1986-10-21

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, over our Thanksgiving weekend, the eyes of the world were focused on Reykjavik. There, the Leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union met to reinvigorate the summit process begun last year in Geneva and to narrow some of the many differences which divide them. Their goal was to give the process impetus, and they succeeded.
Arms control and security are the central international issues of our time and the manner of their resolution will shape the global outlook for decades to come.
It is still too early to provide a final assessment of this latest meeting. The task now in Washington and in Moscow is to ensure that the progress which appears to have been made is not wasted. All Governments share in this responsibility and we in Canada must do our part.
Today, as a contribution to our own discussion and debate within this House, and in the country at large, I would like to make some brief observations about the nature of the Reykjavik meeting in the broad context of East-West relations.

First, Sir, it would be well to remember that Reykjavik was but one staging point in the difficult and unending process of managing the relations between East and West. During the meeting, both sides moved more than anyone had thought possible. Immediately after the meeting, both sides reflected their disappointment that the breakthrough that was so close did not occur. Now, reflecting on that progress, both sides agree that the proposals made in Iceland are still on the table, still in negotiation.
This process of building East-West relations has been proceeding with renewed intensity since January, 1985. Reykjavik was designed not to conclude new agreements but to lay the ground for them. Whether history will judge it a success depends entirely on the use that is made of the progress in Iceland.
The most notable aspect of the Reykjavik meeting is the extent to which both sides were able to reach understandings
on the whole range of nuclear weapons and testing. They agreed provisionally to reduce by 50 per cent within five years the main components of their strategic nuclear arsenals: land-based missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and strategic bombers. At one point in their discussion, they also agreed to eliminate ballistic missiles completely in 10 years.
On intermediate-range nuclear weapons, there was similar provisional agreement on their complete elimination from Europe within five years, with the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. each retaining only 100 warheads in Soviet Asia and the continential U.S.A. respectively. The U.S.A. and the Soviet Union also agreed on the need to negotiate reductions in short-range nuclear arsenals.
There was mutual acceptance of a step-by-step process for reducing nuclear tests, leading eventually to a complete cessation of tests once nuclear weapons had been abolished. There was a broad convergence of views on the verification procedures to be applied to the various measures.
The fact that such detailed discussions occurred and resulted in such wide-ranging, if tentative, agreement attests to the seriousness and dedication with which the two sides have been approaching their task. The main significance lies in the demonstration that major, negotiated reductions in nuclear arsenals need not be an impossible dream.
At Reykjavik three lessons were reinforced. The first two are: both sides are serious; and arms control is possible. But the third lesson is that arms control will not come easily. It is a deliberate and difficult process.
The more sobering element of reality as it has emerged from Reykjavik lies in the fact that the two sides remain far apart in their views on the future role of strategic defences. This is not a question of saying yes or no to SDI but of finding a way of managing the research on defensive weapons in which both sides are engaged.
A key issue between the two Governments is whether research is limited to the laboratory under the existing ABM Treaty. That, Sir, is a treaty with two signing parties: the United States and the Soviet Union. Its text does not refer directly to research, although the private negotiating record of either side may mention research. The agreement on what precisely is intended in that treaty is for these two Governments which are the parties to the agreement to work out.
It is important to note that this is a different issue from the debate we have seen in recent months over what is allowed by agreed statement "D" of the ABM treaty referring to ABM systems based on other physical principles. Our interest in

October 21, 1986
Statements by Ministers
Canada is to ensure strict adherence to that treaty, and continued respect by both sides for the integrity of this fundamental arms control document.
The situation today in no way represents a step backward from the situation as it existed prior to the Reykjavik meeting. Technological, political and legal uncertainties and disagreements have always characterized the debate on strategic defence. Even in this area, however, there has in our judgment been some movement toward better mutual understanding, in that the legitimacy of research related to strategic defence is now accepted by both sides. In a treaty that refers explicitly only to "development, testing and deployment", the issue has become, in effect, what are the limits of permissible research.

Mr. Speaker, we ought not to allow ourselves to focus exclusively on nuclear and strategic arms questions as if they constituted the totality of East-West relations. True, these issues have inescapably become the central element of this relationship, but they should not be seen in isolation from the broader context. There are other areas of arms control, most notably in relation to chemical weapons, where there is ground for cautious optimism. Further, we understand that on human rights questions and on a range of bilateral matters, progress continues to be made.
Mr. Speaker, I should add that I was encouraged by my own talks on human Rights with Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze, when he visited Ottawa. Our discussion was frank and more open than I believe has been the case before. Canada believes progress here and on regional issues is essential to enable us to establish trust in each other's intentions. This process of building trust is far from finished.
Peace and security require patience and persistence. Emotional swings between exaggerated expectations and gloomy foreboding do not facilitate the necessarily careful and painstaking way in which difficult policy choices must be tackled.
As both the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and 1 have made clear, the USA and USSR have made remarkable progress on the central arms control and disarmament issues over the past months. They are still seriously engaged in the task of seeking compromise on remaining areas of disagreement.
[DOT] (UIO)
We are encouraged by the public undertakings of both the President and the General Secretary to build on the progress which was achieved at Reykjavik. The resumption last Wednesday in Geneva of the nuclear and space negotiations can only be regarded as more good news.

The superpowers have succeeded in bringing a major arms control agreement tantalizingly close.
We cannot stop here. We have to move ahead. Arms control is a fragile process. Its environment must be protected. It is
therefore doubly important that all actions be resisted which might be seen as weakening or unravelling the existing international framework on which East-West relations and arms control are built.
Much attention has been focused on SDI and the ABM Treaty. The Geneva negotiations will need to resolve the differences that continue to exist here. Progress in other areas should not be held hostage to the resolution of these difficulties. Our European allies are especially concerned with intermediate nuclear forces. Canada would like to see an agreement in this area as well as in the area of strategic weapons, which threaten us directly.
Canada believes firmly in the value of the confidential negotiating forum. It is, in the end, irreplaceable. But it can be aided through techniques such as special envoys and, as we have just seen, by summits. We would urge both superpowers to continue to use all these techniques, and not rely on negotiating in public.
If a summit in Washington this fall is now unlikely, setting a date for early next year could help maintain the impetus of the process.
Canada is involved in East-West relations as a member of the NATO alliance. That alliance is the foundation of our security. What happens at the negotiating table between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. has a direct bearing on our own security. We are at the same time a nation dedicated to peace. Canadians have always worked for peace and international understanding. We have not, and will not, hesitate to make our views known: Publicly when that is appropriate; privately on a permanent basis.
But Canada's role is not simply to give advice. Many of the persisting obstacles to negotiating progress arise directly from a lack of trust. The priority attention Canada has given to verification issues in particular attacks this question directly. Arms control agreements alone do not produce security; confidence in compliance produces security. Verification justifies that confidence. Such an approach enhances the credibility of Canada's counsel.
Canada's participation as a western country in the process of building East-West relations will continue. The visit to Canada in the last month of Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze and the Czechoslovak Prime Minister were part of this process. Early next month I will travel to Vienna for the opening of the CSCE follow-up meeting which deals with East-West relations from the human rights, security, economic and human contact dimensions. It provides us with yet another opportunity to move the process ahead in an integrated comprehensive manner.
Our hopes for real progress in East-West relations were strengthened by the developments at Reykjavik. Canada has been in touch with both sides, before and since the meeting in Iceland. We will continue to use all our resources to help the United States and the Soviet Union build on what they began.
October 21, 1986


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I should say at the outset that I have rather mixed feelings about the appearance here today of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the comments he has just made. I should also say at the outset that he had the courtesy to deliver to me a copy of his comments this morning so I have had an opportunity to look at them. I am pleased that he is here and using the House as a forum within which to advise the Canadian people and parliamentarians of the policy of the Government. However, I hope that when he appears before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade he will be somewhat more forthcoming and somewhat more courageous than he has been here today. It is not clear to me why this statement has been delivered in the House of Commons.

I must say I was very disappointed in the substance of what he just told us, Mr. Speaker. We have been offered nothing but generalities and cliches on disarmament and Canadian policy.

His comments are optimistic in the aftermath of the Reykjavik Summit meeting. He saw progress arising from that summit between Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev. To a degree I share that optimism. However, I must say it has been very much tempered by the outcome.

In my view, a historic opportunity was lost in Reykjavik. Will there be others? We can only hope so. Mr. Speaker, behind the clouds the sun continues to shine and for a few moments in Reykjavik, the clouds lifted.

Yet the clouds returned and, as I said, the opportunity was lost. It was lost because of the insistence of the United States on continuing to develop its star wars initiative, the Strategic Defence Initiative, beyond laboratory testing.
The Minister declared, and I read from his statement:
]Translation]
"Canadians have always worked for peace and international understanding. Wc have not hesitated, and will not hesitate to make our views known: Publicly when that is appropriate, privately on a permanent basis."
Canada has not made known its true views on the SDI initiative of the United States. The Secretary of State for External Affairs certainly did not do that this morning. In fact, if anything, the Minister's statement waffled on a very important issue. I am amazed at the extent to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has attempted not to speak out, having declared in the closing paragraphs of his remarks that Canada never hesitates to speak out.
Statements by Ministers
The Minister referred to the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems Agreement which was adopted in May, 1972, between the superpowers. That ABM Treaty is very much at the heart, from a legal point of view, of the disputes surrounding the Strategic Defence Initiative. With respect to it the Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
The agreement on what precisely is intended in that treaty is for these two Governments who are the parties to the agreement to work out.
That sounds as though this were some sort of private contractual relationship between two individuals or two corporations. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself has said, this treaty goes to the very heart of world security, yet he refuses to offer the Government's view as to how the star wars initiative can be rationalized with the terms of that treaty.
I will read the most relevant article from the treaty. Article V reads:
1.	Each Party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, air-based, space-based, or mobile land-based.
2.	Each Party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy ABM launchers for launching more than one ABM interceptor missile at a time from each launcher, nor to modify deployed launchers to provide them with such a capability, nor to develop, test, or deploy automatic or semi-automatic or other similar systems for rapid reload of ABM launchers.
Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs not have a view on the application of Article V to the Strategic Defence Initiative of the United States? I suspect that he does have a view and has not yet disclosed it to us in the House. I hope he will before the committee.
My real point this morning is not to debate legalities, not to get into nitpicking legal argument as to whether something is or is not covered by Article V. The real issue is political will, the importance of world leaders exercising their respective judgments on behalf of the peoples they lead and not being the captives of nitpicking bureaucrats. That applies to the Soviet Union as it applies to the United States and the Minister. If I ever saw a statement which was prepared by nitpicking bureaucrats, it is the one which the Minister read to us this morning. When Pierre Elliott Trudeau put the nuclear accountants in their place he made the point that it is up to leaders to exercise their judgment. That is the only way in which progress is going to be made. That is the way in which progress must be made. There must be trust between the leaders.
I suggest to the Minister and my colleagues in the House that the Strategic Defence Initiative is, by definition, a statement of mistrust. We in our Party see it as much more than a statement of mistrust. We see it as destabilizing, as an escalation in the arms race and as an incredible waste of precious resources which could and should be applied to raising the quality of life on this planet, especially in the Third World. We all know that in the long term it is that growing economic disparity which poses the greatest threat to mankind.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has not spoken out. He has not revealed his true beliefs. Surely he saw

October 21, 1986
Statements by Ministers
Reykjavik as a unique opportunity for a major breakthrough in arms control and disarmament, and that major opportunity has been jeopardized. I know that as the Minister watched this scenario unfold he probably recalled the words of Shakespeare who said:
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
I ask the Minister to do his part, to speak out to the United States, the Soviet Union and the world to ensure that that tide is recaptured in the interest of international peace and security.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I will begin my comments by agreeing with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) that the whole world was indeed watching what was taking place at Reykjavik on Thanksgiving weekend. It watched with a great deal of hope that the two superpowers might reach an agreement, not simply on limiting weapons of one kind or another but on serious reductions of weapons. That was the hope, not only of Canadians but of people throughout the planet.

The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the superpowers have made progress. That is true. The Minister stressed that the two parties have agreed to put certain suggestions they discussed in Reykjavik on the table. They intend to continue their discussions, and I agree. We have seen progress at certain levels, but it is also true that the superpowers have lost an historic opportunity. I hope that this time, the loss will be only temporary, but the fact is there just the same.

They did lose what was almost within their grasp. It is with some sadness that the people of Canada and all the people of the world note this reality.
In this context we in this House have been rightly critical of the Soviet Union for many years, not only on internal arrangements about civil liberties, on which there is total agreement in this House, but in particular of the Soviet Union's reluctance to open itself to outside observers to ensure that agreements entered into were implemented. As I said, we have been rightly critical. Those of us who live in open societies have been trying to feel our way toward sensible proposals which could lead, not only to arms control but to disarmament. We have been critical of the Soviet's reluctance to open up.
A year ago last summer in Geneva I had occasion to have very serious discussions, back to back, with the principal Soviet negotiator Mr. Karpov on the one hand, and the principal American negotiator, Max Kampelman, on the other. Let me say, in the context of what took place at Reykjavik, that having had these conversations with these two key representatives of the two superpowers I certainly did not come away
with any high degree of optimism. It seemed to me a year ago last summer that both the Soviet Union and the United States were locked into positions that made it almost impossible for an agreement to be reached. Neither side seemed willing to make key concessions.
I wish the Secretary of State for External Affairs had been open on this point.
If one looks at what was agreed to at Reykjavik in terms of the shifting of positions, I think it is clear that the Soviet Union made the major moves. There were half a dozen key positions, including verification procedures, to which they rigidly held. We saw them shift ground as they needed to shift ground. It seems to me that when we in the House and throughout western democratic society see that kind of move taking place, particularly under new leadership in the Soviet Union, which may now be challenged as a result of some shifts that have been taken, we ought to give credit where credit is due. I see the Secretary of State nodding his head in agreement with that point.
There were moves on both sides, but the major moves were taken by the Soviet Union. I think we must carefully look for the stumbling block that led to the breakdown of what could have been an historic agreement. I believe the evidence is very clear, if we do not blind ourselves to it. The stumbling block, as I see it and which, frankly, as disinterested observers in Europe and indeed the United States and our country see it, was in fact President Reagan's insistence on the United States' right to go ahead with the development of testing of star wars during the next 10 years and the right to deploy such a system at the end of the decade. I use those words with care and say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that such development, testing and deployment are in clear violation of Article V of the ABM Treaty.
I would have liked the Secretary of State for External Affairs to say that clearly in the House today. It is very important for us to understand as a nation, and very important for the world to understand that the stumbling block to reaching an agreement in terms of all the documents that have emerged and statements that have been made has been the United States' insistence in these discussions on its right to break the existing ABM Treaty. I believe that is the unvarnished reality.
The spokesperson for the Liberal Party has read Article V so I will not repeat it. However, not only is the U.S. proposal a violation of Article V, it is important to note that by pursuing this course of action at Reykjavik the United States in fact reversed Secretary of State Shultz's commitment to a "restrictive interpretation" of the treaty which is very precise in prohibiting testing and development of the star wars system.
In this context let me say that the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself cited Mr. Shultz on this point in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on December 4, 1985. He cited with approval Mr. Shultz's restrictive interpretation definition of the ABM
October 21, 1986

Treaty. Furthermore, not only did our External Affairs Minister correctly stress the restrictive interpretation and correctly point out that Mr. Shultz, in disagreement with some other U.S. officials, had taken this restrictive interpretation, since the two key members of the U.S. delegation who in fact negotiated the ABM Treaty have confirmed that the intent and wording of the ABM Treaty was to exclude the development and testing of systems like star wars. Mr. Gerard Smith and Mr. John Rhinelander, two principals of the team that the Americans had negotiating the ABM Treaty, are saying that that treaty prohibits quite categorically the development and testing of a star wars type system. That is precisely what President Reagan was insisting upon as the United States, right at Reykjavik.
In today's statement the Secretary of State for External Affairs made no reference whatsoever to this crucial point, which is the nub of the issue. Why is the Secretary of State for External Affairs avoiding the central question? It is one matter to go and talk about the precise limits of research, but it is quite another to miss the key point, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has done.
Not many weeks ago he was quite happy to talk in specific reference to the ABM Treaty and a restrictive definition. Now he has shifted ground entirely and says that what is at issue and what must be talked about, according to the Secretary of State, are: "the limits on permissible research which now has become the issue". Surely such a narrow discussion as "the limits on permissible research" is now described as the issue only because the United States administration has refused to back away from insisting on its right to test and deploy the star wars system. Instead of forthrightly criticizing the Reagan administration for this, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is now helping them get the focus away from their desire to violate the ABM Treaty. I say to the Minister that this is unacceptable to the people of Canada and unacceptable to all those who want independent nations to work toward disarmament at this point in world history.
Surely Canada must show some real independence in this matter. We must be telling the Reagan administration that it is wrong. The Secretary of State for External Affairs says: "It is not a question of saying yes or no to SDI but of finding a way of managing the research on defensive systems in which both sides are engaged". With respect, I say to the Minister that he is wrong. It is a matter of saying no to SDI, whether it is developed in the Soviet Union or the United States. The ABM Treaty was quite specifically designed to avoid the development of new technologies for this kind of weapons system. It is time that we put an end to this kind of lunacy in the world and we have an oblilgation to say so.
What seems to be clearly involved in the pursuit of the Reagan administration-not the American people-is the scuttling of the ABM Treaty. The Minister talked about looking at these new grounds for discussion and new grounds for agreement. I ask him, what use can a new agreement be if
Introduction of Bills
we stand by and watch either one of the superpowers undermine existing agreements? We have now a rather fragile instrument in the world in this field and that is the ABM Treaty. We have an obligation as a nation not to stand back and let the superpowers do whatever they will. We must exercise our influence with dispassion, with care and with intelligence, and that means when one of them is clearly wrong we should say they are wrong. When one of them is taking steps which could seriously jeopardize the development of peace, we should be saying so.
I want to say in this context that the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau-despite all those other particular matters about which my Party and I disagreed with him-had an appropriate sense of the role that Canada could play. He, along with Olaf Palme, the Prime Minister of India and the President of Mexico, had shown remarkable independence in criticizing both the United States and the Soviet Union when they were wrong. I wish we had that kind of independent thought functioning in foreign policy, especially on disarmament, today.
I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to think carefully about what he has said, note that he missed the essence of the problem, reconsider his policy and start showing some independence which could have some concrete results leading to disarmament in this world of ours.


NATIONAL ANTHEM ACT
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-232, an Act to amend the National Anthem Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, this Bill to amend the National Anthem Act remedies a situation which has existed in the words of our National Anthem "O Canada" since it was first approved by the Parliament of Canada, particularly the reference to "all our sons" which leaves out a very important sex in our society. This amendment would eliminate those words "all our sons" and replace them with the words "all of us", thereby eliminating the sexist reference in our National Anthem.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be
printed.
[Stage Direction]
October 21, 1986
Introduction of Bills CRIME VICTIMS ASSISTANCE ACT

Howard Edward Crosby: for leave to introduce Bill C-233, an Act to provide assistance for victims of crime.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, this Bill enacts a new statute called the Crime Victims Assistance Act. Those who are familiar with the administration of justice in Canada will know that there is no recognition or status given in our system to the victims of crime. This legislation will remedy that situation and provide specific remedies for victims of crime. It is the kind of legislation which is long overdue.
It was referred in the last session of the House of Commons to the Committee on Justice for consideration.


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

Howard Edward Crosby: for leave to introduce Bill C-234, an Act to require assistance in the search for missing children.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, this Bill would enact the Missing Children Search Act. There are some problems in society about which we can do little. One problem about which we can do much is the subject of missing children. This is one measure to assist in that problem and I hope it receives the favourable consideration of the House.
This Bill in the first session of this Parliament was considered by the special committee which considers Bills and rejected. With the wide interest there is in this Bill across Canada, I think that decision should be considered as the Bill comes again before the committee.


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

Mr. Alan Redway (York East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-235, an Act to amend the Federal Court Act, the Northwest Territories Act, the Supreme Court Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Yukon Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as you know, under the new rules of the House, all appointments that are made by the federal Government to federal boards and agencies are subject to review by Parliamentary Committee. That right does not apply when the federal Government appoints a judge to a federal court. This Bill would require after the appointment, or upon the appointment of judges by the federal Government, that the appointment be reviewed by a Parliamentary Committee.


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

Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-236, an Act respecting the use of Social Insurance numbers.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, the objective of this proposed legislation is to protect the privacy and freedom of the individual. Increasingly, the Social Insurance number has been employed as a kind of national identifier. It has been used by landlords, merchants, banks, credit agencies and insurance companies in a way which involves the potential invasion of the privacy of the individual, opening up to institutions and agencies information which should not be publicly available.
The intent of this Bill is to restrict the requirement of the Social Insurance Number only to those activities that are covered by Acts of Parliament and require the use of that number, which was the original intent of the SIN. My Bill would restore that practice.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?
October 21, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, October 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise that Bill C-2, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 38 minutes beginning at one o'clock.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in the last 48 hours 1 have had the opportunity to spend several periods of time talking with various agricultural organizations and groups in western Canada. It is hard to put into words the depth of concern and anxiety that they feel about the incredible crisis being felt in our commodity markets. Western Canada and, indeed, the entire agricultural sector of Canada know that they are in the fight of their lives, that many signs and portents are clearly apparent which point to a challenge and a threat to the basic underlying strength of this sector. I say this because of the actions by other countries to substantially increase the support and assistance they give to agricultural export markets.
The problem we face is one of basic over-supply of many of our basic commodities, particularly in the area of grain. We all know exactly how serious that is and how, at the present time, there is no apparent answer. I grant full well that the decision taken at the meetings in Uruguay to commence negotiations was a step in the right direction. However, it is a step that will take years to bring to fruition. In the meantime we are faced with the actions in the United States under the U.S. Farm Bill, which are not over. Those who think that the worst impacts of
Canagrex
the U.S. Bill have been felt up until now are kidding themselves. It is clear that the discretion under that piece of U.S. legislation to continue to ratchet down prices and provide export subsidies will continue. The discussions I had with U.S. officials in Punta del Este, Uruguay, only confirmed that.
It is clear that the objective is basically to put a lot of us in the agricultural trade out of business. The high volume-low price theory is being emphasized. No mercy will be shown to any country. This clearly points out the necessity for an export strategy, a world-wide trade strategy specifically designated to assist our agricultural sector. We do not have this at the present time. There is no trade strategy on agriculture. There is but a series of ad hoc, capricious reactions to events. There has been a wide variety of attempted bail-outs, but there is nothing coherent, nothing that is able to provide any clear direction as to how we might meet the challenge we face.
I would like to give Hon. Members an example of this. At the negotiations undertaken in Uruguay to put agriculture on the table it was clear that many countries felt that Canada was not playing its role to the fullest, in essence, not pulling its fair share. I say this because one of the things we obviously avoided doing at those meetings was make any effort to introduce into the talks how we could substantially increase the earnings and incomes of many Third World countries which, as a group, have come to form our second-largest customer over the years.
The level of Canadian agricultural exports to Third World countries over the last five years has dropped by almost 40 per cent. No one can take satisfaction in that figure. One would think that it would be in the Canadian interest to put into place the type of measures or proposals which would give much stronger levels of assistance to those countries in order to increase their cash flows so that they might be able, once again, to come back in to the market and procure our various commodities. However, Canada took no such initiatives in that direction. I report to Members of the House that this inaction caused a great deal of regret on the part of many officials of other countries to whom I spoke who asked, "What is wrong with Canada?" I was asked why we were not out there leading in this particular area.
I see that the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) is in the House. I would like to repeat to him what his colleague from Argentina had to say about the performance at Cairns. It was not particularly complimentary. In other words, Canada did not achieve the type of stimulation in terms of a broad-based discussion of the areas we had to initiate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, Members opposite laugh. Out of deference to the sensitivities of the Minister I will not repeat the words that were used and printed in The Financial Post and other newspapers for all to see.
The fact of the matter is we do not have a clear strategy as to what we are attempting to achieve. To make matters worse,

October 21, 1986
Canagrex
we now have legislation before us to dissolve Canagrex after some two years. Once again the Government has shown its dispatch in terms of dealing with these types of matters. The formation of Canagrex was designed to give Canada the opportunity to develop new markets around the world for a wide variety of agricultural products that are not covered by the Canadian Wheat Board. In a sense, Canagrex was the equivalent of the Canadian Wheat Board. It dealt with a range of alternate commodities. I only wish to point out what is apparent, that is, the illogic and inconsistency of Conservative Members of Parliament from western Canada who on any and almost all occasions stand up and swear by the sanctity of the Canadian Wheat Board, but who are not prepared to grant the same type of resources to other agricultural commodities. How is it logical to say that what is good for grains is not good for fruits, vegetables, honey and other products?


