cents to the farmer who produces malting barley for the beer, the price of malting barley would go up $10 a bushel.
We can afford that in this country. If we had a price based on the cost of production and on a decent return, we could keep many more farmers on the land, solve many farm bankruptcy problems in this country, and provide more jobs to young people from coast to coast since farming is the base industry in this country.
There are other examples besides bread and beer. The corn farmers of Ontario will know that often it costs more to run contests for cereals with respect to processing the coupons and advertising the contents than what the farmer gets for the corn that goes into the cornflakes.


Don Boudria: I have never heard of anyone winning, anyway.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) says that he has never heard of anyone who won. Maybe it is because he is in the wrong Party. I think there is something terribly wrong in our society if the farmer receives less than what it costs to process a coupon on a cereal box.
We believe that the farmer should get a parity price that is based on the cost of production. It would stimulate the small
May 17, 1985

business community and provide more jobs for young people. It would stimulate the entire Canadian economy.
This can be done without a subsidy. It can be done without increasing the national debt. It can be done without imposing more taxes on the Canadian people. I believe that it is the kind of direction we should be taking in our society today.
The Government often speaks of the huge Liberal debt with which it was saddled. I repeat that the farmers are not asking for a hand-out, but for a more fair share of the proceeds from the market-place. I believe we can afford to pay that in this country.

I think the crisis in agriculture is now very serious in this country. I have here a list of farm bankruptcies over the last 6 or 7 years in this country.
Six years ago, in 1979, there were 125 farm bankruptcies in Canada. The following year, 1980, 220 farms went bankrupt. In 1981, there were 261; in 1982, 410; in 1983, 488; in 1984, more than 500, yes 551 farmers went bankrupt here in Canada. And during the first quarter of 1985, 152 farmers went bankrupt across Canada. This is a very serious situation. It is very serious in Quebec, very serious in my own Province of Saskatchewan, very serious across the entire country.
Mr. Speaker, six years ago, in 1979, farm indebtedness in Canada was $14.6 billion. Two years later, it had increased to $18.5 billion. And, last year, in 1984, farm indebtedness In Canada totalled $20.7 billion.

We have had an increase in the farm debt from 1979 to 1984 from $14.6 billion to $20.7 billion. Farm incomes have not gone up. The realized net income of farmers in 1975, was some $3.8 billion. In 1978, it was $3.1 billion. In 1981, it was $4.2 billion. In 1983, it was $3.3 billion and in 1984, it was $3.8 billion. The realized net income of farmers in 1984 was exactly what it was in 1975, that is, $3.8 billion. Although nine years have passed, farmers' income has not gone up. I suggest that something is terribly wrong in our system.
I suggest that Bill C-25 is no different from the Bill introduced in the last Parliament by the Liberals and Mr. Whelan as Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps that is why my hon. friend from the Liberal Party was so anxious to jump into bed with the Conservative Government earlier this morning and again this afternoon in promising support at second reading for this particular Bill. It is the same type of Bill that we have seen before.
I suggest that this Bill is inadequate because it stabilizes farm incomes at 90 per cent of the previous Five-year average. Would Members of Parliament agree to pass a Bill in the House that would stabilize our incomes as MPs at 90 per cent of our previous five-year average? That would be a disaster for the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) because he would lose half of his taxes. Yet we are being asked to pass legislation that would have that effect on farmers.
Agricultural Stabilization Act
A second major concern is one which will anger Quebec farmers. Some provinces have provincial income insurance programs. In Quebec, it is based on the cost of production of hog farmers and others. The same situation exists in British Columbia. Farmers in those provinces will not qualify for this federal stabilization program. I do not believe that it is fair that a province and its farmers should be penalized by a federal program because that province is enlightened and progressive with respect to an income insurance program. I appeal to my friends to make that change in the committee so that we would not penalize the farmers of Quebec and British Columbia.
I remind the House that according to the Constitution of Canada, agriculture is co-jurisdictional. It comes under the responsibility of both the federal Government and the provinces. Both the provinces and the federal Parliament have the right to legislate, and the provinces should not be penalized by federal legislation, as is the case with this federal legislation. I appeal again to my colleagues to make that particular change. Most important, we need legislation that will give the farmer his cost of production back and a decent return. I think we have a consensus today. We have a consensus for parity prices in western Canada, in Quebec, and in parts of Ontario, and I appeal to this House to get on with it and to provide the farmers with legislation that will help each and every one of them.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act. There is a critical need to reshape this part of the agricultural industry in Canada.
I have listened to my hon. colleagues across the floor. I heard the cute rat, the mean rat, the shrill rat and the Newfie rat talk about the slowness of this Government to introduce legislation. Yet I remember the time last week when a Member on the other side stood up and said: "I have spoken four times on this Bill this week". Anyone on the other side who is trying to blame this Government for delaying tactics on this Bill is simply not telling the truth.
I have heard a socialist Member talk about guaranteeing income. He would have every farmer on the government payroll. Farmers would have no incentive for free enterprise, for making money and getting ahead. This is totally unacceptable based on our deficit position. It would be unacceptable in any case because it would run us into a deficit.
I represent the riding of Perth in southwestern Ontario. Within my riding is the City of Stratford, and within that city is the flagship of Canadian theatre. We have a diversified riding. Next week the Stratford Shakespearian Festival will open its thirty-third season. It is quite a coincidence in that we are now in our thirty-third Parliament. Surrounding the City of Stratford is the beautiful County of Perth. I have some of the best farmers farming some of the best farm land in Canada. I know that is also true of the county south of me and around me, the County of Oxford.

May 17, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
These days, however, many farmers are hurting. The stage was set a few years ago when Canada was caught in an inflation spiral that was pushed along by our Liberal predecessors. At the time, the psychology was that if you did not invest, inflation would kill you, but if you did invest, inflation was supposed to pull you out. Later, spiralling interest rates and low commodity prices brought Canada to the ground. Now the survivors as well are hurting from unfair competition both from outside and from inside Canada. The outside competition is most obvious. It comes from the European Economic Community. That community has a policy of self-sufficiency in food. The EEC has subsidized products without care for the amount produced.
We were hit when the EEC changed its policy. Instead of producing 150 per cent of the needs of the EEC, 125 per cent of its meat and dairy requirements were produced. This brought the EEC to the point where one-sixth of its dairy herd cattle was slaughtered, resulting in mountains of boned frozen meat, which created our problem. There was so much meat, the EEC had to rent facilities outside of the community for storage purposes. When one has high storage costs, it is not too hard to realize that the next step is subsdization of sales. Meat arrived at Canada's border with an export subsidy of 35 per cent. This was less than the original subsidy after appeals from the Government.
Last year, Canada's farmers had to compete with 50 million pounds of beef from the EEC that was subsidized well over 35 per cent, probably in the range of 60 per cent. Figures show that European farmers get about 39 per cent of their income from Governments while Canadian farmers get only 12 per cent.
I know that our Ontario farmers would not want to have subsidies. They can and will compete with farmers the world over, but they cannot compete with foreign treasuries, for instance, the EEC. One must hope that the EEC will come to its senses soon and decrease subsidies. But even then, Mr. Speaker, we will still be faced with the impact of the subsidies as we have in the dairy cut-backs.
Outside competition also exists in Canada. Farmers in one area compete with provincial treasuries in other provinces. This is why Bill C-25 is so important because it will open a path to a uniform subsidy plan across Canada.
Some regions of Canada are more suited to certain forms of agriculture than are others. I believe all will accept that western Canada is particularly suited to beef production because of its thousands of acres of grassland. As well, southwestern Ontario is blessed with good land and a favourable climate. Perhaps even more important, southwestern Ontario is close to the major population centres of Ontario and our export market. Other areas of Canada do not have the same advantage and agriculture there does not flourish as well.
However, few provincial Governments can accept that. Agriculture, when it is thriving, can make the rest of the country go. It is one of the most potent, perhaps the most potent, economic forces that exist. Therefore, provinces have established their own forms of subsidy. Even to speak about
these subsidies is most difficult. Until very recently there was no compilation of support policies across Canada. There is now a report in this connection in the draft stage.
If we speak about swine, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best source of information would be the U.S.A. where interest groups have studied our program to defend the imposition of countervailing duties.
We can accept in general that farmers in the EEC get 39 per cent of their income through their Governments, in the U.S.A. about 36 per cent, while Canadian farmers get only about 12 per cent. The support in Canada is not equal. It is an average of all the support. Ontario and Alberta, the have provinces which contribute to the equalization payments that help other provincial treasuries, have the lowest subsidies. Perhaps because of the natural advantages on which I have already touched, these farmers survive. These farmers are now competing with farmers who are more heavily subsidized in other provinces, subsidized perhaps with money sent in equalization payments.
Examples of provincial subsidies can best be shown in the hog industry. I would like to speak of the hog industry because Perth County produces more hogs than any other similar area in Canada.
In Prince Edward Island the subsidy can best be described as bipartite or coming from two parties, the provincial Government and the producer. The enrolled producers are supported to a level of 95 per cent of the total operational costs of an efficient producer. These costs include depreciation and interest charges. If the price of hogs goes up, the farmers begin to donate to the stabilization fund.
If one accepts that the costs in eastern Canada are higher and prices are set according to Ontario and to export prices, it is easy to see that this fund will nearly always be in a deficit position with the money coming continually from the provincial treasury. In 1984, this program cost Prince Edward Island nearly $1 million.
In Quebec, enrolled farmers have income stabilized to include their cost plus 70 per cent to 100 per cent of a specialized workers' income. Farmers do participate in this plan but the Government input is always twice that of the hog producer. I understand that in 1984, enrolled Quebec farmers received approximately $24 a hog. If the provincial treasury paid its two-thirds share, then each hog was subsidized to the tune of $16. Of course, all of these programs are based on good average producers. Farmers with better graded hogs, and the more efficient ones, received the subsidy and a profit.
If we get back to Ontario and Alberta farmers, we find only the subsidies that farmers get across Canada, for example, some relief in taxes, some assistance with drainage, and some interest relief for beginning farmers or farmers in difficulty. The Ontario hog farmer does get a stabilization payment under the Agricultural Stabilization Act if prices are low compared to a five-year average. This takes the bumps out of the rapidly changing hog prices, but it does not guarantee a profit. We are aiming to keep the farmers on the farm in times
May 17, 1985

