1987-03-05

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there are times when I wish I was paid by the page, and today is one of them. I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Nos. 332-522 to 332557 inclusive, 332-567 to 332-574 inclusive, 332-578 to 332591 inclusive, 332-594 to 332-601 inclusive, 332-604 to 332611 inclusive, 332-613 to 332-618 inclusive, 332-624, 332-625, 332-668 to 332-671 inclusive, 332-678 to 332-682 inclusive, 332-686 to 332-701 inclusive, 332-703, 332-704, 332-717, 332729 to 332-735 inclusive, 332-766 to 332-768 inclusive, 332855 to 332-867 inclusive, 332-879 to 332-881 inclusive, 332934 to 332-944 inclusive, 332-1006 to 332-1014 inclusive, 3321113 to 332-1115 inclusive, and 332-1118 to 332-1122 inclusive.



PATENT ACT


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-22, an Act'-to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, I have the honour to present the Bill to the House of Commons with amendments. Your committee, Mr. Speaker, is recommending about 30 amendments, many of which are of a technical nature.


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that, on the same day as the committee reports on Bill C-22, I have an opportunity to present a petition on behalf of many Canadians from British Columbia who are calling upon the Government to reconsider the changes it is proposing to the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. The petitioners believe that the increase in drug prices for average Canadian consumers will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They are calling upon the Government to reconsider its decision to proceed with Bill C-22.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from Newfoundland which indicates concern about fishermen in Canada who depend upon unemployment insurance to survive the long winter months. The petitioners recognize the economic pressures on fishermen created by shorter seasons and lower prices and that unemployment insurance benefits have become critical for their survival and that of their families. They are calling upon Parliament to ensure that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) reject any recommendation which would deprive fishermen of their right to collect unemployment insurance and to enter into consultations with all representatives of fishermen in Canada in order that improvements to the program offered to fishermen be made.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, it is timely, after having just heard that the Bill to change the drug patent laws in Canada has cleared committee and will be back in this House for debate, to present petitions from hundreds of my constituents who responded to the opportunity to petition which was afforded them through my householder. I take great pleasure in presenting the names of these hundreds of my constituents who are opposed to the federal Government's plans to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. The petitioners believe that these changes will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to reject these proposals. We hope against hope that in the coming days and weeks during third reading stage we will be able to change the

March 5, 1987
Petitions
Government's mind on this very unfortunate piece of legislation.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106. The petition relates to the changes to the Patent Act which have now been reported from committee. The petitioners express their concern that the Government is changing the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. They believe that these changes will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers, will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs, and will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. The petitioners believe that the Government is giving concessions to the United States at the expense of average Canadians as a result of the free trade negotiations. The petitioners are from a number of communities in my riding including The Pas, Thompson, Flin Flon, Lynn Lake and Leaf Rapids. They are very concerned that the committee was not allowed to travel and hear from ordinary Canadians.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions with several hundred names from various communities throughout the Algoma-Manitoulin area which call upon the Government to withdraw its legislation relating to the Patent Act which will have the effect of increasing drug costs and provincial medicare programs, and generally working a hardship on low-income families, those who are ill and those who do not have forms of insurance to cover health care costs.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I also have several other petitions calling upon the Government to reinstate the full postal service in rural communities and not close or privatize the post offices as is being proposed for dozens of post offices throughout the Algoma-Manitoulin area.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour to present three petitions signed by residents of Winnipeg and various towns in Manitoba including Teulon, Stonewall, Balmoral, Petersfield, Deloraine, Goodlands and Gimli. The petitioners say that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. Therefore, they pray and call upon Parliament to reject these
proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
We intend to debate this issue at considerable length at report stage and third reading.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents of the area surrounding my constituency. The petition consists of another group of names to be added to the hundreds of other petitioners from my constituency.
The petitioners wish to tell the federal Government that the changes to the Patent Act will increase the cost of prescription drugs and, therefore, they call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase the costs of drugs to Canadians.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition with respect to a different area. The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) rejects any recommendations that would deprive fishermen of their right to collect unemployment insurance, and enters into consultation with representatives of the fishermen of Canada in order that improvement to the program offered to fishermen is made.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I rise to present a different set of petitions having to do with the anxiety of the fishermen that the Government is seriously thinking of taking away their right to collect unemployment insurance. They are of the view that unemployment insurance must be improved so it can better meet the needs of those who risk their lives to provide food for Canadians and for the world market which is so important to this nation's economy. They, therefore, call upon Parliament to ensure that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) rejects any recommendation which would deprive fishermen of their right to collect unemployment insurance, and to enter into consultations with all representatives of fishermen in Canada in order that improvements are made to the program offered to fishermen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like to bring to the attention of Hon. Members again that if they are going to present petitions they should present them all at the same time. I would hope that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) would do that the next time around.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In keeping with your comments, we all recognize that the presenting of petitions is an ancient and honoured parliamentary tradition. I believe that Hon. Members of this House would do well to honour the tradition that one presents the
March 5, 1987

petitions which are presented to one to present in the House and not shuffles them around the Chamber in the middle of the comments you just made so that another person could be put up to give a petition. I have absolutely no difficulty with any Member of Parliament presenting a petition which has been given to that Hon. Member to present. However, I find it offensive to have a pile of petitions brought into the Chamber and shuffled from one Member of the New Democratic Party to another.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Parliamentary Secretary was referring to me who passed along a sheaf ot petitions to my hon. friend from Comox-Powell River. I think if the Parliamentary Secretary were to look actually at the petitions the Hon. Member will present, he would find they are actually in his name. I was asked to bring the petitions into the Chamber to present to the Hon. Member because he was previously involved with a committee meeting. Therefore, he will be presenting his petition. It is in his name and it is a petition which was sent to him for presentation.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, of course, my House Leader, as always, is eloquent on these matters and absolutely factual even when there are errors on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to present petitions which stand in my name on the issue of the Government's intention to remove unemployment insurance benefits from fishermen, thereby depriving them of the substantial income required by fishing families all across Canada. The petitioners urge that the Government provide them with relief from this nefarious plot to remove basically a substantial part of their family income.
I too would join with many colleagues in the House in support of the petitions which urge that unemployment insurance be provided to fishermen in a fair and equitable way.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances I accept fully the explanation of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party and withdraw my comments with respect to this particular incident.
Motions



SECRETARY OF STATE


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 have two motions to present which have been discussed with the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party and I will place them separately, if I may.
I should like at this time to move that the Standing Committee on Secretary of State be authorized to adjourn from place to place within Canada, a total of seven days, between March 23 and April 15, 1987, in relation to its mandate under Standing Order 96(2) to inquire into the Women's Program with the Secretary of State Department, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 would also move that the Standing Committee on Transport, pursuant to its Orders of Reference dated Wednesday, February 4, 1987, and Wednesday, February 11, 1987, be authorized to adjourn from place to place within Canada for a period of two weeks and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As Whip of the Liberal Party I have no difficulty with the Parliamentary Secretary's first motion. He knows that when we are specific in motions with respect to making certain travel arrangements Whips of all Parties have no difficulties in concurring. However, with respect to the Hon. Member s second motion I have some difficulty.
I would like to make the point that authority is requested for the committee to adjourn from place to place within Canada for a period of two weeks. There are no dates attached to the motion, whereas in the first motion there were some dates. I will give my consent today. However, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to ask committee chairpersons, and committees in general, when they want to travel across Canada not to make motions open-ended in terms of dates. It would be better if we had arrangements which set out specific dates. In this way it would be much easier for us to work in the House and to have our Members present when they are needed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend makes an excellent point. I think it would be to the benefit of all Members of the House, especially those in the position of Whip. I will take the

March 5, 1987
Order Papers Questions
Hon. Member's point and carry it forward to committee chairpersons.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)) moved: that Bill C-12 be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles James Mayer: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
He said. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few brief words on the situation facing Canadian grain producers. I would then like to make some comments on the Bill itself.
I do not think it is any secret that international grain prices are extremely depressed. If one considers what has been happening around the world, one realizes that there is an excess amount of product over what has come to be called real demand". If one looks at the producing countries which are causing the problem, one will see, at least in my view, that it is being caused by the European community. Through its agricultural policy the European community has been subsidizing agriculture significantly since the Treaty of Rome.
As a result of not placing any limits on over-all production, very large subsidies have caused production to increase dramatically. Not only have levels been very much of an incentive to production, but the fact that prices paid to producers in Europe have been constant has also been an incentive to produce. Any businessman or farmer knows that if one can plan on a year-by-year basis on certainty of prices, then that in itself, as well as the fact that one does not have to be concerned about varying prices, is an incentive to production. If we consider the over-all level of prices and the price support system which the Europeans have in place, we will see that that price level is also a very substantial incentive to producers in Europe to increase their over-all production.
I would now like to provide Hon. Members with two examples of this which I think make the point. If we consider the southern Prairies in our country, we see that we produce very high quality Durum wheat. It is probably second to none in the world. It is recognized around the world as being of very high quality. In the current crop year, our producers are receiving $130 per tonne as an initial payment. European producers are receiving $480 per tonne, over three times what the Canadian producer is receiving. If we do our arithmetic and translate that figure into Canadian dollars, we see that the Europeans are receiving about $13 a bushel for Durum wheat.
In terms of the barley market internationally, Europeans are one of our major competitors. They produce considerable quantities of barley for export. Presently, our producers are receiving $80 per tonne as an initial payment. If we look to what is happening in Europe, we see that European prices are over three times what the Canadian producers are receiving. The Europeans are receiving $285 per tonne. The price varies from time to time, but that is the general level. So when we compare $80 per tonne to $285 per tonne, we see that that is a very attractive price as compared to what Canadian producers are receiving.
With respect to other commodities, almost every agricultural commodity that Europe produces is now in a surplus position. For example, with respect to beef, Canada has a high quality beef herd. As far as Canadian beef producers are concerned, there is probably a gene pool in terms of Canadian beef which is second to none around the world. If we consider Europe, we see that through incentives to production Europe has gone from being a net importer of something in the order of 300,000 tonnes of beef in 1978 to being the largest exporter in 1984. If we consider what Europe exported last year, we see that Europeans exported something in the order of 600,000 tonnes of beef. In addition, they have about 700,000 tonnes of beef in storage, according to the figures that we have seen. That is a tremendous amount of product in storage for which there is no apparent market at the price that the Europeans are paying to produce it.
If we talk about quantity of products, again, we should look at what is happening with respect to wheat. As recently as 1977, just 10 years ago, Europe was a net importer of wheat to the tune of about 24 million tonnes. With respect to last year,
March 5, 1987

as far as Europe is concerned, it was a net exporter of wheat to the tune of close to 15 million tonnes. It has gone in a very short period of time from being a major importer to being a major exporter. In fact, it is now the third largest exporter of wheat in the world after the United States and Canada. I can also talk about Japan in this vein. Japan is another country which protects its agricultural sector from the realities of the world market-place.
This is a very difficult situation that we face. What we have been doing as a Government is to take two deliberate approaches. If we are to find a lasting solution to the problem, it must be found at the international level. This is why Canada has been placing so much emphasis on talks with respect to agricultural products and trade problems internationally. It was our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who at the last summit placed agriculture on the agenda. That is why we have been so concerned about having agriculture form part of the GATT agenda and why we have been so supportive of the GATT process. We have done this so that this time around at the GATT discussions agriculture will be included as a main agenda item. This is why we are pursuing every other international meeting in which we are involved, pursuing it in the sense that we want to have agriculture as part of the discussions because it is a very major problem.
[DOT] (U30)
We also make sure that we sell our grain and oilseeds. Last year Canada increased its world share of the wheat market. In the present crop year we have the prospect of again increasing exports. In order to do that, we are suffering severe price penalties because the price is extremely low. We all know how serious the situation is. We have been attempting to deal with the situation through some direct government involvement. Some Acts have been amended to allow for stabilization money to be made available sooner. The Western Grain Stabilization Act was put through the House two years ago to allow for interim payments under that Act prior to spring seeding. It was supported by all Parties in the House, and it has been well received by producers.
The Government has removed the tax on farm fuel. Under the Special Canadian Grains Program we are at present paying out the largest financial support program in the history of the country, as far as farmers are concerned.
The Bill in front of us provides for cash advances to farmers in the Wheat Board region who have harvested their grain but have not had an opportunity to sell it. This will be of assistance to farmers in providing them cash more quickly than if they had to wait for delivery opportunities and quotas to open up. It will also help the business community because there will be extra cash in circulation prior to the time when grain would normally be sold and when producers would realize the cash from the sale of that grain. This Act was first introduced in 1957. The former Minister of Agriculture under Mr. Diefen-baker, the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), made one of the most interesting speeches I
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
have heard in the House. He talked about the time when he introduced the Act and brought it in.
This Act is being amended today so that producers will be in a position to benefit from it in a more timely and a more easily administered fashion. To state it very briefly, at present the forms for which producers apply each year have to be set by Order in Council. The forms vary little from year to year. The Canadian Wheat Board is the organization that administers this Act. One of the amendments will allow the Board itself to set the prescribed form. It will be simpler in detail, and will allow for less red tape and hold-up.
In the Bill there are also provisions for emergency cash advances for unthreshed grain. In the fall of the year if the harvest is late and the producers have not been able to harvest their grain and receive the cash advance, there are provisions in the Bill to allow for emergency cash advances. One of them is for unthreshed grain, so that the producer can have half of the cash advance if he has grown the grain but has not yet had an opportunity to harvest it by November 15. In this case there will not be an Order in Council required and it can simply be done at the discretion of the Minister of the day. This will speed things up.
We are doing the same thing concerning cash advances for drying tough and damp grain. At present there are provisions in the Act that allow for a $3,000 assistance package and an interest-free cash advance that allow producers to take advantage of that extra loan if they have grain that has been harvested but it is in a tough or damp condition. If there has been a difficult harvest season, this will assist people to dry the grain and get it into marketing condition.
The Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Scowen), who is a registered seed grower, and who is well recognized in his area as a very good farmer, has been concerned about one of the aspects of this Bill. In his area of northern Saskatchewan, which is indicative of the northern Prairies in general, farmers dry grain on a more regular basis than in other parts of the Prairies. The Hon. Member has been concerned that we should take a look at this Bill and try to make use of it to assist producers and to encourage them to dry their grain. This is one of the ways in which to assist producers to get a crop off a little sooner. In many cases in doing so, they will harvest a higher quality product.
Canada is well known for its high quality grain. This amendment will be used to provide the Minister of the day with more discretion to decide when there can be cash advances for drying. That provision will be used on a trial or test basis in northeastern Saskatchewan, covering part of the riding of the Hon. Member for Mackenzie, and probably part of the riding of Prince Albert, to look at doing exactly what the Hon. Member suggested, that is, to make use of cash advances to assist producers to harvest grain in a higher quality condition. In that manner, they will be in a better position to market a better quality product.