Mr. Malone:: Because farm groups don't want it.


Lloyd Axworthy: I hear a tinny voice from the background. Of course the farmers want it. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture supported it. Is that not a farm group? The last I heard, it represented a lot of farmers.
I suppose the Conservative Party no longer recognizes the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Tory Members have dismissed it. I want it put on the record that members of the Conservative Party no longer recognize the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. That will come as some news to the Federation. Now we know one of the reasons why the Government is getting rid of Canagrex. It refuses to recognize a large part of the Canadian agricultural sector. It says it does not exist. It is invisible to the eyes of Tory Members. Now I begin to understand. It is simply this kind of blindness on the part of Conservative Members that prevents us from keeping Canagrex.
What was Canagrex designed to do? Who is going to quarrel with me when I say that it was designed to do market development? A primary and essential requirement is to open up new markets for agricultural commodities. Anyone who is involved in international trade will say that it takes time and resources to develop a market. It is not developed overnight. There has to be investment, there has to be a cultivation of networks and there has to be promotion. It may take three or four years before sales begin and, as we well know, many producers do not have those kinds of resources. They do not have the staying power to go into a market and use their front-end investments to allow them over a period of years to develop the capacity to sell. Yet that is the only way to do it. Canagrex was designed to do that initial market promotion and development and to give it a chance to stick.
What was wrong with having an organization representing a number of commodity sectors doing market development and promotion on behalf of all commodity sectors and opening up those opportunities? We hear such brave words about the need to open up access to markets. As we all know, the Conservative
Party virtually restricts itself to the United States of America. That is the only place about which it is concerned. For many of the other countries of the world where there is demand for our products it is not prepared to invest the time or money or to put the organizational skill to work to make that happen.
I can give you an example of this, Madam Speaker. Three or four years ago I went on a tour of refugee camps in Central America. I found to my delight that one of the major products we sold to that area was beans from Manitoba, a potential alternate crop that will pick up the slack that will occur as our grain markets are faced with a squeeze-play between the United States and the European Economic Community. There is an incredible opportunity to open up those markets in many of those countries. Again, those markets in Central America were opened up through very careful work which occurred over a long period of time. That example could be applied to a wide variety of nations throughout the world.
It is clear from all the testimony and evidence the committee heard that many Canadian farm groups and farm producers are not capable of mounting a long-term developmental investment. Therefore, we brought in Canagrex to make it happen, to allow those groups to find the markets and to invest in the promotion. That has now been taken away. Once again, these groups have been side-swiped by the great theology of the market-place: go forward on your own. However, that is not the way it works.
Certainly every other country including the great fountainhead of market-place theology, the United States, is making every effort to provide major support for various commodity sectors. We are not doing it, though. We are being too pristine and pure about it. God forbid that Canada should advance and expand its agricultural markets. That would run against the grand theology.
When looking at the figures, it is interesting to note how these markets have been shrinking in the last couple of years. Yet this brave new Government is eliminating one of the few major resources we had designed to offset that shrinkage. Furthermore, I think the Government can be properly accused of fooling and perhaps even misleading many of the farm organizations. The Government said it did not like Canagrex but that it would replace it with similar resources and similar efforts through other government organizations. It said that it did not want another Crown corporation because it already had enough, so it would use the Export Development Corporation and the trade offices of External Affairs. It said it would put new money in the Estimates of the External Affairs Trade Department in order to provide an effective alternative or replacement.
Where is that replacement? Can anyone find it? Is there anything in the Export Development Corporation that will provide an effective alternative to Canagrex? No. In fact, suggestions have been made by the press that the Tories want to get rid of the Export Development Corporation. They want to wipe it off the books and restrict its activities. Where is the new money for agriculture in the Estimates of the External
October 21, 1986

Affairs Department for development and promotion of trade? Once again, there is nothing but a blank page. There is no alternative being provided.
At a crucial period in the life of Canadian agriculture, a time when it is fighting for its life to maintain markets around the world and to acquire new ones, the Canadian Government has made a clear and unmistakable decision to pull the props out, to retreat, to withdraw and to recede from those markets. It is absolutely incomprehensible. It defies logic, common sense and intelligence.
At a time when we face this incredible problem around the world, when we face the attack of the U.S. Farm Bill, when we see the kind of export promotion the European Economic Community is doing and when we face incredible pressure on grain trade, knowing that we have to find and develop new markets, why is the Ministry in full retreat? It is in retreat simply for reasons of ideological purity or theological precision. No one can understand the kind of curious motivation which works inside the heads of Tories. However, we do know that Canadian farmers are being left stranded in the international market with no support, no resources and no capacity to compete.
One can only say that eventually Tories will pay the price. We know what is happening in the farm sectors across Canada now. We are aware of the kind of protests that are being raised and of the kind of anger that is being shown. We are aware of the frustration that exists.
This Government came in with a pocketful of promises. Every time the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) saw two farmers at a crossroads he had five more promises to make.


Mr. Boudria:: Three hundred and thirty-eight altogether.


Lloyd Axworthy: Three hundred and thirty-eight promises, and the count is still rising. Everywhere there was a promise: "I will do more. I will provide more. I will pay more." But when you get down to the hard reality, it is retreat, withdrawal, elimination.
It is very clear that one of the important elements in developing new international markets is research and development, to develop new products and new strains of commodities. Yet, once again what do we have from the Conservative Government when it comes to agricultural research and development? We have cut back, elimination, close down, shut off. Once again, there is a total contradiction between promise and performance.
We feel it is important to bring to the attention of Canadians the reason we oppose this Bill. This Government is guilty of indifference to the important issue of how Canadian farmers are going to be able to survive and grow in a very tough and competitive international trading environment.
Canagrex


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments.


Mr. Foster:: I was interested in the speech by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). He crystalized the whole down-grading which has taken place in agriculture commodities and sales.
If you look through the approximately 20 Tory promises in the 1984 election you will see that a lot of those promises have been broken. Try as you may, nowhere do you find in those Tory promises that they are going to destroy or take away Canagrex from the producers of the less volume commodities.
Clearly, when Canagrex was established there were a lot of commodity groups who looked for support and assistance from the Government. Now they are being dashed by this action to destroy Canagrex. If we look at the promises the Tories made in the 1984 election we see many things, but they certainly did not promise to take away Canagrex.
For instance, they promised to abandon Section 31 of the Income Tax Act to reflect the principles of equity. Even though that was referred to a standing committee, and that committee made a report, no action was taken in that regard. They promised to establish a board of authority to control tobacco production and prices. The passage of that legislation was expedited in one sitting of the House, but still the Government has not passed the necessary Order in Council. They promised to expand the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act into a national farm and forestry rehabilitation act. They have never carried out that promise.
It seems to me that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg Fort- Garry has provided an excellent documentation of how the Government makes promises, but does not keep them, and how the Government talks about increasing export sales. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in Prince Albert in July of 1984 said he was going to make Canada a superpower in agriculture commodity sales around the world. We only have to look at what his friend the President of the United States has done, and how he has responded, to see that Canadian farmers have never been put in a worse financial position in their lives. Not since R.B. Bennett was the Prime Minister has the situation been worse than the situation we have today under the present Government. The Hon. Member has made some excellent points. I would just ask him to respond to the questions I have raised.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I will be more than happy to go through the Hon. Member's recitation. What he is pointing out very clearly is that the problems that we face do require some very skillful and important forms of government legislation and initiative. It is not sufficient to withdraw the assistance of Government itself. We know full well that the export market in agricultural commodities is one that is shifting quite substantially. The danger posed to many of our agricultural products, because of the Canada-U.S. trade negotiations, is also very serious. Yet what we see happening on the domestic side, in terms of preparation by investing

October 21, 1986
Canagrex
resources, investing in research, investing in a proper support system, investing in export assistance, is that none of that has taken place.
The proposals that we open up our access to markets seems to somehow preclude taking the appropriate action within our own domestic spirit. We are not helping to modernize the system, or provide for the innovation in the system, or the development of the markets in the system. That goes back to a fundamental flaw in the approach to trade, whether it is in agriculture or any other product. You cannot improve your capacity for trade unless you are also improving those products within your own domestic market-place, and the capacity to meet international demands and requirements.
Not only is it a question of promises not being fulfilled, but many of the important and constructive programs are being eliminated. How can a cut-back in agricultural research be justified? How can anyone in their right mind assume that we will be able to respond to new international competitive forces when we are cutting back on our research stations, or university programs on agricultural research? It simply begs logic and common sense to do that. Yet, that is what is going on. You only have to look at every resolution passed by every farm organization to say, "For God's sake, stop this insanity." At least in one area give us the capacity to keep our industry and commodities up to date and innovative. Nothing but a blind eye and a deaf ear has been turned to those pleas. As a result, we are substantially weakening the ability of our agricultural sector to compete and provide for the kind of forward-looking markets needed in the future.


Mr. Gauthier:: I would like to ask my colleague for Winnipeg-Fort Garry a question relating to the last point he made. Indeed, we are playing into the hands of the Americans somewhat in destroying Canagrex and reducing the competitiveness of Canadian farm producers by not having a government corporation doing the marketing for those farmers. How does he see this having an impact on our commercial relations with the Americans? Does he see this as a move on the part of the Government to destroy Canagrex so that they will kowtow to the Americans a little better and make friends? Then they indeed can get the free trade deal back on track, so the Americans feel happy about it? Does he feel that there is any relationship between the free trade negotiations and the fact that the Government has destroyed Canagrex?


Lloyd Axworthy: It has been quite apparent in the statements made by the trade negotiator for the United States, as well as other officials in the United States, and Members of Congress, that they do not like the way we do business in Canada. They think we should be like them. As a result, one of the threats that we face in the Canada-U.S. negotiations is a clear challenge to things like our marketing board system, our supply management system and our transportation support programs. They are clearly part of what is being challenged.
I might refer the Hon. Member to a study done by the Canada West Foundation which came out just this month. It points out that a number of key agricultural sectors in western Canada, such as the feather trades, egg, poultry, turkey, and others, and the vegetable and horticultural trades would be wiped out at a moment's notice: they would not last 24 hours under Canada-U.S. negotiation.
It is very clear that what this Government is doing right across the board is tailoring many of its own domestic responses and programs to suit what it thinks is a compatible appearance and perception by the Americans. As a result the Americans do not like the idea that we would use the constructive ability of government to assist in these areas, whether it be by marketing boards or trading corporations to try to develop those areas. I think the Hon. Member has made an important point. We cannot ignore the clear relationship between the obsession regarding Canada-U.S. trade and the unwillingness to go forward to help our commodity producers to develop new markets through an operation like Canagrex.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period provided for questions and comments has now expired. Is the House ready for the question? The question is as follows:-


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I was afraid for a moment that you had not seen me.
1 would not want to miss this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the destruction of Canagrex by the Tories.
I would like to begin my remarks by congratulating you on your new position in the Chair which I have not yet had the opportunity to do. I know that you will discharge your functions with utmost non-partisanship. I am sure you will excel in that way and I want to take this opportunity to offer you my personal congratulations.
I am going to speak a little bit about this measure of the Conservative Government to dissolve Canagrex, although the words should really be to destroy Canagrex. Why are the Conservatives so bent on getting rid of this organization? Is it merely a partisan gesture on their part? You, being the nonpartisan person that you are, Madam Speaker, would know how partisan those Tories can be on occasion. But why destroy Canagrex? Why do it now?
Let me look into those two issues; first, the Bill. It is a very small piece of legislation with very few clauses. It has enormous ramifications as I see it on the agricultural industry of our country. The question that begs to be asked is, does this Bill have support in the farming community? It does not if we go back to the original group of people who supported the concept of having an international strategy through Canagrex in the first place. Let me list some of the people who advocated Canagrex and supported its establishment: the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Eastern Ontario Potato
October 21, 1986

Producers Council, the New Brunswick Potato Agency, the National Farmers Union; l'Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec; the Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board; the Canadian Pork Council; the Canadian Horticultural Council; the Ontario Flue Cured Tobacco Marketing Board; the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board and the Ontario Soybean Growers. I understand there were others who supported the original Bill to establish Canagrex provided that it had slight modifications. Those who supported that Bill were: the Canadian Food Processors Association; the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Alberta Swine Breeders, the Manitoba Cattle Producers; the Alberta Cattle Feeders; the PEI Potato Marketing Board; the Alberta Beekeeper's Association and the Western Stock Growers.
For whom does the Government pretend it is speaking in trying to dissolve the Canagrex Corporation?

Madam Speaker, perhaps the inherent contradiction in professing to be both progressive and conservative is becoming ever more obvious. In light of its policy aimed at dismantling Canagrex, it looks as though their Party should be labelled regressive conservative instead of progressive conservative. Is it one of the basic tenets of the Conservative Party that the state should not interfere like this with market forces? Is this the real identity of the Conservative Party? Did the Party's right extremists pressure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and lobby to have Canagrex put to rest? I wish Conservative Members opposite would enlighten us because it is crystal clear that the farming community does not support the abolition of Canagrex.
Madam Speaker, in my mail this morning I received an invitation from Le regroupement agro-alimentaire de Prescott-Russell, a groups of constituents who would like me to attend a seminar on the marketing of farm products. Here we have this Conservative Government bent on annihilating a Government agency designed to promote the marketing of agricultural products, yet a group of people from my own riding-which you know quite well, Madam Speaker, since you have to travel through it every time you leave your own riding to come here on Parliament Hill-has set up this seminar for November 29 this year. Here is what they are asking me: "Immediately reserve Saturday November 29 to come and promote the agricultural food industry in our counties. Saturday the 29th will be set aside to inform, educate, enlighten and brief all seminar participants on the possibility of processing and selling more farm products." As you can see, Madam Speaker, my constituents-like those in all other agricultural ridings throughout Canada, I am sure- want to boost the sale of their products precisely when the Conservative Party is trying to destroy Canagrex, our very own national marketing agency.

Why is it important to have Canagrex, Madam Speaker? Why is it important to keep it, particularly now? First, we
Canagrex
should look at the fact that the Progressive Conservative Party during the last election campaign promised the Canadian people that it would improve sales of agricultural products. I see a Conservative Member across the way from an agricultural area. I have something to read to him. I will read it slowly so that he can understand everything. The Conservative Party put out a press release dated July 5, 1984 entitled "Prince Albert Caucus Progressive Conservative Agenda for Government Policy Area: Agriculture". Here are some of the things the Tories said during the election campaign in that press release:
Canada can be a world superpower in agriculture. We have the land base, the climate, the technology and, most importantly, a strong and determined farm community.
Under Progressive Conservative Commitments, which is a euphemism for Tory promises we find:
We will work with all producers, whether they choose to establish a marketing board or another type of marketing sytem. Some commodities are sold and promoted by marketing boards and agencies; others are sold and promoted in different ways. A PC Government will respect any decision made by the producers.
I have just finished reading to you a list of producers who wanted to have a Canagrex agency, Madam Speaker.
I ask the Hon. Member, when he votes on this Bill will he respect the commitment made on July 5, 1984 by the Conservative Party? How will he reconcile his conscience with the way he votes? I suppose Tories can reconcile anything with their consciences. Fet me read further:
A PC Government will respect any decision made by the producers. Our goal is to assist farmers and, through such systems, to develop greater sales and a greater return for their various products.
What happened to that?
Fet me read further:
We have always recognized the valuable contribution of grain and oilseed exports to Canada's balance of payments. We will, therefore, work to increase exports and stimulate production to meet those export demands.
Another commitment:
A PC Government will develop a healthy Canadian agricultural industry by providing a strong agriculture research base through greater assistance for agricultural colleges, more funding for agricultural research and development and amending tax policy to encourage private sector investment.
I think all those promises I have read to you, Madam Speaker, have been broken in this Bill before us today. Every single one of them.
The next question is, why should we have a Canagrex, particularly now? The Member across the way who is heckling from behind the curtains should know that Canada is faced with a very grave situation in agriculture right now. This has been caused in large measure by an initiative outside of this country known as the U.S. Farm Bill. The official name is the Food Security Act of 1985 of the United States of America.


Arnold John Malone: On what commodities?


Don Boudria: That Bill applies to a large variety of commodities, to answer the Hon. Member. Although he heckles a

October 21, 1986
Canagrex
lot, he seems to be at least paying attention to my speech. The U.S. Farm Bill will affect everything from grain to milk to meat products, honey, and a variety of other commodities which will now be subsidized by the U.S. Government to a large and significant extent. The purpose is to displace foreign sales and replace them with U.S. sales. Some $70 billion U.S. will be injected into support programs to compete against Canadian products and others.
What are we doing as a country, as a Parliament, to ensure that we do not lose those sales? We are abolishing whatever small measures we have to help our agricultural industry. Some Tories across the way laugh at that. They are so partisan. Why can they not think for a minute about the agricultural community that sent them here? I guess they will have to reconcile that later, if not with their consciences at least with their voters. The agricultural community is not going to like this one bit.


Arnold John Malone: I will take you on in any agricultural community anywhere in Canada.


Don Boudria: The agricultural community of my riding is very upset with this Government, and rightfully so.


Arnold John Malone: Look at their Member.


Don Boudria: The agricultural community right across this country is displeased with the way this Conservative Government has failed to deliver on its promises.


Arnold John Malone: What happened in Saskatchewan last night?


Don Boudria: 1 see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) in the House. I will remind him that he said on February 4, 1985, in this House, as recorded in Hansard at p. 1963:
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that this Government will very aggressively follow the export market for agricultural commodities.


Mr. Wise:: And we have.


Don Boudria: He continued:
Our Department has already entered into negotiations-


John Wise: And we did.


Don Boudria: -and had discussions and that role will be carried on more effectively-


John Wise: And the results are showing.


Don Boudria: -and more successfully with the Export Development Corporation properly financed.


John Wise: We have done that. We have made those changes.


Don Boudria: I ask the Minister what happened to that
commitment?


John Wise: It is being fulfilled.


Don Boudria: What happened to that commitment?


John Wise: Look at the facts.


Don Boudria: The Minister of Agriculture made those statements in this House on February 4, 1985, and in December of the same year the U.S. Farm Bill was passed with hardly any lobbying by Canadian authorities to ensure that it would not pass.


John Wise: Nonsense.


Don Boudria: I was in Washington; I spent three days looking at the U.S. Farm Bill.


John Wise: Why did you not stay home? That is your problem.


Don Boudria: I asked the people in Washington what kind of lobbying-


John Wise: They told me not to send you down again.


Don Boudria: -did the Government of Canada undertake in Washington to ensure that the U.S. Farm Bill would not pass? What was the name of the lobbying firm that was hired? After all, Canadians hired Michael Deaver for some other lobbying. I understand he lobbied very well but he was a rather controversial and expensive guy to have around.


Mr. Orlikow:: They paid him pretty well.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Some $100,000.


Don Boudria: For acid rain we had Michael Deaver. We have hired lobbyists in the past for other things. Yet, when it came time to lobby for Canadian farmers what happened? I asked our embassy in Washington who was the lobbyist, how much time was spent and how much money was paid? Do you know what they said? None, no lobbyist was hired. We have one person working in agriculture in Washington and she did some lobbying on her own. That is what we had to offer to Canadian farmers concerning a Bill involving $70 billion U.S. aimed directly at stealing our customers. We failed miserably, and what are we going to do now? We are going to compound the failure by abolishing our national agency-


John Wise: No, we are just trying to eliminate one of your many failures.


Don Boudria: -to provide the marketing. The Minister calls Canagrex a failure. That agency was supported by all the groups I mentioned, and I can repeat the list for the Minister's benefit, yet he calls it a failure. He has questioned the support of the agricultural community which I have just read for you, Madam Speaker. In so doing he is taking partisan shots, not at me but at all those agricultural organizations who wanted a Canagrex type of organization.


Arnold John Malone: Have the courage to read the whole list.
October 21, 1986


Don Boudria: Worst of all, he never even allowed the agency to work. Yet I am not convinced that he, although it is his Bill, was in favour of abolishing Canagrex.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Certainly was not.


Don Boudria: Because I remember speeches he made in this House before the 1984 election when he liked the idea in the first place.


Mr. Horner:: No one liked it.


Don Boudria: The Member from the agricultural riding of Mississauga North says no one liked it. I invite him to read Hansard. It is excellent material and he should try reading some of the speeches of the now Minister of Agriculture in his days in opposition.
I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), when he delivered his November 8, 1984, economic statement, chose randomly to abolish a number of things and left his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, to carry the can. That is when he cancelled a number of agricultural research projects, Canagrex, and a whole list of other good measures which the Minister had previously supported. The Minister of Agriculture was forced to carry the can, but he should not. He should not be here to apologize for the Minister of Finance. He should let him make his own mistakes. He should tell the Minister of Finance to introduce his own dissolution Bills. The Minister of Agriculture should have told the Minister of Finance that he would not put up with this, that the Minister must reinstate Canagrex or he would move back to the back benches and do his job there for the farmers of Canada. That is what he should have done. But instead he took the easy, partisan role. He sat in his place and defended actions which he did not believe in.
As I said before, I believe that this move is wrong, particularly at this time when there are international pressures on our agricultural commodities. Let us reinstate Canagrex, give it back personnel and make it work for the benefit of Canadian farmers.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that he is the fifth Member from his Party to speak on this legislation. It has been made quite clear to us in this House that the Hon. Member and his Party oppose the legislation to wind up Canagrex. Is the Hon. Member aware that by continuing to put up speakers on this Bill he is delaying the opportunity of the House to deal with another very important piece of legislation relating to farmers, that is Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act which will provide Canadian farmers with more money now when there is such great concern for Canadian farmers?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Alan Redway: The Hon. Member indicated that he supports Canadian agriculture. Would it not make a lot of sense for him
Canagrex
and his Party to wind up their discussion on this Bill and to move quickly to Bill C-12 in order to show that the Hon. Member and the Liberal Party support the provision of more money for farmers at this critical time in the life of Canadian agriculture?