of drastic cuts rather than to keep them on the farm with a guaranteed profit. In 1984, a payment was made. In 1985, there will be no payment. Not only do Ontario farmers have no subsidy this year, but they must compete with farmers whose hogs are subsidized. The Ontario production of hogs is about equal to the consumption in Ontario. However, other provinces sell thousands of live hogs in our market. Other countries, like Denmark, also penetrate our market. Then our surplus hogs find their way to the American market.
When we speak of the American market we must mention countervailing duties. The strong American dollar and government policies are combining to put unusual pressure on the American farmer. With an increasing amount of our pork entering the American market-and it is only a fraction of that market-American farmers thought it was unnecessary and unfair and successfully moved to have a countervailing duty applied. This duty was defended on the basis of a Canadian subsidy. Ironically it is the Ontario farmer who bears the brunt of this duty, while it is other parts of the country, particularly those to the east, which obtain the subsidy or are cushioned from the effect of subsidy by income guarantees.
We have heard comment about our friendship with the American Government and with the American President. In June the President of the United States will have to decide whether the duties will be applied. He has the final signing authority. The process up until now did not involve a presidential decision. I submit to the House that it is fine for us to have a good relationship with the President of the United States rather than the controversial relationship of the past. If there is a chance for this duty to be removed, there is more of a chance now than there was at any other time.
I hope I have laid the groundwork to demonstrate that a national tripartite scheme is essential. It should not be thought that every region in Canada should be subsidized in relation to its particular costs. Pork produced in Canada is Canadian pork, and all producers should produce on an equal basis. This is particularly important when one considers that present plans encourage over-production and that our subsidized products are exported to foreign buyers. Such a common system will become possible with the amendments proposed under Bill C-25. Four provinces have already agreed that tripartite plans should be in place-Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta-which represent somewhat over half the producers in Canada. They only await legislation for the plan to go ahead. To delay passage of this Bill any longer would place pressure on these provinces to initiate their own plans and to enter the interprovincial wars of treasuries being fought in farmers' backyards.
Under a tripartite agreement, the provinces would drop their regional subsidies and production in Canada would fall back to a more rational, market sensitive level. Each participant-the provinces, the federal Government and enrolled producers- would pay equal shares. Unlike present provincial plans, the
Agricultural Stabilization Act
maximum amount of any government input would be 3 per cent of gross sales of the product. In certain circumstances I understand the producer might be allowed to increase his payments to obtain a bigger pay-out.
The tripartite agreement would allow payments to be made promptly in respect of those products lending themselves to quarterly adjustments. For instance, for hogs and feeder cattle payments could be made on a quarterly basis. For other crops like wheat, payments could be made at the end of a crop season. The tripartite support prices would be such that there would be no incentive to over-produce and each commodity would have its own fund, recognizing the unique characteristics of the commodity, for instance, the difference in a cow-calf operation where costs are relatively static and the calf comes once a year, and the production of backgrounders, a term I never heard until I came to Ottawa, which means light feeder cattle, where the turnover can be as little as three months.
Within the tripartite agreements will be provisions that pay-outs will occur only on domestically consumed products. The Americans have shown more understanding of similar plans, and under such plans countervailing duties would be less likely.
Certainly the farmers of Ontario will welcome this Bill with its great potential to bring stability to farm incomes. Other farmers, particularly those who are benefiting from generous schemes, schemes funded partially by equilization payments from the have provinces, will initially fear the effects. However, our farmers are important to the nation and agriculture is an important tool to our economy. We cannot allow provincial boundaries to become the battle lines between farmers. We cannot afford to pour in more money, funded by loans, to push production in less favoured areas while the more favoured, efficient areas are torn down. The agreements which are possible under the amendments to the Agricultural Stabilization Act are important to the future of Canadian farmers. I am pleased to be able to add my support to its passage.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct an impression which I think the Hon. Member did not intend to leave. This is not a stabilization of farm income Bill; it is a stabilization of commodity prices Bill. One of its weaknesses is that it attempts to stabilize the commodity price. If the market price continues to go down, the result will be a lower stabilized price every year.
Following upon his remarks, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. He abhors the import of subsidized products into the country. I suppose that is a real concern on the part of all of us who are either farmers or deal with farmers or with products that have to compete with these imports. In the case of EEC beef, would the Hon. Member explain why his Government did not do something else rather than cave in to the EEC and increase the quota? Originally it was 5.9 per cent, and now we understand that the level will be three times that amount. Why did the Government do that? It invites more beef into the country to compete with Canadian beef.

May 17, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. The problem with European beef started, as I mentioned in my speech, when the EEC suddenly had surplus beef which it had to dispose of and subsidized its sale. Canadian beef farmers became aware of the problem and tried to set up a hearing under the GATT agreement to see if it could be withdrawn. We understand that last August a decision was made within the bureaucracy indicating that frozen boned beef was not in fact a beef product, that beef producers could not appeal, and that if there was to be an appeal it would have to be done by the producers of frozen meat products. That occurred last August before this Government was involved. As the problem grew, the Government applied a restriction and held hearings. The amount of meat coming into Canada has been drastically reduced. I have not heard the final decision, but it would seem that we have either to accept that amount of meat, because the problems were created before we came into power, or to pay the penalty of $50 million. It should be remembered that the quota about which we are talking is less than half the amount of beef which came in last year. It is probably less than a third of the amount of meat which would have come in this year if we had not taken the strong action we took.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is forgetting the other side of the problem, that is, the threat to other industries. Because of the quota which has been established and the failure to take action to make it less profitable for this beef to come into the country by establishing a countervailing duty, or something of that nature, we are threatening other products such as honey and maple syrup. In fact, I could provide a list of some 20 products. What fear does the Government have about placing a countervailing duty on this beef? Everyone accepts the idea that it is subsidized. The last figure I heard was probably as high as $1 per kilogram. That would mean that we would put a fairly hefty tariff on it within the GATT.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, I was fully aware of the penalties that were being threatened by the European Economic Community. I was there in March. We were told that Canada had two choices, either to negotiate on the basis of accepting more meat and paying the penalties on products coming in, or go for an agreement under the GATT. That is still open to us. To go under the GATT takes time. The product floods in in even greater amounts. This is probably a self-limiting amount. When the surplus is exhausted, we will not be flooded with beef from the European Economic Community. It will probably come from some other area, and we will have to watch that.
We were put in the position that we had to negotiate. If we apply more duties on this, we involve a large group with far greater power and more trading aspects. We are in surplus trade with them and they can penalize us even more. We cannot do it without a negotiated settlement, what we are approaching right now.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The United States did not wait. They did not have to go through the GATT process, which takes a long time. I agree that it does. The United States put on a countervailing duty against our hogs which went into effect immediately. The money is going into a trust. It has had the effect of reducing the price of pork from 75 cents in some areas, and even to 58 cents the other day. If the United States can do that under GATT, why can Canada not do the same on beef?