March 5, 1987
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
Without the efforts and the insistence of the Hon. Member for Mackenzie, we would not be engaged in this project. We look forward to working with the producers and Members from that area to see how this will work. We will then see the success rate, and on that basis how this measure can be used in other parts of the Prairies.
In addition, we will be able to set the rates of the cash advance in a simpler fashion which will not involve an Order in Council. It will be in the regulations in such a manner that an Order in Council will not be required.
In the Bill, we will also be amending the procedure by which a producer who rents land can obtain a cash advance. At present that producer has to receive a signature from his landlord before he can receive the cash advance. The Advance Payments for Crops Act, which applies to other crops in the Prairies as well as other crops in the rest of the country, has provisions that simplify this, so that there will be less hol'd-up in receiving the cash advance for people who rent land.
The Act is also being amended so that everybody is treated fairly across the country. Nobody will receive a larger cash advance than $30,000. There is some concern that we may be limiting cash advances, because at present producers can receive a cash advance under the Western Grain Advance Payments Act, and they are also eligible for a cash advance under the Advance Payments for Crops Act. One of the amendments limits the total amount of advance that any producer can receive to a maximum of $30,000. In our view, that is a fair and even-handed way to proceed. If there is concern that the cash advances are too low, then we can look at raising the over-all levels so that everybody is treated fairly. The present situation is such that not everybody across the country is eligible for two cash advances, one under the Advance Payments for Crops Act, and one under the present Bill. By limiting the amount to the maximum everybody is treated evenly.
Another amendment concerns people who, because of the fact that they irrigate, grow more grain than other people who farm under dry land conditions. Farmers who irrigated may in fact have enough grain on hand to be able to qualify for the maximum, or certainly a fairly large amount. However, because of the way in which the Act presently sets the amount for which they are eligible on an acre basis, they in fact are not eligible for the full amount for which they should be eligible based upon the amount of grain they have grown, harvested, and stored on their farms.
[DOT] (U40)
One amendment changes that so that the maximum amount a producer is able to receive will be directly related to his production, not to the amount of acres which he farms. That is an improvement and something which everyone welcomes. It treats people in an even-handed way, based upon the amount of production on their farms.
There are two other amendments. I might say that repayment under the Act has been very good, but unfortunately there are cases where producers have gone into default. When they go into default and cannot repay the cash advance, because it is a loan, interest rates are set at the time their loan is declared in default. Let us say some producers went into default four years or five years ago when interest rates were extremely high, from 16 per cent to 20 per cent. Those producers are still paying interest rates at that level, because there is no provision in the present Act to adjust interest rates after they have been initially set.
We are amending the Act to set interest rates yearly, based upon current conditions. Again I think it is a step in the right direction because it treats people on a fair basis. People who have gone into default are having a bad time, obviously, and they do not need to be penalized further in today's situation by having to pay interest rates which are as much as 8 per cent and 10 per cent higher than present interest rates.
Another amendment allows the Canadian Wheat Board, which administers the Act, much more discretion in terms of making adjustments for people who, for one reason or another, have not been able to deliver grain. It can be because of weather conditions, road problems, washed out bridges, personal hardships in their families, or such things. The way the Act is presently written, the Canadian Wheat Board does not have the latitude to make some adjustments based upon common sense or upon an approach which includes information which should be relevant to producers who have had problems in terms of delivering grain and therefore fulfilling their obligations under the Act once they have taken a cash advance.
All in all I think the legislation has worked well. As I said, it has been in effect for almost 30 years. It is one which benefits farmers and local communities served by farmers, because it puts cash into the hands of farmers quicker than would otherwise be the case. The amendments we are discussing today will streamline the administration of the Bill in such a way that the functioning of the Act will be more timely and more responsive to the needs of producers.
In conclusion, we very much appreciate the co-operation from all sides of the House, not only at second reading but during its consideration in committee and here today. I thank the Hon. Member for Mackenzie who made some very useful suggestions. As a result of the amendments before us today, we will be able to look at the concerns he raised and take them into account. We will be able to operate on a trial or experimental basis advances for drying purposes, which will encourage people to harvest their grain and get it off in a more high quality condition than would otherwise be the case.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-12. The Minister has given a very good summary of the legislative provisions of the Bill. Unfortunately, he did not answer the $64,000 question about which all farmers in western Canada
March 5, 1987

are concerned, that is, what will be the exact initial price for grain in the coming crop year. I should like to talk a little about that this morning.
However, at the same time I agree with the Hon. Minister that the Bill improves the legislation for cash advances. Many of the amendments are technical in a way, but they provide significant improvement for farmers who utilize this very good Act and its provisions.
My regret is that we did not pass the legislation last October. The Bill was actually brought in on October 7. We debated it first on October 21 and again on October 28. Then it went to committee and did not return until December 3. In fact, if we had been able to pass it in the House on October 21, or if we did not have so many government Members speaking on the Bill on October 28 and so on, the amendments to the legislation could have been available to farmers in this crop year.
As the Minister outlined, the amendments are pretty significant. They are based upon stored grain instead of cash advances on an acreage basis. Farmers who are paying high interest rates due to default on previous cash advances could have had the benefit of a lower interest rate throughout the winter. Farmers who were tenants could have had the advantage of a cash advance rather than being denied it throughout the winter, which was one of the most difficult winters faced by western grain farmers. These provisions would have been extremely beneficial, but I guess they are better late than never. Essentially we miss a whole year of the benefits under the program.
When we first debated the Bill and offered to expedite its passage last October 21,1 do not believe the quotas were open to any extent in most areas of the West, so cash advances would have been very valuable to farmers at that time.
I want to inquire about some of the most devastating news to hit western Canada yesterday. It was indicated that the Canadian Wheat Board recommended that the initial price be reduced by 20 per cent. Just to put that into perspective, two years ago or three years ago the initial price for No. 1 wheat was $170 per tonne. Two years ago it was $160 per tonne. Last year it was $130 per tonne. If the recommendations of the Canadian Wheat Board are acted upon, we will see the initial price for No. 1 wheat being down to $105 per tonne. I do not think any sector of the economy has faced such a devastating blow as to see its gross price drop from $170 per tonne to $105 per tonne. If there is any other such sector, it is perhaps the petroleum sector. That industry has faced a similar kind of reduction in the value of its commodity. Unfortunately, grain, wheat, barley, oats and crude oil are produced essentially in our two western Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
I was surprised yesterday when the Minister seemed to deny the report in the House that the Wheat Board was recommending a 20 per cent reduction in the initial price of wheat.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
Clearly the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) was telling those attending the CFA conference in Hull that that was the recommendation. We have had to face the most devastating news two years in a row. There was a 19 per cent reduction in the initial price of wheat last year, and now there is a 20 per cent reduction this year from something around $3 Canadian a bushel Canadian to about $2.50 a bushel or even lower.
There is concern that the Government is not coming clean with Canadians. Perhaps the reason the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is so low in the polls these days is that he does not come clean with Canadians about exactly what the true facts are. In any event, the Minister of Agriculture indicated yesterday, as reported in a Canadian Press story, that farmers should not count on massive Government aid when deciding what to plant this year. That was the devastating news in the Budget.
There was a great deal of talk about the special grains program put in place last fall but which is really only being paid in this fiscal year. There has been nary a word about the new crop year. Do people decide to plant crops this year? Will the price be as low as $2.50 a bushel for No. 1 wheat? You can imagine what the price of barley and the price of No. 3 feed grains will be if the price of No. 1 wheat is as low as that. Why is there no clear indication from the Government about what is to happen?
If we look through the Budget papers, we see no commitment about the new crop year. We do not know whether there will be a special grains program, whether there will be a deficiency payment, whether the existing price for wheat will be maintained, or what is going to be done. The Minister talked about the problems with the EEC and about the price of beef and meat stored by the EEC. However, he did not get into the details on this main agricultural Bill as to what he is going to do about the initial price of wheat this year or whether there will be an additional special grains program. Clearly those questions are on everybody's mind.
We also see that there is no action whatever concerning the farm debt crisis in the Budget papers. Even with a 19 per cent reduction in the price of wheat last year in Saskatchewan and a 17 per cent reduction in the property values-that is an average, it is probably twice that in some areas of the province-there is nary a word in the Budget about new financial assistance relating to the farm debt crisis.
I just had the opportunity a few days ago of looking at the Farm Credit Corporation situation. The FCC is the major federal Government lending agency. It has some 75,000 mortgage accounts across the country. It is interesting to note that 18,000 of these, clearly 25 per cent, are in arrears. Those arrears have grown by 30 per cent in the last 12 months, from January 1986 to January 1987, from $260 million to $377 million. This 30 per cent increase is an increase of $117 million.
The Minister of Agriculture has had a moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures in this past year. We are told

March 5, 1987
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
now that some 5,200 of them, or almost one-third of those mortgages in arrears, have been in arrears for more than two years. The FCC's experience is that once mortgages are in arrears for more than two years, it is almost impossible to recoup. That is why we are extremely concerned about there being nothing in the Budget on the farm debt crisis. There is no financial assistance, whether in the form of reduced interests or lower mortgage rates. This is in spite of the reduced price of grain last year. Now we have this double whammy of an increased reduction in price again this year.
I hope we can get a clear pronouncement about where the Government is going on the initial price of grain. But first the Government has to come clean and say that the Wheat Board has recommended a reduction of 20 per cent, if that is what it is. The Minister of Agriculture says that this is what it is. The Minister responsible for the Wheat Board does not say what it is. As a matter of fact, at the CFA meeting yesterday the Minister was surprised because he did not know about that recommendation, and yet members of the advisory board to the Canadian Wheat Board said that this is what was being recommended. We really need a clearer indication of where the Government is going and on what basis a special grains program will be put into effect. I do not think that can be weighted off and negotiated a year from now, next fall or in December. It may not happen at all. There is no election in Saskatchewan this year. If there had been no election last year, it is highly questionable whether there would have been a special grains program.
There are a number of serious problems with the special grains program. People who have switched to alternative crops, peas, lentils and others, to reduce the acreage of wheat are not getting any assistance. I think the Government has to exercise its responsibility, provide leadership and make it clear on what basis there will be assistance and whether there will be assistance, because it is not clear at this time. The Minister heightened that uncertainty when he said yesterday at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's annual general meeting that farmers should not count on massive government aid when deciding what to plant this year. Here we have the price of wheat going down and probably the prices of all grains going down by 20 per cent perhaps to a price that is even lower in actual dollars than what was paid in the 1930s. Yet the Minister is saying that farmers should not count on any assistance in that regard from the federal Government.
I looked very carefully through the Budget papers to see what assistance would be provided under the Western Grain Stabilization Fund, because that is a major support program. One-third of the money is put in by the farmers and two-thirds by the federal Government. People in the industry have suggested that the fund may be as high as $1 billion this year.
I think it would be useful for the Government, which is not exactly enjoying a lot of popularity in Canada right now, to make it clear how much will be paid out under the Western Grain Stabilization Fund and when it will be paid. Will it be
paid on the basis of two-thirds or 70 per cent in a timely manner in April with the balance in October as it was last year?
In the Budget papers it is suggested that the contribution by the federal Government to the fund in this coming year will be some $99 million. I am told by people from the Department that in fact that fund is about $90 million in the red right now. It is difficult if not impossible to find out exactly how much will be paid out under the Western Grain Stabilization Fund.
I believe there is concern as well with the Government coming clean and outlining exactly what the initial grain price will be. We saw a deficit in the past crop year, 1985-86, of some $201 million, mostly on barley. Some people in the industry have suggested that the deficit in the pool accounts this year will be as high as $400 million to $500 million. Perhaps the Government could spell out exactly what the arrangements on initial price and the special grains or deficiency programs will be. Will it be resource neutral, and on what basis will it be established? It would be very useful to know those things because we will be facing an impossible situation if there is no support or stabilization.
At the Canadian Federation meeting yesterday, I spoke to people from the Saskatchewan and Manitoba pools. They said that many farmers facing a price of $105 per tonne will simply not be able to go to the bank to get the cash flow required to plant this year. I think it is imperative that the Government make it clear what the initial price will be and what kind of stabilization program will be provided.
It seems to me that at this time, farmers are facing greater uncertainty than they have at any time in the past 50 years. In his first three Budgets, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) increased personal taxation by some 50 per cent while dropping back on corporations by 5 per cent. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has not given any commitment on grain freight rates in the coming year.
We know that the former Minister of Transport, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), was able to instruct the grain transportation agency to reduce its volume from 30.5 million tonnes to 28.5 million tonnes last year. The Prime Minister was therefore able to say at a press conference last April that he had frozen freight rates. Freight rates really were not frozen, the grain transportation agency was simply instructed to reduce its estimate. The impact of that has been that all of the money that was in the tally-averaging fund of some $70 million has been used up so now western farmers are facing a $100 million increase in the cost of the transportation of grain. The price they will have to pay to transport grain will increase from $6 a tonne to about $9 a tonne at a time when the value of a tonne of grain is dropping from $130 to $105 per tonne, if we believe what the Minister of Agriculture and the Wheat Board Advisory Committee have reported to us. However, we should wait, of course, to hear exactly what the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) will say.
March 5, 1987

We are facing a difficult time. The Minister of Finance increased personal taxation by 50 per cent in the last three Budgets. The Minister of Transport has increased the cost of shipping grain by 50 per cent. The Minister responsible for the Wheat Board has reduced the initial price of grain over the last three years from $170 a tonne to $105 a tonne. The Minister of Agriculture said yesterday at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture meeting that in fact farmers should not count on massive support this year. At a time when the worst financial disaster to strike western Canada is before us, the Minister is telling us not to count on support.
There is one footnote to this difficult time in western Canada and that is the fact that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) is carrying out a wide-scale tax audit of farmers' investment tax credits in Manitoba and Saskatchewan particularly. The farmers claimed these tax credits in 1983 and 1984. If there is anything unnerving to farmers it is to see that kind of widespread tax audit going on. I believe that many farmers who are being audited are honest, responsible people who have bought machinery, tractors or combines after entering into legitimate, fair and proper contracts. Now the Department of National Revenue is sending its men throughout the country at a time when farmers are under extreme financial stress. The Department of National Revenue is moving across the Prairies calling into question these accounts.
Yesterday I had a meeting with a number of producers from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. A producer from near Saskatoon described the initiative on the part of the Department of National Revenue as being a whole can of worms. He made a fair deal to purchase a combine. I have forgotten the exact figures, but the same techniques are always used. The farmer buys a combine or a tractor at, say, $100,000. He pays $40,000 or $50,000 to the farm implement company and then signs the agreement and pays the money or makes arrangements to borrow the money to make the payments. Now, three or four years later, the tax department embarks on a program which the Government is, incidentally, phasing out, and this is also causing a great deal of hardship. Officials from the Department of National Revenue are saying that the amounts allowed on tractors or combines are not right. The farmer was not terribly concerned about how much he was allowed for his tractor or combine. He was concerned about the difference. However, the dealer sold the machine at list price, and now the tax department is changing the rules. The producers I talked to yesterday are going to court to fight it all the way. We hear that repeatedly from farm communities, particularly those in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. They say they get great sympathy from the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, but not from the Minister of National Revenue. When we put questions to him in the House, he said this is a general program. That may be, but it is farmers who are being nailed. We think what the Government is doing is extremely unfair and it should be called off.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
I do not want to hold up passage of this Bill. It should have been passed last October, and I suppose its main impact will not be felt until next September or October. However, the advantages will be felt at that time, and it is a beneficial package. I hope the Minister will soon make a statement concerning the initial price of wheat, the assistance to be provided in the way of a deficiency payment, and on what basis, so that farmers will know whether it is possible to plant a crop this year. It is important that the Government clarify these points quickly so producers will know where they are in the coming year.