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. It is not very well thought out, but it is excellent nevertheless-probably by accident. I have consulted with my colleague, the official critic, and we are perfectly willing to give unanimous consent to move to the other Bill. We could give it passage within 15 or 20 minutes and then revert to the Canagrex Bill, if that is the wish of Members across the way. I am sure we could get consent of all Parties in order to do that.


John Wise: You had better check with your House Leader if you have one today.


Don Boudria: I thank the Hon. Member from the vastly rural riding of York East for bringing this to my attention.
With regard to the fact that I am the fifth speaker on this issue, I have no moral lessons to take from Tories who delayed this House for one month for no reason other than to get Dalton Camp to write better speeches for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The only reason these Bills are taking longer to deal with is that the Government failed so miserably to bring the House back at the proper time. I am the deputy critic on agriculture for my Party. I represent 2,500 farmers and I am going to speak for them in this House, whether or not the Member for York East (Mr. Redway) or anyone else likes it.


Arnold John Malone: Well, I sure don't like it.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I apologize to the Member for coming in a few minutes late. I missed part of his speech.


John Wise: You're lucky, Dave.


Mr. Mayer:: What a shame that was.


David Orlikow: Could the Member help me by indicating which agricultural organizations support his proposal?


Don Boudria: That is an excellent question, Madam Speaker. I regret that he was not able, by his own admission, to listen to my entire speech. I could speak longer with the unanimous consent of the House.
I will review for the Member the organizations which had offered their support for the original Bill and those which had offered their support on the condition that slight modifications be made. The Member will understand that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is an umbrella group which represents 200,000 producers. It had offered its support on behalf of the agencies and organizations it represents. Other organizations which offered their total support to this Bill are the Eastern Canada Potato Producers Council, the New Brunswick Potato Agency, the National Farmers Union, the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec, the Ontario Bean

October 21, 1986
Canagrex
Producers Marketing Board, the Canadian Pork Council, the Canadian Horticultural Council, the Ontario Flue Cured Tobacco Marketing Board, the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board and the Ontario Soybean Growers.
Associations, which supported the Bill providing minor modifications were made, include the Canadian Food Processors Association, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Alberta Swine Breeders, the Manitoba Cattle Producers, the Alberta Cattle Feeders, the P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board, the Alberta Beekeepers Association and the Western Stock Growers.
In direct response to the Member's question, not only large private corporations supported the deal, it was also supported by such groups as the Union des Producteurs Agricoles du Quebec which represents practically every farmer in that province. It had very wide support, as I am sure the Hon. Member knows.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, it is imperative that that which is absolutely and totally false not be allowed to stand in the House of Commons. The Western Stock Growers Association adamantly opposed Canagrex, as does the Alberta Swine Growers Association. For political reasons the Member chooses to put on the record the initial reaction when the Bill was announced. Those reactions were reversed when the Bill was studied, and there was massive opposition from the organizations which the Member says support this Bill. They sent delegations to Ottawa to tell Canadian parliamentarians to oppose that Bill. What he refers to as insignificant and modest changes were changes in the buy-sell clause which was offensive and wrong and put the independence of Canadian agriculture under government control in Ottawa. He may call that small, but that is why the Canadian farm community reacted with the distaste and disgust with which it did. It is unfortunate that a Member would put on the record of the House of Commons things which he knows are absolutely false.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, had the Member listened instead of heckling, as he did for most of the time that I was speaking, he would have heard me list those organizations which indicated support at the time the original Bill was presented. If he spent more time listening and less time talking in this House he would have heard that. I invite him to review Hansard tomorrow and apologize later.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I am interested in the comments of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria). I think there is a deliberate move by the Government to do everything it can to hurt the agriculture industry. We need only look at the S23 million cut in the budget for agriculture research this year. It is clear that the Minister had the ground cut out from under him by the Prime Minister's office and the office of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on black Thursday, November 8, 1984. It was a decision by the Department of Finance and the Prime Minister's Office.
In his testimony before the Agriculture Committee, the Minister of Finance apologized for this decision being taken by the Government. He also phoned the President of Canagrex, Mr. Ed Story. Obviously, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) is screaming his view because the Tory caucus was very divided on this issue and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) was in opposition-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) but the time for questions and comments has terminated. Resuming debate.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, let me congratulate you on your new position. I look forward to working with you in the House and I know you will do an excellent job.
Many things have been said this morning that I believe cannot go unchallenged. In many ways it is unfortunate that the Opposition chooses such a tone in this debate because, while there are problems in Canadian agriculture as everyone knows, I believe that any fair minded person would have to admit that the Government is making an effort to address those problems. I can give specific details of those efforts if the occasion rises.
However, when one hears the Opposition come on as strongly as it does, and indicate that nothing is being done in light of some very significant problems, surely it is not doing a service to Canadian farmers, to the House or to anyone who takes pride in being associated with this institution. I say that more in sorrow than in anger.
Let me suggest to Hon. Members opposite that they would serve the people whom they represent and would serve the House much better in debate if they were to talk about some of the things that the Government has done. While they may be critical of the Government, they should at least recognize some of our accomplishments.
For example, they can talk about what we are doing for our export markets internationally. Last year, there was good news as far as the export of Canadian agricultural products was concerned. Members of the Official Opposition should know that last year Canada's share of wheat exports actually rose.


Don Boudria: That was before the U.S. Farm Bill.


Charles James Mayer: The Hon. Member should listen and put into practice some of the suggestions he makes for our side. That is after the U.S. BICEP Program and the Farm Bill had been in effect for about a year. We told the Americans when they were contemplating the U.S. Farm Bill that we did not think it would work, because a farmer's normal reaction to lower prices is to increase production and maintain revenue by having more volume at lower total revenue. That has in fact been borne out, because last year Canada's share of total wheat exports went up while the American share went down.
October 21, 1986

Any farmer in western Canada will say that they went into the crop year at the beginning of August with the lowest on-farm carry-over on record. It was approximately 800,000 tonnes, which is significant. No one in the Opposition pays any attention to that.
Let me put this in greater perspective. We faced the same situation in the early 1970s when there was a rather large surplus of grain around the world which was depressing the market. It is very similar to what is happening today, but our attitude today is that we will not let our farmers down. We will sell their grain and not see granaries full of unsold grain-even at low prices. We are much better off to sell at a lower price and keep the volume up than we are to do what the former Government did in the 1970s, which was to introduce a LIFT Program. I have the figures in front of me. Our exports went down from 18 million tonnes in 1969-70 to nine million tonnes in 1970-71. That was a direct result of a previous Liberal Government reacting to the farm community and not selling. We are not doing that. We are selling at record volumes.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that we will sell their grain, and that is what we are doing. This year we have prospects of increased export sales over last year, when our share of world markets went up.
Let me talk about specific customers. China bought less grain in total last year than it bought in the previous year, but it bought approximately the same amount from Canada. This means that our percentage of their requirements went up. That is not a failure, that is a success story. It would be useful if Hon. Members used some of those facts on the record to put their remarks in a better context.
Let me indicate what happened with exports. At the end of August and the beginning of September in Vancouver, this country hosted a food exhibition for the first time. It was called Food Pacific 86. Its purpose was to bring all the countries in the Pacific region together at an international exposition of food products to let the world know what we had to offer. It was an absolutely resounding success. We give a lot of credit to the British Columbia Government for initiating this exposition and a lot of credit to many people in the federal Government who worked very hard. Eighty-one countries, provinces and various forms of Governments were represented. There were over 800 exhibitors, and some 25,000 buyers attended in four days. Does that sound like a Government and country that is not concerned or doing anything about agricultural exports? Perhaps we can do more, but the Opposition does no service to anyone, above all the farmers who we are here to represent, when it suggests that we have been doing nothing.
I do not wish to prolong the debate, I simply want to put some facts on the record in order to balance the debate. We talk a lot about the U.S. Farm Bill. There is no doubt that we believe it causes problems, but I think the major problem is still with the European Community. No matter how one looks at it, they have increased their production in percentage terms more than anyone else. They have done this through continual
Canagrex
subsidies, not only with respect to grain and oil seeds but with almost every agricultural product, including dairy products, pork, beef, wine, grain and sugar-beets.
I know it is fashionable for the Opposition to be antiAmerican, but if they want to be honest and consistent they must talk about the Europeans in context with the Americans. They should not continue to blame the United States. They should give credit to the Americans when they deserve it. While we may have disagreements with the Americans, they have offered to put their U.S. Farm Bill on the table if the Europeans will agree to do the same. We have yet to see such an offer come from the European Community. If the Europeans were willing to discuss the problem as openly as the Americans, we could make some progress.
We have expressed our doubts to the Americans that the U.S. Farm Bill is working. We told them that they will not get markets simply on the basis of price alone. This has been borne out by the BICEP Program since it was introduced in May, 1985. I can send Hon. Members opposite copies of speeches I have made in the United States in which I have pointed this out to them directly. However, I believe that the main culprit is still the Europeans. The average increase in wheat production by the Europeans since 1968-69 has been almost 20 per cent. They started with a larger base than Canada. The average increase in the United States is 13.3 per cent. This points out again that the major problem in cereal production world-wide is the European Community. Canada comes third with a 3.5 per cent increase since 1968-69, and Australia and Argentina increases are smaller than Canada's.
When we have a debate like this and talk about the very serious problems which face a very productive sector of our economy, I would very much like to have some balance. I think if we could have that balance we might get some useful suggestions from the opposition. We, as a Government, have shown a willingness to sit down and work with people and listen to ideas. If members of the Opposition have some useful ideas we would be more than happy to listen to them. I would like to suggest that if all the Opposition is going to do is take a one-sided, narrow, partisan and political approach, it will not be helpful to any of us, especially the farmers we represent.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I think this is an excellent opportunity now, Madam Speaker, to hear what the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board has to say. Of course, this Bill deals with practically all farm commodities besides those commodities handled by the Canadian Wheat Board, so the Minister was slightly off topic. But this is such a sterling opportunity to make some comments about the subject that I would not want to miss doing so.
The Minister talks about the great things he has done. He certainly did something last spring when he announced the initial price for wheat, which was $130 per tonne. That is the lowest wheat price since the 1930s in real dollars. He sort of skipped over that and told us about the wonderful meetings he

October 21, 1986
Canagrex
held and about the meetings he tried to hold around the world. But he did not mention the grinding reality of wheat prices, the lowest since the 1930s. The response of the Government to that reality has been negligible, if not non-existent.
The Minister said he wanted some useful suggestions. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and I met with the presidents of the Prairie Wheat Pool in Regina in mid-May. We recommended that there be a deficiency payment. Every other farm organization I know of has also recommended a deficiency payment. We received a glancing kind of commitment from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), mostly aimed at assisting the Premier of Saskatchewan, in the Address and Reply to the Speech from the Throne, but we still do not have any specific commitment as to whether we are going to get a deficiency payment, some kind of aid program or some kind of guaranteed program, or whatever. We made that suggestion some five months ago. Every prairie premier and every farm organization has been suggesting it since then. But five months down the pipe we still have no specifics as to whether there will be a deficiency payment, whether there is going to be some loan guarantee or, indeed, anything is going to be provided in spite of the lowest grain prices in 50 years in real dollar terms.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I have just a few comments. The Minister said in his address to us today that we have criticized his Government unfairly, and perhaps upon occasion we are rather severe at criticizing the Government. However, I think it deserves a fair level of criticism because, of course, it gave itself the mandate it did; it made the 338 Tory promises which you and I, Madam Speaker, have had to listen to. Those promises are on PC logo letterhead and those promises are what I want to bring to the attention of the Minister today.
Perhaps to expect a Government to live up to its commitment is something that is beyond reality. However, that is not for us in opposition to decide. This is something the Government has created for itself and I think it owes it to Canadians to issue some kind of revised list of promises, telling Canadians that it has now decided that 229 of the 338 promises never should have been made and it apologizes for making them to start with. But as long as that list holds, it is our job to hold this Government accountable for what it said it would do, for what it is doing and for what it is not doing.
The Minister said to us today that the Government had done some things well and, in particular, in the year 1985 it had increased commodity sales. I pointed out to him, and 1 am sorry I interrupted him to do so that it was before the U.S. Farm Bill, but he said it was after. I would like the Minister to be a little more precise on that answer. If the U.S. Farm Bill was passed on December 23, 1985, and the Minister said those sales were for 1985 after the U.S. Farm Bill, were those sales between December 24 and December 31, because there were only seven days left in the year at the time the U.S. President signed his Bill into law?


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, I can certainly respond to that. The Hon. Member should know that the BISEP program, which is still the export enhancement arm of the U.S. Farm Bill, was introduced in June of 1985. That is over a year ago. This is October of 1986. The crop year that we base statistics on for our wheat exports starts on August 1, 1985, some two months after the BISEP program was introduced. So the crop year to which I was referring runs from August 1, 1985, to July 31, 1986, for which time-the full-time-the BISEP program was in effect. It was in effect two months prior to the beginning of the crop year for which I quoted the Hon. Members statistics. If the Hon. Member wants to do his homework, and be a little less willing to jump to conclusions which assume the worst, he would know that Canada has increased its exports of wheat in spite of some very massive amounts of money the U.S. Government has been spending to try to increase its market. We have been successful. No one has said prices are good. There is no room for joy as far as prices are concerned; we know that. We are attempting to address that on the international scene with discussions, with GATT, and so on. We have been successful in selling, which is entirely different from what happened in the early 1970s when the previous Government walked out on Canadian farmers. It told them not to grow. It introduced the LIFT program which hurt our exports and our reputation as a reliable supplier. We have no intention of seeing that happen this time around because we are going to do our very best to sell the grain Canadian farmers produce.
I should also say that when we talk about grain, it is genuinely a Canadian problem. Ontario is the third largest producer of grain in this country, following Saskatchewan and Alberta, and then my home Province of Manitoba. So it is a national issue and we are addressing it as such.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Minister might respond and make it clear whether there was going to be a deficiency payment for Canadian grain producers, exactly how much it will be and when it will be announced. The Saskatchewan election is over. The vagueness has been played out. It seems to me it is now up to the Government to announce clearly just what the deficiency payment will be, whether it will be cash, on what basis it will be paid, whether it will be on an acreage basis or delivery basis. I think it would be really helpful if the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board, since he is here and is asking for suggestions and ideas, could make that clear. He has talked about how there was no incentive in the early 1970s. I ask him now, where is the great incentive for grain producers in Canada today when grain prices are the lowest they have been since the 1930s? Grain is now being sold at $130 per tonne and today, on October 21, there are still no quotas for even one bushel of grain in most rural delivery points.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, with respect to the last comment of the Hon. Member, he should know that there is no
October 21, 1986

question that quotas are slow in coming this year, for a couple of reasons. First, there were several quotas announced at the beginning of last week. Last Friday there were general quotas of approximately three bushels for the whole Wheat Board area. So there are some quotas.
Second, the Hon. Member should also know that there are some very good grain movements planned for between now and freeze-up in the St. Lawrence going east, and there are some heavy sales commitments that the Canadian Wheat Board and others have going out to the West Coast. So we look for some pretty substantial movement of grain between now and Christmas, which is certainly good news.
I would like to make it clear that there are quotas, admittedly longer in coming than any of us would have liked, but there are certainly quotas in place now.
With regard to the deficiency payment, I do not know what else 1 can say in this regard. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has talked about $1 billion. We have said that it will be additional money for agriculture and that no existing program will be cut. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has said it is not a loan guarantee.
In my view, there was no confusion in the minds of the Saskatchewan farmers who went to the polls yesterday and voted. Everyone understands that this Government has made a firm commitment and intends on following through with it in as fair and as equitable a fashion as we possibly can, and as quickly as we possibly can.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Next time when the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) wants a reply, perhaps he could make his question or comment a little shorter. This time I let the Minister reply, but we are about one minute over time. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make my contribution to the debate on Bill C-2, an Act to dissolve Canagrex, and a piece of legislation which I personally find very regrettable.
We are often asked what the fundamental difference is between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. I think this is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate clearly the difference between the two major political parties. The Liberal Party has always taken the position that it is important to have Crown corporations in order to help our economy develop in certain areas where the private sector either does not have the will or the means or simply does not have an opportunity to be active. Consequently, Crown corporations are supposed to play a supplemental role in supporting the Canadian economy, acting as a complement to the private sector. It is clear that the Conservative Government has an entirely different philosophy. It is against Crown corporations. What it wants, and I cannot blame it for doing so, since during the last election campaign, the Conservatives clearly said they wanted
Canagrex
to sell and dismantle a number of Crown corporations and let the private sector take over. However, I think this Bill is a mistake. I agree it is in line with the commitment made by the Conservatives to dismantle a Crown corporation. However, the question we must ask today is: Is the Government right to follow up that commitment?
We have just heard the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board make an excellent speech, explaining the work of the Board whose role is to sell Canadian wheat, mostly produced by farmers in western Canada, on foreign markets.
When the previous Liberal Government decided to create Canagrex, farmers in Eastern Canada, especially in my own province, the Province of Quebec, were very much in favour of this plan, because the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec was telling us at the time: Why do we have a Crown corporation that promotes the concerns of Western producers and sells western wheat throughout the world, while we have no corporation to market farm products from Quebec or the Maritimes or to bring the products of UPA members to international markets?
Canagrex was established by the former Liberal administration in a climate of open opposition. When the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, introduced the Bill the Conservative Party opposite government benches did indeed raise very strong objections. As you may recall, companies like Canada Packers with offices practically in every country around the world-not necessarily to sell Canadian products, but rather to promote their own interests-were adamant in their opposition to the creation of a corporation like Canagrex which in certain cases might step on the international scene and operate in a way which a company such as Canada Packers would not necessarily appreciate.
Still the majority of Members of Parliament endorsed the creation of this Crown corporation because they knew that many small farmers throughout Canada would at long last have an agency like Canagrex to defend their interests, and market and sell their products for them in foreign countries. As a matter of fact, a farmer from the riding of Rimouski, Montmagny or Drummond simply cannot go and sell his own products abroad, but another one from Weyburn, Moose Jaw or Manitoba can indeed expect an agency like the Canadian Wheat Board to sell his wheat overseas.
Why should an eastern Canada producer not be able to rely on a national agency or a Crown corporation to sell his products on foreign markets?
Obviously I am disappointed that the Conservative Members should be seeking to put the axe to this agency set up by the previous administration and losing all interest in providing fair service to all farmers anywhere in Canada through a Crown corporation whose mandate is unmistakable.
I can only conclude that Canagrex was never given a real chance to become operative: The moment this Government

October 21, 1986
Canagrex
took office it did everything possible to get rid of the corporation, and this Bill is the best evidence of that.
The Government of Canada is not alone in trying to sell products abroad. I have only to quote what Minister Whelan said when Canagrex was established to remind the House that nearly every country has agencies or programs to assist farmers.
It is therefore regrettable that the Conservative Government would want to remove this tool from Canadian agricultural producers, especially the members of the Union des produc-teurs agricoles, who were relying on the assistance of Canagrex.
If I may quote what Minister Whelan said at the time:
The United States of America, with more than $36 billion in agricultural and food exports in 1979, has a number of tools, such as its Foreign Agriculture Service, the Co-operative Program, and the Commodity Credit Corporation-
Those are there to help the American farmer. It goes on:
You can see the other programs that other countries have by their different names.
France, for instance, has SOPEXA, Denmark, the Agriculture Marketing Board-Germany has the CM A; Britain, the British Overseas Trade Board; Australia, the Export Development Council Commodity Board; Israel, Agrexco; Mexico, Conasupo.

Naturally, all these Government agencies play a role to help farmers in their own countries. The previous Liberal Government believed that a national agency such as Canagrex could play a vital role in helping Canadian farm producers, to complement the role already played by certain private organizations. I find it regrettable that the Conservative Government now wants to rely only on private initiative to sell our farm products abroad, except for Canadian wheat.
I therefore close by asking this question: If it is now, has been in the past and will continue to be in the future a good thing to sell Canadian wheat abroad, why would a similar agency not be just as useful in selling other products, such as beef, poultry, fruits, and vegetables in other countries in the best interests of Canadian farmers?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway).


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. He will know that he is the sixth Member of his Party to speak on this particular piece of legislation. He and all of the other Members of his Party who spoke prior to him made quite clear the position of the Liberal Party with respect to this Bill. There is another piece of legislation designed to assist farmers, which is the next matter on the Order Paper for this morning and that, of course, is Bill C-12,
an Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act to put more money into the hands of agriculture.
I know the Hon. Member represents an urban riding, as I do. In fact, the Hon. Member at one time was the Minister of Urban Affairs. I am sure he really does have the best interests of Canadian farmers at heart. I wonder if he would urge his colleagues to not put up any further speakers to filibuster this Bill but to get on with its quick passage so that we can deal with the next Bill to put money into the hands of Canadian farmers. I know the Hon. Member wants to do that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the Hon. Member to be reasonable, and a gentleman. I do not think he should be imputing motives or blaming us for filibustering the Bill. We are discussing an important Bill.
We did not impute motives to Conservative Members when we spent two days discussing Bill C-ll last week. We did not mind the Conservative Party putting up everyone it could find to have Throne Speech debates put on the record. We did not say that Conservative Members were filibustering Bill C-ll. I cannot believe that the Hon. Member was serious when he said that we are filibustering the Canagrex Bill.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) well knows, the rules of the House provide for a certain set time to debate the Speech from the Throne. Irrespective of whether the Government wants to proceed with legislation quickly or slowly, there is no way it can do so given the requirements of the Standing Orders of the House with respect to the debate on the Speech from the Throne. Of course, that does not apply to this Bill. That is why I am sure the Hon. Member would agree that his Party should get on with the next piece of legislation rather than filibuster this one.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Hon. Members have a right to debate this Bill. I think the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) knows that very well. It was not a point of order on his part.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I would like to reply to the Hon. Member who seems to find it surprising that six Liberal Members would take part in the debate on Bill C-2. Naturally, the Liberal Party, which created Canagrex under the previous administration is very sad to see it disappear, and I do not think that anyone in this House will blame us for expressing our disagreement, for reminding the Government of the reasons why this Crown Corporation was created, and, most important, for saying why we think that the Government should not go forward with this Bill. There is a saying that if you repeat something often enough, something might come of it. It seems obvious to me that on this matter government Members have their ears plugged, which means we have to repeat over and over again, and go on repeating if we are to get some sense into them, if we are to get them to make better decisions for Canadians.