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments. First, we are dealing with the United States which is dealing with another group of equal power. Second, the hearings in the United States did not occur immediately. The Hon. Member simply is not informed. They went through at least three stages. At the present time, they are still not complete. These duties that are being collected could come back, subject to the decision which will be handed down June 7. It was not an immediate decision. I do not know under what law it was done, but it was probably under the GATT. I could be informed about that. I do not know how it was done.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it could possibly be returned. The effect of that return will not help the farmer who sold the pork unless he sold it through a marketing board, in only a couple of provinces. It has had the effect of making it unprofitable to ship our pork to the United States, consequently reducing the effective income of the hog farmer.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the countervailing duties have had the effect of reducing prices, probably from 73 cents to 63 cents. There is a philosophy that may be having an effect on the total North American market. At the same time as our prices are coming down, American prices have come down as well. Our dollar has fluctuated to a degree. Therefore, there have been other factors than the countervailing duties.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments on Bill C-25, an Act to provide some stabilization to red meat prices in this country.
I should begin by stating that I have never had a great deal of expertise, in fact I have very little, with respect to agriculture in this country. In my part of the country the fishery and forestry are the resource industries and primary areas for job creation. There are a number of small farmers in my riding. I have taken an interest and tried to learn something about the difficulty that farmers encounter. Earlier this week I had the opportunity to meet with some gentlemen from the great Province of Alberta, members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. They came to my office to begin the process of educating me. They told me of the difficulties that farmers in this country face in trying to make a living, trying to provide food for our tables in Canada and elselwhere around the world. At the same time, they are trying to make a decent living for themselves and their families.
May 17, 1985

I rise today to support Bill C-25. There is no question that the Bill is necessary. Although there is a fair amount of controversy within the agricultural community about whether it represents a solid step in the right direction vis-a-vis the American threats of countervail and the American attitude with respect to fish and lumber, and in recent days we saw prevention of the importation of pork into their country, nevertheless until somebody comes up with a better solution I feel I have no choice but to support the notion of a tripartite red meat stabilization program.
Marketing stability has been a common characteristic of beef and pork producers. Even though prices over the years, particularly on the red meat side since 1974, have been very unstable, fluctuating up and down, these producers nevertheless have the responsibility to make long-term investment decisions. Those decisions carry with them a responsibility to undertake long-term repayment programs. It is very difficult when you do not know from year to year what kind of return you will have on your investment. It is difficult to know whether you can provide a reasonable return on your investment and a reasonable income for your family in the first instance. In the final analysis, and more important, you do not know whether you will have the kind of income to meet those long-term mortgage payments. If Bill C-25 prevents to some degree the fluctuation in market prices and ensures that producers can make long-term plans and at least have some assurance of a base price for their product, I support the Bill.
I have one problem with the Bill coming up at this time. We have seen reports in recent days, such as the one I have before me in which the general manager of the Saskatchewan Pork Producers Marketing Board, Mr. Jim Morris, has indicated that the farm commodity stabilization programs, the whole range of those programs across Canada, may have to be dismantled if producers want to continue selling in the U.S. market without paying heavy penalties.
When you have someone of that calibre and that kind of interest and input in this industry coming back from the United States, talking to producers in that country, suggesting that on the countervail side Canada may be in serious difficulty unless we begin to dismantle stabilization programs, and we may see more and more protectionist measures being adopted in that country to prevent the import of Canadian products, then I am a bit concerned that perhaps we have to do our homework before this Bill is passed. We ought to be sure that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) have received assurances from our friends to the south that the net result of passing Bill C-25 will not be a knee-jerk reaction south of the border. Every one in this House is familiar with the news reports of the last few days of western produced pork being prohibited from going south of the border. I am a bit concerned about that kind of trend spreading to red meat if we pass this Bill without first assuring ourselves of the reaction it will receive south of the border.
Agricultural Stabilization Act
I repeat that I support the Bill. The Bill does not solve all the problems of the agricultural community in this country. It is a very small step, a temporary solution, taken before these trade discussions with our neighbours to the south have been concluded. As one who is not familiar with farming, one who did not grow up in a farming environment and does not understand the blood, sweat and tears, the part of your life that a farmer invests in trying to make a living from the land, I received a message. I did not entirely appreciate it. For the first time, a few days ago, I had a good discussion with some farmers. I was given a look at the way farmers' incomes have moved over the last 10 years. I saw that even though cash flow associated with the farming operation has increased dramatically, even though the cost of equipment and competitive technology has increased dramatically, and even though the number of bankruptcies are on the rise, real farm income over the last 10 or 12 years has not moved.
It seems to me that parliamentarians have the responsibility to ensure that there is a degree of justice and fairness for people who have chosen to make their living on farms. Through my discussions I learned that farmers have not had any real or significant increases in their incomes over the last 10 years. If there were any other single group in society that could organize itself with one voice and had not had a real increase in income in the last 10 years it would be here on Parliament Hill demanding that the Government pay serious attention to its problems.
The solution is not simple. Obviously one of the most important problems with which we as parliamentarians must come to grips is in providing farmers and those in the agricultural community with the ability to borrow money at interest rates that allow them to make a decent living and retain some cash at the end of the year that can be reinvested in their farms to keep their farms productive and to keep the Canadian agricultural industry competitive.
The Government made a great many promises to farmers during last summer's election. As one who knows very little about this industry, but is going to learn more, I will assume that those promises were made in good faith. If those promises were made in good faith, and if pledges to assist farmers and allow them to live with dignity and a sense of just reward meant anything at all, then the Government had better come forward with a program that will allow farmers to borrow money from FCC or on the open market at interest rates that reflect their ability to repay. As it stands right now, we are driving farmers into the ground.
One can only assume, looking at the data, that it must be a love of labour that keeps many of these people going. It certainly cannot be the financial reward involved. When looking at the kind of incomes farmers have, given their investment and their time spent sometimes over generations, they are not farming out of love of money.
I rise today to support the Bill before us. I would like to add that the farmers of Atlantic Canada are having a difficult time as well. When one hears red meat producers from Ontario,

May 17, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
Quebec and elsewhere screaming that it is tough out there, one can be assured that it is twice as tough in Atlantic Canada, because the farmers of Atlantic Canada import feed and grain from Central Canada for their livestock. The producers of Atlantic Canada spend as much as 30 per cent to 35 per cent of their over-all costs bringing grain into the Atlantic region. Right now, the subsidies that have been paid over the years to bring that grain into Atlantic Canada are being eroded. We are seeing the Government move to increase freight rates through those Crown corporations which are responsible for moving freight in Atlantic Canada.
For the Atlantic Provinces, and particularly the island provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, whenever there is an over-all increase in freight rates, the cost of living and the cost of doing business is affected. Moving things by freight to Newfoundland is not a question of taking the scenic route by the sea versus some other route. When there is bulk material that needs to be moved over 90 miles of water, the sea is the only way to go.
When dramatic increases are applied with no thought to the effect of those increases, the net result is a dramatic increase in the cost of living. In fact, when unemployment rates in most provinces went down three-tenths of 1 per cent, it went up 2.3 per cent in Newfoundland, due in large measure to the Government's move to increase freight rates to an island province where no other alternative is available for moving grain, livestock or consumable goods. The Government brought in an increase with no thought to its impact on the people of that province.
With those few words and with a great deal of humility, as a man who has much to learn-has barely scratched the surface-but has a passion for the difficulties of farmers, I urge Hon. Members to see this Bill passed in reasonable time.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to make to which the Hon. Member might like to add. I would point out to the Hon. Member that his knowledge of the primary industry of fishing gives him the kind of knowledge and authority required to speak on the problems of farmers. Their problems are very similar and have the same effect.
I appreciated particularly the Hon. Member's last words regarding transportation. The farmers and other producers in remote areas are affected by transportation costs. For example, I feel that Saskatchewan and other areas like the Peace River country are remote areas. By setting up increases in freight rates on a percentage basis, when those in the remote areas are already paying more than those who are closer to central Canada, a real penalty is put on those who live farther away from the market. That penalty then becomes a part of the cost of production to the farmer and the fisherman. If a farmer has to pay an extra dollar a bushel to ship his grain, that means he receives a dollar a bushel less. If the price of grain is set at $7 at Thunder Bay, the farmer in the Peace River country receives only $5. I appreciated the approach taken by the Hon. Member because it had not been taken previously.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his generosity. I was terrified that he was going to ask me some complex questions about a subject about which I admit freely I do not have a great deal of expertise.
Indeed, one of the approaches that is being taken by the Government that concerns me is its approach to the agricultural community. This approach affects the notion that people have the ability to choose where they want to live, and to have a life-style that is uniquely their own in the case of those who have lived in rural areas for hundreds of years. If these people are not actively supported, then at least they ought not to have difficulties placed in their way for choosing to live a certain life-style.
In the past, we always had the notion of regional development and regional assistance. As a goal, we wanted to remove regional disparities. We were trying to provide, at the very minimum, services to meet the basic needs and requirements of the people across this land on an equal basis.
I believe the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) has a somewhat different attitude. It is an attitude which indicates, "User-pay. That is the concept we shall apply." It is an attitude which indicates that those who live in the areas of the largest population shall benefit first and foremost from the services of the Government. I don't object to that, I really don't. But I believe that those who live in the rural areas, off the beaten path, and who have lived there for generations, choosing a life-style which reflects rural Canada, or the north, should also be able to expect the benefit of services and programs of the Government of Canada. But that is not the attitude taken by this Government which is too much concerned with a free market, private sector approach to providing goods and services to Canadians.
I am a free enterpriser from the word go. If I wanted to sell "rat pack" T-shirts, I would go out to the biggest marketplace, because that would make sense. I wouldn't go to a place where there are the least number of people. But the Government is elected to represent all of the people no matter where they live in this country. It has an obligation to understand and to empathize with all of the people no matter where they live or what their circumstances might be. The Government's kind of market-place mentality will lead us to the point where we will have first, second, third and fourth class citizenships. That is a step in the wrong direction, Mr. Speaker.
My colleague talked about farmers who live off the beaten path, who do not live on the main transportation routes, whose business is not adjacent to the major market areas, and the additional cost they must bear to produce and get their product to market. He has concern about the cost of transportation and this Government's approach to it. I suspect that we understand each other very well.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act. First, I would like to define
May 17, 1985