Charles James Mayer: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I might, there are two points raised by the Hon. Member which I think should be clarified. First, the Hon. Member should know that even if this Bill had been passed on October 21, it could not have been used for the current crop year. Unless the amendments were in place prior to August 1, it would have been impossible to apply them for the current crop year. I suspect the Hon. Member is confusing the crop year with the calendar year.
In line with that, we will, as soon as this Bill is passed, be looking at what kind of interest rate relief we can give to those in default. Where we can make use of one of the amendments which allows for interest rates to be moved down, we will do it as quickly as we can. We may be able to do it sooner than on August 1, which is when the rates are normally set.
As well, the Hon. Member should know that the Canadian Wheat Board has made recommendations to the Government as to what the initial price should be. The 20 per cent figure being used did not come from the Canadian Wheat Board, it came from other analysts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate the point of clarification but it is not a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On that same point, Mr. Speaker. We have a rule in the House which allows for questions and comments after speeches except in the case of the Minister and the first two Members replying. However, I know the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) would love to take whatever time is required to reply to the Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not want to-


Maurice Brydon Foster: I just want to reply to the point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You mean you want to reply to the point of clarification?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Because it was not a
point of order. I will allow it, but I think it is unfortunate that the first three speeches do not have a question or comment period. However, because the Bill is so important and I know

March 5, 1987
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
the Hon. Member would like to clarify his statement, I will not take advantage of the call of the exporter for the kind of recognize him.	grain he wanted.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to know that the Minister hopes to be able to deal with the question of reducing interest rates for this crop year. Had we been able to do it last October, it would have saved those people in default a lot of money.
Concerning the recommendation of the Canadian Wheat Board, 1 was really quoting what the Minister of Agriculture told members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture more than I was quoting press reports to the effect that the initial price recommended by the Board was 20 per cent lower than last year. That would bring it down from $130 a tonne to $105 a tonne. That would be really devastating, and I hope the Minister will, at an early occasion, clarify those several points regarding the initial price and also with respect to whatever grain assistance program is going to be provided.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to thank Hon. Members for those points of clarification.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin with a comment on the comment by the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer). On October 21, when the Minister first spoke on this Bill, I suggested that it could be referred to committee at the end of that sitting. Many of the factors which led to the crisis in Canadian agriculture are still in place. That is what I said then, but it was not referred to committee at that time. I now want to go to part of the reason why I suggested that it go through. I quote directly from page 588 of Hansard of October 21, 1986, where the Minister said:
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.
That is a direct quote from the Minister from last October 21. We believe everything the Minister says, so we thought they could be used last year.
I will not spend too much time on the Bill because we have already spoken on it. We support it at third reading. We got it through committee in one sitting and back into the House by December 3, which was much later than we had hoped or expected. It has not come back before the House until now.
Grain used to move through the system only at the call of the exporters. Back in the old days this meant a great variation in the prices paid for grain when the farmer brought it to the elevator. At that time the location of the farmer could be a great advantage. Farmers who lived near Winnipeg could get into the market earlier. Those who lived in the Peace River country or in northern Saskatchewan, as I do, had problems getting the crop in when it was needed. Those farmers could
The quota system solved this problem to some extent, but did not solve the problem of not being able to deliver on time. Farmers still needed the money as soon as harvest was over, and they could not earn it as effectively as they may have under other circumstances. There are still some problems with it. For instance, last year there was no quota until the end of October, which meant that farmers did not receive any cash flow until that time. The situation still exists to a certain degree today.
The answer to this broad problem was the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act which was introduced by the Member for Qu Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) when he was the Minister. In introducing that Act he attempted to solve both of those problems at the same time and, effectively, succeeded. That was not only an advantage to the farmers, but also an advantage to the Wheat Board because there was not so much pressure on it to ensure that every farmer had an opportunity to deliver some grain. If their particular type of grain was not called for, the farmers could get an advance payment instead and did not have that much of a problem. This allowed the Wheat Board to be much more specific in calling the type of grain it needed for the sales it had made. Now, five or six weeks before the boat to be loaded arrives at the harbour, the Wheat Board calls up enough grain to fill the boat without any time being lost.
This Bill amends a very important part of the cash flow structure of farmers. It is, to some extent, a housekeeping Bill in that it straightens out problems that have shown up over the years in the advance payment structure. With regard to productivity, farmers who are producing far above the average per acre will be able to use the grain they have on hand rather than the amounts of grain which would be expected to be produced on those acres. That is very important in northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta and northern Manitoba where we produce much larger crops per acre than they do in the south. As the Minister suggested, the yield of farmers who are irrigating is doubled again. That, therefore, is a worthwhile change.
The provision for current interest rates is a relief needed badly by some farmers who are in default. It is very bad that they are being charged higher levels of interest. Under this Bill the landlord is no longer required to sign. A real problem for a farmer-producer who was renting from five different people was that he had to get five different signatures before he could get an advance payment, even if the advance was on grain which had nothing to do with the landlords. This Bill gives the Minister the power to have forms passed without going before the Cabinet, which makes good sense. The provision for emergency advance payments for unthreshed grain and drying without going before Cabinet is a logical approach because it is the Minister who will make that recommendation to Cabinet in the end. Finally, the fact that grade will be recognized in the amount of the advance payment means that a farmer can get
March 5, 1987

more advance payment for less grain if he has higher quality wheat or, vice versa, he can use a larger portion of his wheat at a lower level.
The suggestion made by the Hon. Member for McKenzie (Mr. Scowen) that the Minister should have the authority to make advance payments at the start of the crop year to enable producers of grain to better finance the drying of damp and tough grain has some value, particularly in my part of the country. I believe we could have much more higher quality grain coming off the fields if farmers were willing to take it off a little earlier and dry it. Last year is a good example. The division between No. 3 and No. 1 was large enough. With no payment on No. 1 and No. 2 it did not make that much difference, but it could have made a large difference. With No.
1 and No. 2 being our prime products, it is important that we encourage farmers to produce as much of the high quality grains as possible because they are the grains which many of the buyers are looking for.
We will push this legislation through as quickly as we can today. However, I want to take this opportunity to comment on a couple of other things relative to farming. This particular Bill is one of a series, I suppose, of Bills which have been passed over the years to allow farmers to have some kind of security that at the end of the year the production from their land will bring them enough at least to pay the cost of preparing the land, planting and harvesting. They should have some feeling of security that there is going to be a return for their work and investment. The legislation we now have in place has given considerable support to the farmers, that is, the Western Grain Stabilization Act, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and the deficiency payments brought in last year.
These are all factors which contribute to some kind of security for a farmer that when he plants in the spring he will at least be able to pay his costs in the fall. However, that kind of security is fast disappearing. It disappeared to some extent last year, and this year it is of major concern to farmers. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and, I suppose, the Cabinet in general, need to look at farming in general. They need to take a global look or, I suppose a better word would be a "national" look at agriculture, and try to put in place something which would ensure, within certain conditions and reasonable limits, that a producer who produces well and is efficient will at least get back his cost of production.
After the last year of disaster, to some extent, in grain prices, we now have a situation where farmers are finding they really do not know what they should seed next year. They do not even know if they should seed at all. If they do not receive some commitment or some security of return, we cannot be surprised if many farmers decide they just cannot afford the fertilizer and therefore will not put it in. Many of them might say they cannot afford the spray so they will not use it, or they may decide they cannot even afford to summer fallow this year
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
because the cash flow is too small. Those are the kinds of questions producers in the Prairies are asking themselves and the kind of questions we here in this House must be able to address. We should be able to give them some answers which would make them a little more secure than they are at the moment.
There may be no seeding this year, unless we have some kind of commitment from the Government that there will be a return at least at the level of last year, and there are other areas in which the Government could take action.
It is very interesting that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in speaking to a group of people yesterday suggested that he could do nothing about the problems of the Prairies, that they were world problems. The problems of the farmer are spread between the cost of production and what he receives for his product. Therefore, there are two things which can be done. Either we can guarantee a higher level of return or we can do something about the cost of production. There is no reason why the Government could not look at a rebate for farmers of taxes on fuel. There are a lot of costs relative to the use of fertilizer such as the taxes on gas to be used in the fertilizer machinery. There are the taxes on fertilizer, generally. The cost of fertilizer could be reduced. Even the cost of chemicals could be reduced by allowing generic chemicals, which the Government is moving towards to some extent, and by making sure it does not take its pound of flesh each time a product for farming is purchased by the farmer.
At the moment the greatest factor in costs of production to farmers is the interest which is paid for their debt. The Government could put a moratorium on interest payments for a period of time as long as it does not increase the farmers' debt at the end of that period of time. That would at least give him a cash flow. The farmers at present have no commitment to ensure that they will receive the cost of their seed back if they plant this spring. They need that assurance, otherwise we are going to have a tremendous number of farmers making a decision-which they may in the end make anyway-to get out of farming. They are going to start making that decision before their spring work this year because they really have no incentive for starting that cycle of production.
I think it is important that Hon. Members of this House recognize the problems faced by the grain farmers. I could spend a lot of time on that subject. I hope members of the Government who are farmers are making the point as often as possible with their colleagues in Cabinet that low prices are the cause but increasing the prices is not the only solution. We can do it in other ways. What we need over the next couple of years is a structure which will allow the survival of the farmers who are now on the land. We have had about six years of culling out those farmers who are inefficient and bad managers. This has been going on for six years. Why should it continue? Most of the people who are presently farming are efficient farmers and producers. The concern I have is that they be given the opportunity to survive. We in this Parliament

Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
have a responsibility to ensure that it is possible for them to survive.
I am glad the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) is here because there is another area which greatly affects farmers, and that is, transportation itself. It is one of the areas which for many years was the only factor in the farmers' input costs which they could be assured was going to be the same the following year. That was finished a few years ago when the Crow rate was dismantled. We now have greater transportation costs than we had in the past. That is something about which the Government could do something. It would increase the amount of money going back into the pockets of farmers from grains.
It has come to light recently that there are a number of lines in the North which need upgrading. I consider this to be a very unsavoury situation. For instance, in my constituency, the Blaine Lake Subdivision which was supposed to have heavy steel, has been taken off the priority list of the technical committee for some reason which no one can put their finger on. I suggest it is probably because of political interference.
These types of situations do not help farmers. They create the type of environment in which they feel that everything is going against them. What the Government and all of us should be doing is putting in place the type of structure that would give them the security to go on producing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there are no questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Scowen) on debate.


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand today in my place and talk about Bill C-12 and other matters which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. I commend the Minister for his excellent coverage of the Bill. I think that because he has covered it so well we do not have to talk too much about it. I understand that Members of the House are in agreement with this particular Bill. I think it has been agreed that we should pass it as soon as possible.
I would like to make a few comments on what the Minister stated about my proposal with respect to the drying of grains in certain areas which, over the years, have suffered from heavy rainfalls. A lot of people do not understand this situation, which is why I would like to explain it. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) and I come from a part of the country which is along the fringe of a forest area. To the north there are a great many lakes and trees which attract rainfall. We have a higher amount of rain than the rest of the province, which allows for increased production in most years as compared to the other prairie provinces. This is all fine and dandy when the crop is growing. However, when harvest time rolls around it becomes a public nuisance, which makes it very difficult to harvest the grain when it is in its peak period.
March 5, 1987
The Bill in front of us calls for the Minister to be given a chance to give a cash advance in case of emergency. In our particular part of the country the emergency starts at the time the crop is ripe. As the rains fall on the crop, the quality of the grain quickly deteriorates. Not only does the grain drop in quality but the number of bushels for which the farmer is finally paid decreases. For instance, we now try to swath our grains, and wheat in particular, about the third week in August. Of course, the seeding time usually establishes when one's crop is ripe. We try to let it ripen to a certain standard. We swath the grain and try to pick it up within about four days, depending on the weather, and then we dry it.
Over the last few years we have been successful in producing No. 1 and No. 2 wheat in the particular area about which I am talking. These grains weigh up to about 65 pounds per bushel and are of high quality. Those who are not fortunate to get their crops off early, having to leave it until October, will have grain that will weigh as little as 55 pounds per bushel. It usually turns out to be No. 3 grain or feed grain, which causes a considerable loss to farmers, both in terms of bushels and in price.
I have always been an advocate of trying to get the crop off and drying it. Our farmers have had dryers for many, many years. Even though one may have a dryer it is not always possible to follow the process. However, with dryers and modern combines we can harvest the grain. The straw is tough and the grain may be fairly tough. With modern dryers we can usually salvage a fairly good grain. This is the reason I would like to try this particular run along the fringe line in our area.
I think the Canadian Wheat Board keeps pretty good records with respect to what is dried and what is not. It can tell from the samples it takes. I think this would be a beneficial experiment. If it were it could expand into other areas. Over the last couple of years the Prairies have suffered from deterioration of crop. Farmers on the Prairies have not had the experience of drying grain as we have had in the North. They have had a few disasters. For example, they have burned grain and so on and so forth simply because they do not know how to operate the dryer in an emergency. They try to do things too quickly. We use the same type of equipment but because of our experience with this problem we are able to dry the grain very nicely.
Something I did not mention earlier is the fact that in the early part of the year when the humidity is down and the temperature is up the cost of drying grain in late August to early September is about two-thirds less than when it is done in October or November when the humidity is higher and the days are shorter. At that time of year temperatures are considerably lower. Even the temperature of grain is down to the point where the cost of just bringing its temperature up to where the moisture can be brought out of it is considerable.
I would now like to make a couple of comments with respect to the speech of the two previous speakers. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert made some very good suggestions. I have to agree with his observations with respect to what is going on at
March 5, 1987

the present time. There are a great many problems out there. I think that we should get together on some of the problems in order to make life a lot easier for our farmers. They are now in a position in which it is difficult to have optimism with respect to what to do. As Members of Parliament I think we have to work together to try to get a number of these problems solved. This Bill is one of the ways in which we are trying to do this. The Special Canadian Grains Program was another one. Between the Special Canadian Grains Program and the Grain Stabilization Program, farmers should be able to receive enough money by seeding time to put in a crop. We also must get together and solve the further problem of the shortfall in income of the farmer for another year. I have some suggestions on that problem.
I wish to comment on the points raised by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). I agree with him on some points, and there are some that I object to. I take the signal from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) a little differently from him in what he has said about what the Government may or may not do in the future.
The signal that I receive from the Minister of Agriculture is that farmers should be careful not to overdo the planting of crops this year and should try to stay within a reasonable amount of planting simply because there may not be a great amount of money to cover twice as much crop as there was this past year. That creates a problem with an over-production situation. We must be careful when telling farmers what we are doing to encourage production. I do not agree with the Hon. Member for Algoma when he stated that we are very low in the polls, and there are a lot of problems there for our side.