October 21, 1986

So it is clear to me, Madam Speaker, that the Hon. Member is not aware how seriously involved 1 was with farm groups in the Province of Quebec. For 15 years 1 have been meeting periodically with representatives of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec, and Madam Speaker would know full well that I often travelled to her constituency, because the Saint-Hyacinthe area has one of the major and more progressive farm producers' associations and our Government in the past has always been very sensitive to the recommendations and suggestions from the Union des producteurs agricoles, and in co-operation with them we have implemented things that were very important in the Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot area, to the benefit of farm producers.
1 know that this debate is of great concern in many ways to thousands of farm producers, small farmers who hoped that a large corporation such as Canagrex could provide easier access to markets and, above all, since market forces would have it that if you are a corporation such as Canada Packers dealing with a small beef producer and you are probably the only domestic buyer, that farmer is at a tremendous disadvantage to sell his product. Which means in the final analysis that the seller has to accept the buyer's price. On the other hand, with a corporation like Canagrex that could have acted as a globetrotting agent or salesman for a multitude of small producers, it could have been a seller's price, rather than a buyer's, as it is often the case with a large multinational corporation, whose concern is far more for profits than for the survival of the Quebec farmer and farming industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions, comments? Debate.
I now recognize the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Madam Speaker, as a few of my colleagues who have not yet risen in your presence, I would first like to congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair and offer our support in your difficult task, because working in the Chair is truly demanding. Having gone through two decades of Speakers, I can say, Madam Speaker, that you have the potential for being one of the best. Congratulations!
If the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) is right about the numbers, and he always is, I am the eighth Liberal to speak today on this debate on the dissolution of Canagrex. It is a very bad decision by the Government. As the Hon. Member knows, if eight of us are rising, that is certainly not enough to keep this important Crown corporation alive. The Conservative Government will have its way. The company will be dissolved. But, the Hon. Member should not begrudge us the opportunity, which is limited by our small numbers, to put on the record the great hopes that we and a very large constituency of Canadians, particularly in the agricultural sector, had for this corporation.
I do not want to belabour arguments, lists, and so on, that other Hon. Members have put forward. I hope the Hon.
Canagrex
Member for York East was here when my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) read the large number of agricultural sector organizations that were in favour of Canagrex and felt that Canagrex could play a part in taking the products of Canada's agricultural sector to world markets. It was a very long list, including bee keepers, grain dealers, all types of livestock dealers. I had not heard that list before. 1 was impressed to hear that support for the Bill when it was brought forward by our former colleague, Eugene Whelan, when he was Minister of Agriculture, and that so many voices from the agricultural community were asking for exactly this type of a selling agent for their goods.
I am glad to see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) are here. The experience of the Canadian Wheat Board ought to have demonstrated to the Conservatives that an agency like this can do the job. If the Government wanted to be consistent, it would be wanting to abolish the Wheat Board. The Government knows that an attempt to abolish the Wheat Board would meet resistance. If only it had the foresight to see that the potential of Canagrex is larger than the potential of the Canadian Wheat Board, it would support it. It is not their style to try and look ahead. The style of the Conservatives is to cut, cut, cut Government out of an ideology. This is not something that costs a great deal of money, but it is something that has a lot of potential. Yet, they want to cut it because of ideology. They will be going to the people in the next election with a list. There is a constituency out there that wants to see Government savaged, wants to see as much reduction as possible. Anything that the Government can discard, any responsibility that can be taken away from it, is to the good. We are dealing with a fringe of public opinion that feels that the less Government there is the better. Sometimes there is too much Government, but sometimes there is too little. In this area of world marketing of agricultural products I do not think there is enough. I think Canagrex is needed. It had the support, it had a role, and it was off to a good start. Good people were recruited to make it work. The Government wanted to add one more to the list in its ideological commitment of so-called achievements of demolition and destruction of vital organs that serve the Canadian people. Canagrex was so young it could be destroyed with less damage than the destruction of some other agencies that maybe are not doing such an important job, or maybe do not have the kind of potential that Canagrex had. The Government considered it an easy kill in the list of Crown corporations. The Liberals cannot let that pass. We came to the decision to establish Canagrex after a lot of thought and consultation.
I would like to remind the House what Canagrex was doing. It was to provide market identification and intelligence; to offer promotion and information services; to provide loans and guarantees; to enter into joint ventures with private companies, marketing boards and co-operatives; to act as an agent of the Crown in negotiating state-to-state contracts.

October 21, 1986
If I can stop in this long list of functions that was to be performed by Canagrex on that role of acting in the negotiation of state-to-state contracts, you will see the kind of function that this corporation of the Crown would have provided that cannot be provided by Canada Packers, Burns Brothers, or all of the different heavy hitters in agriculture. If those companies had seen the Government decision to estabish Canagrex in the proper terms, they could have been part of the promotion of Canagrex, and made money on it at the same time as farmers were benefiting from finding larger markets for their products.
Another important function of Canagrex was to provide grants and contributions to help accelerate product development, promotion, or the provision of needed infrastructure. A Crown corporation has a much longer horizon than a private company. It does not try to maximize profits in the short term, or consider itself responsible for the assets of which it holds the title. A Crown corporation takes a larger view of its responsibility in the economy and to the Canadian people. I remember when they were talking about cutting off-sorry, has my time expired?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is with regret that I must interrupt the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) at this time. He will have 12 minutes when Government Orders are resumed.

Order, please. It being 1.38 p.m., 1 now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.38 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the Table the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1986. I remind Hon. Members that, under Standing Order 96(3)(f), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, in a statement under Standing Order 21, on the budget of Environment Canada, I inadvertently neglected to deduct the budget of the Canadian Forestry Service transferred to Agriculture Canada in 1985. To take this transfer into account, the 1984 budget of Environment Canada should read $741 million, not $886 million. This year's Environment Canada's budget shows $745 million, $3.6 million more than the 1984 budget.
To avoid the erosion caused by inflation at 4.2 per cent per year, in 1985 there should have been an increase of $31 million in Environment Canada's budget amounting to $772 million, and again in 1986 an increase of $32 million amounting to $805 million. At a time when Canadians are asking the Government to play a stronger role in the environment, there is a slippage of $59.9 million over the past two years in Environment Canada's purchasing power, without counting budget cuts.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I would remind Members of this House that the time clock is ticking for a negotiated settlement in the ports of British Columbia, particularly with regard to the container clause. When the clause was negotiated in 1970 it was expected that it would maximize work opportunities for longshoremen, but to some extent it has had the opposite effect. In 1980 containers bound for Canada via Seattle/Tacoma amounted to 30,000 units, and via Vancouver 55,313 units. By 1984 these figures were 79,600 units via Seattle/Tacoma, and for Vancouver 66,300 units, an increase of 165 per cent and 19.9 per cent respectively.
In the report of the Conciliation Commissioner, Donald Larson points out that were it not for the container clause a large number of the containers shipped through Seattle/Tacoma and then trans-shipped by truck to Vancouver would be shipped through the Port of Vancouver. He recommends the removal of article 26:05, the container clause, and suggests a guaranteed number of hours to cover this clause.
I urge both parties in their meetings to use the report's recommendations as the basis for settlement.
October 21, 1986



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, soon it will be six months since the report of the subcommittee on CN pensions reported back to the House through the transport committee. The ball has been in the Government's court with respect to this issue now for almost half a year.
I want to take this opportunity to call on the Government to indicate to the House and to the many tens of thousands of CN pensioners just what it intends to do about this particular issue. It is an issue that has been long studied by the House. Great expectations were raised by the striking of the subcommittee. I know that not all pensioners were happy with every jot and tittle of the report. Nevertheless, it remains the case that a great many things were recommended by that subcommittee which, if implemented by the Government, would be to the great benefit of pensioners and people in active service at the CNR.
1 call on the Government to act with respect to this issue that has been before the House for so long, and to indicate to pensioners and to railway workers just what the Tories intend to do about something that they very often said when in opposition they would do something about.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the Government had made real progress toward the goal of ensuring that all Canadians enjoy a secure retirement. Pension plans are now more portable and we have made it easier for individuals to save for retirement through RRSPs. More than
50,000	older people, mostly women, have a higher income today because we made the spouse's allowance available to all financially needy widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64. Another 35,000 Canadians, again mostly women, have recovered the Canada Pension Plan survivor benefits they initially lost when they remarried.
The system is substantially better than it was but there is still room for improvement, particularly in the case of divorced or never married women who are therefore not eligible to receive the spouse's allowance. We must recognize the contribution which women make as individuals and provide a decent standard of living for all women regardless of their marital status. While their circumstances may be different from those of widows and widowers, the financial needs of older women who are divorced or who have never married are just as real.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, it has now become quite clear that the Forget Commission is urging the Government to make retroactive payments to the 50,000 early retirees who were unfairly penalized by this Conservative Government.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that these people were deprived of an annual income of about $10,000 to which they were entitled, simply because plant closings forced them to withdraw the pension funds they had accumulated with private sector employers.
Mr. Speaker, it is getting ever more shocking to see that the same Government should find it quite normal to finance the Forget Commission to the tune of $5.8 million taken directly from the unemployment insurance fund. In my view, all Members of the House-New Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives alike-must put pressure on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to announce this week that these 50,000 early retirees will indeed get refunds, including 15,000 in Quebec and others in the rest of Canada.



SMALL BUSINESS


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business reveals that the number of small- and medium-sized businesses is growing at a 5-to-l ratio, and that freer trade with the United States will have a positive impact on our business sector. Some 22,528 members were polled, which goes to show clearly that practically all small- and medium-sized businesses are not afraid to face American competition. As they do in Beauce, they stand ready, confident and quite optimistic to face this exciting challenge.
Our people take a very realistic approach to this question. However I would caution our negotiators, for we do have a very vulnerable sector-agriculture-where they must be careful not to bargain our vested interests away.
Indeed we have everything to gain by opening up our borders. Small- and medium-sized businesses are the cornerstone of the Canadian economy.
We must come up with challenging ideas and find new markets to create new wealth in Canada.
Good luck to small business in Beauce, Quebec, and the rest of Canada!
574

October 21, 1986



S.O. 21 APARTHEID

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise today to take note of the decision by General Motors to pull out of South Africa. GM, the largest U.S. operation in South Africa, took its decision essentially for three reasons: first, a disappointment with the pace of dismantling apartheid; secondly, the recent imposition of stricter U.S. trade sanctions against South Africa; thirdly, the adverse effect on domestic sales resulting from GM's presence in South Africa. It is also worth noting that this is a company from which originated the Sullivan principles dealing with codes of conduct.
The American people are to be congratulated for having mobilized an effective campaign against apartheid which, two weeks ago, forced the hand of a President and now that of the largest corporation in the world. There is a message in this for Canadians opposed to apartheid. When people join together to act according to their convictions, even the mighty will fall into line with what is right. The corporations of Canada should take note, as should the Government of Canada which should not weaken in its resolve to provide leadership in the struggle against apartheid.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS OF CANADA


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the recently published Federal Government Reporting Study done jointly by the office of the Auditor General of Canada and the United States General Accounting office is a most useful document. The Public Sector Accounting and Auditing Committee of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants has, as have many parliamentarians, been advocating more useful, understandable, reliable and relevant financial reporting. The study, if implemented, will take us a long way toward these goals. In particular, the illustrative annual financial report of the Government of Canada, with its three consolidated statements of operations, financial requirements, and financial position, provides information in a useful, broad, and complete way. It is to be hoped that this new reporting format might be used on a continuing basis for part of the Public Accounts of Canada.



CONSEQUENCES OF BENEFITS REDUCTION OR LOSS FOR ATLANTIC REGION FISHING INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES

Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, today in New Brunswick, we find the following on the first page of the newspaper Le Matin:
According to the Director General of the Economic Council of New Brunswick, the Prime Minister was unable to clarify the role of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
One wonders whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) knew what he was doing when he made the announcement in the Speech from the Throne. Maybe he just wanted to give us the impression he was going to give special attention to the Atlantic region.
Well, I hope the Prime Minister got the message when the fishermen showed they were not happy with the recommendations in the Forget report.
The message is clear: A reduction or the elimination altogether of benefits for persons working in the fishing industry would be a disaster for the region and raise angry reactions from the entire industry.



FORESTRY


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak on behalf of the forestry industry and forestry workers in my region. On the weekend, 1 met a number of workers who expressed their grave concern following the preliminary decision by the U.S. Department of Commerce to impose a countervailing duty on our lumber exports.
Mr. Speaker, this decision is unjustified and unacceptable. The Government, together with the industry, the unions and the provinces, must express its displeasure in no uncertain terms and threaten the Americans with retaliatory action of a political and commercial nature if they do not reverse this unfortunate decision.
Mr. Speaker, I want to give my constituents the assurance that their Member will be watching developments very closely and the forestry industry in my region can count on my unstinted co-operation.
October 21, 1986



FINANCE


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want to announce today the seventh winner of our great untaxed corporation award. Today's award goes to Credit Foncier. That company has been granted by successive Liberal and Conservative Governments, through tax concessions, the right to claim tax credits in 1979 and 1982 on millions of dollars of profits. In 1980, 1981, 1983 and 1984, when it did pay current corporation taxes, the tax rate was so low it was almost nonexistent, only an average of 1.5 per cent.
Had the tax system been fair and had Credit Foncier been required to pay a tax rate of even 25 per cent on its more than $43 million in profits since 1979, taxpaying Canadians would have paid $10.3 million less in taxes because of this one company alone. We hope this reminder to the Government will result in an immediate, real, comprehensive tax reform.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, today the Auditor General tabled his report to Parliament. The report comments on the very positive progress that has been made by the Government. The Auditor General cautions readers: "I emphasize to readers that they should give special weight to those observations that are positive for while briefly stated they do indeed balance if not outweigh negative observations".
About last year's report he says: "In most instances positive action has been taken or is under way in response to the major recommendations". On the Government's policy of fiscal restraint he says: "This new approach seems to me a good sign of an imaginative initiative being brought to the whole area of spending taxpayers' money with increased prudence". In closing he stated: "Those responsible for spending taxpayers' money are doing so more carefully. I believe that MPs and the taxpayers of Canada should be heartened by the genuine improvements".



TRIBUTE TO GREAT QUEBECERS

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: 

PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Government of Saskatchewan, under the excellent leadership of Premier Grant Devine, did it again by coming out victorious in the Saskatchewan provincial election yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Scowen: Premier Devine and his cabinet colleagues showed that our main industry, agriculture, is first and foremost in the economy of Saskatchewan, and rural Saskatchewan came out in full force and backed him up.
I am pleased to say that five Progressive Conservative provincial Members in my riding were re-elected with a substantial majority. Premier Devine has shown what federal-provincial co-operation can do for the country, and what happens when we have a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in Ottawa who listens to and acts upon the many concerns of the people in provincial ridings.
My congratulations and best wishes to the re-elected majority Progressive Conservative Government in my home Province of Saskatchewan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 21, 1986
Oral Questions



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DEPUTY QUESTEUR OF FRENCH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

Mr. Speaker:: Order! I would like to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in our gallery today of Mr. Francis Geng, Deputy Questeur of the French National Assembly, and leader of a parliamentary delegation on an official visit to Canada, within the framework of bilateral exchanges with the Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would he deem it appropriate to tell the President of the United States that we will need a standstill agreement between the two countries to forestall any further unilateral harassment, like the action against lumber, if we are seriously going to continue trade negotiations with the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have been reading the comments on trade of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I note that he is not only in disagreement with the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, but also with himself. He would know that no kind of arrangement that would be the conclusion of a trade negotiation can be arranged before that negotiation is concluded.


John Napier Turner: The right hon. gentleman was here during the Throne Speech debate when I said that we in no way supported the initiative of the Prime Minister, himself, or of the Government on these trade negotiations, that he got this country into a mess and painted Canada into a corner, and where do we go from here?


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER SEEK AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Napier Turner: But
in any case, Mr. Speaker ... If I may put another question to the Prime Minister? Why is he systematically refusing to try and reach a standstill agreement on duties with the President of the United States, so as to forestall unilateral harassment for the duration of our trade negotiations with the United
States? 1 think it is a reasonable suggestion, even for the Prime Minister and his Minister.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has transmitted the Canadian position to the U.S. Administration. In a trade relationship of the size that exists between our two countries, there will always be problems and obstacles. We must deal with these in a responsible manner, and that is what we are trying to do, because as the Economic Council of Canada pointed out yesterday in its report Changing Times: "-the increase in the number of jobs would be over 370,000 in 1995." Hundreds of thousands of jobs will become available to Canadians if we manage to conclude this kind of agreement. That is why the Government of Canada is working towards this goal.


UNITED STATES POWER TO IMPOSE COUNTERVAIL DUTIES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a third question to the Prime Minister, or perhaps to the Secretary of State for External Affairs since he referred to the end result of negotiations as meeting the problem of countervail. How can the Government continue to say we need trade talks with the United States in order to reach an agreement to stop countervail when the President of the United States, in a letter he wrote on April 24 to the Senators he persuaded to adopt the fast track, said quite clearly that he will not negotiate the American right to countervail, and those instructions were given to their chief negotiator, Peter Murphy, by the Congressional Committee? What are we talking about here when the Americans said right at the outset, by the pen of the President, that countervail is not negotiable?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a negotiation in which a number of issues, including the capacity to countervail, are on the table, as they are in the GATT. We are also here talking about a response by a Government of Canada to a protectionist situation in the United States that dates well back to days when the former Liberal Government refused to accept its responsibilities to protect the Canadian interest. That kind of protectionist assault upon Canada would exist whether or not there were trade negotiations. The trade negotiations offer us an opportunity to stop that kind of assault and to protect Canadian interests. That is why we are pursuing them.


UNITED STATES SURTAX ON IMPORTS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State. In posing my question I would only remind them that in 1983 we won a lumber decision in the United States. We did not have to back down.
October 21, 1986

In light of the statements made yesterday by the Minister for International Trade that all appropriate actions would be taken against the United States imposition of a surtax if the President refuses to veto the Bill, and in light of the statement by the presidential spokesman that he will not veto the Bill, would the Minister please tell us what appropriate action the Government now intends to take? Will we be going to GATT? Will we be talking to our allies? Will we be imposing a customs duty? Will the Minister tell us what we will now be doing?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that question was raised yesterday and the Minister for International Trade answered it and indicated we are looking at a wide range of responses, including going to the GATT, including action which might be open to us as a result of provisions in the Auto Pact, and including other measures.


CANADIAN POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: In addition to the imposition of a surtax on imports, the United States Congress has now passed a Bill which will put a tax on all cargo, loaded and unloaded, in U.S. ports, which once again will have a major impact on Canadian exporters and importers. Will the Government tell us what it is going to do about this additional harassment and trade restriction imposed on us by the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly can. As the Minister for International Trade indicated yesterday, we have lost some cases and have won some 10 cases protecting Canadian interests in the United States. The fact is we are dealing with a major protectionist pressure in that country which hits Canada as it hits other countries.
The opposition Parties, if it were left to them, would apparently have simply condemned the United States. What we are trying to do is put in place a negotiated arrangement which will protect Canadians better than they were protected under the system we inherited from the Liberal Party.


PENITENTIARIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. According to the Auditor General's report tabled today, the Minister and Treasury Board made the decision to build a new prison at Port-Cartier without considering the requirements of
Oral Questions
a new prison. My question is quite simple: Does the Minister agree with this incredible revelation?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on many occasions, this was a government decision. It was made to assist an economically depressed area. I would like to point out to Hon. Members that this is a statement confirmed by the Auditor General in his report and,
I may say, using institutions to assist economically depressed areas is a view shared by my predecessor, the Solicitor General of the former Liberal Government.


TREASURY BOARD DECISION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my next question is directed to the Prime Minister who has the responsibility for the administration of his Ministers. Considering that the Auditor General said that Treasury Board made a decision without even considering the report by Corrections Canada that there was no need for a prison, and considering that $41 million has been wasted, and considering that no tender was called, does the Prime Minister believe that this type of decision to locate this type of facility in his riding is consistent with good public administration?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to read from the Auditor General's Report paragraph 7.90 which states:
Our review of the related Files indicated that the building of an institution at Port-Cartier was based on non-program-related considerations such as providing-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Francis Kelleher: If I may have the privilege of replying:
-such as providing economic benefits to a depressed area.
We make no apologies for that. It is the same as what we did when we scrapped the PGRT and when we gave $1 billion to assist farmers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Conservatives may cheer about the waste of $41 million, but I can tell them that the people of Canada will not be cheering when they see this.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, who sits reading his notes, does he believe a decision to waste $41 million of public money was why the people of Canada elected him as Prime Minister? Will he answer that question?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend should not get too exercised. If he reads the Auditor General's Report at paragraph 7.97 he will see that it states:

October 21, 1986
Oral Questions
We conclude, therefore, that in the larger national interest of providing economic benefits to a depressed area, CSC was required to build an institution-


John Edward Broadbent: "CSC was required" by the Government to-


Martin Brian Mulroney: Of course. It was a government decision, in much the same way as the Government took a decision two weeks ago to put $1 billion into the hands of the western farmers, because of the same kind of considerations to help economically depressed areas. If the Hon. Member is opposed to it, then he should stand up and say that he is opposed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In his report tabled today the Auditor General points to the issue of inadequate government control over tax expenditures-estimated at about $28 billion a year-as being an extremely serious threat to control of the public purse. Will the Minister state what plans he has to improve controls over these expenditures?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the plans to improve control started some while ago when we started to eliminate a number of these tax expenditures, as my hon. friend well knows. In addition to that we issued in August, 1985, a book entitled Account of the Cost of Selective Tax Measures, another phrase for tax expenditures, as the Hon. Member well knows. I do not recall hearing any suggestions from the Hon. Member with respect to what tax expenditures in the report might be removed.
However, I point out to the Hon. Member that in the tax reform proposal on which I have been working there will be, and there is already under way, a vigorous review of all tax expenditures to see which ones we will be able to eliminate and, in so doing, reduce the level of tax rates as a whole.


MEASURES TO IMPROVE CONTROLS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question did not address the matter of removal of tax expenditures. I spoke of controls. At the present time the costs are buried. They do not appear in the fiscal plan, the Estimates, or the Public Accounts of Canada. Since this Government has been in power we have seen a retroactive change to legislation which was treated as part of a series of technical amendments to the Income Tax Act even though it was designed for one particular company. What is the Minister doing to improve controls and information to Parliament?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I did comment quite specifically on the effect of the process of tax reform we are going through right now. It will involve a very, very rigorous review and evaluation of all of those tax expenditures to see which ones we can remove. I would hope that the Hon. Member would participate in this during the course of the work that is to be done involving Members of Parliament.