the situation surrounding this Bill, the situation on the farm front across Canada.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the Hon. Member from Newfoundland began to define the kind of crisis situation which faces our farmers. This is probably the basic reason this Bill is before us, and why it was put before the previous Government about two years ago. It is the reason we so often stand in this House to speak about the problems of the farmers.
When the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was laced before this House last fall it was quite a blow to many farmers who suddenly realized that the bureaucracy, and many Hon. Members of the House of Commons, had no real insight into the problems of farming and agriculture. The economic statement of the Minister of Finance indicated a type of farm structure and return from farming which put the farmers in a category above most ordinary citizens. Exactly the opposite is true. A large portion of farmers, even the ones who appear to be well off, are living off their equity. Their equity is going down and their investment is going up. If one made that kind of investment in any other business in Canada, one would expect approximately 10 per cent or 12 per cent return on the investment. It is many years since the farmer received any return on his investment. That is the situation with which we are faced as this Bill is brought forward.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville mentioned farm bankruptcies, as did the Hon. Member from Newfoundland. In 1979 there were 125 bankruptcies. In 1984 there were 551 bankruptcies. In the first three months of 1985, there have already been 152 bankruptcies. Those bankruptices are just the tip of the iceberg, Mr. Speaker, because most farmers recognize that they are going under and sell a piece of land in order to keep going for one more year, or they sell off half their herd. They decide they are not going to make it so they get out before they go bankrupt. They voluntarily leave farming. So the real problem is that farmers are leaving farming. Farms are being consolidated and a way of life of which we have been so proud is beginning to change. That change is not for the better because the person who takes over, although he may farm on a larger scale, faces exactly the same problems of too much debt and not enough return. Therefore, any kind of approach which would make survival of the farm community more certain is worthwhile taking.
1 am pleased that the Government has brought forward this Bill. I hope that in the process of coming to some kind of acceptable Bill in the end, the Liberals and the Conservatives do not close the door, because this Bill is almost identical to the previous Bill. I hope they do not close ranks behind the Bill and exclude the possibility of making it worthwhile, because right now it is not a worthwhile Bill.
The farmers are not making enough return on their investment to survive. By suggesting that perhaps if we give them a little more for their commodity in the years in which they have a commodity to sell they possibly might survive is too much of a gamble. We must have something in place which is more
Agricultural Stabilization Act
secure than the idea that we can stabilize farm commodities, that the farmer will get 90 per cent of what he received for the last five years. As the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville suggested, if the market price continues to go down, we are stabilizing a lower price each year, and if the cost of operations continue to go up, the spread between the income of the farm and the cost of farming becomes closer, until finally the positions are reversed. That is the situation which faces many beef farmers today.
In one township in my riding, 36 square miles, a few years ago there were something like 2,000 cattle. One would be hard pressed to find 500 cattle in that area now. This has happened over the last four years or five years when farmers, although they have hung on, have lost money. Instead of going bankrupt they have got rid of their cattle in the hopes they could make it on straight grain.
Statistics Canada shows that in 1975, the income from farming was $10 billion. In 1984, it was doubled at $20 billion. That seems as if we are doing very well, that we have twice as much income from farming. But that is the gross income. But over that same period of time we have increased the costs of operation from $6.6 billion to $16.6 billion. In 1975 some 65 per cent of the farmer's gross income went to cover expenses. That left 35 per cent for gross profits, although that is being a little simplistic. But in 1984 some 82 per cent of gross farm income went to cover depreciation and operating expenses.
Several Members have said that the farmer's net income in 1984 is the same as it was in 1974, and that is correct. But that does not take into account the change in the value of the dollar. In constant dollar terms, farm income in 1984 is $1.9 billion, compared with $3.8 billion in 1974. In other words, it has been halved over that period of time, and that cannot go on. Therefore, this Government and the provincial Governments across Canada must do something about it.
We could spend a lot of time looking at the need for this Bill, but what we should be looking at is something that will make it possible for farmers to survive. We need a system of stabilization insurance that deals with the farmer's income, not the price of his commodity.
If you ask a beef producer, he will tell you that it is costing him at least 25 per cent more to raise an animal than he is going to get back. This Bill, if we allow it to go through unchanged, will stabilize that 25 per cent loss and in fact make it possible for that loss to be increased as time goes by, because the stabilization is based on 90 per cent of the average price over the past five years. Although this stabilization plan is a step forward, because over a short period of time you might have a dramatic price drop and this plan would even out the bump, as time goes on, unless the market improves, it will not help the farmer. So why not look at the farmer's total income and then put in place something to make it possible for that farmer to survive under almost any circumstances, or at least in those years when his returns are low.

May 17, 1985
Agricultural Stabilization Act
A farmer faces not only market price problems, he faces bad weather, insect infestation and other problems. Therefore, farmers do not need just price stabilization. What good does it do if the price of grain is stabilized at $5 a bushel but the farmer has no grain to sell because it froze or the grasshoppers ate it? In the last two years we have had grasshopper problems in southeastern and southwestern Saskatchewan, and it looks like we are going to have another year of the same.
In approaching this Bill in committee we need to ask whether it does for farmers what is necessary. Does it put in place a survival plan so that in a bad year the farmer can survive, and in a good year he can make up what he lost in the bad year? As one farmer told me not too long ago, if he keeps this up for the next 10 years he will live but he will have nothing left, his equity will be zero. I think that is the situation faced by many farmers today. So this Bill is basically a step in the right direction, but it is so inadequate that we have to look at the basic problem and try to solve it in its entirety rather than piecemeal.
I could criticize small parts of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. For example, it does not establish one program, it establishes four programs. It is quite possible for the Government to carry on under this Bill in exactly the same way as before without any contribution, and perhaps farmers will accept that; no contribution and some payout under certain circumstances. It also allows the Government to make a deal with a province and not bring the producers into it at all. There has been considerable suggestion that the Bill is a tripartite approach, but it is not. It can be operated as a federal Government subsidy program alone, a provincial program alone, a federal-producer program, omitting the provincial Government, or a tripartite program, which has gotten the most publicity.
The farmers are looking to this Government for help. The Conservatives made a good start when they invaded Prince Albert during the election and made a lot of good promises about what they were going to do for farming, agriculture in general and transportation. The farmers look to them to fulfil their promises, but they also look to them to take a logical and worthwhile approach to agriculture generally. Although this Bill is almost exactly the same as the Whelan Bill of a year ago, it at least gives us an opportunity to air the problems faced by the agricultural community.
I am very glad that the Private Members' Bill on parity prices put before this House by the Hon. Member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is also being referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture so it can be discussed relative to this particular approach as well.
I think that some day in Canada we will have a stabilization insurance program for agriculture under which the farmer will be assured of receiving an adequate income when the grasshoppers get him or when the frost gets him, or when there is too much rain or not enough. That is what we need. This Bill eases the pain but farmers are still going down the drain. If this Government really wants to do something worthwhile for the farmers it will look at farming as a basic industry and recognize it as being essential, just as fisheries and forestry are
essential. We must decide what is necessary for them to survive, and then take certain steps in that direction.
Farmers do not want hand-outs. They want to be assured that in bad years caused by poor markets, insects, or frost, they can still make a living. That is the approach that should be taken. We are not short of ideas on how it could be done. Recently the Grain Production Committee of the Canada Grains Council presented a paper to a convention of municipal councils. It laid out a very effective-sounding income insurance plan for farmers. That idea should be studied, even though it probably has some faults. My Party and I and other Members in the House are not going to wed ourselves to one particular position. However, let us consider the idea of income insurance for farmers.
It would be ridiculous for the worker on the street to pay a large amount of money to ensure that his wages do not fluctuate, because that does not happen. However, it happens every year for farmers. Other workers pay for unemployment insurance in case they do not have a job next year. Therefore, the idea of insurance may be one which we should consider. Perhaps we should combine insurance with stabilization. In every case the basic approach should be the consideration of what is necessary for farming and farmers to survive.
This Bill is inadequate. It is almost identical to the original Whelan Bill. There is a great need to establish a comprehensive income insurance plan and this Bill does not accomplish that. Let us hope that when this Bill goes to committee we will take a global approach and allow the Committee on Agriculture to make amendments, or to rewrite the Bill in such a way as to take into consideration the needs of the industry, rather than just applying a band-aid to a number of the commodity areas.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the thoughtful speech of the Hon. Member. I would ask him for his comments on how he would resolve the apparent impasse which exists with some provinces that are unwilling to enter into an agreement to make this a national initiative with the support of all the provincial organizations affected.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Member has put his finger on one of the weaknesses of this Bill. There is such a variety of plans available, all of which are voluntary. If you do not volunteer for anything, you will not get anything. In the industry we have established a number of approaches for certain products. Each of the three western provinces with the responsibility to market grain agreed to give up that responsibility to the federal Government. The Canadian Wheat Board was established in 1926 and was legislated into existence in 1934. It is a central marketing system rather than managed production. This has proven that we can do that kind of thing. The dairy industry in every province has agreed to establish a dairy commission. This involves a bit of market management which certain commodity producers, such as the cattlemen in western Canada, do not want. However, it has been done with
May 17, 1985