Mr. Marchi:: You may not bottom out yet.


Jack Scowen: That is quite possible, we may not bottom out
yet.
In my experience, and I have a few years on the Hon. Member and probably a little more experience, the most popular boss does not always do the best job. In my experience, whether it is a boss or whether it is a president of a club, the one who is not the popular one is usually the one who gets the job done. Our farmers want the job done and our economy back in place. When the smoke clears, we will find that all is well in the Canadian economy with the way things are being done at the present moment. I have to bring that touchy subject up.
Another subject that I would like to talk about is one that I have brought to the attention of the House many times, that is, the interest rate set by the Farm Credit Corporation and the situation that was created in 1982 by the previous Government. I realize that the Act that was introduced in 1982 can be amended. I think that it should be amended so that the Farm Credit Corporation conforms with the original intent of that program. It was there to assist farmers, not to charge them an interest rate that they cannot possibly pay. Farmers cannot
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
pay that interest rate at this particular time. They cannot pay penalties on land that they are trying to sell to cut down their capital cost and interest. The farmers cannot handle the situation that presently exists in the Farm Credit Corporation.
I would like to see the Farm Credit Corporation set up a different system and establish a separate corporation where farmers and the Farm Credit Corporation, or farmers and banks, would be able to go to a separate corporation and put their joint equity into one place. This would allow the banks to maintain the holding price on their books at a level that would allow the farmer to have an equity in the joint venture. The farmer would be allowed to buy back his shares so that eventually he would own the land. I have approached the Farm Credit Corporation on this subject, and I would like to bring the Farm Credit Corporation back in front of the Standing Committee on Agriculture to try to find a way to set up this idea.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I was interested in the comments of the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Scowen). He has put forward some important items with regard to the Bill before us, and the impact it will have on his area.
The Hon. Member commented on the Leader of his Party and said that the most popular boss does not always make the best one. That is true. The Hon. Member certainly has a boss who is not very popular these days, so he should probably do a bang-up job. The Hon. Member did not explain how he was going to become popular, but we will have to wait and see how that will be done.


Mr. Crosbie:: Get to the point.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I can hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) revving up. Of course, he is very sensitive about these issues. He often makes comments which do not make much sense. He certainly has a problem this year because the western freight rate issue is one that is before him.
In the 1984 election the Government promised that it would freeze existing grain freight rates to producers in western Canada. The caveat was put on until the farm situation was better. Clearly in the last few weeks the farm situation is much worse, yet we are told that the price of grain freight rates will increase from $6 to $9 a tonne at a time when grain prices dropped 20 per cent last year and 20 per cent this year. I would hope that when the Minister of Transport revs up, he will say something constructive about that grain freight rate problem. It is worrying and concerning western agriculture, because it involves $100 million of additional costs.
I was interested when the Hon. Member for Mackenzie said that when the smoke clears the economy will be seen to be very good.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On that basis, I think we should call it one o'clock. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.

March 5, 1987


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, this is International Women's Week, and the women of Canada want action from the Government, not more words, rhetoric, and photo opportunities.
Over the last two years women in Canada have witnessed the erosion of the Government's commitment in the area of employment and training. Total government expenditures on employment and training have dropped by 32 per cent in real terms. The 30 per cent seat reservation for women to train in non-traditional occupations has been eliminated. The budget for preparing women for the workforce has been reduced by 40 per cent.
No action has been taken to implement the recommendations of the Wallace Report on part-time work when over 70 per cent of part-time workers are women. In government employment programs 76 per cent of female participants are being trained in low-paying traditional ghetto jobs.
Once again, women want action and commitment from the Government, not more press releases.

[ Translation]


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I have just been vindicated by the Quebec press council concerning a complaint I filed against the newspaper La Presse and an unsigned article written by journalist Michel Vastel.
Stressing that the choice and handling of information is a matter of media judgment, the press council does acknowledge that the information published in that article was harmful to my reputation. In addition the press council emphasizes that the harm done to me has never been fully corrected since the retractation published by the newspaper La Presse did not fully dispel all doubts in the mind of the reader.
Mr. Speaker, let us refrain from making overly hasty generalizations. Some journalists are good, others less so. There are good and honest politicians whose only interest is to serve their constituents.
However, time has come indeed for professional journalists, like other professionals, to establish their own code of ethics and self-discipline mechanisms. As indicated by the press council, in his role of public informer the journalist must produce balanced information which faithfully mirrors facts and incidents, and fully respects the individual.



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the South Moresby archipelago, including Lyell Island, is part of the traditional homeland of the Haida people. The Haida have never ceded their aboriginal title to this unique part of the world containing over a quarter of all seabirds which nest on Canada's West Coast. It has the highest concentration of nesting bald eagles in Canada and the highest density of Peak's peregrine falcons anywhere in the world.
The Haida have a special responsibility to preserve this part of their heritage, which is also part of the world's heritage. Unfortunately this is being threatened by clear-cut logging on part of Lyell Island at Windy Bay. The giant Sitka spruce, cedar, and hemlock which grow in this beautiful part of our world are a part of our world heritage which must not be destroyed.
Canadians of all political Parties must join in demanding that the Government of British Columbia co-operate with the Government of Canada to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, Quebec regional weekly publications are very concerned because of unfair competition from Canada Post.
Several months ago a number of parliamentarians asked for information, but a certain individual, Mr. Pollock, refuses to give us that information.
Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that a mailman today earns close to $40,000 a year. But there is unfair competition. Some people pay one, two and even three cents for each flier delivered to Canadian households. We sought information:
March 5, 1987_______________COMMONS DEBATES
What is the cost of surplusses given to every mailman working for Canada Post?
Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian Member of Parliament I demand that we be given any relevant information we need.



FISHERIES


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, Atlantic fishermen no longer have any confidence in the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon). Despite their blatant overfishing off the south coast of Newfoundland, the recent Canada-France fisheries agreement will give French trawlers new quotas despite the fact that quotas for Canadian fishermen have already been cut back. Where is the fairness?
Prior to this fiasco we had the Bayshore tuna deal where the Minister rejected the advice of his own advisory committees and, at the request of Premier John Buchanan, approved the sale of 401 tuna to Japanese vessels in order to bail out the Premier's friends.
What did the Minister say? His reply was: "I make no apologies for having Canadian fishermen and our officials on board Japanese vessels to find out how they are catching fish we cannot fish". That was on December 8, 1986.
I refer the Minister to project report No. 63 entitled "Japanese Tuna Longlining Off Canada's East Coast". This study was done in the fall of 1983 by the development branch of the Scotia-Fundy region in Halifax. The report even has some nice coloured pictures. I hope the Minister will read this report and then he will understand how fishing takes place in Atlantic Canada.



GREATER PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Mrs. Anne Blouin (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, when this Government came to power, it promised to double the number of women on federal councils, commissions and boards. During this week of festivities to mark International Women's Day, we can point with pride to the considerable progress that has been made. Mr. Speaker, since September 1984, over 25 per cent of the Government's discretionary appointments went to women, an increase of 67 per cent over the previous Government's record.
We have every reason to be proud of the progress made during the past few years. However, there is a lot of catching
up to do. As a country we cannot afford to under-utilize half of the pool of skills available, and as a Government, we must continue to provide models for future generations of young Canadian women.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced the pending federal-provincial agreement on scientific research in Canada. He said such an agreement was remarkable, but what is truly remarkable is how little his own Government cares about scientific research.
When in the Opposition his Party talked about doubling Canada's research and development spending, and then as the Government it instituted the continuing cuts at the National Research Council, the granting councils, Government departmental research institutes and our universities. It is his Government which also cut the federal share of funding for health and post-secondary education by $2 billion, and now it wants to cut get federal-provincial co-operation to fund research.
Can the Prime Minister now say how the deficit ridden poorer provinces will participate in his program when their equalization grants are also being cut back?
I call on the Prime Minister to say if and when his research policy will get Canada closer to the accepted expenditure target of 2.5 per cent of the Gross National Product. Scientific and university communities in Canada are waiting for these answers, not more speeches that make more vague promises about our scientific future.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, today's Globe and Mail reported a survey of 200 prominent Canadians who said "Canada is a second-rate power moving towards third-rate status". I disagree.
Our Government Ministers and their Departments, such as agriculture, forestry, youth, small business, international trade and external affairs are producing resources and innovations to help Canadians understand and participate as a nation of traders offering bold new technologies, products, and people

March 5, 1987
resources to the world. The fact that these programs exist is positive. The fact that Canadians do not know about them is not.
Our Government must tabulate, examine, and then deliver these resources and programs to Canadians. I urge all elected representatives to ensure that no dust settles on these resources. We've got them, let's use them. The challenge is there for all Canadians to guarantee that Canada enjoys the first-rate status we deserve. For we are, Mr. Speaker, nulli secundus.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: As
usual, on the occasion of International Women's Week, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Government are making endless promises to the women of this country. I think we should recall that the Prime Minister and his colleagues made the same gesture in July 1984 in Sherbrooke, when the Prime Minister, who had promised to reinstate full indexation of family allowances, promised to give homemakers access to the Quebec and Canada pension plans.
Again, in the Throne Speech on November 5, 1984, the Prime Minister solemnly promised he would give homemakers access to the Quebec Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan.
Mr. Speaker, today there are still three million women in Canada who are not entitled to participate in the Quebec Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan and are doomed to poverty because of this Conservative Government.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Canadian Parliamentary Group for Soviet Jewry, I want to commend and applaud the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) for their unrelenting efforts to persuade the U.S.S.R. to allow Soviet Jews to be reunited with their families in Canada.
O)
When Foreign Minister Shevardnadze visited Canada in October, 1986, he was given a list of 42 families wanting to reunite with relatives here in Canada. Yesterday we heard the good news that 22 of these families representing 57 people will receive exit visas. Today members of the B'Nai Brith Hillel National Student Secretariat are in Ottawa to highlight the issue of Soviet refuseniks and dissidents. While we all welcome and rejoice over yesterday's announcement that 57 Russian Jews will be allowed to emigrate to Canada, we must keep in perspective the fact that there are still at least 400,000 who want to flee the tyranny of the U.S.S.R.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to make strong objections to any weakening of the ABM and SALT treaties when he meets with U.S. arms negotiator Paul Nitze. Tomorrow my Party will propose a motion to the House calling for an end to Cruise missile tests in Canada. The motion will read:
That this House, alarmed by the role of air launched Cruise missiles in the violation of SALT limits and alarmed by threats to the integrity of the ABM treaty, aware also of the possibility of a negotiated elimination of all medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe, calls for strong initiatives by the Government to strengthen arms control and disarmament, including the termination of Cruise missile testing in Canada.
I urge all Hon. Members of the House to support the motion when it is debated tomorrow and when it comes to a vote on Monday. I urge Canadians everywhere to contact their Members of Parliament to appeal to them to vote in favour of ending Cruise missile tests in Canada.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, as this is International Women's Week I would like to recognize publicly the special contribution farm women have made and continue to make to western Canada. In the history of the Canadian West, men and women worked together to break the land and to settle the Prairies. It was no accident, therefore, that the first Canadian women to receive the franchise were those on the Prairies who had demonstrated so convincingly that they deserved the right to vote.
Farm women still share equally, but often without recognition and fanfare, in the many tasks associated with farming. In

March 5, 1987
addition, many women have added to their workload by taking off-farm jobs. The economic significance of their contribution has never been in question. However, I look forward to the day when the voice of farm women is more frequently heard in governing circles on rural municipal councils, as leaders of farm organizations, and as representatives of rural constituencies both at the provincial and federal levels.
I would like, therefore, to applaud the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) for appointing 24 women out of a total membership of 79 to federal farm debt review boards, as farm women as well as farm men are severely affected by the financial crisis which exists today. However-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, after hearing testimony from the New Brunswick Environment Minister and the New Brunswick Power Corporation, we, the members of the Acid Rain Committee, are wondering if anyone is in charge of acid rain control in New Brunswick. The Minister seems confused about whether the New Brunswick Power Corporation reports to Cabinet or whether it is the other way around. In addition, the Government of New Brunswick now seems to be having second thoughts about its commitment. The timing of this could not be worse because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will go to the summit in April without a unified Canadian agreement to reduce S02 emissions.
Our committee is left with no recourse but to invite Premier Hatfield to appear before the Acid Rain Committee so we may see if he knows anything about acid rain in his province. Only the Premier can sort out the Alice in Wonderland acid rain policy of New Brunswick, but time is of the essence.



CULTURAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I know all Members of the House will join with me in recognizing the work of the Hon. Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) on her trip to the People's Republic of China. The Minister has succeeded in signing a film coproduction agreement with China as part of her visit to promote Canadian culture and telecommunications.
A co-production agreement is a legal accord between two governments intended to lessen the cost and risk of film production. This agreement allows film producers to draw on Government, business and private funds in both countries. Under the agreement, films are made as co-productions and are considered to be national films in both participating nations. The agreement can also ease restrictions on the movement of people and equipment across borders to facilitate production.
In the past Canada has signed film co-production agreements with France, Italy, Germany, Israel, and the U.K. This agreement is a major achievement for Canada and is the first co-production of this magnitude ever undertaken by China. The Minister's and the Government's commitment to international film production should be applauded.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend strongly the action of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in his recent decision not to grant diplomatic accreditation to General Amos Yaron as military attache for Israel. The Minister is to be commended for his courage in taking this step which he acknowledged is not done very often.
In view of the fact that an Israeli inquiry found that Yaron was well aware that more than 700 Palestinian civilians were brutally murdered by Christian militiamen in the Sabra and Shatila camps in Lebanon, this action is entirely appropriate. We know well the history of that slaughter in September of 1982, and the action taken by the Minister in placing Canada's position clearly on the record in this area is to be commended. Finally, I would note that this was done despite the fact that General Yaron was accredited to Washington. The Minister must be congratulated.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, bilingualism is not dead in Canada. Although certain individuals do not consider it as a significant issue, this does not mean that it is a non-existing cause: three feature articles in the newspaper Le Droit, two in La Presse, a long column in Le Devoir, three articles in the Globe and Mail, and so on.