PENITENTIARIES
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister admit that he did not complete the sentence that he was reading from the Auditor General's Report? I am sure he would not want to mislead anyone about what the Auditor General had to say about a prison being built in the national interest. He said it was being built at a security level higher than the one at which the need existed.
Will the Prime Minister not concede that building a maximum security prison rather than a medium security prison costs the taxpayers, at a most conservative estimate according to the Auditor General, $32,000 per inmate, and that other estimates might be $100,000 per inmate? Will the Prime Minister admit that this excessive use of maximum security, whatever the so-called national interest is, is a very poor use of the taxpayers' money?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, indeed in a response I referred to 7.97 and that indeed is the full quote. I pointed out the paragraph and obviously that is it. I also acknowledge that the one stated in the report is clearly the assessment of the Auditor General. The Auditor General exercises his good judgment in regard to public expenditures. We think he does a fine job and we commend him on his work.


John Edward Broadbent: But he said you wasted $41 million.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is our responsibility as the elected Government of Canada to make decisions such as the one we made two weeks ago to put $1 billion into the hands of farmers, to eliminate the PGRT, to help Newfoundlanders, and to use federal instruments for purposes of regional economic development. That we have done and that we will continue to do.


FORECAST OF UNNEEDED CAPACITY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister not concede that the Auditor
October 21, 1986

General reports that by 1992 there will be 659 additional unneeded spaces in maximum security institutions although there is a shortage at medium security institutions, that most of these are in Quebec and, in short, that we are going to have at least two unneeded maximum security institutions in Canada? Will he concede that this is certainly not a good and productive use of the taxpayers' money?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Hon. Member that the shortage of beds to which she refers in the Auditor General's Report is-


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: We are not talking about hospitals.


James Francis Kelleher: -cells, is a projected shortage, not an existing shortage.


John Edward Broadbent: He said a surplus.


James Francis Kelleher: With the greatest of respect, the Auditor General has lumped together security institutions and protective institutions. The need was there for a protective institution. That is what we have built.


REQUEST THAT CONSTRUCTION BE HALTED
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, it is really unbelievable that the Prime Minister should continue to try to justify-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member not to start right off by being argumentative. Would the Hon. Member put a preamble in order to help him put his question, and would he then put his question?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, today the Auditor General confirmed what we have been saying for a number of months. He indicated that the cost of the decision to relocate the prison in Port-Cartier will cost Canadians an additional $41 million. The Auditor General also points out that there is no need for a protective custody prison at Port-Cartier.
In view of the Auditor General's investigation and his scathing attack on the Government's decision to relocate the prison to Port-Cartier, will the Prime Minister stop playing games with taxpayers' money, halt construction of the prison immediately, and refer the entire matter to the Public Accounts Committee for consideration?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on many occasions and as has been confirmed by the Auditor General, the site was selected for economic reasons. In his testimony before the Justice Department, the former Solicitor General said that "the site was chosen bearing in mind considerations of regional development as well as considerations of corrections and that in fact he thought that every Department of Government ought to take account of regional disparity in dealing with its own
Oral Questions
priorities". That is what we did, and that is a view confirmed by the former Solicitor General.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is time that the Prime Minister stopped playing gigolo with his constituents at the taxpayers' expense.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


FINANCE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and arises out of the Auditor General's repeated confirmation that there has been an enormous loss of revenue. Some $28 billion was lost to Canadian taxpayers because of tax expenditures and the Auditor General said that these flowed without control, without accountability, and without adequate information to Parliament. Will the Government restore public confidence in the tax system by moving to change the Income Tax Act to provide that every corporation that receives more than $50,000 in tax expenditures from Canadian taxpayers will be reported by name to Parliament?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the general point the Hon. Member has raised, the Department of Finance is in the process of developing an evaluation unit so that we can look more closely at tax expenditures. In the meantime we are evaluating these on a very rigorous basis in the process of tax reform, as I indicated in answer to the previous question.
On the question the Hon. Member has raised just now, I am not quite sure he understands exactly what he has requested. A tax expenditure has a very broad definition. Any company receiving the low tax rate for small business, any company receiving research and development credits, and any company taking deductions for capital cost allowances would be included in the definition the Hon. Member has just raised.


TAX REFORM POLICY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, rather than leaving this to be evaluated secretly in-house by the Finance Department, will the Minister move to ensure that the people of Canada, through Parliament, can evaluate the
80,000	companies that are profitable but do not pay any tax because of tax concessions or the $1 billion which fell out on the "Little Egypt" bump because of a tax loophole?

October 21, 1986
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that we moved very quickly to cancel the so-called "Little Egypt" bump to which he has referred. I have yet to hear any commendation for that from the Hon. Member or any of his colleagues.
During the course of tax reform, we will review these in a very rigorous way. I throw back to the Hon. Member the challenge I threw back to his predecessor. We released a booklet entitled The Cost of Selective Tax Measures over a year ago, and I think 1 have received five recommendations from members of the New Democratic Party. Let them put some words behind the rhetoric, come up with some recommendations and participate in tax reform in a positive way.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and deals with the Forget Commission. Yesterday the Minister misled the House when he tried to compare-
Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Allmand:: -an internal inquiry conducted by a public servant at the request of his Minister with a Royal Commission appointed under the Inquiries Act by the Prime Minister. How can the Minister justify the expenditure of $5.6 million from the unemployment insurance account for the Forget Commission when Section 135 of the Unemployment Insurance Act says that these funds can only be used for unemployment insurance benefits and for the cost of administration of the Act? By what stretch of his imagination is this gutting of the Unemployment Insurance Program considered administration?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I maintain exactly what I said yesterday. To satisfy the Hon. Member, we checked with the Department, and Section 135 of the Unemployment Insurance Act is quite clear. It refers to the possibility of paying for the administrative expenses, research costs and the like of any commission.
As for the other reference, Mr. Speaker, it makes no difference whether the Commission was internal or external, since the exact same procedure was followed for the Forget Commission as for the first one. It makes no difference whether the Commission was headed by a public servant or was a royal commission of inquiry, since we followed the same procedure, and this is all quite normal and proper and legal, and, once again, Mr. Speaker, I did not mislead the House in any way.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER SECURE LEGAL OPINION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, would the Minister refer this matter to the Minister of Justice for a legal opinion to determine whether the use of these funds from the unemployment insurance account was legal considering Article 135? Would the Minister also tell us why this Royal Commission appointed by the Prime Minister was not financed out of the Privy Council Office like all other Royal Commissions under the Inquiries Act?
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that we followed the normal procedure, and I think it is high time the Hon. Member stopped using these scare tactics. We are getting calls at our office from people who say we are going to cut benefits the day after the Forget report is published. You are responsible for spreading panic among Canadians.


EFFECT OF UNITED STATES TARIFF ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Lumber forwarders and shippers say that they expect the new 15 per cent tariff to go on transport costs too, which will kill 1,500 handling jobs in Ontario alone. Could the Minister tell us what he is doing to prevent this further disaster to our economy?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The most direct answer is that we are trying to put in place, by negotiation with the United States, a system which protects Canada from that very kind of exposure which the Member complains of day after day after day. He lives in some kind of dream world or he pretends that sitting back and crying foul will stop protectionist pressures in the United States. Obviously it won't. You have to act. We are accepting the responsibility to act.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, cancel the talks. Put the talks on hold.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Give the Canada Award for it too.


GOVERNMENT ACTION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Minister is clearly not even aware that his own Ministry is making representations on
October 21, 1986

this transport cost issue. Will the Minister commit himself to help the lumber forwarding and shipping industry save these jobs rather than just leaving it to a U.S. decision whether they live or die?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I not only know what my Department is doing, I know what my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, is doing. She is meeting today with provincial Ministers of Trade and of Forestry from across the country to continue a common approach based on practical actions open to Canada, and also to carry on the discussions of means by which we might protect Canada against this kind of protectionist surge that we are seeing in the United States. What is needed here is practical action, not ideological attacks upon a neighbour.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston on a short supplementary question.


PENITENTIARIES
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of Paragraph 7.99 of the Auditor General's Report, can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House today whether, prior to making the decision to relocate the prison from Drummondville to Port-Cartier, he had at his disposal all the facts that were necessary in order to determine whether or not there was a need for a protective custody prison at Port-Cartier?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is generally known that the decision made in the case of the Port-Cartier prison was a Government policy that was referred to Treasury Board for preliminary approval, and as you know, Treasury Board is not a political committee. It is a committee that reviews decisions from a financial point of view. And yes, we had the information we needed to make that decision.
Oral Questions


DISARMAMENT
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said in his statement this morning that the issue has become, and I quote: "What are the limits on permissible research" for SD1 under the ABM Treaty? What does the Government of Canada say are the limits for permissible research under the ABM Treaty?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Hon. Member was in the House today during the exchange on the question of arms control. If he were, he would know the issue that failed to be concluded at Iceland was precisely what those limits are- that is an issue, a disagreement between the two parties signatory to the ABM Treaty. He would also know that there is a written treaty that makes no reference to research, and he would know that there might be private documents in the hands of both the Soviet Union and the United States which might elaborate on other agreements that they made with respect to research. Only they can know that. All that we can ask is that the integrity of the ABM Treaty be respected and that there be a strict adherence to it. That is the position of the Government of Canada.


POSSIBLE RESEARCH UNDERTAKEN BY CANADIAN COMPANIES
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, Clause 5 of the ABM Treaty forbids testing in space. The Americans have indicated that they wish to change that, abrogate it, or rewrite the ABM Treaty. In view of the fact that Canada supports the private sector industries in joining in on the research for SDI, and in view of the fact that that research may indeed take SDI out of the lab and into space, is it not fair for us to ask the Government not to support that private research in case that private research does result in the abrogation of Clause 5 of the ABM Treaty?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am asked for an opinion as to whether or not such a request would be fair. My opinion is no.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In this House last Wednesday the Minister of State for Science and Technology said: "There will be no lay-offs at the NRC". Today we learned from the Vice-President of the National

October 21, 1986
Oral Questions
Research Council in charge of laboratories that 100 to 150 persons will lose their jobs as a result of the Minister's cuts. Why does the Minister say one thing, that there will be no layoffs, and a Vice-President of the National Research Council say the direct opposite? Whom are Canadians to believe?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member has learned, he has learned from The Globe and Mail. Two hours ago I spoke with the President of the NRC who assured me once again that the NRC will honour the Government's request to make certain that every conceivable effort is made to minimize the impact on individuals who would have to be replaced or re-assigned to other duties, and that there will be no lay-offs and no pink slips in the current year particularly, and perhaps none at all even in subsequent years.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER SUSPEND FUNDING DECISION
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister could tell us how a 58 year-old reseacher, Dr. Basinski, who has devoted his whole life to a certain area, can be recycled at age 58?
[ Translation]
If the Minister is right, would he be prepared to put his decision on hold so as to enable the parliamentary committee to make an in-depth study of it?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, again, the person to which the Hon. Member makes reference will not have his research position phased out or cancelled. It will remain intact. May I remind the Hon. Member that what happened at the NRC was not my decision or that of the Government. It was a decision of the board on which the Government relies to manage the affairs of the NRC.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. Can he assure my constituents associated with one of Canada's best research organizations, the University of Western Ontario, that new thrusts announced in the Throne Speech and the reallocation of NRC resources will mean more research will be done in universities across Canada with federal support, rather than being concentrated in government laboratories in Ottawa?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, we are moving very decisively in
two areas. The first is to revitalize in-house research capabilities, which includes the NRC and Ottawa laboratories. The second is to strengthen the capability and competence of universities to respond to a new set of national priorities, that is, the teaching of future scientists and permitting universities to play a role in strengthening our industrial competence in foreign markets.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Science and Technology came close to reconciling the contradiction between the vicepresident in charge of laboratories who should know what is going on, and himself, with respect to the lay-offs. When he answers this question I hope he will remember Pinocchio.
He claims that $800 million in new money is going to go into space research. Is it not true that one of the reasons we are having lay-offs at the NRC now is because the NRC is being savaged for that space program?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Hon. Member what is happening. What this Government has done is to allow the NRC to resume its work as Canada's principal research agency. Unlike the former Government, we do not believe you can advance the cause of science and technology through bricks and mortar. The NRC has carried on about $150 million in construction projects over the last three years. They are now completed and phased out; that is why there has been a major reduction in the budget of the NRC. We just do not think that is a proper way to advance the cause of science and technology.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the people involved are not made of bricks and mortar. Remember Pinocchio.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Would you please reconcile your statement-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: -that $800 million in new money is going into the space program with the fact that money is being taken out of the NRC to pay for it? As well, would you reconcile your statement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


An Hon. Member:: How is your Mazda?
October 21, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the Hon. Member to read the transcript of a committee meeting where he said that the comprehensive space program will perhaps be the single largest repository of new knowledge. He was totally in support of it. I make absolutely no apologies for identifying new priorities that will permit this country to stay in the fast current that will take us into the next century, with him or without him.


PENITENTIARIES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Solicitor General has been quoting me to try to justify the traditon of combining Corrections' decisions with regional development policies. The Auditor General, in Section 1.90 of his report, points out that that cannot be done in this case because there is no Corrections' basis for the decision. Does the Prime Minister realize that he is damaging his own constituents by putting forward and relying on a Corrections' policy which will lead taxpayers to lose their confidence in regional development programs altogether?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty with the question posed by the former Solicitor General because in his testimony before the Justice Committee in May of 1982 he said: "When a Ministry has a project that is required, and in this case we did require this institution or will require it in 1986, we took account of the economic conditions in the part of Canada where it was needed in deciding precisely where it would go. I do not think there is anything to apologize for there. I think the Canadian people broadly support that." To that I say amen, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good statement-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -but it does not apply to a penitentiary that is not needed, which is the case here.


ROLE OF TREASURY BOARD
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of that answer has it become the practice of the Treasury Board just to rubber-stamp decisions it gets from the Government? Or is it supposed to look at decisions on an economic basis? If so, how could it do that in this case where the Auditor
Oral Questions
General notes in Section 7.99 that the Treasury Board did not have the information it needed to make an independent decision?
[Translation)
It was just a matter of nodding assent.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure my colleague that the Treasury Board does indeed scrutinize all recommendations and submissions it receives and, hopefully, always makes the right decision.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As he will know, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe will hold a review on compliance with the Helsinki Final Act in Vienna, beginning November 4. Can he assure the House that the Canadian delegation to the conference will bring to bear the full weight of Canada's influence in the international community to ensure that the Soviet Government is held to account for its obvious and numerous violations of basic human rights, particularly with respect to religious freedoms?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I know of his long-standing interest in these issues. I will be attending the follow-up conference of the CSC in Vienna. I can assure him that we will raise then, as we have consistently in the past, the questions to which he refers. I further invite him to make me aware of any particular cases he thinks it would be useful for me to pursue at Vienna.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, one question, please.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. I am sure he will know that last Friday was the anniversary of the meeting between himself and the U.S. EPA director, Lee Thomas, at which time Canada was promised a vigorous program to clean up the waste leaking into the Niagara River

October 21, 1986
Canagrex
from the American side. Will the Minister take this opportunity to say why we do not have that concrete program yet and when he expects it to be forthcoming from the U.S?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, some solid achievements have been made by the U.S. and Canada in this connection. I will be meeting with Lee Thomas on October 28, one week hence, to review that progress with the hope of building on it. I am going to use the occasion of this meeting in Ottawa to share with the Hon. Member, other Members of the House, and the public our plans for the coming year.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Algoma, one question, please.


AIR CANADA
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and concerns the plans of Air Canada to close down services in a number of cities in Ontario, including London and Sault Ste. Marie. The City of Sault Ste. Marie has already lost hundreds of jobs this year and I want to know if the Government is prepared to take action to stop the loss of these Air Canada jobs and the services of the national airline, and show some confidence in the city?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is late in his representation because the Solicitor General has been dealing with me on this matter now for many weeks.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: With no success.


John Carnell Crosbie: Nevertheless, his representation, even if belated, is welcome.
We are doing what we can to assist in that situation. Air Canada does not wish to serve that city any longer. It has guaranteed that it will look after and deal fairly with the employees involved. Air Ontario, I believe, is going to operate the necessary services there. In the meantime we are looking at certain other problems which have arisen and we will do everything we can to see that Air Canada operates and treats everybody concerned, including the customers, fairly.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is with regard to the recent summit meeting at Reykjavik. There was a statement made this morning in this House by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. He stated that the Reykjavik meeting foundered because President Reagan was intent on scuttling the ABM treaty. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs agree that this is really what prevented full agreement in Reykjavik?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party will have to choose between encouraging arms control and fabricating occasions for attacking the United States. The NDP Leader said today that the Americans were trying to scuttle the ABM Treaty. Quite the opposite occurred. The United States agreed at Reykjavik to respect that treaty for another 10 years. That is real progress.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: No, no.


Charles Joseph Clark: Earlier today the New Democratic Party Leader congratulated the Soviet Union for having made some positive moves at Reykjavik. The Soviet Union did. So did the United States. The NDP should recognize that.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You're wrong.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise that Bill C-2, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at 1.38 o'clock p.m. there were 12 minutes remaining in the speech of the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I was just about to conclude my remarks before we adjourned for lunch. I simply wanted to indicate what a sad thing it is when a Government will force a decision on an important agricultural entity based on-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask Hon. Members please either to either take their seats or leave the Chamber. The
October 21, 1986

Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) has the floor and is continuing debate.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I was regretting that ideology is so important to the Government in connection with Crown corporations that it will not study what the Crown corporations want to do and then allow the good ones to continue while winding up or changing the mandate of the ones which are not worth while. In the case of Canagrex, the Government has an easy shot because, with it being so new, it has not yet had the oportunity to live up to its potential. My Party and I consider it very regrettable that the Government is not giving Canagrex the opportunity to live up to the expectations for it, or to fulfil the goals of the numerous constituencies in the agricultural community. In our view this is only one terrible mistake in a poor track record of a hopeless Government.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, during his comments the Hon. Member referred to the fact that he was the eighth speaker for the Liberal Party on this Bill. I have been listening very carefully to the comments of all eight members of the Liberal Party, including this Hon. Member. I have now heard the same comments, arguments and positions repeated close to eight times. Would the Hon. Member agree that it is time for the Liberal Party to end its filibuster of this Bill?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I simply reject the suggestion that this is a filibuster. We have strong views about this matter. Some of my colleagues fought very hard to establish Canagrex. They had to convince a lot of people who were at first of the opposite view. For Canagrex to go down just to give the Government one more check mark on its list of cuts is very hard for us to stomach. If 30 or 40 members of my caucus spoke about the dissolution of Canagrex, that would not be too many.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I think it is really out of spite and bitterness that the Government has destroyed this Crown corporation which was designed to help small agricultural commodity producers who do not have the strength or scope to have international marketing capabilities. This mean-minded Government withdrew the funds in November of 1984 to destroy Canagrex. The Government is so vain, weak, desperate and lacking in ability to help agriculture that the first item called in the new session of Parliament, with agriculture facing its most difficult time since the 1930s, is a Bill to destroy the marketing capacity which Canagrex would have given to those farmers of the country facing incredibly difficult times. Farmers are losing their farms, homes and income. They are facing the humiliation of moving into big cities where the jobs exist. This is a black day for Canadian agriculture and for the Government which is so bereft of innovation, ability and design that the first item it calls in this most desperate time in agricultural history is a Bill to destroy Canagrex, a trading corporation designed to help small farmers to market their commodities in an increasingly competitive international market-place. This is a sad commentary on the mentality and
Canagrex
the ability of the Government to deal with the agricultural problems which face the country at this desperate time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have only one comment to make. The Bill before us is strictly a housekeeping Bill. The Government has already killed Canagrex by removing all of its funds. Many of us in the Liberal caucus feel strongly about this measure because Canagrex was a Liberal initiative about which we felt strongly. I take exception to Conservative Members of Parliament blaming us for delaying this Bill when last week during debate on Bill C-ll, which was another administrative Bill, the Conservatives put on the record comments about how great and good they are. We are just trying to make the point that we feel badly about this measure. We will vote against it and we will now interrupt our debate to have the question put.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is as follows: Mr. Wise, seconded by Mr. Mazankowski, moved that Bill C-2, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On division?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen'.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the
Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Charles James Mayer: that Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that we face some very difficult times in the grain and oilseeds business, not only around the world, but especially in Canada. This Government has been attempting to respond to that situation in several ways.
We face some serious problems largely because of the subsidies offered by the European Economic Community, and the U.S. Farm Bill that has resulted in literally a trade war that has driven down the prices worldwide, and as a result has driven down the prices to our producers. This problem has been coming for some time. The only long-term solution to this problem is to have it addressed and looked at internationally. What the countries in the European Economic Community do within their own borders is entirely their own affair. However, when they are able to increase their production dramatically through subsidies, and on that basis become very competitive with us for some of the international markets that Canada has traditionally been able to supply, we have legitimate reason to make observations and to complain about that situation. That is precisely what has been happening.
Our farmers are very efficient. We have a good climate and soil and in many respects we enjoy significant competitive advantage, or comparative advantage, in economic terms. That allows us to produce a very high quality product that is in demand around the world. What is increasingly difficult for our farmers is to be able to compete with the treasuries of the European Economic Community and the United States.
I would like to give you a couple of examples as to why that is difficult. First of all, looking at the average income dollar that a Canadian farmer has, about 50 cents out of every dollar come from exports. Using these same criteria in the United States, about 25 cents of every income dollar that a farmer has come from exports. On that basis, exports are very important to the Canadian farmer. Looking at some of the specific commodities, grain and wheat, in Canada we export roughly
October 21, 1986

80 per cent of all the wheat that we grow. About 10 per cent is used in domestic consumption in bread, cookies and pastry. The remaining 10 per cent is used for seed, industrial use, feed, and those purposes. In the European Economic Community, the figure is almost exactly reversed. The European farmer is only reliant on exports for 20 per cent of his production. In other words, 80 per cent of the European farmer's production of wheat is consumed within the European Economic Community. On that basis, as far as wheat is concerned, in comparison to the European Economic Community, Canada is very dependent on exports.
Some of the subsidies that the Europeans currently have available to them are very large. In the southern Prairies we produce Durum wheat, which is second in quality to none in the world. It is as good as any. It is very high quality grain. Our farmers this year are receiving $130 per metric tonne as an initial payment. The European farmers are receiving $450 per metric tonne. On that basis, it then becomes very difficult for the Canadian farmer to deal with that. It is not because we are inefficient; it is because we have a smaller population on which to rely for a domestic market. Therefore, we are much more reliant on exports. That is why this Government has taken the lead in addressing some of these problems at the international level.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) visited Japan for the Tokyo Summit in May, he raised agricultural trade and subsidies as Canada's agenda item. That is the first time that had ever happened. A month later I had the opportunity to host the four other major wheat exporting countries. This was the first time ever that such a meeting had been held in Canada. It was held at Whistler, in British Columbia. The five major wheat exporting countries meet regularly to discuss problems at the bureaucratic level, but this was the first time such a meeting had been held at the political level. In August, Canada also participated in an international meeting at Cairns, Australia, prior to the agenda setting GATT at Uruguay, in which Canada played a major role. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) gave the lead-off speech and set the tone for the meeting. The result was that agriculture was included on the GATT agenda for the first time in the seven meetings that had been held. We are making some progress there. Unfortunately, that progress is slow and it will take time. In the meantime, our farmers need to have some support.
We have supported our farmers in many respects. We removed the tax on farm fuel. We froze freight rates this year. The grain commission froze the maximum tariffs under which the grain companies operate. We amended the Western Grain Stabilization Act to provide assistance at a more opportune time during the year. If there is going to be a triggering of a pay-out under the Western Grain Stabilization Act, the money is available prior to spring seeding when farmers need it the most. This amendment was put through the House in February of 1985. Many initiatives have been taken on the agricultural
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
side in terms of supporting our producers, and especially our grain producers.
One of the other things that we are doing is to support the Canadian Wheat Board and the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board, plus private institutions that market our grain and oil seeds. The record shows that over the past crop year, Canada increased its sales over the previous crop year. In 1985-86 we exported over 2 million tonnes more than we did in the previous crop year. At the end of the crop year, which is on July 31, our farmers went into the new crop year with the lowest on-farm carry-over ever. That is a result of sales.
Canada now has long-term sales agreements that total more tonnes than any other wheat exporting country. We have a long-term grain sales with Egypt which runs for five years. That was signed in the spring of 1985. We concluded a three-year term with Brazil. Last month we renewed a major longterm sales agreement with the Soviet Union. That is certainly good news for Canadian farmers in these very difficult times. Again, just to emphasize, price is still a major problem and there is not a lot of room for optimism. On the volume side we did very well last year. We increased our share of world wheat markets. With the sales program that is in place for this crop year, if it holds up for the rest of the crop year, we have the potential to increase our grain sales this year and our percentage of world grain markets.
I have here a clipping from The Ottawa Citizen of October 3 that talks about the Soviet grain deal. It shows a picture of the Prime Minister and the Soviet Foreign Minister. The caption reads "U.S.S.R. Signs Five Year Grain Deal". Seeing a Prime Minister of Canada in a newspaper in conjunction with a longterm grain sales agreement is something I find refreshing after what we had from previous Governments, their attitudes about grain and how they approached the problem. This is an encouraging sign. To see the Prime Minister's picture in the paper seems entirely natural and appropriate based on the record of our Government in dealing with agricultural problems.
This brings me to the Bill at hand. It is a Bill to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. It is a Bill that was first introduced and passed by the Progressive Conservative Government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker in 1957. I see the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), a distinguished Member of this House and a distinguished former Minister of Agriculture here in the House. He is the one who was responsible for starting the wheat sales with the People's Republic of China. He has made a great contribution not only to this House but to Canadian agriculture in general. He informs me that the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act was one of the first pieces of legislation to be introduced by the Diefenbaker Government in 1957. It has served farmers very well and it is being used more and more.