eggs as well. There is the possibility for that kind of agreement if the structure which would allow it were in place.
There is a certain amount of insurance in the Dairy Commission and Egg Commission because the price received is based on production. Some people dislike that because it restricts their amount of production. That is being very shortsighted because if twice the amount of milk is produced the price would immediately go down and you would not make any more money in the end. To get the security you must give up something. If the Government put the structure in place I think we would get the necessary agreement across Canada.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) started his remarks by saying that it is not a worthwhile Bill at present. The Bill would clarify and make more flexible the period on which the support price for any commodity would be based. I ask the Member whether that is not a worthwhile feature. Second, the Bill would allow for support periods to be shorter than a year, but not less than 90 days. Is that not worthwhile? Third, the Bill would include winter and spring wheat produced outside the designated wheat board area and a list of named commodities. Is that not worthwhile? The Bill would replace "sheep" in the list of named commodities with "lamb and wool". Is that not worthwhile? The Bill would provide a new framework for federal-provincial agreements. I ask the Hon. Member whether that is not a worthwhile concept? The Bill would provide for the appointment of staff of the Agricultural Stabilization Board under the Public Service Employment Act. Does the Member not feel that that is worthwhile?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have voted for and worked for stabilization at every level because it affects a particular individual at a particular time. This Bill affects drastic drops which can occur over a short period of time. However, because we are not solving the problem of agriculture in its entirety, perhaps it is just extending the agony. Maybe it is just allowing the industry to take a little longer to go broke. Maybe it will just take a little longer before we have the same situation as that which exists in Kansas. Soon, nearly 75 per cent of the farms in Kansas will be corporately owned. They will not necessarily be corporately farmed, but they will be corporately owned. That is happening in Canada.
The changes which the Member has suggested as worthwhile are the good features of the Bill. However, they are not solving the basic problem of agriculture, and neither is the Farm Credit Corporation or the capital gains changes which we are hoping the Government will introduce. All of those things are having some effect, but they are not solving the basic problem of agriculture.
During the next four years the Government should consider that basic problem because agriculture will suffer much more than it is today. We were much better off on the farm four years ago than we are today.
The Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 Mr. Deputy Speaker: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["The hour provided for consideration of Private Member's Business has now expired.\nIt being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(2) this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 21, 1985, at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1)."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the House proceed to Item No. 182?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, should be amended in order to reform the Senate of Canada so that its membership is elected by the Canadian people and equal in representation of the provinces, thereby ensuring that the Senate of Canada would become effective legislative body.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I put this motion forward.

I would like to begin by stating some of the reasons I am propelled to introduce this motion. During the recent election campaign, as a political scientist, I thought that the issue of Senate reform was a dry and dusty one. I was astonished to discover that it has been one of the most lively issues among my constituents over the past year. In fact, at 44 public meetings held during the nomination campaign and the campaign itself the issue voluntarily came up at least once at each of those meetings. It is a pressing issue in western Canada.
I had occasion last Sunday to visit Peterborough, a beautiful city in central Canada. The occasion was the rededication of the monument to Captain Edward Templeton Brown who was a soldier with Bolton's Scouts and happened to have been killed at the Battle of Batoche. He was one of General Middleton's soldiers. I was called upon without notice to make some remarks since Captain Brown was my great uncle. I sought to convey something of a western perspective of what the Battle of Batoche means to western Canada. As tactfully as I could, in the presence of the Union Jack and the Red Coats, I strove to underline that the Riel phenomenon and Dumont's generalship really were a popular reaction in many ways to what was perceived as colonialization from elsewhere.
It is interesting to note from where the support for a Triple E Senate is beginning to come. While I am not sure if the

May 17, 1985
The Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982
Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has totally embraced the concept, he seems to be leaning in that direction. I suspect that many of our friends from the New Democratic Party, at least those who are westerners and perhaps others, are very sympathetic in their hearts and perhaps even in their minds. Of course, they are restrained by doctrine not to speak out on the issue.
Let me refer to some of the distinguished Canadians who have given their public support and financial support to the Triple E movement. They are the Hon. E. C. Manning, retired senator and former Premier of Alberta for some 25 years; Mr. Gordon Gibson, former Leader of the British Columbia Liberal Party; Mr. Jim Gray, Executive Vice President of Canadian Hunter Ltd; Mr. Ralph Hedlin, a distinguished energy policy consultant who lives in Ottawa; Mr. Horace Carver, former Attorney General of the Government of Prince Edward Island; and Mr. Ted Byfield, former publisher of the Alberta Report in Edmonton, Alberta. There is also our distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who has served for 45 years in the legislatures of Canada, and Mr. Izzy Asper, Chairman of Canwest Capital Corp., in Winnipeg, Manitoba, a former Leader of the Opposition in the Liberal Party in that province. There is the distinguished Senator E. W. Barootes; Mr. Jack Gallagher; and Mr. Thomas P. d'Aquino, who is the President of the Business Council on National Issues which is based in Ottawa.
I would be remiss if I did not touch on some of the interesting developments in the direction of Senate reform over the past few years. The House will recall that in 1969, the then Government introduced a White Paper proposing a new Senate, with half of the members appointed by the provinces and the other half by the federal Goveinment. In 1972, the special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House on the Constitution recommended increasing the number of western senators and reducing the Senate's powers to a suspensive veto. In 1975, a constitutional amendment awarded one Senate seat to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, bringing the total membership to 104 Senators.
In 1978, Bill C-60 proposed replacing the Senate with a House of the Federation, with the provinces and the federal Government each appointing half the members based on por-tional representation. In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that the proposals represented a constitutional amendment and would therefore require the approval of provincial legislatures as well as the federal Parliament.
In that same year of 1978, the Canada West Foundation recommended replacing the Senate with a House of the Provinces. British Columbia, the Ontario Advisory Committee on Confederation and the Canadian Bar Association also submitted reform proposals.
In 1979, the Pepin-Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity proposed replacing the Senate with a provincially appointed Council of the Federation.
In 1980, the federal and provincial Ministers responsible for constitutional matters discussed a new Upper House involving the provinces, with no resolution. The report of the Standing
Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled "Certain Aspects of the Canadian Constitution", affirmed the need for a nominated but substantially reformed Senate.
The Quebec Liberal Party's Beige Paper entitled "A New Canadian Federation" proposed replacing the Senate with a federal council composed of provincial government delegates. In 1981 the well respected Canada West Foundation supported direct election of senators based on single province-wide constituencies.
In 1982, the Constitution Act provided for a six-month suspensive veto for the Senate in respect to constitutional amendments. Alberta recommended provincial appointment of Senators. The Senate debated the election of Senators by the people.
In 1983, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Senate reform started its work in April of that year. The Business Council on National Issues supported direct election of senators.
In 1984, the final report of the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform was tabled in January.
This year, the Alberta Select Committee reported, and in May of this year the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) introduced his resolution.
Let me give credit to a distinguished former Member of the House who has done considerable research on the question of Senate reform. He is Mr. Bill Yurko, the former Member for Edmonton East. Mr. Yurko pointed out in a paper prepared three years ago, which was called "Toward a Renewed Senate Structure under the New Constitution", that a new Senate would require legitimacy, accountability, independence and stability. Mr. Yurko said that the issue of legitimacy is primarily a question of the Senate's legitimate position in the political process. He went on to say that probably nothing has undercut the Senate's position more than the system of Prime Ministerial appointments.
To be legitimate, any system which replaces the current regime must be structured to permit the Senate to perform its two most important functions in a balanced manner. The selection committee must be based in the regions or provinces to legitimize the regional representation function. It must allow for the selection of experienced politicians and other public figures to legitimize the legislative review or "sober second thought" functions. In relation to the Lower House, the second Chamber must also be a secondary chamber in every way. The House of Commons must remain supreme.
The second principle is that of accountability. Appointments for life steadily eroded the Senate's legitimacy. The central point at issue here is the question of accountability. The need to create a democratically accountable Upper House was not a high priority with the delegates to the Quebec conference. However, over the years, the lack of accountability has supplied abolitionists with ample ammunitions with which to wage their war against the Upper House.
May 17, 1985