March 5, 1987
Oral Questions
The issue is raised practically every day in nearly all newspapers, yet certain Members of this House still do not see that if the debate still goes on, I am telling you, ladies and gentlemen, it is because it is a matter of national scope.
Scandals fade away, but major issues remain. Today the Commissioner of Official Languages will give the Prime Minister a study on official bilingualism and the private sector. I sincerely hope that this initiative of the commissioner will prompt the Prime Minister to table the amendments to the Official Languages Act at the earliest opportunity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the last two years are littered with the broken promises of the Government. As you may have noticed, we see this week that the Tory promise machine is spewing out some new ones. Canadians are asking the Prime Minister why they should believe his promises about child care when his Minister of Finance said last night in committee that he knew of no specifics of the program. Why, when he was talking to the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, did the Prime Minister not tell the whole truth and admit there was no program and no money had been allocated in the Estimates for any such program?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the question from the right hon. gentleman surprises me. We indicated to him and the House that, upon receipt of the parliamentary task force report on child care, we will meet with the First Ministers and elaborate on a comprehensive program in this area. This has been sadly lacking in Canada over the many years his Government was in office, and I hope we have his help and support in implementing this kind of program to benefit Canadian women.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is not the impression he was attempting to give to the women he was talking to on Monday morning.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER RESPECT PROMISES
John Napier Turner: Take the Prime Minister's latest promise which he very appropriately made last night in Waterloo: his new science policy. And like Napoleon, when he took his hand out of his vest it was empty: a science policy, yes, but no money, whatever the Prime Minister may have promised during the election campaign about doubling spending on research and development in four years. My question to the Prime Minister
is therefore: When is he going to start keeping his past, present and future promises with real money?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, those are the key words: real money. The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we use borrowed money, since the Government's finances were in such a sad state that interest rates-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Let them laugh. Interest rates went up because of the amounts the Government had to borrow. So borrowed money is not the way to solve a serious problem that has been with us for many years.
Another example of how not to go about it is the scheme used by the Hon. Member for Westmount and his colleagues and I am referring to the Scientific Research Tax Credit. The Government of Canada and the research community lost out as a result of flips involving hundreds of millions of dollars, and all because of this measure that was introduced by the previous Government. We have started by creating an advisory board at the national level. The first meeting, last Monday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Official Opposition.


AGRICULTURE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have cited two programs announced this week by the Prime Minister with regard to which there are no specifics and there is no money allocated in the Estimates. Perhaps the most bitter are the promises made to the regions of the country. The grain economy is collapsing. We anticipate, as indicated by the Canadian Wheat Board, perhaps a 20 per cent reduction in initial prices this year.
What about the Prime Minister's promise to the family farm? Will he give a firm undertaking today, which was not given yesterday or the day before, that he will guarantee the same return to farmers as they had last year, particularly in view of existing circumstances?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend will search for many areas in which to criticize the Government, and he may find some. However, one of the least valid would be in the area of protecting the interests of the Canadian farmer and the Canadian family farm. The Government has consistently worked with the provinces and the farm leaders to be of assistance to Canadian farmers. We did that most recently in
March 5, 1987

the autumn through an emergency program which put hundreds of millions of dollars directly into the pockets of western farmers. We have helped Canadian farmers in many real ways and will continue to do that to their benefit in the future.


CHILD CARE
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. This week, in connection with the Conference on the Family . .. Only a few minutes ago, the Prime Minister stated that Canada would have a national child-care system. The Minister responsible for the Status of Women has said that an agreement concerning details of the child-care system will be concluded by the end of June. I wish the Prime Minister would explain to the House what he means by a national child-care system. I am asking the Prime Minister, since he made the statement.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the question put by the Hon. Member. She will know that following the meeting of the First Ministers in Vancouver the Prime Minister very clearly put the federal Government in the forefront of a process and conclusion for a child care system. That system has a number of components which are in train, such as meeting with Social Affairs Ministers and the parliamentary committee to formulate a strategy to be presented to the provinces by the end of April and to be concluded by the end of June. The Member knows the plan. She is part of it. We are hopeful that the report will come out in the next two weeks. The Prime Minister has said very clearly that that plan will be in place and that the resources will be there to fund it.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZE DAY CARE SYSTEMS
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question was directed to the Prime Minister who, after all, made the statements and the promises. The Budget provides no funds for day care. Again, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether his Conservative Government is going to provide any leadership on day care, and by that I mean subsidize a day-care system and set national standards. My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What does the Prime Minister mean by day care?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are indeed going to deal with setting up a national child-care system.


Lucie Pépin: What is it?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Since the Hon. Member insists on asking the question, I have to say it is a system that should have been in place years ago in this country.


Lucie Pépin: What are you going to do?


Martin Brian Mulroney: When the Hon. Member presided over the Council on the Status of Women, she failed to urge her Liberal friends to set up a system.


Lucie Pépin: Certainly not! I was the first person to bring the matter up.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It really is too bad in this country. Promoting the status of women is a priority for the Government of Canada. I think we have already introduced some important measures, and we shall introduce more, including this national child-care program.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It arises out of the balance of payments figures which were tabled earlier this week. Those figures show that in the two and a half years since the Conservative Government came to power there has been no net inflow of foreign direct investment. At the same time the figures show that Canadian direct investment abroad, the kind which directly creates jobs, has increased by $ 11 billion since the Conservatives came to power. Can the Minister confirm those figures? And can he tell the House whether he is concerned about the evidence that investment is going out of this country rather than coming in?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I commented on this specifically in the Budget. However, I can remind the Hon. Member of what the Budget said. The inflows of capital in 1986,1 believe, were 70 per cent higher than they were in 1984. The Hon. Member knows that one of the reasons for the strength in the Canadian dollar is the very substantial increase in portfolio investment, investment which is coming in from Europe, Japan, and the United States. They are showing confidence in the direction in which this country is going. That is the reason the dollar today is higher than 75 cents as compared to this time last year when it was a little over 69 cents.


INVESTMENT LEVELS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister recall the statement made by his Leader during the course of the 1984 election campaign that: "The Government
3854

March 5, 1987
Oral Questions
would send a signal of confidence around the world to come and do business in Canada again"? Under those circumstances, can the Minister explain that while we have proven ourselves able to borrow money abroad, foreign direct investment in Canada has actually fallen and that $11 billion of Canadian direct investment, which could have been creating jobs here in Canada, has gone outside Canada? Are you concerned about that? And what are you going to do about it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask Hon. Members to refrain from using the direct personal pronoun "you". I know Hon. Members will try a little harder.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should reflect on things which are being said outside this country. As I commented to the Hon. Member yesterday afternoon in committee, I would hate to have to walk around being a pessimist my whole life in the same way he does. If the Hon. Member looks outside the country he will know what the OECD is saying what the European Management Forum is saying and how our status in the European management standings has gone from No. 11 a couple of years ago to No. 6 today. There is the recent report from Japan by the Japanese industrial leaders who came here in October and have gone back with a glowing report on things we are doing in this country. That is quite contrary to what was the case 10 years ago when the same group was here under a man by the name of Makita. The Makita Report damned the policies of the previous Government and that turned off a lot of investment which could have created jobs here in Canada.


INQUIRY CONCERNING POSSIBLE NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED BY $11 BILLION
Michael Morris Cassidy: It is very hard to be optimistic if you are one of the 1,250,000 unemployed people in this country.
Yesterday, the Minister acknowledged before the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs that, not including Quebec, the number of jobs in the nine other provinces in this country increased by only 5,000 between January 1986 and January 1987.
Could the Minister inform the House how many jobs could have been created in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Western Canada if the $ 11 billion invested by Canadians outside this country had been invested here in Canada to create jobs for Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what I also point out to the Hon. Member is that if he had taken the exact same figures from the middle of the year, which is the most recent period, he would have seen that there was a better balance between the job creation in Ontario and job creation outside Ontario. Off the top of my head I believe
the figures are something in the order of 116,000 in Ontario and 74,000 or 76,000 outside Ontario. There is still an imbalance. However, it is quite a bit better than the figures which the Hon. Member points out.
Yes, we are not happy with that imbalance. That is why we are doing so much to try to address that imbalance. That is why we have dealt with the problems in western Canada through drought payments, the farm fuel tax rebate, the special grains program, the assistance to the oil and gas industry, and the change in the-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Algoma.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the promises that the Government has made to farmers. In 1984 the Prime Minister promised to make Canada a superpower in grain exports. Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture told farmers at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture meeting that, in fact, the Wheat Board was recommending a 20 per cent reduction in initial prices. Does the Government plan to keep its promise of making Canada a superpower when our farmers are receiving $2.50 per bushel while their American counterparts receive $6 per bushel? Will the Government make a commitment today that our farmers will receive at least as large a return as they did in the last crop year?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to Canada being a superpower in agriculture. In fact we have one of the best beef herds in the world. We have dairy cattle which are the best in the world. With respect to grain, our grain is recognized as a standard by which other countries set their grading systems. If the Hon. Member is talking about market penetration, he should know that last year Canada increased its share of world markets. This year we have the prospect of increasing our share of world markets.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: As we all know, price remains a very serious problem. We are dealing with that in many, many ways.


GRAIN FREIGHT RATES
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. In his absence perhaps the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board could respond. In the 1984 general election the Government promised to freeze the grain freight rates for western
March 5, 1987

farmers. We have now learned that grain prices are to be reduced by 20 per cent. Is the Government prepared to freeze those freight rates for another year in view of the reduction in grain prices? The senior grain transportation committee is already indicating that transportation rates will increase by 50 per cent. Will the Government keep its promise to freeze those freight rates for the coming crop year?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had looked back at the debate on the Western Grain Transportation Act, he would know that if we had followed the Liberal projections the Liberal freight rate for the moving of grain would be something in the order of $11 per tonne. It is considerably less than that. The Minister of Transport indicated in the House the other day that he would ensure that any adjustments that may be required, in accordance with the provisions of the Liberal formula that was adopted under the Western Grain Transportation Act, would be very minimal and would take into consideration the current state of agriculture in western Canada.


FISHERIES
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Yesterday representatives of some 400 workers from the Star-Kist plant in New Brunswick came to Ottawa in a last-ditch attempt to save their jobs and to have the plant reopened. The Minister said only that he has not in any way prevented the plant from reopening. Does the Minister have any positive proposals, anything that he can and will do to help reopen that plant or to find other sources of work for these unemployed people? The people of St. Stephen want not only a Minister who claims innocence, they want a Minister who will give some leadership, and not stand on the sidelines.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that this is the first question a member of the Opposition has asked in at least one year on behalf of these workers.
As I indicated to the media and to the workers who visited Ottawa yesterday, the Government of Canada is extremely frustrated that the H. J. Heinz Co. has chosen not to reopen the plant at St. Andrews and St. Stephen, New Brunswick. We have been encouraging the company to do so. We have offered every form of assistance to enable the reopening of that plant for at least the past 12 months. I encourage the Hon. Member and all members of the Opposition to join the Government in appealing to H. J. Heinz, a respected international corporation, to get that plant reopened and those workers back to work.
_______________________________3855
Oral Questions MINISTER'S POSITION


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Fisheries. Since workers gave the Minister a ticket to fly to New Brunswick to meet with them there, and since the Minister has accepted the invitation and will be going to meet with them, will he make a statement to the House when he returns outlining concrete proposals to help those workers, either with respect to the reopening of the plant or finding some other source of employment?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, again, the Hon. Member from the Opposition has not been doing his homework. We have indicated repeatedly that various forms of assistance have been offered to the H. J. Heinz Co., including offers of financial assistance, for a period of time going back to last June and July. It would behoove the Opposition well to encourage H. J. Heinz, with the Government, to get the plant reopened or relieve the dilemma of these workers and tell them whether or not it intends to reopen the plant. If the Hon. Member has any other suggestions I would like to hear them.


REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister has told the House repeatedly that there is nothing unusual about the tax audit of the western farmers. Perhaps the Minister would explain to the House, then, why he has hired the services of an additional 403 investigators in his Department and why the retroactivity of this particular audit goes back not one, not two, not three but five years and beyond. Will he explain to the House why agricultural organizations in western Canada are so outraged at the harassment that their members are facing from the Ministry of National Revenue?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from my colleague from Nova Scotia. With respect to the question that he raised I want to inform him that, first, he is mistaken if he thinks that some of the additional person-years are just directed for audit purposes. As I mentioned in the House a couple of days ago, for the most part they are to provide services, for example, the tracing down of maintenance skips, as well as investigations concerning the child tax credit and services such as that.
Yesterday I assured the House, including the Leader of the Opposition, that certain criteria were being applied, that this was not directed at western farmers but was a nation-wide audit. In view of the concerns that have been expressed, and continuing inquiries I have made, I have instructed my

March 5, 1987
Oral Questions
Department to pause in this particular audit to make certain that none of these audits are falling into the category of being unreasonable. I also want to make certain and illustrate to the House that our Department is sensitive to these concerns. We will be doing an inventory of the audits that have been done up to this point to make certain that the criteria that I have told my colleagues about in the House are in fact the criteria which are being adhered to.


SCOPE OF TAX AUDIT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I welcome that new information. But would the Minister confirm for Members of the House that the directive that he issued to expand the tax audit nation-wide was issued to hide the fact that he and his Ministry singled out and targeted the western farmers because they knew they were in their most vulnerable position at this time? Is that not the real reason?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, as you and other Members of the House know, I have been a Member of the House for some time. I can assure you, and all Members of the House, that that is about the most absurd suggestion that I have heard since I have come here.


AGRICULTURE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In response to a question from my colleague from Ottawa Centre, the Hon. Minister said that we were being pessimists. At the Finance Committee meeting yesterday afternoon the Minister said that there was a problem in western Canada caused by factors outside our control. They, western Canadians, are prisoners of market forces outside the boundaries of this country. The Minister also said that there was very little that he could do about it. There is something that the Minister can do about it, and my question to him is this. Why does he not stand up at this time and announce an extension to the Special Canadian Grains Program? Western farmers want to know before they seed what the Government will do to help them.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be generous and say that the Hon. Member read the headline to the story that he is reading from, because he surely did not read the transcript of the meeting of the committee yesterday, or the second half of the story. I did say that I cannot control an international price. But I did go on to say that yes, there are a lot of things that we are doing about it. I outlined the following, and I will run down this very
quickly-the Atlantic Opportunities Program, the Atlantic Initiatives Program, the Cape Breton Investment Tax Credit, the special report that the Prime Minister is asking for-


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has obviously quite a lot of information that he would like to give to the Opposition. I am sure that both Hon. Members could find a way to exchange that information.