October 21, 1986
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
We are introducing today some amendments to this Act to make it more responsive to farmer's needs to help them deal with their cash flow situation. Let me explain what this Bill does. When farmers harvest grain, it takes considerable time to market it. Depending on weather, harvest season lasts a month in the Wheat Board area. Farmers will harvest all their grain in a month and the grain will then be sold throughout the remainder of the year. The Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act provides a cash advance for grain which the farmers have already harvested and have in store against the day when they can sell it. It is a way for farmers to realize cash once they have harvested their grain before having the opportunity to sell it. The Government provides the cash advances interest-free. The interest charges are picked up and the Canadian Wheat Board administers the Act.
What we are doing today in giving this Bill second reading is streamlining it. Upon review of the Act the Government found that changes in the administration of this legislation should be made, changes that would make the program more timely and more responsive to the needs of those who are using the Bill. I will list what the proposed amendments will do, Madam Speaker.
One of the amendments will make the Act fairer in the sense that presently producers are able to acquire cash advances based on a quota factor or on the number of acres they farm. There is no consideration for how productive is each acre that that farmer farms relative to other farmers. We are introducing an amendment to allow the cash advance to be calculated on the amount of grain a farmer has in store as opposed to the number of quota acres that he has. That will assist many producers in being able to make better use of the cash advance in the sense that the farmer will be able to get a larger cash advance if he has the productivity to back it up.
We are also proposing to amend the Act in this Bill to allow producers who have been in a default position to have their interest rates adjusted on a regular basis. There are producers who have had problems repaying loans. The default ratio though has been minimal. When you are dealing with literally tens and hundreds of thousands of producers, roughly 140,000 permit books in the Wheat Board area, you can understand that producers have problems, Mr. Speaker. There are producers who have been in default, for four or five years. Once they are in default the interest rate is set at the level of interest at that time. People who have been in default for four or five years when interest rates were 15 per cent and 16 per cent are still paying interest rates on their defaulted loan at those levels. We are proposing to amend the interest rates charged on defaulted and prepaid loans to reflect the interest rates in effect at the present time.
One of the amendments is to make it easier for farmers who are tenants to obtain a loan. Now you require the landlord's signature as well as the tenant's signature. Sometimes that takes a period of days, weeks or months and it delays the time at which a farmer can obtain a cash advance. We propose to
simplify that. Farmer tenants will now be able to sign affidavits to the effect that they have clear title to the grain grown on another's land. It will simplify things substantially and make it easier for producers to get cash advances.
Several regulations of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act must be amended each year even though these amendments are routinely and largely administrative in nature. This process takes time and in many cases too much time. We propose to remove these administrative hold-ups so that needless red tape does not come between the farmer and the advance payment.
The Canadian Wheat Board will be responsible for final approval of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act application form which changes little from year to year. Presently we have to go through an Order in Council every year to approve a form which does not vary very much from-year to year. We are going to simplify that.
We are also going to simplify the emergency provisions under the Act whereby cash advances are made available for unthrashed grain after November 15 if there is a significant amount of grain that has not been harvested. Producers can obtain a cash advance against grain that is unharvested and still in the field. Producers are also eligible for cash advances to assist in drying costs. We want to improve the administration so that those things can be done without an Order in Council and so make the whole thing easier.
We are also introducing an amendment that will give producers equitable access to cash advances right across the country.
Another amendment that I think will be welcomed by producers is that as the Canadian Wheat Board administers the Act it will have greater latitude in dealing with producers who have defaulted but who can show that extraordinary circumstances prevented them from being able to deliver against their cash advances. You run into situations in the spring with a road or a bridge that is out, situations such as that. Presently the Act does not allow for any leniency or any interpretation in that respect. We are amending the Act to give the Canadian Wheat Board, the administrators, some latitude in dealing with extraordinary circumstances. I think that will be a very useful and welcome change as far as producers who use the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act are concerned. This would have been useful had we been able to have it in effect at the beginning of the crop year which started on August 1, Madam Speaker.
I hope the Opposition will look at this legislation very favourably and give it reasonably quick passage. There are a couple of provisions which, if we can pass this Bill without a lot of delay, can actually be of some use to producers this year. Most of the amendments will have to wait until next year before they will have full effect, but some amendments, if we can have reasonably quick passage of the Bill, will be of use to producers this year.
October 21, 1986

These amendments are being made by the Government to try to be as responsive as we possibly can to grain and oilseed producers in this very difficult time. With that, Madam Speaker, I want to conclude and thank Hon. Members in the House for their kind attention.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, 1 have a few comments with regard to Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. Many of the amendments are technical and will be of great value to the agriculture producers in the west. Clearly the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) has suggested we have quick passage. As I think back to all the legislation which the Minister and the Government have brought in during the last two years, 1 see that the problem has never been to get quick passage, the problem has been to get legislation into the House.
I think back to the months and months and years when the Conservative Party fought the former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, on every little amendment that he brought in to any Bill whether Canagrex or something else. Canagrex I think was in the works for some two years. That entity would have had an opportunity to get fully functional and prove itself, but the Conservative Party was bound and bent to ensure that any legislation which the former Minister brought in would be denied passage no matter how valuable it was to the agricultural community. Certainly every Bill the Government brought in has been passed in either one or two sittings of the House, even something as complicated and detailed as the legislation dealing with Farm Debt Review Boards. That should have been brought in a year ago, as the Minister promised in July of 1985. There should have been detailed discussions for several weeks, but it was belatedly brought in in about the third week of June. We passed it in two sittings of the House. Clearly the Opposition has co-operated in passing every piece of farm legislation brought before the House, whether it be the Western Grain Stabilization Act or the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. The Minister does not have to ask for quick passage of his legislation because he knows that every piece of legislation he has brought before the House has been passed expeditiously.
It seems to me that although many of the provisions in this legislation before the House today are of a technical nature, they will be very valuable. Farmers with very productive soil and who produce large volumes of wheat or barley on small acreages will now be able to get a cash advance based on the amount of grain they have in storage rather than on an acreage-based formula. The idea of a floating interest rate on cash advances which bear interest is a good idea. I am amazed that the Minister waited for two years to bring in that kind of provision because it is clearly a severe hardship for farmers to be paying 14 per cent or 15 per cent, which is what interest rates were in 1982 and 1983, and they are still paying them
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
today. One of the election promises made by the Government was to provide adequate funding for current day interest rates.
1 am also glad to see the amendment relating to cash advances being made available to people who lease or rent farms. It seems to me that the swearing of an affidavit by the producers concerned is adequate protection for the Government.
Then we have the emergency provisions. The Minister raised this with me last spring. He wanted to have simply an order by the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board in order to allow cash advances. I think that is a good decision. There is a provision which says that a farmer can only receive a $30,000 cash advance based on the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and the Agricultural Products Marketing Act in total. I would like to hear the details when the Minister is before the committee. It seems to me that the idea of an escape clause related to farmers in distress through an emergency situation and being unable to make a delivery is a good move as well.
I must say I was very struck with the Minister's comments regarding how rapidly the Government has responded to the agricultural emergency. Although he seems to believe that most of the problem lies with the European Economic Community, clearly the bottom fell out from under the grain prices when the U.S. Farm Bill was introduced. The Americans are determined to win back their share of the international market, both from us and from the EEC. Although both trading groups are probably equally at fault for falling grain prices, clearly the impact of the U.S. Farm Bill has been most dramatic for our farmers. Some economic forecasters say that net farm income will drop by 20 per cent as a result. If that is the case, it certainly will be the most Draconian measure ever used against the Canadian farm industry by any foreign Government.
I must say that I do not share the Minister's view that the Government is moving dramatically to help farmers. It seems to me that every responsible farm group in the country has been arguing for six or eight months now that there should be some kind of deficiency payment. We will be interested to see when the Government gets around to actually announcing that payment.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Farmers in Saskatchewan do not hold that view.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I think the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) is applauding himself on how skillfully the Government has been able to hoodwink the people of Saskatchewan into believing they are going to get $1 billion-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They are a lot smarter than that.


Maurice Brydon Foster: When they find out that money is spread across Canada rather than just provided to the prairie provinces, they will find it is not very great. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced he was going to negotiate $1 billion worth of aid with Premier Grant Devine.

October 21, 1986
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is not what he said and you know it.


Maurice Brydon Foster: That was during the Leaders' debate. Two days later he said he had to get emergency aid-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know the Hon. Member would not want to misinterpret what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said. What he said was that he would be "working closely over the next month with Premier Devine and other provincial Governments to devise an effective financial assistance program to enhance the cash flow of Canadian farmers". That is consistent with the August 27 meeting held between the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the provincial Ministers of Agriculture where the formal request was made. I hope the Hon. Member might correct that false impression. The Prime Minister did not say he was going to negotiate a deal with Premier Devine.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. I think the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) knows that this is not a point of order.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: A point of debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is a good point for debate but not a point of order.


Maurice Brydon Foster: That was a very wise ruling, Madam Speaker. I want to compliment you not only on being appointed to such an important position as you hold in this House, but on the wisdom of your judgments. They are just excellent.
1 must also compliment the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) on his win in Pembina. Someone who attended his speeches there said that the Deputy Prime Minister told them how great it was and how great it was going to be. He said that all he could think of after the Deputy Prime Minister finished speaking was, if it is so great, why do I feel so bad?
When the Prime Minister spoke in the Leaders' day debate, for some reason he did not mention the Tory Premier of Alberta. Of course, perhaps he was shooting arrows at him that day. He certainly did not mention the NDP Premier of Manitoba. 1 would be interested to know his logic for referring to the Tory Premier of Saskatchewan.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Because it was in the forefront.


Maurice Brydon Foster: On October 6 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke in the House in response to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner). He referred to the desperate situation of prairie farmers. Later that afternoon outside the House the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) said that this was an aid program rather than a deficiency payment, that it might be a loan guarantee or something else. The Prime Minister was certainly doing his best to talk about something that might have been interpreted in Saskatchewan as a deficiency payment. The Minister of Agriculture was backped-dling just as fast in the other direction.
The Minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) tries to tell us how great it is going to be. No one wants to be pessimistic. We all want to be optimistic. However, we do not see very much action by the Government. Everyone in the grain business says that there must be some kind of assistance. Probably less than 50 per cent of the grain this year will be No. 1 or No. 2. Our farmers cannot be producing grain for $3 a bushel while their friends and neighbours across the line in Montana and North Dakota are getting $6 a bushel. The difference is essentially a deficiency payment. The Government may have a deficiency payment, but it certainly will not talk about a deficiency payment. Government Members talk about farm aid and so on.
In the Auditor General's report I see a deficiency in the Western Grain Stabilization account of $100 million. That account was built up from 1979 to 1984 to almost $1 billion. Today it has a $100 million deficit. The Auditor General is calling upon the Western Grain Stabilization fund to brief the Minister fully on the financial implications of its interpretation of the method of calculating the stabilization payments to be made under the Western Grain Stabilization Act and to obtain specific approval to use this and any other interpretation.
It may be that $500 million or $600 million will be put into the Western Grain Stabilization fund in order that the interim payment can be approved next February or March. Similar payments may be made under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. That will simply be the deficiency funding which the Prime Minister has been promising for the benefit of the Saskatchewan election. I submit it would be very greatly misleading to the House if that were proposed. We have seen the Western Grain Stabilization fund drop over $1 billion in the last couple of years. If that is what he is doing, it is out and out deception. That would not be surprising.
I was really surprised that the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board dared to mention the Prime Minister's announcement of April 30. If there was ever a smoke and mirrors, shabby piece of work by a desperate Prime Minister, it was certainly that announcement of $200 million or $300 million which he made here in Ottawa. I hope that the $1 billion of aid for western grain producers which we are now talking about is more real than the phoney announcement the Prime Minister made on April 30 before leaving on his trip to Asia with his maid and butler. That $1 million could have well been spent for western agriculture.
That announcement had three elements. First, it announced an increase in the range of the domestic price of wheat from $7 to $11. Many people thought that farmers were going to get an increase from $7 to $11 a tonne for grain sold for domestic purposes. A $4 per bushel increase would have amounted to almost $300 million a year. The press release aggregated all these figures and said that farmers will get another $300 million increase in the domestic price of wheat. That is, of course, totally phoney. It is irresponsible. It did not fool the
October 21, 1986

farmers for more than a day or so because it was quickly picked up. The Prime Minister got the headlines before he flew off on his trip to Asia, which may be good politics, but he did not fool the farmers for very long.
A recent poll showed that 70 per cent of Canadians are very concerned about the farm situation. The Prime Minister does a disservice to the rest of society, which consists of about 96 per cent of the population, because they think the farmers got $300 million through an increase in the domestic price of wheat which they did not get. The story was spun out a little bit longer. There was another announcement in July that the range was changing again. Of course, farmers never realized five cents out of it.
The second element of the Prime Minister's announcement of April 30 was that he was going to freeze the freight rates. Ele was going to show the railway companies and protect the agricultural community. It only took a couple of hours to check out that canard. We found that the Department of Transport had recalculated the volumes of grain to be shipped and there were going to be 28.5 million tonnes rather than 31 million tonnes. It was not really freezing the freight rates, but simply recalculating the volumes so that there did not have to be a freight rate increase. This is the kind of phoney announcement that is meant to suggest that the Prime Minister has done something great for agriculture. I believe the amount there was $42 million.
I hope the announcement of $1 billion in assistance will not be as phoney as the Prime Minister's announcement in April that he would remove the excise tax on farm fuels. He put on two cents a litre last September and was able to get the excise tax for the fall harvest. In Saskatchewan they called the tax imposed by the Prime Minister the harvest tax.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made that announcement on May 23, 1985, we pleaded with him to give an exemption. I asked the Minister in the House not to levy that excise tax. The Government did not want to put it on in the summer because it had so much trouble with the deindexation of the old age pension.
We pleaded with the Minister not to levy the tax because Canadian agriculture was in great difficulty, yet the Minister put on that tax just in time to pick up most of the revenues for the fall harvest. Lo and behold, in April, after everyone in western Canada had filled their fuel tanks, the Government announced it would remove that tax in May or June. He then had the audacity to announce that this would save Canadian farmers some $150 over two years. He did not say that it cost the farmers some $50 million or $60 million over the previous nine months.
If the Prime Minister really wanted to be honest with Canadians and western Canadian farmers, he would have apologized on April 30 for putting that excise tax on and then
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
would have removed it retroactively to September 2, 1985 when he imposed it. It is pure larceny to impose such a tax.
We are waiting with bated breath to hear whether or not the Government will provide a deficiency payment or whether it will just replenish the Western Grain Stabilization Fund which the Auditor General's Report shows has a $100 million deficit today.
We are going through an incredibly difficult time in agricultural commodities in the world right now. The Government must reduce input costs as much as possible. We probably cannot provide the kind of deficiency payments that the EEC or the United States provide to their farmers. Export sales are more important to us than they are to the EEC or the United States proportionately and the Government, regardless of its right wing, reactionary and regressive policies, has a responsibility to try to maintain the industry in a survival position during the next three years that the U.S. seems hellbent on subsidizing exports. For the Government to do less would be criminal. Hundreds of farms will be lost.
We have seen the Government dither on the question of the Farm Debt Review Board. It established a board that really has no powers except to forestall banks and credit institutions from foreclosing. Hopefully it will do some good, but the bankers got to the Minister and the Government and prevented it from providing the board with any real powers to reschedule debt.
The Minister talks about co-operation. He always has our corporation in passing good legislation. It has been four months since the legislation was passed, yet in Ontario only three members of the 10-person board have been appointed. Not one case has been heard before a debt review panel. The Government seems to move in slow motion.
However, when the banks went broke in Alberta there was immediately a back-up of $1 billion. When we talk about $1 billion for a deficiency payment for western Canada, which should be much more in order to cover the whole country, the process is dragged out for month after month. The only thing that seemed to trigger any action at all was the Saskatchewan election. Furthermore, that came only after the desperate phone call by the Premier saying: "I am going down the drain".


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The election is over.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The election is over. Why not announce the program now? Maybe we can get the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to give us some details on that phone call, because he was probably one of those who received it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What phone call?


Maurice Brydon Foster: We will wait to see just how phoney that announcement of assistance will be, and whether it will be like the phantom assistance which was offered back in April.

October 21, 1986
Adjournment Motion
It is very similar to the commodity-based mortgage. I am sure that every Canadian who listened to the Budget Speech believed that literally thousands and thousands of farmers would receive low-interest loans at 6 per cent. In fact, $730 million was going to be provided at 6 per cent interest. However, like the Prime Minister's phoney announcement on April 30, the fine print in those commodity-based mortgages reveal that many of the farmers will not get 6 per cent interest. Even those farmers who receive 6 per cent will probably ultimately pay 2 per cent more than the current Farm Credit Corporation rate, some 12.75 per cent interest in the end. If the commodity price goes up, the interest paid is not only higher, it goes 2 per cent above the standard Farm Credit Corporation rate.
The fact that there is no new money is also disquieting. The $730 million is the same $730 million that farmers have in FCC loans now. For instance, if a farmer has a $100,000 mortgage, he is given a $100,000 mortgage here at approximately 8 per cent or 9 per cent, or 6 per cent in some cases where the equity is low enough. However, as commodity prices rise-the price of hogs has risen by 25 per cent this year-the interest rates go up dramatically. Over the course of the 10-year mortgage the farmer pays 2 per cent more than the FCC rate. The only way to get out of that mortgage is to pay out the interest right through for the full ten years at 12.75 per cent or whatever the rate is at 2 per cent above the FCC rate.
The dishonest aspect of the announcement by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is that there is no new money. It is essentially only exchanging one FCC loan for another. If you have a 12 per cent loan with the Bank of Commerce, the Bank of Nova Scotia or the Royal Bank, tough apples, there is nothing for you. The commitment of the Government to agriculture is really appalling. It throws out these figures of millions of dollars, but what it is talking about in every case is the Western Grain Stabilization Fund. That is a security program. The farmer pays a premium just like an insurance policy and if he has a loss he receives a benefit. It is the same with crop insurance. The Government talks about crop insurance with great benevolence, but the crop insurance program is a program where the farmer pays a premium and if he has a loss he receives the benefit.
The Government talks about the western transportation Crow benefit. In fact, I am told that the full amount of the $659 million Crow benefit has not even been paid to the railroads. In fact, they are about $75 million short on the last two crop years. But the Government has made the payments for which it is legally obligated, otherwise it could be charged for not doing so. What the Government has done with the farm debt crisis is pretty bloody poor. What it is doing is providing some interest rate set aside on some farm loans for the FCC, but if the value of the commodity goes up, the farmer will end up actually paying more than the FCC rate, and if he does not have an FCC loan, he does not get anything.
The Minister promised a year ago last July 10 that he was going to bring in a Farm Debt Review Board with real clout and power. It took him 11 months to bring in anything, and then of course its fangs were totally pulled. The Government's action with regard to the tremendous farm crisis we face in this country is pretty puny when compared with what is being done in the United States, in the European Economic Community, or even what is being done by most provincial Governments. The Government has cut back on the budget of the Department of Agriculture by some $50 million and also it deindexed the annual rates within the Department. The Farm Credit Corporation in the 1984-85 fiscal year had a budget of $825 million. Last year it was something less than $250 million. There is not very much help beyond those statutory programs which the Government is obligated to provide.
Another problem has arisen with the United States Farm Bill and the countervail it put on hogs, and the BISEP program where the United States has tried to steal our markets in Egypt, Syria and other countries. The Prime Minister sang "When Irish Eyes are Smiling" in Quebec City and I think a lot of people assumed Ronny was going to look after us, that all the Prime Minister had to do was to give the President a call and it would all be straightened out. But all they have to do to learn the truth is to look at the two or three torpedoes which have gone through the "free enterprise battleship" in this last week. The Americans have ripped holes about two feet across below the waterline. That is the assistance and help we are receiving from the programs of the United States Government, which it is adopting around the world. There is certainly no exclusion for Canadian agriculture producers.
As I indicated when I began to speak, I only had a couple of brief comments to make. I want to indicate our support for Bill C-12 because I think, although some of these amendments are technical, they will be very beneficial for the individual producers. We want to assist the Minister in expediting the passage of Bill C-12. There is a lot of detail which I would like to hear about when the Minister comes before the committee, but I would like to indicate our support in seeing the Prairie Farm Advance Payments Act amendments passed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 66, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Environmental Affairs- Sewage treatment facilities, (b) Government policy; the Hon, Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Agriculture-Request for announcement of deficiency payment for farmers, (b) Situation
October 21, 1986