The third principle is that of independence. To be effective a reformed plan must scrupulously uphold the independence of the Upper House. While expecting perfect and absolute independence from any legislative body may be unrealistic, the structural features of a reformed Senate should strive toward the ideal.
The final principle of a reformed Senate is that of stability. This is more or less separate from the question of which selection procedure would be preferable, since either election or modified appointment procedure could be tailored to provide stability. Whatever selection procedure is decided upon, Senators must have a longer term than Members of Parliament to allow them to develop the experience and expertise they require for legislative review and regional representation.
Let us go to the question of what the public seems to be saying on this issue of Senate reform. I go to two distinguished newspapers, two editorials published hard on the heels of the release of the joint committee report in early 1984.
The first is the Calgary Herald which reported:
The latest report on Senate reform hits one target dead on but is completely off the mark in proposing regional representation by population that leaves eight provinces still with no more than second-class status-
Three weeks before the walk in the blizzard, on February 3, 1984, in The Edmonton Journal we find this article:
An elected Senate, based on regional interests with significant power, would go part of the way toward making Ottawa everybody's national capital-not just those who voted for the party in power. Reform of the House of Commons itself would go the rest of the way ... Without Senate reform, Canada risks a permanent crisis of national unity and inferior policy-making-provincial premiers will continue to serve as the effective opposition to the federal party in power-The highest road for Prime Minister Trudeau's exit from politics would be full Parliamentary approval of this report-throwing the political and moral initiative to the premiers and the people of the provinces.
Obviously the challenge was not met at that time.
Why should this resolution be brought before the House at this time? We have before us now a resolution from the Minister of Justice to amend the Constitution in such a way as to limit the amount of time the Senate could delay money bills. We are told that agreement has been secured from eight of the Provinces to support this resolution-


Don Boudria: Name them.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: -to support this resolution and that a constitutional conference will be held no later than 1987 to discuss long-term meaningful Senate reform. Whether those provincial commitments will hold is, I hear, now being questioned. Whether the Senate as it is now constituted will support the resolution remains to be seen. However, whether or not the resolution succeeds, the conference, we understand, will take place.
This is the time to coalesce the various proposals advanced for reform. Between now and 1987, let us develop in this place, in the other House and in public forums across the land a consensus for meaningful and enduring improvement.
The Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982
The joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons basically made these recommendations: Senators be elected for non-renewable nine year terms by plurality vote in single member constituencies, in triennial elections separate from Commons elections, and that the Senate have a suspensive veto of 120 sitting days over most Bills; the representation of the less populous provinces and of the Territories would be increased, bringing the number of seats in the Senate to 144; legislation of linguistic significance would require a double majority vote; and the constituencies themselves would have a logic as to mutual interset.
I would like to take one moment now to outline the proposals of the Alberta Legislative Committee on Senate Reform, which has met with fairly wide approval, including very recently that of the distinguished Liberal Senator Dean Gigantes.
I will now outline the recommendations in summary, Mr. Speaker. First, that the Senate should continue to act as a body of sober second thought. Another original purpose of the Senate, that is to represent property owners, should be abandoned immediately. Third, the Senate should not be a forum for intergovernmental negotiations. It is recommended, vis-avis membership, that the tenure of current Senators should be terminated through an equitable severance process. Second, that the determination of tenure should be accomplished as quickly as possible to facilitate an immediate move to the new system.
On the method of selection and basis of representation of new Senators, it is recommended that the Senate should consist of 64 Senators, six representing each province and two representing each Territory. Senators should be elected on a first-past-the post basis, a system now in use in federal and provincial elections. Senators should represent constituencies whose boundaries are identical to provincial boundaries. Senators should be elected for the life of two provincial legislatures. In each province, three Senators should be elected during each provincial election with each voter being able to vote for three candidates. The qualifications should be the same as those for Members of Parliament. Upon winning an election, Senators should be required to resign from any provincial or civic elected office they hold.
With reference to the powers of the Senate, it is recommended that the Senate should have the power to initiate any legislation except a money or a taxation Bill. Notwithstanding that point, the Senate should have the power to initiate supply resolutions relating to the Senate's own operational Budget. The Senate should have the power to amend any Bill after which the House of Commons would consider the amendment. The Senate should have the power to veto any Bill except a supply Bill. The Senate should retain the existing 180 days suspensive veto over constitutional issues. The House should have the power to over-ride a Senate veto on money or taxation Bills by a simple majority, The Senate should vote on a money or taxation Bill within 90 days and on other Bills within 180 days after it is sent by the House of Commons. All changes affecting the French and English languages in Canada

May 17, 1985
The Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 should be subject to a double majority veto, that is a majority of all Senators combined with a majority of French speaking Senators or English speaking Senators, depending on the issue. This, Mr. Speaker, is from the legislature of Alberta. Finally, non military treaties should be subject to ratification by the Senate, to which I would suggest we add the appointment of deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, heads of Crown agencies, and commissions.
Current polls seem to indicate that Canadians have little faith in the Senate, primarily because of its method of appointment. In my part of the country, as well as I think in others, there is a feeling that regardless of the popularity or sensitivity of this Government, fundamental changes to Confederation are required in order to ensure that the Western and Atlantic provinces, in particular, are adequately represented in the federal decision-making process. In the west it is a particularly crucial issue. I will quote from my distinguished colleague, the Flon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) who said before the last election that western Canadians must feel that Parliament is protecting their legitimate interests; it is a very serious matter should that faith be lost. He went on to say that western Canadians do not feel that we Opposition Members are that effective; therefore, the emphasis is on the provincial premiers to defend them and that distorts the whole federal-provincial relationship. He went on to say that:
People now must vote for provincial premiers based on their effectiveness in opposing the government in Ottawa, whereas they want to be able to rely on Parliament itself-opposition Members, government Members and the Senate- for that.
Finally, there are oxen to be gored and hurdles to be overcome. The oxen to be gored include, of course, the powers of this very House, the powers of the Cabinet, the Prime Minister's office and perhaps most significantly the power-brokers themselves, the provincial premiers. But, Mr. Speaker, an effective elected Senate, equal in representation province to province, will bring to Canada the harmony and civility which have too often eluded us. This is not just something to please the west, though it would without doubt. It is not just a redress of the blows of history, economics and demography, dealt to the Atlantic Provinces. Nor is it a gimmick to bring Quebec warmly and securely back into the bosom of Confederation. It is an evolution whose time has come, for Ontario no less than for all of Canada.
Throughout the country, audiences of up to 3,000 people have cheered the concept of a Triple E Senate. It is the positive enduring alternative to confrontation. What better time to bring it to reality than as a crowning achievement of this new age of harmony and consultations.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon. I have read the motion of the Hon. Member. Some parts of it worry me personally, and I would like to speak to them.
I find it passing strange that over the last three or four months Conservative Members have introduced several motions, contradicting each other of course, on Senate reform.
One Member said that we should have an elected Senate, that if we could not have one, we should abolish the place. Another Member rose and said that the Senate was a great place. Now an Hon. Member today wants to considerably reapportion Senate representation and retain it as a useful and effective body.


Ted William Schellenberg: It is a sign of a healthy Party.


Don Boudria: I suppose the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) has a good point. He says that it is a sign of a healthy Party that its Members can at least say something during Private Members' Hour. I am glad that there is at least one time of the day when Tories are permitted to do that. Hopefully they will muster up enough courage to do the same when we are considering legislation, but we will not hold our breath. Be that as it may, I should like to return to the debate at hand.
The sudden interest in the Senate on the part of the Conservatives has arisen because one day the Senate refused to give automatic consent to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to borrow funds for a year for which he had not tabled estimates. Of course the Minister of Finance should have never requested those funds, to start with. That day the Senate was guilty of doing its job. It is unusual that whenever the Senate is not doing its job, Conservatives talk about reforming the place. Whenever the Senate does its job, suddenly they talk about abolishing it. I find that passing strange. However, in my view we have to retain, protect and enhance our parliamentary institutions. This means that they should be reformed.
In the past, members of the New Democratic Party have always said that the Senate had to be abolished. Undoubtedly that is part of their doctrine. One fine day many, many years ago, a socialist awoke in the morning after dreaming that the Senate should be abolished, and thereafter it formed part of the Party doctrine. Of course it will hot happen and should not happen.
Most federal states have bicameral legislatures. The reason for this is to ensure that regional interests are represented and to overview legislation. This as well is the reason for having and retaining our Senate of Canada. The difficulty I have with the NDP proposition of abolishing the Senate will become evident if I remind the House that in 1979 the Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) had very few Quebec Members. As a matter of fact, there were only two, one of whom was appointed to Cabinet. That created a very difficult situation in that one of the two founding peoples of our country was not represented in Cabinet. Therefore it was necessary at that time to call upon parliamentarians who did not sit in the House of Commons to join the Cabinet. Of course there was only one place with federal parliamentarians in our system of Government other than the House of Commons and that was the Senate. Therefore a number of people from existing Senate ranks were appointed to the Cabinet of the then Prime Minister. Thus there was regional representation in Cabinet provided by some other means than the House of Commons. It was made necessary because there was not a
May 17, 1985