REQUEST FOR SPECIAL FUND TO HELP SMALL OIL PRODUCING COMPANIES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I will take your advice. I do have a list to give to the Minister of things that he could do immediately to help western Canada. One other example of what he could do now, and I ask him if he will, is make the commitment that he will take the $450 million that will be gained as a result of the increased tax on gasoline and promise that money as a special fund to small, independent producers in western Canada? Will he help those oil producers, and use the money that has been collected?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has not heard, I will tell him that I am going to Calgary tomorrow and I will be meeting with the three oil and gas industry associations. I will be discussing the concerns that they have on the outlook for their industry.
I do wish to refer the Hon. Member to a comment made by the Alberta Wheat Pool. They praised the Government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney for its handling of problems in the agriculture industry. It is really quite an extraordinary hard time right now and they felt that so far the present Government has responded well. That is action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Why don't you quote Getty?


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Who wrote that, Bill Fox?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Winnipeg Free Press.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Given that the beautiful Kananaskis country on the eastern slopes of the Rockies west of Longview, Alberta, should be
March 5, 1987

retained for ranching and tourism; and given that the Canadian army which is marching into this Kananaskis country to buy several hundred acres of land should not be asked to retreat or back up, will the Hon. Associate Minister of National Defence give this command to the army: "About turn and advance right out of the Kananaskis country?"


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I wish to assure the Hon. Member that the Canadian army is not marching into the territory he is discussing. The fact is that we have not offered to purchase any ranches, in spite of the newspaper reports. The fact is that the owner of the ranch has offered to sell to the Canadian army at a certain price.


Nelson Andrew Riis: For twice the price.


Paul Wyatt Dick: We have not accepted that offer. We have had evaluations done, and the price seems to be too high according to the Minister, and according to the person who offers to sell. We have asked for more information.


APARTHEID
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When the Prime Minister was on his South African tour he promised additional economic sanctions against South Africa. The Deputy Prime Minister has promised that the Prime Minister would make a statement about his tour upon returning to the House, which we patiently await. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that as early as January he had been authorized to impose additional economic sanctions against South Africa. Why have these sanctions not been imposed? What are they? What is he waiting for at this point?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, even though the Hon. Member declined to take part in the very useful discussion yesterday in a committee of this House on policy with respect to South Africa, he does know the procedures with regard to Cabinet and the authority of Ministers. What I indicated to the committee is that I have received the authority of my cabinet colleagues to take further measures with respect to South Africa when the Government concludes that it would be appropriate to do that.
We have had singular success in concerting our actions with those of other members of the Commonwealth, other members of the Economic Summit, and other countries. We intend to continue along that path of working with others. The Prime Minister has signalled his intention to seek to have the question of South Africa on the agenda of the Economic
Oral Questions
Summit in Venice. As the Hon. Member knows, we will be hosting meetings of La Francophonie and the Commonwealth in Canada later this year. In the context of all of those engagements working with our friends who share our determination to bring an end to apartheid in South Africa, Canada will continue to exert the leadership it has shown to date.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to write home about in that answer. Yesterday, unfortunately, I was at another committee, a good many sit during the afternoon. I have the impression that the Government does not intend to do anything before the Commonwealth conference. Is it true or not?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as it often happens, the impression of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount is unfounded.
I have no idea whether this position is endorsed by his leader or whether, with respect to South Africa, he is giving the same position as that which relates to Cruise missiles.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women. The Minister will know that the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and other groups, have criticized the Canada Jobs Strategy because it is mainly training women for low paying pink collar jobs. What is the Minister doing to change this program in order that women can train for better paying non-traditional jobs, rather than being locked into low-paid clerical, sales, and service work?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Half of the jobs created by the Government have been created in the women's sector.


Mr. Angus:: So much for the status of women.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Are you going to take that sitting down, Barbara?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has stated that they are pleased that the Government recognizes the importance of providing federal training programs which are specifically designed for women. That is what Sylvia Gold said.

March 5, 1987
3858______________________________________
Oral Questions SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAMS


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I see that the Government recognizes International Women's Week by ignoring the advocate for women.
My question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women during International Women's Week. What will the Minister do to persuade the Minister of Employment and Immigration to reconsider his policy of contracting out low skills training programs, instead of providing adequate funding to colleges and universities for skills development programs that will move women into higher paying jobs?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. male-Member-has-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we could just start over again.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will see if I can get my tongue and my teeth moving together. The Hon. Member fails to notice that when we on this side of the House talk about women, it is not just myself in the Government. The women of Canada have 40 allies, most particularly the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Let me also say that the Canadian Jobs Strategy was the first employment program by a Government in Canada which had targets for women. The participation rate by women is 46 per cent, compared with 37 per cent in previous programs. The Government, through the appointments process as well, has helped the women of the country. It is a record that cannot be challenged by anybody.


Mr. Speaker:: Some days I would like to help.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Berger:: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I could not say the same thing about the Tories. After freezing budgets for university research and cutting payments for post-secondary education, how can the Prime Minister possibly expect Canadians to believe his latest promises regarding research and development? When will the Government put its money where the Prime Minister's mellifluous mouth is?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, with regard to research and development in science and technology, I referred earlier to one-and I think most fair-minded people would agree-of the great tragedies which has hit-


Mrs. Finestone:: That is old history.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Member says that it is old history. In 1984 a tax program of the previous Government was devised which cost the research community probably $2.6 billion in lost revenues. When we consider that the federal Government commits the largest expenditures, $4 billion per year, in terms of research and development, that was an enormous historic loss brought about by the Government of which my hon. friend was a member. I know he regrets it as much as I do. It left Canada in a situation whereby when Government changed, among industrialized countries Canada had one of the lowest rates of scientists and researchers in the population-for example, 280 per 100,000 in the U.S., 240 in Japan, 150 in Germany, and only 90 in Canada. That is an enormous tragedy which was brought on by some decades of neglect. There is enough responsibility to go around for all Members of the House.
The Government is committed to working with the universities, the research centres, and the provincial Governments to make research and development in science and technology the cornerstone of future sustained economic growth in Canada that it should have been for decades.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I should say that I am glad the Prime Minister finally made it to Waterloo. Since he took office that university has lost the dean of its maths faculty to Tennessee; a leading chemist to Princeton; and professors in computer science, engineering, and accounting to U.S. industry, U.K. universities, and Switzerland. The Prime Minister's biggest export has been our brains-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


NEED TO STOP BRAIN DRAIN FROM CANADA
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, had the Prime Minister taken five minutes of his time yesterday to listen to the students, the faculty and the administration of the University of Waterloo he would have realized that his policies so far have been worse than a failure-his policies, not ours. When will he listen to academics throughout this country and put a stop to the brain drain from Canada for which he bears full responsibility?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend is asking whether I spent five minutes to listen to the students. I was with them for several hours. I had
March 5, 1987

an opportunity to deliver a speech and then listen to the students. I met with faculty members and research directors. Last Monday I chaired the first meeting of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology which includes 40 of the most important individuals in the field from all levels of Canadian society. We are preparing at the federal level-with higher, not lower appropriations-a new initiative in research and technology here in Canada with the support of the provinces and of universities such as the University of Waterloo which I visited yesterday. I can tell my friend that I was given a warm welcome by students and faculty members alike, and only modesty prevents me from telling you that there were standing ovations all the time!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. When the Minister announced the regulation requiring transit visas for the Chileans travelling through Canada, he refused to give a grace period to complete their flight such as he gave last year to the Portuguese when he imposed the visa there. Will the Minister now apply that grace period principle equally and fairly by allowing the plane load of Chileans now stranded in Buenos Aires to proceed to Canada?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we have been working expeditiously and humanely in handling every claim since last Sunday in Buenos Aires. One must not play with people's lives. A country such as ours cannot be held to ransom. Our record in landing real refugees in the country, the moral leadership we have shown, and our commitment to refugees must not be underestimated.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, that was no answer, but I would point out that the Minister knows that the Chileans are fleeing a dictatorship that tortures and murders its opponents and has secret police in Buenos Aires following them on the streets, while not one of the 3,000 Portuguese refugee claimants who came to Canada had any reason to fear imprisonment or death in Portugal for their views. Therefore, will the Minister explain to the House was his act of discrimination against Chileans, shown by the regulation which specifically mentions them, based on Canada's interest in selling military equipment to Pinochet, or was it based on the fact that most Chileans are of non-European race?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, our policy, straightforward, is that every real refugee
Oral Questions
who comes to our door will be given a haven and settled here. I may remind the Hon. Member what his Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa, had to say on a recent Webster radio show: "If a person has had a fair and just hearing, if he has had all the rights of appeal inherent now in Canadian law and he is found not to be a real refugee, then kick him out of the country".


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NARCOTICS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister and it deals with his credibility. I was disgusted earlier this week to hear him pontificate about a national drug epidemic, and I would like to ask him to explain his bloated pronouncement. We heard this morning that the Addiction Research Foundation in Canada gets more research money from American government agencies to study drug abuse than it gets from Canadian federal government sources. Can he explain that in light of his bloated announcement?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, regarding the drug strategy, the Prime Minister stated clearly-I agree with him, many people agree with him-that for parents and young people who are caught in the vortex of drug abuse, for them, for their families and for society it is an epidemic. Where we can help them get out of that vortex, we will.


DRUG SNIFFING DOGS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, given his personal concern about the national drug epidemic, at the very least will he guarantee that the Estimates will provide for six new dogs, six dogs, which have not yet been budgeted for, to cover a total of 28 dogs in airports across the country for his fight against drug abuse, which is an absolute farce.


An Hon. Member:: That is a lot of Alpo.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the concern the Government and many members in our society have for drug abuse is not a farce. Does she feel that there should not be a response? Does she feel that when kids are involved in drug abuse that that is not an epidemic-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa.

March 5, 1987
Business of the House THE CONSTITUTION


METIS CLAIM TO LAND RESOURCE BASE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Almost two years ago he promised the Metis people of Canada that he would meet with them to discuss their claim for a land and resource base. Since it is just three weeks from now that the First Ministers will be meeting on an historic occasion to discuss constitutional amendments exclusively devoted to aboriginal peoples, why has the Prime Minister not lived up to his commitment to meet with the Metis to discuss this important matter? Will he do so before the conference takes place?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has, in fact, met with the Metis representatives. He has also appointed me as an interlocutor with respect to this very important group of Canadians. I think the commitment of this Government with respect to the Metis is precedent setting. We have taken a greater interest on the federal side with respect to these people than any predecessor Government in Canada. We are committed to working toward a constitutional amendment which will set a constitutional basis for self-government which will also define the rights of aboriginal peoples generally across the country. We look forward to working toward success and we are committed to that end.


FORTHCOMING CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister and I hope he will answer it. I chose my words with care. I know the Prime Minister met with the Metis. That was not the point. The point was that the Prime Minister promised to meet to discuss their claim to a land resource base. Since they did not discuss that at the meeting to which the Minister referred, will the Prime Minister live up to his commitment to meet with the Metis to discuss that? In relation to that, in the proposal that will be put before the First Ministers in three weeks time, will the Prime Minister assure that there will be recognition of the Metis' need for a resource and land base?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his question in such an important area. He might be well advised to review the facts. A lot of important questions have been raised at that meeting and others.


John Edward Broadbent: Did they discuss land?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend is acquainted with the complexity of the land base problem, the resources, and the jurisdiction that controls those resources. There are lawsuits galore in this regard including, I think, litigation against the Government of Manitoba.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The same thing with the federal Government.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have asked the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Indian Affairs along with Senator Murray, to meet with the leadership of these various groups, hopefully next Friday, to try to do the very best we can to ensure that the conference, scheduled for the end of the month which deals with, among other things, this fundamental issue, will finally result in a substantial degree of success that will bring justice and fairness to the native peoples of Canada. We are deeply committed to seeking energetically and thoroughly that kind of solution for the native peoples, and we hope we have the full support of all Members of the House in that endeavour.


Mr. Speaker:: The last question goes to the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park.


FUTURE OF CANADIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Reports in today's media indicate the the CFL and a group of U.S. football teams are planning to join forces to establish a new North American football league. Since this in essence would mean the demise of the CFL and its importance as a unifying national institution, what action will the Minister take to preserve the integrity of the Canadian Football League?
Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur
Sport)): Mr. Speaker, I am in regular contact with the CFL on a number of issues. I can inform the Hon. Member and this House that those reports are not only speculative but unacceptable to the CFL and to the CFL Commissioner, Doug Mitchell. The League is attempting at this time to try to make itself a more viable operation. We are assisting in that process in trying to get outside government sponsorship for a new TV deal that will be announced in the near future so that Canadians can continue to take advantage of seeing this very unifying league called the Canadian Football League, and the Grey Cup.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Government House Leader to give us the customary statement of business for the coming week.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As a result of consultations with the Opposition House Leaders, I think
March 5, 1987

there will be general agreement for the following order of business. Today we will continue with Bill C-12, amendments to the Prairie Grain Advanced Payments Act, followed by Bill C-21, the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act; followed by Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Radio Act. Friday, tomorrow, will be another allotted day. I believe it will be a New Democratic Party opposition motion. On Monday and Tuesday, I would propose to call Bill C-40, which is second reading and possibly reference to the Committee of the Whole of the borrowing authority Bill. I will be able to report on future business perhaps later next week.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, just following up the report by the Government House Leader to facilitate business of the house, I might indicate to the Government and to the Official Opposition that, indeed, Friday is a designated day for the Opposition. The New Democratic Party will be putting forward a motion dealing with testing of the Cruise missile in Canada, and calling for that to stop.



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 third time and passed.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on Bill C-12 as presented in the House of Commons. The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) made some very eloquent remarks earlier today and described for us the Bill and its details. I will try to touch on some issues which concern me and which I believe concern much of the agricultural community across the country as they pertain to this piece of legislation and about farming issues generally.
First, we know that the cash advance is based on grain stored and not necessarily on acreage. We know that the interest rate on defaulted advances is a floating rate instead of a fixed rate as it had been in the past. Of course, generally that is a good thing because it will assist in bringing the rate down for some people who are financed at a higher rate. However, we are hoping that the Government would bear in mind that in the unfortunate possibility that interest rates rise again, there should be some way of assuring the farming community that the floating rate will not become a floating rate similar to that of chartered banks which in the past brought those rates up very dramatically because interest rates had risen. I do have a concern about the potential for the future. Of course, in the immediate future it will be of benefit to those people who will be able to reduce their payments.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
As I understand it, the total of the cash advance will be $30,000 and those people applying under this Bill will not be able to apply as well under the advance payment Act. Of course, this could lead to abuse as, I understand, it has on occasion in the past. I also understand that there is an escape clause for farmers who cannot deliver grain under certain special circumstances.
All of this will, of course, be a modest improvement. We should remember, however, that the main issue is not being addressed. I know that it is not the specific purpose of this Bill, the Bill to the amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, to resolve all the problems of grain producers. No one pretends that that is the role of this Bill. However, it should be noted nevertheless that it is high time the Government became aware of the major concerns of the agricultural community and saw to it that some of these issues are resolved.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Algoma, raised in the House previously the possibility that the price of wheat will go down from somewhere in the order of $3 to $2.50 this year in terms of payments made by the Wheat Board. I must say that that is a very big concern for Canadian farmers. Over the last few days, we have heard of the concern and worry that exists in the community. People are wondering if it is worth their while to seed this year. That is a very unfortunate kind of decision that farmers will be faced with making this year. As unfortunate as it is, I think we should realize that it is not something that will be necessary for only one year. Unfortunately, there are many more years during which the U.S. Farm Bill will apply, and therefore the problems in the agricultural community will be there for some time. It could be that unless the Government faces reality, that very unfortunate decision some farmers may have to make in the next few weeks will apply not just for one year but for several years to come or at least until the expiry of the U.S. Farm Bill.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, together with some of my colleagues, I had the opportunity to visit Washington. On that occasion, we were briefed about the American farming legislation. I can assure you that the message we got from the United States was very dismal indeed for all Canadian farmers.