of grain farmers; and the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Criminal Code-Gun control-Amendment of provisions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mayer that Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-12 is a Bill to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, which is an Act which has been around, as the Minister said, since 1956, 1957. It is an integral part of the legislation which rules the prairie grain industry. As most Hon. Members in the House know, prairie grain has been sold under the Canadian Wheat Board in one form or another since 1935. It became a compulsory board in 1942, I believe, and began using the quota system to regulate deliveries shortly after that.
The quota system was originally based on the amount of acres a farmer had. Over the years it has varied. At some time it was based on the amount of acres which was seeded to a particular grain. Then the summer fallow and grass acres were added to the quota base. Now we have a fairly sophisticated calculation of the quota base for each farm, and the farmer decides what proportion of each of the crops he is growing to allocate to that quota base.
I will go through the changes I see in this particular Bill in a few moments, but right now I would like to speak a wee bit about the role the cash advance system plays in prairie agriculture. Because of the system of forwarding grain through the quota system, there are occasionally times when producers are not called upon to deliver any grain, and if they cannot deliver any grain, they do not have any money. One of those times is with us at the moment. There was not even a quota opening until just a few days ago, which meant that producers had gone on for over two months without the ability to deliver any grain from this year's crop. In the interim, farm families must live, so back in the 1950s, under the then Minister, who is now the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), the Act was introduced which permitted farmers to take an advance on the grain they had in storage on their farms. This provided interim financing and in later years made it possible for the Wheat Board to be more careful about how it called its grain forward. It tries to practice a system whereby when orders are completed, sales are made, and ships are expected, some five to six weeks before the ship is expected to be at the dock, the quota for that particular grade and type of grain is opened up. The farmers deliver it to the elevators.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
The elevator companies put it into the hopper cars which are transported by the railways to the terminals. The grain is cleaned and transloaded there and spouted into the waiting ship, usually with an amazing amount of efficiency and good timing when you consider all the people and active parties involved in the process.
I advise all Members of the House to consider paying an official call on the offices of the Canadian Wheat Board in order to watch its computer which shows the operations of the country's elevator and shipping system. Members will see how technicians in the Wheat Board keep track of where the grain is, how long it will be in transit, what ships are in need of loading, and so on. Such a visit will provide a better understanding of how the system operates. I recommend this visit not only to western Members but also to those who come from other parts of Canada.
The grain business in Canada is and always has been cyclical. It runs in cycles of seven to 10 years with a seven or eight-year down period and a seven or eight-year up period with some variations of a year or two either way. It is a cycle that Joseph noticed back in biblical days, and it has not changed a great deal in 2,000 or 3,000 years. Because of its cyclical nature the Canadian Government, at the urging of farmers and their organizations, has been actively involved in providing a certain number of protective mechanisms to help weather the inevitable storms. There is a tendency for production to build up in the world, which results in decreased demand and lowered prices. That is the type of situation we have seen in the last few years. A great deal of new technology has been applied in not only highly developed countries such as the European countries and the Americas but also in some developing countries such as China and India. In particular, China and India have succeeded in becoming self-sufficient in grains over the last number of years to the surprise of almost all the experts in the field. If any expert had looked at the productive capabilities of these two countries a few years ago I do not think it would have been predicted that China and India would be self-sufficient in the production of all grains today. In fact, they are now in the market-place as sellers of wheat and rice.
As a result, some countries have reacted in different ways. European countries have a long-standing program of agriculture subsidy which goes back to the fact that their citizens starved during the First and Second World Wars. The electorate remembers those days and therefore supports the type of system that has been put in place in which food imports are charged a high levy. The accumulated funds from these levies go to subsidize and encourage the production of the same food products in the European Economic Community. The system has worked almost too well. It has worked to the point where most of the food products produced inside the EEC are at or near a surplus level of production. This has resulted in fewer imports. Foreign exporters are no longer paying subsidies to keep the system running. The system is

October 21, 1986
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
being paid for almost exclusively out of the pockets of the European taxpayer.
To give Hon. Members an idea of what sort of subsidies are involved in these countries I would like to compare the subsidies received by European farmers with the subsidies that American and Canadian farmers receive. The Canadian Wheat Board estimates that Canada will subsidize wheat producers in the period 1986-87, which is the current crop year, by 85 cents per bushel. This subsidy includes the so-called Crow benefit which is given to the railways, as a result of which farmers are supposed to reap lower railway charges. It also includes the western grain stabilization pay-outs that will be made this crop year, as well as the federal Government contributions to crop insurance claims which western farmers might have in case of hail or frost. While Canadian farmers receive 85 cents per bushel of wheat in subsidies, the United States pays its farmers approximately S2.63 Canadian per bushel while the Europeans pay about $3.13 Canadian per bushel.
In terms of barley, the Canadian subsidy is 33 cents per bushel while the Americans subsidize their barley growers at the rate of $1.05 per bushel. The Europeans subsidize at a rate of $3.11 per bushel. I could give statistics with respect to subsidies paid in other countries, in particular Japan. However, subsidy levels in that country are large and so scary that Members would think that I was exaggerating. In Japan, the level of subsidy approaches $20 per bushel for some grains, notably rapeseed. The figures are almost beyond belief. As a result of this situation, various countries have been attempting to reduce amounts of production in a preliminary fashion. These are moves taken in preparation of talks concerning the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. World production of grain has far exceeded demand over the last several years. This is the first year it appears that output will be slightly lower, although only marginally, than what the demand is expected to be next year. In part, this reduction in crops has been due to weather, although the Americans had in place an acreage reduction program as a result of which they paid their farmers not to seed grain. The Europeans had no particular program to discourage production, but as a result of hot and dry weather production decreased. The Australians faced a combination of reduced acreage and bad weather, as did the Soviets. Thus the over-all grain crop will be slightly less than world demand for the first time in some six years.
In this period of time some very frightening things have happened in terms of income for Canadian farmers. I make this point because the advance system which we have is designed to offset, in part, some of this problem. Although the system does not perform the job perfectly, it provides some income when sales are hard to make at the farm level. If we compare gross income figures generated by Canadian crops during the time the surplus began to build up back in the 1982-83 crop year with the current crop year, we will see what lowered prices have done to Canadian farmers. This will allow us to see what the response by Canadian farmers has been,
given that we have very little in the way of subsidies to assist income.
This year, farmers on the Prairies are expected to produce what will probably be a record crop. They will produce somewhere in the neighbourhood of 52 million tonnes, one of the best crops that has ever been produced. In 1982-83, a crop of some 45.3 million tonnes was produced and that crop had an estimated value of $7.5 billion. This year, because prices were dropping, farmers tried for more output. This year, 52 million tonnes have been produced and that will have an estimated value of just over $6 billion. Fifteen per cent more crop has been produced on the Prairies, generating 18 per cent less in gross income. In terms of purchasing power from the larger crop, it will actually be down by 37 per cent from what it was in the 1982-83 crop year.
Financing for prairie farmers is crucial at the moment. Prairie farmers have compared the deficiency payments American farmers receive with those they receive and are trying to point out that Canadian farmers need the same kind of incomes as their American counterparts in order to remain competitive both technically and in the marketing sense as well. They have estimated that for wheat and barley grown on the Prairies, a deficiency payment of just about $2 billion would be required to keep them at the same income level as American farmers. Adding in the smaller crops like flax, rye and rapeseed, it would require an extra $1 billion in deficiency payments. A recent study, just made public this morning by a farm task force in Ontario which looked at income deficiency problems right across Canada, indicated that to meet the same level of income support as American farmers enjoy, Canadian farmers would need a deficiency payment in excess of $4 billion.
I put that on the record to show what is required. All we have before us at the moment is Bill C-12, a Bill which makes some minor changes to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. To some extent, it changes the administration of the Act, leaving some of the decisions with the Minister rather than with the entire Cabinet. The Governor in Council route has proven to be a rather slow, ponderous way of doing things. Sometimes farmers wait six, eight or even 10 weeks simply to receive the form that must be filled out in order to apply for a cash advance.
I might point out that these cash advances have a limit of $30,000 per customer so they do not constitute a huge loan. They are limited and are made available according to the type and grade of grain a farmer grows.
There will be a slight change regarding the grade of grain as well. Previously the grade was set at the same time as the forms were being produced. The amount of coverage will now be set out by the Minister and the Act itself will limit the coverage of the advance to two-thirds of the amount of the initial price for a grade of grain which the Minister may specify. The past practice has been for that to be based on No.
October 21, 1986

1 or No. 2 wheat or one feed barley. I assume that that will continue to be the practice, but we will have to find that out when the Minister comes before the legislative committee.
Through this Bill, the Minister announced some changes in the way defaults will be handled. We cannot be clear about what he has in mind from reading the Bill. Again, we will have to question him in committee.
The Minister is proposing to reduce the amount of interest payable by people who are in default. People who are in default are generally people who either misjudged or for some reason beyond their control were unable to deliver the amount of grain on which advances were taken. At times, there were no delivery opportunities for farmers to put grain into the elevator system so the advances were still outstanding at the end of the crop year.
As long as farmers have filled all the quotas that are available, the practice has been that they do not go into official default. However, if a grower does go into default during the year because he did not fill a quota that was opened on time and therefore missed the delivery opportunity, he is declared to be in default and is responsible for the interest payments at the rate established at the beginning of the year on the entirety of the advance, even if most of it has been paid off at the time of the default.
I hope that when the Minister speaks of taking the ability to deal with defaults into his own hands and the hands of the board, he is also speaking of some sort of clear direction as to how to handle these defaults. There are occasions when it has appeared as though things were not as fair as they might have been. A producer might have delivered 95 per cent of his crop but ended up defaulting at the very end with a mere 5 per cent still outstanding, but he will find that he is in fact by law responsible for paying interest on the whole of the cash advance for the whole period even though he had paid the greatest portion of it off before the default took place.
Through this Bill, the Minister is proposing changes to the method of deciding when advances should be made available for unthreshed grain. Again, rather than going to the Cabinet through the Governor in Council, the Minister will decide this, and that decision-making process should be much faster and less ponderous than has been the case. Likewise, as I understand the Bill, drying advances will now be initiated at the signature of the Minister rather than through the much slower process that I mentioned.
There are two other changes of which I wish to make mention. One of these changes is welcomed particularly by farmers who farm quite a bit of their own land but rent from one or several landlords, none of whom are contributing enough land to make up a very large per cent of the farmer's land base. The change proposed here is that rather than the current practice of being forced to go to every one of your landlords to get consent to apply for a $30,000 cash advance, you would be able to apply for a cash advance against your own grain, if you have more than $30,000 worth of grain on
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
your own account. You could take the loan against your own grain. In this manner you would not have to bother hunting up the landlords, some of whom are several thousand miles away, and getting their signatures, accompanied by those of the proper witnesses, which are very hard to come by.
The last change that is being proposed here is one that will need quite a bit of explanation from the Minister when we get into the committee. He is proposing to take the base for the cash advance from "acres" to "grain in storage". At first blush, I have no particular problem with that concept. I am wondering if there will be some administrative problems that may arise with this approach. In this Act the advances seem to be applicable to those grains that are coming under the Wheat Board. It is possible to collect advances on open market grain as they go through quotas. But there are some deliveries of off-board grain that do not go through quotas: Direct sales to neighbours, feed mills, and so on. There will be situations where grain trickles outside the system and the advances are not reclaimed. How is the Minister hoping to collect these and keep track of them, or is he foreseeing the same problems with the one system using a bushel base rather than an acreage base? Have his officials worked through the calculations to find out whether people who are farming acreages that, due to high production, would put them up to the maximum qualification of $30,000 worth of loan, would get enough quota during these rather clogged years for them to clean up the advance? What sort of administrative abilities are going to be provided at the end of that crop year to carry that grain on further? Does the Minister then propose to carry on a program mentioned by the Wheat Board several years ago whereby farmers who produced very high volumes of grain on their acreages could assign their grain and thus be guaranteed delivery of it by signing contracts such as are now being experimented with for one more year with regard to barley?
These amendments, while they do not change by one iota the financial situation that was alluded to at the beginning of my speech, they do make it a little simpler for farmers to get quick action from the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer). These requirements mean that he will no longer be required to sit and wait for the due process to take place, to get the forms, the applications, and the current set of regulations through Cabinet each and every year. This process has caused farmers to wait until November and December in many years for their cash advance applications.
We applaud those small improvements to the system. We do not see any extra money. Farmers will still only be able to borrow $30,000. Perhaps the Minister has decided that this is prudent, given the declining values of grain in the world markets and the fact that he has found himself reducing the initial prices at the beginning of the crop year by $30 a tonne.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather historic that we are debating this cash advance legislation almost 29 years to the day after the
October 21, 1986

Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
original Bill was passed. It has been mentioned by the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer). After the debate on the Speech from the Throne was over, the first item that came up was this cash advance legislation. It was in for one day, and the next day the old age security Bill was brought in and the amount was raised up to $55. Then we came back to this subject after that went through quickly.
The point I want to make today is not the matter of time, but the significance, not the significance to farmers, but to the people who serve the farmers, the merchants in the towns who are carrying the farmers all during the summer. This is a cash flow situation. I thought it would have been emphasized more by the Opposition, because these are the big beneficiaries of this. Why does the farmer like it? Because he likes sometimes to pay off his debts, particularly when they are to his friends in the town whom he depends on to service his equipment and provide him with all the other services. These communities in the rural areas of the Prairies are fighting a desperate battle to survive. This is very important legislation to them.
It would be wise for those in this House who are seriously interested in the reasons we brought in this legislation so quickly in 1957, to refer to Hansard of October 28, 1957, at page 477. You could read through the performances-and I remember them, of course, it was my maiden speech in the House-and follow a chap like the Right Hon. James Gardiner and a few others. On that Bill there were three names: Churchill, the Minister of Trade and Commerce; Harkness, the Minister of Agriculture; and my own name from Resources. The significance of that should not pass unnoticed. This was to help the whole national development picture, to get our agriculture moving and to take opportunities that then existed to spread our productive ability all over the world, instead of sitting around here and waiting for people to come and ask for it. That was the significance. You had to give to the farmer the cash flow, because under the system that we had, it was two years before he got full payment for that wheat. By speeding it up even to a partial extent, it allowed him to pay off a portion of his immediate debts. That is the economic significance of it. When you are writing your householder, ask the farmers out there to use it and to help their businessmen in the towns. The farmers will not be angry if you tell them. They know very well they should be doing this. Many of them in the south country-I know that is so in my constituency-do not take them. They look on that as something that is not a gift, it is their own money, and they get it deducted when they get payment. To many of the general people across the country when we talk about cash advances, when we talk about interim payment or initial payments on grains, when we talk about insurance, when we talk about stabilization, all these things are the farmers own money. This cleavage between the city people and the Province of Saskatchewan, at least, is disgraceful. The city people benefit in direct proportion, and double as much as the farmer, every time the farmer gets anything. If you want to revive the economy of any country, particularly the newly developing countries, you have to teach them that when you get wealth into the hands of the
producer, whether it be lumber, fish or agriculture, the city guy always benefits. This is how you bring peace to these countries, and it should bring peace to us in Saskatchewan. When you help the other person, you help yourself and both sides benefit. I think I have made my point right off the bat.
I was disappointed in the speech given by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). He knows a great deal about the details of these things. He should know that it is the duty of the Opposition to bring out these important points. He should know that you gain nothing with farmers by trying to go off at some other angle. His speech on the credibility of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) helps us. Politically it is helping us as Conservatives. People know that for many, many decades the political activities of members of the Liberal Party, whenever the Conservative Party got a leader, were not to talk about policies but to tear the leader down. I am not talking about just one or two of them, I am talking about one of the most positive persons that I have ever met in policy making, namely, the Hon. George Drew. He was torn apart even before he got into an election. He was called "the man from Bay Street", "the Colonel", and all the rest of it. He was torn apart by the press and torn apart by the Liberal Party, and they succeeded. You break a man down, you get rid of him. I would think that, with the positive thoughts I know the Hon. Member for Algoma has, he should not be trying to hurt his Party, because the people of Canada are getting sick and tired of this tactic.
It used to be that all politicians were down the drain pretty far, but in the last couple of years I can sense a change in the feelings of the people. They are angry at the media now. They are still mad at us, and we deserve it too, but the media is shooting out its brains the same way as the Member for Algoma was shooting out the brains of the Liberal Party today. I have to thank him because I know he helps us politically, as the farmers and the business people of rural Saskatchewan showed yesterday. Every Liberal candidate in that election lost his deposit, except for one. He is a local character and Leader of the Party. The people stood by him in his area and he deserved to win.
As politicians we have to do our job. When it is clear that what we are doing is hurting our Parliament and hurting our country, I would think that one should see the cloud on the horizon before it dumps on you. I am sorry to see the same type of tactics being used by certain people in the Liberal Party against their own Leader. No matter what you think of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), he is an Hon. Member of this House and deserves to be treated as such.
I have no excuse for all these people trying to make a million bucks writing books on themselves. It is bad enough when the media do it, but when politicians get into the act, that is the nth degree of low level living. I think I have said enough on that.
October 21, 1986

1 would suggest that if Hon. Members are interested in the basic problems facing the people of the Prairies in the period after the war, they should not only read my speech but read the debates of all the others as well. The Liberal Party and the NDP both supported this legislation and then spent most of the time in the House in that debate, as those who will read it will find out, trying to gut each other.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What has changed?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In those days members of the New Democratic Party were not pro Liberal, but they hurt themselves. I think the people of rural Canada are trying to tell politicians today to cut out this nonsense of making trivia of the main things that we talk about.
The number of things the Minister mentioned in his speech that have been done along this line show very rapid progress. I would think that the trouble may be that mistakes may be made by trying to go too fast. I think these things should be mentioned in good, constructive opposition. When you find something wrong that the Government has done, you let them have it.
1 will conclude my remarks by saying that this Bill we have before us is part of a much wider program that was announced by the Prime Minister on August 30, 1958. I will not read the whole speech but I will read points from the speech. Diefen-baker was the Prime Minister. I will summarize his speech in six points. First, I will read the introduction. It was a sound, comprehensive and co-ordinated program to attack specific problems. In developing a national agricultural policy we have found it necessary to deal with specific regional problems. He listed things about the West. I think any person in this House seriously interested in finding the basic philosophy, which still holds today, should read that speech of the Prime Minister on August 30, 1958. It can be found in Hansard at page 4345.
These points are: First, accelerated export sales. What a difference between 1957 and 1986. Twenty-nine years have gone by. They could not even sell the 300 million bushels we had for sale at that time. Second, stabilization of price and income policies. That is what this is, part of the stabilization of income. Third, assistance to provinces for recurring drought needs. Everybody in the House knows that for 30 years now we have kept our eye on any part of agriculture in any part of this country on any type of product. All Parties have come through on that. Fourth, a modern system of farm credit. I am not so proud of that because they got turned backwards on that one. On the modern system of farm credit, we put in by statutory rule that the ceiling on interest rates for farmers for long-term loans was 5 per cent. On the Farm Improvement Loan Act we put in a maximum of 6 per cent. I sat in this Parliament and watched those interest rates take off. What protest did we get? This measure went through quietly. It turned the poor farmer into the tender hands of the banks and the interest rates set by these people in Finance and in the Bank of Canada who are using interest rates to fight inflation, rising costs. Interest rates were the inflation. Those dimwits who still pollute those offices
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
are still at it. They are begrudgingly coming down. This Parliament in 1983, all the Parties, gave to the Government of the day the power to move on housing, agriculture, small business, and we sit here today knowing the Government has made an effort but it has not succeeded on the fiscal side because it forgot to read its own regulations. That is what Members of Parliament are here for. We have to read the small print. You can only lend money under this program to people in dire straits. That is still there.
The Government changed in 1984, so if you are talking about this general program of helping farmers, a good Opposition would be pointing out these things. Why do you have to leave it to a Member on this side of the House to do it? Come on, fellows, get the finger out or you are going to choke yourselves to death.
The final point concerns national conservation programs which are mainly concerned with clean water and clean air. Tremendous progress has been made in the last 30 years on the scientific and practical side. However, no Party in this House will ever tell you what these practical things are. The work we started in the 1950s was announced in this House in 1973 by a Liberal Minister. He was very proud that this revolutionary step forward had been taken concerning clean water. Revolutionary, he said, and it was. Two years later I asked the new Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Hon. Don MacDonald, who I knew read everything, is it not about time that he told Canada about operation CANWELL? Civil servants and scientists have worked hard in Ontario and Quebec to develop these techniques and make money out of cleaning up the air and water. What was his answer? "You tell them, not me". I am still trying to get it across. In that respect we have a lot to do, but if we use the philosophy in this legislation and apply it to all other types of legislation, then agriculture, including all the producing groups, is the main beneficiary.
This legislation is technical, it is true. The points made by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Alt-house) are good. He missed the main point, that the revolutionary thing in this legislation is that you have taken the power out of the hands of Ottawa civil servants and put it in the hands of the Wheat Board. Ye gods, if you knew the time a Minister has to take to get something through in this system! It is good legislation, but try and see it in perspective. Try to see it for what it can do if we apply this reasoning to a lot of other things we have before us.
I am very proud to be able to stand up 29 years later and say I was responsible for drafting it, which is true. Do not blame the Liberals or the NDP for the time it takes. Poor Mr. Gardiner tried his level best to put the blame on Mr. Howe, his good friend. Really it was not Howe's fault or Gardiner's fault. The civil servants had decided it was not possible to do this kind of practical thing. I do not blame those people for getting up and trying to shift the blame, but the point I am trying to