sufficient number of Members elected not only from that province but from that linguistic group or founding nation. As I said previously, because there was not that representation the then Prime Minister rightly chose to appoint some Senators to Cabinet.
Another difficulty I have with the NDP proposition is that all of us in the House, collectively and individually, although Members on the government side do not usually complain about it as much as opposition Members, are somewhat at odds with the fact that there is an ever-increasing concentration of power in Cabinet and not enough in parliamentarians generally. If we abolish one of our Houses of Parliament, obviously it would only lead to a further concentration of power within Cabinet. After all, we cannot enhance Parliament by destroying half of it.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) presented a motion to the House to make the Senate into a reading room. Of course I have some difficulty with that proposition because the Minister is effectively trying to abolish one of our parliamentary institutions, nothing else. There is only one way to deal with reform of the Senate and that is through comprehensive reform. We cannot arbitrarily take away one of the most important powers of one of our Houses of Parliament, and call it reform, because one day the Minister of Finance did not get his way. There has to be more to reform. That is not comprehensive reform. That is not adequate. Obviously the scheme of the Minister of Justice will get nowhere. I do not think he has the consent of eight provinces. I challenge the Hon. Member to name those eight provinces. It will be interesting for all of us to check to see whether there is agreement on the part of eight Premiers on reducing the Senate to a reading room, as the Hon. Member claimed.
During his remarks today the Hon. Member suggested that we should give the same number of Senate seats to each province. If we look back at the history of our country and the reasons for having the Senate, we see that one of its functions was to provide a sober second thought. Perhaps that can be accomplished by having any number of Members from any part of the country. After all, a function of the Senate is to review legislation and the regional aspect is somewhat less significant in that regard, although it is still a concern. Of course another one of its functions is to provide individual provincial representation in Parliament. As I said a while ago, that manifested itself in the case of the 1979 Progressive Conservative Government which lacked a fundamental component of representation.
Another difficulty which I see-and I think the Hon. Member forgot it in his proposal today-is that in the origin of the Senate it had another function, to represent not only the regions but the two founding nation principle of our country. When Canada east and Canada west joined in the Act of Union of 1840 they were given equal or proportionate representation.


Ted William Schellenberg: Upper Canada?
The Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982


Don Boudria: No, not Upper Canada; it was after Upper Canada. Upper Canada was 1791 to 1840, but in the Act of Union of 1840 Canada east and Canada west were joined. At that particular time there was identical representation in both Houses, notwithstanding the fact that Canada east had a larger population than Canada west. Canada west, Ontario, was given a much larger number of seats. It was known at that time that the population of Canada west would increase. Canada east accepted an equal representation because there was a two founding nation principle that was important to preserve. Those statistics have turned around and numerically in terms of Anglophones and Francophones there is now a far greater number of Anglophones in this country.
The same principle was very important in the deliberations in the 1860s in the Constitutional Conference where Canada east and Canada west, formerly called Upper Canada and Lower Canada, wanted a parliamentary structure in which there would be equal representation in at least one of the Houses of Parliament of those two areas. The Maritime provinces, which were then about to join Canada, wanted at least as much power together as one of the two larger provinces. The reluctance they had as smaller Maritime provinces was based on their fear that the difficulty that existed between Canada east and Canada west would put them in the middle of the problem. They wanted to ensure that collectively the Maritime provinces had at least as much power in one of the Houses of Parliament as Canada east and Canada west. Those are some of the origins.
When the western Canadian provinces joined Confederation under various parliamentary Acts of 1870, 1905 and so forth, they were given a number of Senate seats, again proportional to one of the other regions that existed. This created a situation whereby French Canada, Quebec, had and still has approximately one-quarter of the Senate seats in this country. Perhaps that is somewhat more than their fair share in terms of percentages. There is an element outside the percentages which cannot be measured. That principle has to be measured differently, the principle of the two founding nations. It is important to remember that.
I hope there is not one Member in this House, particularly from Quebec, who would want to restructure our parliamentary institution to remove some of those special powers and privileges that are necessary to ensure not only that each province is represented, but that there is a special place in confederation for French Canada. By giving one-tenth of the representation in the Senate to French Canada, and giving an equal number of seats to all provinces, one-tenth or one-eleventh, depending on how many seats there are for the Territories-giving roughly one-tenth of the representation of the Senate to the Province of Quebec is unacceptable. I hope that Members will reconsider any such proposal, however well-intentioned it might be.
I think the Hon. Member's remarks were very positive with regard to enhancing the parliamentary institution, and I com-

May 17, 1985
The Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 mend him for that, but the formula he suggested is not correct. I am sure that all who are concerned about the two founding nation principle of this country will agree that there has to be a special element in the parliamentary structure to protect that principle. We all know of the special provisions that are there for Quebec. We know of the guaranteed minimum number of seats for that province. Only one province in Canada has a guaranteed minimum number of seats in the House of Commons. All other provinces cannot have less seats in the House than they have in the Senate.
Quebec has another tier of guarantee which is very important, and rightfully so. It has to be there. I say this as a Member who does not represent that province. I am a Franco-Ontarian who represents a linguistic group that is similar and, although I am from outside the province, I am very interested in that topic. It is very important in my mind, as it should be in the minds of all parliamentarians.
Quebec has a different method of designating Senate areas, ridings or electoral districts. Senators represent their provinces. That is true in all provinces except Quebec. In Quebec, Senators are each assigned an electoral district which is similar, if not identical, to the 24 seigneuries in the Province of Quebec. There is a special significance there for the Province of Quebec, and it is important to remember all these things.
How do we reform the Senate? In my view, we should have an elected Senate. I fully concur with that proposition. It is an ideal time to consider that seriously. I believe all Members of this House should advocate that. As elected parliamentarians and supporters of elected democratic institutions I am sure all Members want our parliamentary institutions to reflect that principle. However, we should not forget that destroying, dismantling or doing something in a way which is not well thought out will not necessarily enhance our Senate. We must proceed with caution and real reform, and do it all at once. It should be a comprehensive package, not one that addresses just one small part of the issue.
In order to reflect the principle that our Senate must represent provincial interests, I believe that Senators should be elected at provincial elections. While that may be a somewhat unusual way of proceeding, what better occasion is there to assess the provincial mood of an area than during the provincial election campaign? Why not elect one-half of the Senators at every provincial election, assuming that we had the same number of seats in the Senate that we have now in each province? I recognize that there has to be reform there. However, for the purpose of debate, let's assume that we have the same number of seats that we have in each province. The greatest number of Senators that could be changed at any one time would be 12. Ontario and Quebec each have 24 Senate seats. With only one-half elected in every provincial election, a maximum of 12 would change at any one time, if all Senators were defeated within that province, which is somewhat unlikely. There would be insured continuity.
Some Members may wonder how we could ensure that those Senators elected have at least some sort of federal point of view. If Senators were elected with very separatist tendencies,
for example, there could be some difficulty having that institution function. In order to present candidates for the Senate a Party should have a minimum number of seats in the House of Commons. There would then be a process which would marry the principle of federalism with the thoughts of electors in a provincial election campaign. In so doing, we would have a provincial perspective, federal perspective and continuity, because only a small number would be elected at any one time.
That theory has to be further developed. There needs to be a full airing of that view in order to ensure that the system would best represent our country. I recognize there has to be a way of looking at the proportion of Senators in each province. I agree with that. However, in so doing, we must keep in full view the fact that there must be a very special place for the Province of Quebec; we must retain that important component in the system.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this Bill as both previous speakers had suggested someone from my Party would. I have listened to the interesting lectures that have been given. However, I do not detect a clear enough thrust in either the remarks of the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) or those of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) to warrant a careful study of what they said. In fact, for a while, I thought the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was debating a different motion entirely. He seemed to have imagined that the subject for debate was a resolution by the NDP for abolition of the Senate. However, toward the end of his remarks, he did return to the subject at hand.
I found the historical comments made by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell regarding the rationale for the Senate from the past century and perhaps the early part of this century to be very interesting and informative. The mover of the motion gave us a rapid-fire survey of the more recent history of discussion regarding the Senate. I believe his object was to prove that Senate reform is an idea whose time has come because enough people have talked about it. It is no doubt true that a number of people have talked about it. However, at all-candidates meetings and other public meetings that have been held in the riding of Spadina, not only when I ran for office but at the time of previous elections when I did not run for office, this question seemed to come up very rarely. It may be that certain candidates, simply by their own expressions of interest, evoke more discussion around that subject than do other candidates.
Both Hon. Members mentioned a variety of schemes. Although the Triple E proposal made by the mover of the motion does state some broad principles, he developed it with so many alternatives from so many groups that it is difficult to see exactly how he would focus. Likewise, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, in using up his last two or three minutes, proposed a whole new scheme as an alternative. He made very little development of the practical effect of the scheme.
May 17, 1985