The U.S. Farm Bill or the United States Food Security Act, 1985, is one of the reasons there are all these problems in the agricultural community at this time. Perhaps the United States is not the only cause of this problem. There are a number of other causes for the difficulties in the agricultural community now, including the fact that the United States enacted the United States Food Security Act, 1985, as a retaliatory measure against the European Economic Community which was, in the eyes of the United States, subsidizing its own agriculture to a level which was unfair. It was basically these unfair subsidies from the EEC that apparently caused
March 5, 1987

Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
the United States to impose its own unfair subsidies to match the other ones.
Of course, the Canadian farmer is not faced with the possibility of competing against the U.S. farmer or the European farmer but in fact is competing against the Treasuries of the countries of western Europe and the United States put together. Canadian farmers are very effective and productive. Some would say that they are too productive since there is an over-abundance of product at the present time. It is unusual, though, that those very productive Canadian farmers are having such difficulty making ends meet. They certainly do not deserve to face the hard time they are facing now. However, because they are competing against the subsidies of foreign countries, they are nevertheless faced with this very difficult situation.
When my colleagues and I visited Washington last year, we attended a briefing session at which we asked representatives of the Canadian Embassy in Washington what efforts had been made by the Government of Canada to attempt to have this particular Bill either delayed, changed or altered in such a way that it would not damage Canadian agriculture as it has now. We asked our representatives in Washington specifically which lobbying firm they had hired in order to fight off this very offensive piece of legislation. Of course, we know that in the past, Canada has hired United States lobbyists. Mr. Deaver is one example of a lobbyist who was hired to lobby on the issue of acid rain. There was quite a bit of controversy over that, but we will not touch on that at this time. The point is that for other very important issues, the Government of Canada sought the assistance of professionals in order to ensure that we had as much help as possible to either delay, defeat or alter legislation before the U.S. Congress.
When we asked our people in Washington what kind of resources they had to fight off the U.S. Farm Bill, a Bill containing $70 billion in U.S. subsidies, they said that they did not hire anyone. Of course, that is not the fault of the staff of the embassy, that was a decision that should have been made by the Government of Canada. The staff of the embassy were,
I am sure, doing their best with their own limited resources. There were one or two people with expertise in agriculture lobbying 535 U.S. legislators.
Not surprisingly, the United States adopted the U.S. Farm Bill. It did not change it in any way to accommodate Canada. It did not alter it in such a way that it could provide any form of relief for us. Following the passage of the U.S. Farm Bill, First Bank Agri-Services, which I gather is a division of the Bank of Montreal, commissioned a study to be done by Chase Econometrics Incorporated. Chase Econometrics, a very reputable firm, undertook the study which predicted the effects the U.S. Farm Bill would have on Canadian agriculture. Looking at some of the tables in this document, you will see the basic loan rates for major U.S. crops over the next two years. The basic loan rate is for all intents and purposes nothing less than the price you get for your product. In 1985 the U.S. price for wheat was $3.30, and $2.55 for corn. They
predicted it would be $2.40 to $2.70 in 1986, $2.28 to $2.85 in 1987, $2.17 to $2.71 in 1988, $2.06 to $2.57 in 1989, and $1.95 to $2.44 in 1990. According to that study, the price of agricultural commodities will go down every single year from now until the end of 1990.
It is very sad to have to make public that kind of information. It tells me that the Government of Canada will have to develop a very serious aid program for the agricultural community, not just for the next three or six months but from now until the end of 1990. That is when the U.S. Farm Bill expires. It is not you or I who will be able to convince the Americans, now that they have passed this unfortunate legislation, to alter it. It is too late. We should have done our work properly before the Bill was passed. We should have lobbied, we should have sent delegations, including Members from both sides of the House. We should have employed the Canada-U.S. parliamentary group. We should have done everything to try to make our American counterparts aware of the fact that we, their trading partner and ally, were going to be very seriously affected by this legislation. But we did not do anything.
It is unfortunate that the Government of Canada did not see fit to do whatever was in its power in order to obtain amendments or, even better, defeat that legislation.
The challenge now is for the Government of Canada and, yes, its taxpayers to support the agricultural community during this time of crisis. The crisis will not end after a few months. The Bill was passed in December of 1985, signed by the President, and it will be there until 1990.
I will just take a few moments to describe some of the features of that legislation just in case the people in the grain industry think they are the only ones suffering. They are not, but of course that will not make them feel much better because their difficulties will remain. By the time that U.S. legislation has expired there are several other areas of agriculture that will have been hurt. Section 104 of the legislation deals with the avoidance of an adverse effect of the milk production and termination program on beef, pork and lamb producers. According to Canadian government officials, this could depress international prices and North American domestic prices and displace Canadian exports to Third World countries. Section 153 will depress international prices and displace Canadian exports in the dairy industry. Section 1006 affects wheat and feed grain exports, which is what we are dealing with now. That section provides the Secretary of Agriculture with discretionary authority to establish a program applicable to any of the 1986 to 1990 crops for wheat or feed grain and provide incentives for the export of such crops from private stocks. You no doubt recall the issue being raised in this House about the effect this measure was having on the Canadian agricultural industry. The U.S. was giving extra subsidies for exports and it caused us to lose that export potential or lose customers we already had. There were certain Middle East
March 5, 1987

countries where that has happened over the last few months or so.
[Translation)
Finally, Mr. Speaker, needless to say that I have found in my document pages upon pages of sections in this US Farm Bill which have or could have highly detrimental effects on our agricultural industry.
When the United States is willing to spend 70 billion dollars of their own currency to pre-empt foreign markets and recover their so called fair share of the market-place, the message I get is that a foreign country as a means of retaliation is trying to steal away customers from other nations. I find this quite regrettable.
Even if we support Bill C-12, I should not like my honourable colleagues in the House to return to their ridings over the weekend to make their constituents believe that they have done a lot of good and solved all the problems facing the farming industry, for such is not the case. The problems of the farming community will be with us for quite some time and in the coming years they will certainly require on the part of the House and on the part of the Government and the Canadian public the desire and the collective will to give badly needed support to our farming community.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions or comments. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


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


SHIPPING CONFERENCES EXEMPTION ACT, 1986 MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Monique Landry (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-21, an Act to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Competition Act, to repeal the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1979 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon and say a few words in support of Bill C-21.


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to do this, but I would like to seek the indulgence of
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1986
the Member. As he probably understands, we are before the Transport Committee dealing with Bill C-18. I came here specifically to make a short intervention on this legislation before returning to the Transport Committee. If the Member has no objection, I would like to be allowed to speak and then return to the Committee. If he has no objection to that, he could speak later.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I guess it depends on how short the Hon. Member's intervention will be because I, too, have other commitments. Unfortunately, I will have to leave the Chamber at four o'clock. I do not expect to be too long.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has the floor.


Alan Redway: I thank the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) for his kind indulgence. It is very appropriate that we are debating this particular Bill today because in the business section of The Globe and Mail this morning there was an article entitled: "Canada a second-rate power moving toward third-rate status, survey says". That particular article was referring to a survey of some 200 leaders from business, government, labour, universities, consumers and women's groups who, according to the report, took part in a poll by Hay Management Consultants and indicated that they believed that Canada is now a second-rate economic power moving toward third-rate status because there are a number of difficult issues confronting Canadians which neither Canadians nor the Government are prepared to face up to. Two of those issues were Canada's declining competitiveness and the excessive regulation of many industries. It therefore seems quite appropriate to me that we are dealing this afternoon with Bill C-21 which deals with both those areas. It is an attempt to provide for greater competition in the liner conference shipping segment of our economy. It is, at the same time, an attempt to try to deregulate that sector to a degree in order to provide for that competition.
This Bill is designed to provide greater competition in liner conference shipping. While it does exempt conferences from certain provisions of the Competition Act, it has three provisions which will encourage greater competition: independent action, confidential service contracts, and a complaint procedure.
Clause 4(3) of Bill C-21 requires shipping conferences, as a condition of exemption from the Competition Act, to provide in their basic agreement the right of independent action for individual members of the conference. Independent action means that a member line can provide a service in a manner or at a rate that is different from those rates provided in the tariff of rates established by the conference. It also includes the provision of a service by a member line that is not provided for in the conference tariff. This provision will allow individual conference members to compete vigorously with non-conference competitors. It provides a means for conference members

March 5, 1987
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1986
to avoid the ponderous, time-consuming rate review committees that conferences have created to review their tariff of rate structure in the past.
A second feature of independent action is a provision that requires a member contemplating independent action to give notice of its intended action to other members of the conference. The benefits of this provision are two-fold. First, it protects the interests of other members of the conference and, second, it encourages other members of the conference to join this rate, thus providing cheaper shipping services to more Canadians. A clause in this section allows other members of the conference to join the independent action on or immediately after the day on which the independent action is first taken. The notice period is important and must balance the need to protect the interest of members of the conference and the need to respond quickly to requests for project rates or other requirements with short response times.
In the past, shippers have criticized conferences for not responding quickly enough to requests for lower rates which are required when quoting prices for particular projects. Shippers, when quoting prices for such projects, must make decisions on the costs in days or weeks and, as transportation is often the most significant element in the over-all cost, they need a decision on a reduced rate within the same time frame. Too often a representative of a conference member line undertakes to get a lower project rate established by the conference only to return in two or three weeks to indicate that, although the line he represents was prepared to carry the goods at the proposed rate, the other members of the conference turned down the request. In addition, to ensure that shippers are aware of this competitive rate, the conference must publish the independent action rate or service item not later than ten days after the receipt of the notice.
The independent action provision will encourage conferences to be more responsive. Canadian exporters and importers do not wish to lose contracts and members of the conferences do not wish to lose cargoes for transportation. This provision provides a mechanism whereby individual conference members can provide the response that shippers require and ensure that both shippers and conference members benefit.
Independent action is not a new thing. It has been practised by conferences on a voluntary basis for many years. The difference intended here is that the conference can no longer agree that its members should not take independent action. For some specific commodities conferences may have no rates quoted in their tariff. These rates are commonly called "open rates'. For commodities with open rates individual conference members may, of course, quote whatever rate they wish. This is a form of voluntary independent action, the sort of thing which this Bill will enshrine.
It is not likely that a large number of independent action rates will appear as a result of this provision. As the action rests with conference members, it is expected that they will agree upon a lower rate in most cases and that the new rate will become the conference rate. This provision will strengthen,
however, the bargaining position of the conference member seeking a lower rate and provide a downward pressure on freight rates, providing benefits to all Canadian importers and exporters.
The provisions governing service contracts also provide further elements of competition. Service contracts are defined as a contract between a shipper of goods and one or more members of a conference whereby the shipper agrees to provide to those members, for transportation by them over a fixed period of time, a specified minimum quantity of goods, and in return those members agree to carry the goods at a specific rate schedule and agree to provide a specific level of service.
The existing act requires all rates to be filed and available for all shippers. This provision has prevented shippers from taking full advantage of their economic power, as conferences must always consider the implications for their total trade. Clause 4(I)(c) of Bill C-21 allows conferences to establish the terms and conditions respecting the use of service contracts by their members. Clause 12 of the Bill ensures that service contracts will remain confidential. The Bill also provides that members of a conference are no longer bound by these terms and conditions after notice is given to the other members of the conference. The conference may establish the length of this notice period but such notice may not exceed 15 days.
A further element of competition can be found in Clause 14(1) of the Bill which deals with the complaint procedure. The existing act requires the Canadian Transport Commission, after receiving a complaint against an agreement or action of a conference, to use the public interest test as the means of determining the suitability of the agreement or act. Bill C-21, on the other hand, allows the Canadian Transport Commission to order the conference to remove the offending feature of an agreement or action if that feature has, or is likely to have, by a reduction in competition, the effect of producing an unreasonable reduction in transportation service or an unreasonable increase in transportation costs.
All of these elements of Bill C-21 combine to provide a significant increase in competition in the liner conference shipping area while ensuring that the public interest is protected. That is, of course, exactly what the article in The Globe and Mail today referred to, the survey by the Hay Consulting Firm which indicated that Canada was slipping as an economic and trading nation because of our declining competitiveness and excessive regulations of many industries. This Bill is aimed at correcting, at least in part, those problems, and I trust Hon. Members of the House will agree to pass it quickly in order to ensure that Canada retains a first rate position in the world of trading nations once again.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to take part in the second reading debate of Bill C-21, to repeal the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1979, and
March 5, 1987

to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Competition Act.
I must say that, as former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, it is difficult for me, as a matter of principle, to accept a bill which provides exemptions from the Competition Act. However, I know that shipping operations must take into account what is going on throughout the world, and there have been similar pieces of legislation in Canada throughout the years. However that may be, I am still very reluctant to accept such a bill which exempts an important sector of the Canadian economy from the provisions of the Competition Act.
Second, I must also say that I am very reluctant to accept this Bill because it follows from the general principles contained in the policy statement of the Conservative Government entitled Freedom to Move. This Bill, along with Bills C-18 and C-19, which were recently debated in this House, represents the entire policy of this Conservative Government and reflects an overly favourable leaning toward large Canadian shippers. I repeat that the biggest Canadian shippers are clearly favoured by Government policies. I would have no objection if the other shippers also benefited. However, it seems to me that, in all its initiatives, this Government always favours only the wealthiest, the strongest, and the biggest in our society. I find it difficult to explain such a behaviour, such an instinctive reflex on the part of the Government.

Bill C-18, Bill C-19 and now Bill C-21 are all Bills for big shippers, which means that the Government is trying to make us believe that a big shipper Bill means favourable returns for consumers. The logic at the outset could be simple and appealing. However, I think there are many flaws in this policy and approach of the Government. Unfortunately, these Bills place some big shippers of given goods in a favourable bargaining position vis-a-vis the carriers and vis-a-vis the other small shippers. Theoretically this could lead to lower transportation costs for the shippers and the savings should normally be passed on to the consumer. Unfortunately, it does not always happen that way.