October 21, 1986
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
leave with Members of Parliament is that when you have practical, technical legislation like this going through, look into the background so you can see the future. We have to do this not only for grain farmers but for many forms of basic production. We have to have a stabilized income and stabilized costs. Move slowly but stabilize it.
I did not have time to say all the things I intended, but I think my point has been made. The philosophy of John Diefenbaker lives still. When we honoured him with that statue out there I had a feeling he was going to keep an eye on us here. I suspect a lot of us still feel his presence. The great things he did were never matched by all the Governments put together since Confederation, by quantitative analysis, and they should not just be remembered in a statue unveiling. They should be part of our actions.
I congratulate the Minister for bringing this forward and I hope there is a lot more coming from other Ministers as well.
Mir. Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I must say it has been a pleasure to listen for the last 20 minutes to the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). He has an honourable place in the development of economic policy in Canada and in the history of the Diefenbaker Government between 1957 and 1963. I must say, having practised as a Canadian historian, that I have been awaiting a speech by him and I am so very pleased I was in the House this afternoon to hear him speak.
The fact that he spoke broadly on a variety of things, some of them very interesting indeed, encourages me to wonder whether I might ask a question which takes us a bit beyond the Bill before us this afternoon, although I do not think it is unrelated. The Diefenbaker years were years of economic initiatives of enormous importance to prairie farmers, the prairie population generally, and to Atlantic Canada. Unfortunately, they ended up being years of very significant deficits as well. Perhaps this was a result of economic policy contradictions at the time. These days we face high deficits again, and this is the primary problem which the Government of the day seems to be concerned about. We certainly have not seen in these last days that kind of sharp and ready response to the needs of prairie farmers which I think characterized the Diefenbaker Government, as the hon. gentleman pointed out to us.
I wonder whether, in the contradictions between the Bank of Canada and the then Minister of Finance, and the Hon. Member's efforts as a Minister to put in place national development policies which would make Canada a better and richer country than it was when the Government he was part of took office, he would have any advice for us in our circumstances in the 1980s about how we might develop the country and get beyond the deficits which the Government finds so encumbering.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: until we get this thing going. The economy is rising by two or three points a year. If we let it speed up for another couple of years we will pull out. We must make legislation to stop adding to programs which are non-remunerative.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for a very good answer. The concern he mentioned about the circumstances being different today reminded me of the arguments I have read about which R. B. Bennett made. He waited a little too long. Is it not possible, in circumstances which seem different, to do the things of which the Member spoke? Would it not be better to do them in 1986 than to wait and go down to defeat in 1989?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is the same. If you are on a little raft and want to jump a long distance, you try to get more support around the raft before you jump. There is a point at which it is silly to talk about spending money to make money, (a) when you do not have it and, and (b) when you do not have the foundation from which to leap off. We did not have that situation from 1957 to 1959 because we had a pretty good period in the early 1950s. Money had flowed into this country like mad forcing our dollar up to around $1.07. We had to face all these problems.
The experts were advising restraint and paying our way slowly out of these difficulties. We had enough base to jump ahead on a few small things. We could take wheat sales to 10 communist countries rather than just one. We broke out and never lost a cent in the whole deal. All the banks were worrying that we would never repay them. The solution was to help them sell their goods in order to get enough money to pay for it. That is why I support freer trade. That is what I call my "peace through trade" policies.
I am in contact with 86 countries. They ask what they can do to make some money. I tell them what they can do. We do not give them money. They do not really want it. If you can show them ways in which to earn it themselves it is much better. The positive approach has weaknesses, of course, but the fact is that you must have that base. We are accumulating that base pretty effectively right now and it is about time to move.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to break in on this philosophical approach to the deficit, but I do want to say a few words on this Bill. If the Government agrees, I suggest that this Bill could be referred to committee at the end of this sitting. Many of the factors which led to the crisis in agriculture in Canada are still in place. I refer, of course, to things like the high interest rates in the 1970s and early 1980s, the declining value of farm assets and the annually rising costs of farm inputs such as fuel, fertilizer and chemicals. Perhaps the most important entity is the continuing decline of commodity prices. All of those factors have contributed to the current crisis in agriculture.
It is unclear whether the decline in agricultural income has bottomed out. We are not at all sure that the small rise which
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
we have experienced in the prices of red meats and pork is going to continue. We do not even know whether the price of grain will continue to decline. I applaud the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) for putting in place a Bill which will allow cash advances for harvested grain to be more easily and readily available without the problems faced by farmers and the Wheat Board over the years. Consequently, we will be supporting this Bill. I suggest that it could go to the committee at the end of today's sitting.
Farmers face cash flow problems at almost any time. Most people who do not live in farming communities do not realize that it takes approximately two years before the farmer realizes a return on his initial investment. The farmer will buy the fertilizer, seed and other material in the fall but will not bring off the crop until two years later. He may still be selling the crop two years later. That is a long time for any business person to wait for a return, and if the business is declining and cash flow is small it is important that parliamentarians and the Government provide some relief and have a return in eight months rather than two years.
Bill C-12 is a worth-while effort to improve that relief process and we are pleased that the Minister has brought it forward. When the Bill goes to committee, we will question the Minister on a number of aspects that should be considered, not only in the Bill itself, but in the regulations attached to it. Cash advances are not the solution to the problem, as I know the Government recognizes. It is a band-aid solution to some extent, and farmers would be pleased to get along without cash advances. A much more global approach is needed to address the problems of agriculture.
There is a widespread concern within the agricultural community that the Government believes that one of the solutions to the problem facing farming is to have fewer farmers. The Government has contributed to this concern to some extent, as a result of doing what it believes is helpful to the farmer. The agricultural community sees the Government carrying out programs that may be beneficial but which also indicate that perhaps the Government is not interested in finding a total solution that will keep farmers farming for many years. It is important that we keep reminding the Government about this fear.
The Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) fuzzy approach in announcing a billion dollars in assistance for grain farmers has confused the farm community rather than provided it with some security. For example, we are not sure how much the assistance will be, how it will be paid, how much will be paid, or how it will be financed. We do not even know who is eligible for these payments.
The terms of this assistance are so nebulous that it is very difficult to know exactly how it will work. The farmers cannot say with certainty that they have an agreement by which they will get a certain price for their grain or a certain amount in assistance that they need. Consequently, the Government must

October 21, 1986
Adjournment Debate
develop in the next two years a global approach that will not include band-aid solutions. Although it is difficult to suggest that $1 billion in assistance is a band-aid solution, that is what it amounts to.
While the changes proposed in the Bill are beneficial, a number of the Wheat Board's and Ministers' responsibilities are not spelled out in the Bill. The present Act and the changes in the Bill do not clearly specify that inflexibility will not appear in the new structure so that farmers will still find themselves acquiring debts they should not have acquired because of the way in which the Act has been interpreted and used to collect money from the farmers. We will be discussing this area very thoroughly in the committee.
However, the changes in the Bill are worthwhile and I hope the Bill will receive speedy passage.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, first, may I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your reappointment to the chair. You did an excellent job in the previous session, as I am sure you will do this year.
I also want to commend the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). I do not think there is any time when the Hon. Member speaks that we do not enjoy listening to him because he has such a tremendous knowledge of the past. I recall the years when he was the Minister of Agriculture, when our granaries were jammed with wheat and we had no place to send it. The Hon. Member went to China and came back with an order that took a large volume of that wheat. He has a tremendous record and I want to thank him for what he has done for Canada and for agriculture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member who, of course, will continue his speech when the Bill comes before the House again.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on a question I put to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) on October 7 concerning the Governmment's inadequate funding of sewage treatment plants.
When I asked the Minister why, in spite of the grandiloquent rhetoric of the Speech from the Throne on environmental issues, he turned down requests from provincial Ministers
for additional federal funds for building new and upgrading existing sewage treatment plants, he answered that the Government was already "up to its eyebrows" in such funding. But, when boasting about his Government's record, the Minister did not mention that the tens of millions of dollars he has committed to the provinces are actually small potatoes beside the $1.8 billion in loans and grants provided to the provinces for sewage treatment facilities through CMHC programs in the period from 1961 through 1980.
Nor did the Minister mention that of the $65 million he bragged about giving to Ontario, a mere $9.7 million remains available, and this was as a result of an agreement which may well go back to 1980, prior to the election of the Conservative Government.
The consequences of the Government's environmental irresponsiblity through continuing inaction are indeed grave. According to last year's federal inquiry into water policy, a disgraceful 43 per cent of Canada is not served by any form of sewage treatment facilities. Even where there are plants in operation, they are often inadequate to the task, causing leakages and overflows of raw sewage into Canadian waters. The almost annual closure of beaches in the St. Catharines region is a direct result of inadequate sewage facilities causing overflows.
The underfunding of sewage treatment plants is only one of many areas where the Government's failure to live up to its environmental responsibilities has led to the dangerous deterioration of Canada's water supplies. Be it sewage treatment, toxic wastes being dumped deliberately into our waters or pesticides draining off fields into our lakes and rivers, the Government so far has not been up to the challenge.

A tragic example of this lack of responsibility, Mr. Speaker, is the case of white whales in the St. Lawrence River. One hundred years ago there were 5,000 white whales in the St. Lawrence River; fifty years later there were only half as many as a result of commercial hunting. Today only 400 whales ply these waters, and pollution rather than hunters is the enemy.
Biologists who examine white whales which often beach themselves on the shores of the St. Lawrence River have been able to determine that their bodies contain all kinds of toxins, including PCBs. Where do these poisons come from? From Jonquiere's Alcan plant, right next to the whale's habitat. They also come from pesticides dumped into the St. Lawrence, and they come from raw sewage.
When we hear about the problem of toxic chemicals in Canadian waters, invariably reference is made to the Great Lakes, the Niagara River and the St. Clair River. The sad story of white whales in the St. Lawrence River clearly indicates that the Government must also tackle the serious problem of polluted waters in the St. Lawrence River.
October 21, 1986



Greenpeace, which is currently campaigning to save the beluga whale, estimates that the beluga will be extinct in its St. Lawrence habitat by the year 2000. Urgent action is needed if we are to avert this tragedy. However, urgent action is never what we seem to get from the Government. Its response to the sewage treatment problem, "Look what we've done in the past", is all too typical of the Minister's response to environmental problems. He has been extremely light on action so far despite the great expectations which greeted his appointment as Minister of the Environment. He is very big on words which are full of sound and fury but signify nothing. We hope at some point that "nothing" will turn into something, and with respect to the St. Lawrence River, the Niagara River problem, acid rain, pesticides, and so many of the serious environmental problems facing this country, we will see action forthcoming from the Government.
I look forward to hearing just what type of action the Government has in mind from whoever has been designated to respond on behalf of the Minister. Perhaps this will be an occasion on which we will hear something new from the Government, something about which I can only hope.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to have an opportunity to reply to the Hon. Member's question about possible federal funding for the upgrading of municipal infrastructure facilities.
As Members of the House are aware, on October 2, 1986, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) met with his provincial counterparts at the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers. During the frank and constructive discussion, the federal and provincial Environment Ministers agreed that the need for new and upgraded municipal and sewer waterworks is an issue of growing significance which will have to be addressed by all three levels of Government. The Ministers also agreed that the responsibility extends well beyond the mandate of Environment and Resource Ministers and must be addressed by First Ministers and Ministers of Finance.
To date, the debate has focused exclusively on the question of potential financing by federal and provincial Governments. While the financing question is important, it is the view of the federal and provincial Ministers that appropriate pricing of water services is the other side of the same coin and that appropriate pricing must be considered on a priority basis in parallel with the issue of subsidies. Canadians must look at the potential benefits of applying the user-pay principle to the provision of water supply and waste water treatment services to a greater degree than is currently being done.
In this regard the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers agreed to establish an advisory committee on water. The first task of this committee will be to
Adjournment Debate
oversee a study on the cost of delivering and treating water as one aspect of the fiscal dimension of the problem. We must also take into account other important considerations. Collectively, Canadians must search for new solutions. For example, Environment Canada officials are examining the potential for improved efficiencies in sewage treatment through technological innovation, and the Department of Health and Welfare is pursuing similar initiatives in relation to drinking water.
In addition to any study of methods to finance the upgrading of municipal infrastructure, the federal Government has signed with the various provinces a number of economic and regional development agreements respecting municipal infrastructure. The agreements cover matters such as provision of water supply, sewer and waste water treatment systems, as well as provision of drainage systems to assist with community and industrial development.
The problem is being addressed, and Canada is up to the challenge.


AGRICULTURE-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF DEFICIENCY PAYMENT FOR FARMERS. (B) SITUATION OF GRAIN FARMERS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, on October 3 I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) if the Government would provide a deficiency payment to Canadian grain producers who are facing the worst prices for grain since the 1930s. The Minister declined to respond to my question. I also pointed out that a few weeks ago the Government was able to find some $1.5 billion for the major 25 oil companies, most of them multinationals. I asked why the Government could find no assistance for the 140 grain farmers in western Canada, as well as the other grain farmers producing in Ontario and other provinces, as well as corn producers.
On the previous day, the Regina Leader-Post had pointed out how the Speech from the Throne had mentioned in only very general terms what the Government would do. An article which appeared in the Regina Leader-Post on October 2 reads as follows:
The lack of detail on agriculture must be a particular concern in this province. True, agriculture rated mention near the beginning of the speech-not long after Sauve told us what she did this summer.
Prairie grain farmers know what they did this summer: they produced a record crop-
Many Saskatchewan ears therefore were tuned to hear whether a deficiency payment would be forthcoming from Ottawa.
About the time this comment appeared in an editorial in the Regina Leader-Post, there was a frantic phone call from Premier Grant Devine of Saskatchewan, supposedly to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) at 5.30 in the morning. As heard by a reporter, the Premier was demanding that the Government announce a deficiency payment.

October 21, 1986
Adjournment Debate
The same day I asked my question, even though the Minister of Agriculture gave his usual blather containing no answer to my question, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), responding to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) in the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, made this statement to the House:
I am pleased to announce today that we will be working closely over the next month with Premier Devine and other provincial Governments to devise an effective financial assistance program to enhance the cash flow of Canadian grain farmers. Initial estimates of the assistance required are that it will amount to approximately $1 billion.
That was very skillfully worded. He did not say anything about a deficiency payment. He did not say the Government would give $1 billion. He just said that there is a need for $1 billion. Everyone is aware that there is a need for probably $2 billion or S3 billion rather than the amount about which the Government is speaking.
During the Question Period of Monday, October 6, in reply to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said that the Government must move forward with aid for farmers and made the comment that it must produce the information required to help western farmers. On the same day during Question Period, he talked about taking whatever action would be helpful to western farmers.
Outside the House that day, the Minister of Agriculture suddenly waded into the question and announced that actually the $1 billion would not just go to western grain farmers. In other words, if $2 billion was required across the country, only $.5 billion would go to western farmers. He was very careful not to say how much would be provided for western farmers. As a matter of fact, he did volunteer that the Atlantic Feed Grain Initiative Program might be increased from $30 million to $50 million, at least according to a press report.
According to another article of October 8, the Minister said that the aid might not be a deficiency payment, it might be a loan guarantee or it might be some other loan program. This was especially disturbing to farmers across Canada because most of them already have too much debt. They do not want any more loans. They do not want loan guarantees. They want a deficiency payment.
The Parliamentary Secretary who will be responding today represents an agricultural area which is facing difficult times. The tobacco farmers of southwestern Ontario are facing as difficult times as are the grain farmers and corn producers in southwestern Ontario and the grain farmers in western Canada. I hope that he will muster up his courage, stop the flim-flam, the obfuscations, the double-talk, and stop the headline hunting and reaching for the headlines, as the Prime Minister does all the time, but not reaching for the Government's pocket-book.
We have a very serious problem in agriculture today. The Government has known about this problem since it announced the initial price for wheat last April or May. Now is the time
for the Parliamentary Secretary to come clean and announce what the terms and conditions will be; whether it will be a deficiency payment, how it will be paid and what amount for each region of the country. The Government can stop this situation of Canadians not knowing what is going to happen to our most important and vital industry.


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour this evening to represent someone who has done so much in the last two years for farmers and has achieved so much for that same group of people, much more than anyone else for many a moon.
Since the question from the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) was first raised in the House, several steps have been taken to build on this Government's commitment to Canadian farmers. We have left no doubt about our intention to extend financial assistance to grain farmers who have become victims of the subsidy war between western Europe and the United States. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has been highly supportive of Canadian agriculture from day one of this Government. He once again demonstrated his commitment to our farmers on October 3 when he announced to this House that the federal Government will work with provincial governments to enhance the cash flow of Canadian grain farmers. Initial estimates of the assistance required are in the neighbourhood of $1 billion.
How can we make the assistance equitable? What kind of assistance package will do the most good? These are the questions we must answer. It is a national problem. The solution must also be national. It must be fair and it must be equitable.
That is why we are consulting with farm organizations and acting in concert with the provinces. Together, we will come up with a package that puts money into the hands of Canadian farmers as soon as possible, but also as effectively as possible.
Federal and provincial Governments have been working together for some time to find ways of assisting Canadian grain farmers. At a meeting in Victoria on August 27, the federal and provincial Ministers of Agriculture made a collective commitment to take action to support the agricultural sector and all the jobs it represents across Canada. On October 9 federal and provincial Deputy Ministers of Agriculture once again met in Ottawa to continue the work of defining an assistance package. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) met with farm leaders on October 16. All options are being examined. Assistance could take many forms, from enhancing the existing programs to developing new initiatives.
Three points are clear. First, we are talking about assistance beyond funds available under existing programs. Second, any assistance will be within the federal Government's fiscal framework. Third, no federal program of agriculture will be cut in order to Finance this one.
October 21, 1986

The need for assistance is clear. This Government's commitment to take action is also clear. We intend to consult, then we intend to act fairly, equitably, and quickly.


CRIMINAL CODE-GUN CONTROL-AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I know that you had a very busy and active summer. It would not surprise me at all if you did not have an opportunity to notice that in August the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police met in Winnipeg and passed some very important resolutions. I would like to bring on to your attention in the event that you did not have an opportunity to see it at the time. That resolution deals with firearms and gun control. It reads as follows:
WHEREAS the presence of restricted weapons particularly handguns in Canada is a concern to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and
WHEREAS the National Firearms Registry reports the annual average of firsttime registration of these weapons is in excess of 30,000, and
WHEREAS there is presently a world-wide surplus of automatic and semiautomatic weapons primarily designed for purposes of warfare now finding their way into the Canadian market-place, and-
WHEREAS Canadian public opinion is critical of the American handgun experience, and
WHEREAS present gun control laws are in need of review;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Solicitor General of Canada now address these concerns in conjunction with his provincial counterparts and take the steps necessary to end this increase in available weapons.
I know that even if you missed hearing that resolution firsthand, Mr. Speaker, you were present in this House and you did hear me question the then Minister of Justice on the subject of gun control back in February of this year. You heard the then Minister of Justice indicate to me at that time that he was reviewing gun control policy. You also heard, and I am sure that you read in the papers in May of this year, of a report by one counsel from the Department of Justice, Mr. Michael Zigayer, who indicated that there would be gun control amendments to the Criminal Code ready for introduction in legislation this fall. Again, you will remember, Mr. Speaker, on October 14, 1986 that I asked the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) what was happening with this gun control legislation and amendments. He indicated that the matter was still under review.
It is now the fall and it is time for action. Canadians are looking to the Government to introduce amendments to the gun control legislation. It will not be easy to come up with amendments that satisfy everybody. I believe, as I am sure you do, Mr. Speaker, that by and large the vast majority of urban dwellers in Canada feel that there should be stricter gun control laws. There are exceptions, of course, in the target shooters, the hunters, and also a large number of rural dwellers and some experts who feel that our gun control laws are too strict now. Regardless, we have to address this problem. When we do, and I hope it will be very soon, I hope that the Department of Justice will take into account the recommendations made by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department for
Adjournment Debate
amendments to the Criminal Code in this respect. These suggestions flow from the concern of the Metro Police relating to the fact that in 1985 in Toronto there were some 512 occurrences of bullets being discharged, resulting in 16 deaths.
There is a concern as well relating to the growing numbers of military firearms, fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons. I would like to summarize some of the recommendations. The Toronto Police Department recommends, first, that the definition of a prohibited weapon be changed to include "any firearm that is designed, altered or intended to fire bullets in rapid succession by any means other than a single shot for each movement of the trigger by a finger. Any device that is designed or intended to enable a firearm to fire bullets in rapid succession other than a single shot for each movement of the trigger by a finger".
Second, they would like to see the definition of a restricted weapon changed to include "any military surplus or military designed semi-automatic or single shot firearm, or a weapon of any kind, not being a prohibited weapon, that is declared by order of the Governor in Council to be a restricted weapon". That would include "any device, chamber, clip or magazine that allows temporary or permanent access to more than 10 rounds of ammunition to any firearm without physically reloading the firearm".
Third, they would like to see the Criminal Code amended "to require any recipient of ammunition to produce a valid Firearms Acquisition Certificate to the person distributing the ammunition". Fourth, they would like to see that peace officers have "the authority to seize a Firearms Acquisition Certificate." Finally, they would like to see the Criminal Code amended so that any person who is authorized to issue a Firearms Acquisition Certification would also have authority to revoke it.
Those are the recommendations of the Metropolitan Toronto Police with respect to amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with firearms and gun control. I firmly believe that they should be taken very seriously by the Department of Justice. They should be taken into account when considering the forthcoming amendments. I hope we will hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that that is happening and that we are going to have some further amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to gun control very shortly, I trust before Christmas. When I say that, I mean before Christmas, 1986.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) for his question, since it gives me an opportunity to provide a brief overview of our firearms legislation. First of all, I must point out that our Constitution, unlike that in the United States, does not recognize the right of citizens to carry arms. And in fact, the provisions of the U.S. Constitution that are interpreted as conferring such a right are not perfectly clear. In Canada, federal and provincial legislation authorizes the

October 21, 1986
Adjournment Debate
possession of firearms for legitimate activities such as target shooting, maintaining a collection and hunting, while prohibiting or strictly regulating possession in other cases.
The present provisions of the Criminal Code relating to firearms were introduced by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill C-51). The passage of this legislation was accompanied by lively debate both in the House and the Senate. Hunters and collectors maintained that the provisions in question would constitute an obstacle to legitimate activities, but would not prevent criminals from procuring firearms. Proponents of stricter regulations maintained, however, that the provisions did not go far enough.
The present regulations have therefore been in existence for nine years. While admittedly, the legislation has had a fairly satisfactory impact and is well received by Canadians, it would seem necessary to make some changes in the provisions introduced in 1977. These provisions have, in fact, given rise to a number of problems the legislators had not foreseen.
As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) stated in this House October 14 last, in answer to a question from the Hon.
Member for York East, the Government has launched a review of Criminal Code provisions concerning firearms. The idea is to draft amendment which, without flying in the face of the principles underlying the legislation on firearms, would clear up certain points of the law to make enforcement easier. One of the objectives is to give people better protection by improving some of the legislative provisions. Another objective is to change certain provisions which cause problems to those who own firearms for legitimate purposes but still do not contribute to protecting the public.
As the Minister of Justice pointed out, he hopes the recommendations on this issue will be submitted in the near future, and this will eventually lead to the introduction of legislative measures in this House. We are pleased to note the representations of the Hon. Member for York East.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, October 22, 1986