The difficulty with both presentations is that the Hon. Members made an assumption which, in a doctrinaire way, they simply repeat without really defending. They made the assumption that we need a Senate. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell did make some attempt at defending the Senate, but he defended it largely in terms of the very early years of Canada's history, the years when different parts of the British Empire were being incorporated into Canada and there were growing pains. He picked out some instances of the existence of the Senate being important for the defence of either of the two founding nations of this country. However, I think it is a mistake to make an automatic assumption that because we had a Senate before, we must have it forever. Perhaps it is a venerable old piece of the furniture, but the question is whether or not it serves a function and, if so, whether that function is predominantly useful or harmful.
I think it is not at all clear that in balance, the function of the Senate is useful. As it exists at present, I doubt that it seriously defends the unity of Canada. I have not noticed that the things that tend to tear Canada apart are curbed by the Senate. It seems rather that the Senate at times intensifies the things that tear Canada apart. An example of this is its action a couple of years ago on banking legislation. Very frequently the effect of its action on banking legislation is to strengthen the grip of a tiny minority of powerful Canadians on the Canadian economy. Legislation that goes to the Senate from this House with the object of curbing the power of the banks tends to come back from the Senate with the object of increasing the power of the banks. That does not promote unity in this country. It may appear to do so by momentarily drawing attention away from rivalries between east and west, French and English, Maritimes and centre and North and South, but in fact it intensifies still greater rivalry or polarity.
Last year there was an example of action by the Senate which did not directly intensify a division, but was quite ineffectual for the public good. This happened when the previous Government put forward an outrageous piece of legislation designed to implement the security service of Canada. After the legislation was tramped on by Attorneys General across the country and by all sorts of public institutions, the Government referred it to the Senate. I think that this was meant to take the heat off the Government. The Senate sat on the matter for a few months and then brought the legislation back with some cosmetic changes. The Government felt that that was fine, it was a reformed Bill and it would now be passed. The Government did pass it. The Conservative Party which was then the Official Opposition supported the Bill in the end and throughout committee stage.
I was rather amused when I recently received a fund raising letter signed by Dalton Camp. He is asking for money for the civil liberties associations; one of the reasons he is doing so is that we have this dreadful legislation. I do not know where Dalton Camp was last year when the Party he helps to lead as one of the back-room boys was promoting that Bill in support of the Liberal Government. He is now trying to raise money for civil liberties associations and is saying that it was a bad
The Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982
Bill. I do not remember the Senate being a house of sober second thought regarding that very important and very dangerous Bill that was passed by the Senate and by the House.
I do not see that the Senate performs a useful function. Granted if we are to have a Senate, it should be an elected one.
I do agree with the two previous speakers on that matter. An elected Senate would have to be less harmful than an appointed Senate. The question of whether or not it should have equal representation from all provinces, I think, tends to be irrelevant or ambiguous. Equal representation suggests that fundamental conflicts in the country that need to be balanced are conflicts between people in areas which are marked by some provincial boundary. Just because a certain line goes from north to south between Manitoba and Saskatchewan does not mean that the people in Saskatchewan have different interests from the people in Manitoba and must therefore have balanced representation in Parliament.
I grew up in Manitoba and I understand that there are tensions, but I find as decades go by they are less and less based simply on regional conflicts because the regions are changing. For example, the economic boom in the western provinces, particularly in Alberta and British Columbia, has considerably altered the balance of power within Canada. The regional considerations which may have seemed very strong when we had only Upper and Lower Canada, or Canada east and Canada west, or the Maritime Provinces plus Quebec and Ontario, not having yet incorporated Manitoba and points west, are now an important part of our history, but not necessarily part of our present needs. I do not remember the Senate doing anything serious to mediate the dispute with respect to the price of oil within Canada and the slogan of the western Premier, Mr. Lougheed, "Let those eastern bastards freeze".


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: He never said that.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The Hon. Member says he didn't say it. I certainly would not want to contradict the Hon. Member from the west, but it has become part of western folklore and part of the understanding of east and west attitudes. I am not aware of the Senate having actually done anything significant with respect to the establishment of fair pricing of oil or, for that matter, natural gas.
While I would not object to the reforms proposed by the Hon. Member for Edmonton South, and I would certainly not object to the principle that the Senate should be effective, I have not heard the Hon. Member for Edmonton South or the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell say for what, and in what, the Senate might be effective, let alone how to make it so. I simply cannot see the point of the motion put forward by the Hon. Member. I believe that the principle adopted over half a century ago by the CCF was a farsighted view into Canada's future and that that future has become the present. I believe it is time now to abolish the Senate, not to mess around with any further attempts at reform.

May 17, 1985
The Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the debate during Private Members' Hour on Senate reform. I took particular interest in the comments of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) who very often stands in the House of Commons to speak on many issues, and sometimes knows something about those issues. However, his exact comments, as I recall them, were that he was concerned about a special influence which certain provinces should retain in the Canadian Senate much the way they are in the House of Commons. I can understand his fear. I can understand, perhaps, the central Canadian's xenophobia of western Canadians rushing in here with all kinds of brilliant ideas. I can understand those comments and feelings because as a western Canadian I know that we have been in the wilderness for many, many years. The previous administration had only one elected representative in the Canadian Cabinet.
I believe that perhaps it is time for Senate reform which would allow us to have a little more influence in the Government of Canada. What the Hon. Member's comments basically stressed is that there is no need for reform, that we should have the private arrangements which were there before. I entirely disagree with that suggestion.
With respect to the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards), I am in almost total agreement with him on many of the things he said. Perhaps it is because he and I shared those years in the wilderness. I find myself in basic agreement with the thrust of his comments, but I certainly disagree with the timing of which he speaks. My colleague knows the approach of our Government in proposing the constitutional resolution, now on the Order Paper, that deals with the absolute veto of the present Senate. The Hon. Member for Edmonton South is aware that this is merely an interim measure, with a constitutional conference scheduled before December, 1987 to discuss the issue of Senate reform in greater detail. The Hon. Member also knows that the consent of seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population of Canada is required in order to enact the changes he is suggesting.
We have all heard the expression, "If it ain't broke, fix it". I believe most Hon. Members in this chamber would agree that the Senate is not working as well as it could and perhaps it is time to fix it.
Let us take a look at this august body, the much maligned Canadian Senate. One journalist called it "The only wax museum in history where the figures actually breath". Vancouver humourist, Eric Nicol, said, "There are two kinds of people in Canada. There's the quick and there's the Senate". Columnist, Allan Fotheringham called it, "A body that bores the socks off most Canadians". Well, some of Mr. Fothering-ham's recent columns may also fall into that category, but we will not get into that.
Even the Right Hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) does not know what to make of the other place. As a 20-year-old student at the University of British Columbia he wrote in his bachelor of arts thesis in 1949, "If the Government summons men of experience and ability to the red chamber, and provides the upper House with enough work to do, there is no reason to doubt that the Senate will continue to manifest its present efficiency". But in 1961, the Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to have a change of heart. While practising law in Montreal he wrote an article lambasting the Senate as a haven of retired politicians and party bagmen. He said, "The waste of talent in recent administrations has made that chamber a functionalist oddity". There seems to be a lot of confusion all around, but I do submit that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was perhaps right the second time around.
Every so-called civilized country has a second chamber as some sort of a check on the first chamber. But I believe an appointed legislature, supported by public funds, has no place in a democratic society. That is my opinion. It is one man's opinion. What do the 24 million other Canadians think about reform of the Canadian Senate? I think we should take the time to find out, with debates such as this in the House of Commons, a constitutional conference with our premiers, and continued discussion with our constituents.
Like a bit player in the theatre, the other place since Confederation has stayed in the background. The audience is aware of its presence but the focus, as in any performance, remains on the leading players in the House of Commons. However, the bit player in our national drama has recently knocked over a prop and now stands exposed in the spotlight. Do we fire the bit player for his folly, or do we attempt to improve his performance? If we are going to improve his performance, how exactly do we do it? Some have suggested a ten-year term with elections every five years for half of that august body. Others have suggested nine-year terms with elections for a third of the members every three years. And I heard a couple of other suggestions from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South this afternoon.
We do know that reform requires consent of seven of the provinces for major changes. Abolition is a little more difficult and requires the support of all ten provinces as it affects the amending formula under the Constitution. When the Fathers of Confederation scripted this great drama about which we have been speaking, they provided for a balance between the provincial legislatures and the federal Parliament. This provision, of course, was the "other place", which would be formed on a regional basis; 24 members from the west, 24 members from Quebec, 24 members from Ontario and 24 members from the Maritimes. The flaw in this scenario is that of the three bodies, the provincial legislatures, the House of Commons and the Senate; it is the other place which is the only one not made accountable to the people through elections.
Should the Liberals and their allies ever regain centre stage, it could well result in the electors of my great province of British Columbia being once again relegated to the cheap seats. On the other hand, as my colleague the Hon. Member for Edmonton South might agree, with a regionally elected Senate with appropriate muscle Alberta would not have to accept the crippling effects of the national energy policy, as it did in previous years.
May 17, 1985

Total abolishment would doom the regions to certain further abuse from future Governments. Total abolishment would also involve asking that dottering bit player to fall on his own sword which has, until recently, remained unsheathed. But more than that, Mr. Speaker, total abolishment would remove the possibility of a responsible second chamber with equal elected provincial representation. So I think my colleague the Hon. Member for Edmonton South and I are paddling the same canoe on this issue. We only differ on when we should arrive at the rapids.
I will conclude my comments, Mr. Speaker, by saying that a few years ago I recall an Opposition Member of Parliament,
The Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982
probably one of those wise Conservatives our nation has come to know and love, saying that, "While Pierre Elliot Trudeau fiddled with the Constitution, the fire went out of the Canadian economy". Those fires are only now being rekindled. Employment initiatives, not Senate reform, are of paramount importance to the citizens of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for consideration of Private Member's Business has now expired.
It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(2) this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 21, 1985, at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 21, 1985