What makes me sad, Mr. Speaker, is that this proposal might at first glance seem attractive, especially for a Government which is systematically and shamefully taxing the middle and lower classes of our society and whose budgetary demagogy has virtually cost it the respect of the entire population-if we ask people whether they are satisfied with their Government, whether they still have confidence in this Government, everyone spontaneously says that they feel wronged and frustrated as this Government thinks only of the wealthy and attacks the neediest members of our society through all its initiatives-at first glance, it therefore seems that this would be a perfect opportunity for the Government to improve its image and say that freer trade and deregulation of transport in Canada will benefit the consumers, but I think the situation is
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1986
actually quite different. The reason unfortunately, is the danger that in the long run, because of pressures that may be exerted by the major Canadian shippers on transportation companies, we will rapidly be faced with a significant number of transportation company bankruptcies or wind-ups in Canada. And those shippers, who originally would have liked to benefit from lower costs and other windfalls brought about by deregulation, will be the first to get caught and forced to surrender to a few large corporations which will control the transportation market and will then set their own rates.
I think the danger in that deregulation exercise is the possibility that the supply of transportation in Canada become too heavily concentrated into the hands of few companies. Whether it be rail transportation or trucking, airlines or even shipping companies, that deregulation exercise can bring about disaster and job losses to thousands of Canadians. Only this week, before the Transport Committee, officials of CP Rail told us that because of this Government's deregulation proposals, some 8,000 miles of rail will have to be abandoned by the CPR because of maintenance costs and because of pressures for lower freight rates stemming from deregulation. Now, 8,000 miles of rail, that means whole communities, towns and villages will be without the service they had grown accustomed to. This means that remote areas in Canada will simply be abandoned because market logic requires that anything not profitable is slashed. And this is what CP Rail will be doing.
We believe that essentially the same thing can happen in the shipping industry if this Conservative legislation is enacted as it now stands. There is a danger that the larger shippers may exert pressure on the conferences, which will obviously bring rates down. This of course will profit a few major shippers, but it can also force out of business the conferences that are now serving the Canadian public.
The ramifications of the Bill are all the more disquieting that, if one reads the briefs that were submitted by the various conferences, there does not appear to be anyone supporting Bill C-21.
1 will quote just one excerpt from a brief that was submitted by the Eastern Canada Caribbean Rate Association.
This is one of the conferences which has submitted representations concerning Bill C-21. After reading many of the briefs I have come to the conclusion that they all seem to oppose the Government's initiatives. Thus I will not read into the record all of the opposing representations, but I will read one as an example of the type of representations that we are now receiving against this initiative of the Government. I quote the brief of ECCRA, which is the acronym for the Eastern Canada Caribbean Rate Agreement, which states:
ECCRA feels that it cannot stand by in silence facing the prospect of Bill C-21 being enacted into legislation by the Parliament of Canada. Should it become law, this Bill would be highly detrimental to the interests of ECCRA and all

March 5, 1987
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1986
other Conferences shipping to and from Canada. ECCRA feels that Bill C-21 would not make good legislation. There are many provisions which would contribute to this. Prohibitions of the right to establish "multi-modal rates", prohibition of 100 per cent loyalty contracts, ambiguity in certain terms such as "predatory practices", "designated shipper group", and "ocean carrier", and yet another sunset clause are all of some concern to ECCRA. However, the most troubling provisions are those concerning Independent Action and Service Contracts contained in Section 4 of Bill C-21.
It is the position of ECCRA that the Conference system in Canada would be destroyed if the new legislation fails to allow Conferences the right to regulate service contracts. This right currently exists under U.S. legislation and prohibiting such Conference control in Canada will create uncertainty and instability within the Canadian shipping industry. ECCRA earnestly believes that Conferences must be able to decide whether service contracts should be entered into with the shippers by the Conferences or by the individual lines. It should be pointed out that such an imbalance between the Canadian legislation and the corresponding U.S. legislation could be very dangerous. The present competition from American ports like New York and Seattle-
There are many other American ports that are not mentioned in this paper which come to mind. I am thinking in particular of the ports of Boston, Portland and others that could be in competition with Canadian ports.
-represent a potential drain of cargo from Canadian ports.
Most other major trading nations such as the U.K., Germany, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Sweden have little or no legislation regulating Conferences. Conferences have been allowed to operate freely as this has been considered to be in the national interest of those countries. The federal Government of Canada should be doing everything it can to encourage carriers and Conferences to operate in Canada, not to discourage them by increasing regulation, creating uncertainty and perhaps legislating their demise.
Canadian government policy has been to allow and encourage Conferences to operate in Canada. At the same time it has been government policy to encourage and foster healthy competition. These two policies are not contradictory. Conferences certainly do not fear competition and have existed for some time in an environment of fierce competition. Low rates are already the reality of today's market-place. However, Section 4 of Bill C-21 could quite possibly lead to the destruction of the Conference system operating in Canada and gravely damage the national interest. The possible ramifications of the current provisions in Bill C-21 need to to be thoroughly examined and most certainly Section 4 should be amended if government policy continues to be to allow and encourage Conferences in Canada.
If that policy has changed, there has been no proper and in depth study done that would justify such a change in policy. ECCRA hopes that the Committee will heed its warning and examine the entire matter in detail before acting.

Of course, this point of view is that of a conference. I am not ready to endorse entirely this statement before having the chance to question the authorities of the Department who have drawn up this Bill. I do not mean the Minister because once again I am sorry the Minister is not present to introduce his Bill and to answer my questions. However, when the legislative or parliamentary committee does consider the Bill I hope the Minister will make a point of appearing before it and submit himself to our questioning. Anyhow, if he fails to appear, we will do as usual and address our questions to his officials who seem to be more interested than he is in transportation matters.
However, it is obvious that we have to raise questions, get some information and learn whether the Government's policy has changed. We know that every five years, the shipping conferences have been granted exemptions from the Competition Act. The 1979 legislation expired in 1984.
We are now in 1987 and the Conservative Government has not yet found the time to introduce a bill to settle this matter. We are only now tackling the matter which should normally have been settled in 1984.
However, as the conference is asking in its paper: Has the policy changed? Bill C-21 now under consideration is entirely different from the legislation introduced in 1979. If we want to extend the 1979 legislation, there is quite a number of useless clauses in this Bill. But if the Government wants to create the impression that it wants to exempt the fishing conferences from the provisions of the Competition Act while suffocating them and making sure that they are not exempted, I suggest that it should come right out and say so. Why play hide and seek with the conferences? If the Government no longer wants the shipping conferences to be exempted from the provisions of the Competition Act, it should say so frankly and not introduce such a Bill. It should declare: From now on, the forces of competition will apply freely, the market place will be wide open, and any shipper will be able to do business with any shipping conference. As shipping conferences, you will not be allowed any longer by mutual agreement to establish what is called a conference and impose your terms and set your prices. The deal should go to the lowest bidder.
From reading this brief, I get the impression that the Government is not doing exactly what it says it is doing. It is using a Bill to extend the 1979 legislation and do more. Do you know what this reminds me of, Mr. Speaker? Bill C-75. The Government tried to use Clause 4 of that Bill to charge a fee to all ships using the St. Lawrence seaway and the Great Lakes for Canadian Coast Guard services. It was a general legislation which provided for a series of changes which everybody accepted or was ready to accept. On top of that, however, there was this Clause 4, and for the first time the Government could arbitrarily charge fees to all Canadian users. You know what happened. The Liberal opposition, supported in this by all the parties involved in the shipping industry in Canada, fought mercilessly to force the Government to delete clause 4 from Bill C-75.
My Montreal colleague, the Hon. Member for Hochelaga- Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) is smiling, I see. He knows quite well how detrimental Clause 4 of Bill C-75, had it been maintained, would have been to the Montreal harbour, to the transportation of goods in the Montreal harbour and all the other harbours along the St. Lawrence river. Thanks to the representations of the Montreal Board of Trade, the transport minister of the Quebec government, and a journalist of the Journal de Montreal who wrote a very important report in which he insisted and tried to shake up the Minister of Transport to get him to change this famous section 4, the Government finally came to its senses and recently introduced Bill C-34, which was a true copy of former Bill C-75 of the last session, but without the famous section 4.
I wonder if the same thing might happen with Bill C-21. Taking advantage of the fact that it must renew the agreement under the Act of 1979, the Government comes to us with a bill
March 5, 1987

and says: Now that the five years the legislation was to apply are over, we must give the exemption back to the shipping conferences, and that is what we are doing. When one reads the legislation, one realizes there is more to it than that. It is not only more, but even the opposite of what is intended or what we are told is to be done.
I draw the attention not only of the Government but of the public in general to the strange administrative method which seems to come naturally to the Conservative Party. We are not really sure the Conservatives know where they are going. Every time we read the particulars of a bill they introduce, we find out there is much more in the bill than appears at first glance. So, until we start a clause by clause study of the bill, I hope the transport minister will have an opportunity to review this and let us know exactly what his intentions are.
In conclusion, I would like to quote a comment.
-a comment that has been sent to me by Mr. Ronald B. Gottshall who is Managing Director for the Transpacific Westbound Freight Agreement. He has written the following to all the members of the Transport Committee. This gentleman lives in the United States. In light of the tabling of Bill C-21 he felt that he wished to notify us of the danger of this legislation. I wish to quote what he said:
Legislative measures which undermine the ability of the conference system to do its job in promoting rate stability and equity are contrary to the economic interests of a trading nation.
The United States has stood largely alone in taking legislative steps to weaken the conference system, with consequences that have been devastating for its own merchant marine and which, before long, will be shown to have deleterious consequences for its foreign commerce as a whole. Although changes in the law contained in the present Bill largely follow the U.S. model, there is no objective evidence suggesting that U.S.-type changes undermining a conference system are wise or in the national interest of Canada. The premises of the U.S. legislation were accepted by the U.S. without any basis in objective studies, and early experience with the U.S. legislation strongly suggests that these premises are unsound. We would hope that Canada would not follow such a course.
Here again the Canadian Government has a tendency to copy Americans. Here again we see the Conservative Government trying to do exactly what took place in the U.S., without really looking at it and analysing it to find out whether or not it is in the best interests of Canada. The gentleman I just cited volunteered advice. He told us to be careful, that we were copying the American initiative, and that he was not sure it was a good thing. Indeed, it does not seem to have been in the best interests of Americans.
Therefore I ask the Minister why we are trying to do something which does not seem to be right. Is it because we have a phobia that we must do exactly what the Reagan administration is doing? I find it absolutely repulsive that everything initiated by the Conservative Government is a carbon copy of bad American initiatives, particularly in the
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1986
field of transportation. I think we are embarking upon a very dangerous path.
Deregulation in the United States, as we know, has created many difficulties and many problems. A number of areas in the United States have been deprived of services they used to have as a result of deregulation. Thousands of employees in the transportation field have lost their jobs in the United States because of deregulation. However, we have a Government which blindly follows the American experiment with its Bill C-18, Bill C-19, and Bill C-21.1 hope the Government will wake up before it is too late and will look at it in a way which protects the Canadian interest.
I have no objection to being friendly with the Americans or to believing that the United States of America is a great country. However, that does not mean that we must be a carbon copy of that country. Certainly our Government must consider the Canadian interest first, not necessarily the North American approach to everything which comes under discussion between Canada and the U.S.
American authorities have put pressure upon the Conservative Government to deregulate the transportation field. We know why. If we deregulate the transportation industry in Canada there is a great chance that substantial chunks of our trucking industry will be taken over by the Americans. We have been told that with deregulation and with the implementation of Bill C-18 and Bill C-19, Canadian railways are bound to lose a lot of traffic to American railways. We have been told time and time again that the deregulation process of the current Government would substantially benefit American transportation companies.
It is important that the Government wants to help Canadian shippers. I have no objection to doing our best to help them, but I do not want it to be done in a way which jeopardizes our Canadian transportation industry. If we want to help shippers, let us do it in a balanced way, in a way which takes into account the interests of small shippers as well. I do not want legislation which favours exclusively big shippers through confidential contracts where, because of their power and force, they could negotiate confidential contracts at a much lower rate than they would normally receive.
Who will pay the difference? Obviously small shippers will not receive the same deal on confidential contracts as big shippers. Transportation companies must survive, so what they lose through confidential contracts with big shippers they will get back from small shippers. I do not think the legislation is fair and balanced as it is conceived. Therefore I want reassurance from the various Ministers that Bill C-18, Bill C-19, and Bill C-21 will not impair our vital transportation industry which, over the years, has provided hundreds of thousands of jobs for many Canadians in all parts of the country. In every region of the country there are people working for trucking companies, railways, airlines, and maritime companies. There are good jobs everywhere in Canada in the field of transportation. Unfortunately these jobs are unduly threatened by the action of the Government.

March 5, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Unless the Ministers assure us of security of employment in	Bill as no less contentious than Bills C-18 and C-19 which
ttieir legislation, I am afraid we could not accept such	have already been debated in this House
legislation or such a move on the part of the Government. We need more assurance and more information.	[DOT] <1620)
In conclusion, I must say that I regret the absence of the Minister. I understand that he might be busy somewhere else, but I hope he will be in committee when we give the legislation clause by clause consideration.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-Richmond East (Mr. Dingwall)-Cape Breton Development Corporation-Size of federal funding; the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap)-Immigration-Salvadorans and Guatemalans- {a) Request for explanation of Canada-United States agreement. (b) Processing of refugee status applications; the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon)-Automotive industry-(a) Elimination of 9 per cent tariff on automobile trade between Canada and the United States-Government position, (b) Request for maintenance of tariff differential.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-21, an Act to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Competition Act, to repeal the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1979 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on Bill C-21, an Act to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Competition Act, to repeal the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1979, and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.
Clearly this Act is one of the package of Bills the Government has put forward to change practices in the transportation industries in and touching on Canada. It is to make changes which are likely to have the most detrimental effect for the companies involved in transportation and to have the most serious effect for those employed in the industry. I regard this
I want to consider some of the problems likely to result from this Shipping Conference Exemption Act, 1986 which is before us. The matter of shipping conferences themselves deserves a little bit of consideration in order to make clear what one is dealing with. Shipping conferences are an organization of carriers involved in a particular direction of trade, an organization to ensure that trade is carried on in an orderly way. What the carriers recognize in coming together in such an organization is that there are possibilities of competitive practices which might be of advantage to someone for the moment, presumably to someone interested in shipping and having some product moved, but which could in fact have a quite serious impact on other carriers in the trade and which would be disruptive to orderly conduct of that trade.
It is obvious in putting it this way that I want to deal in the first part of my comments this afternoon in a fairly penetrating way with competition as it exists in the ocean shipping industry and as part of the recognition of the nature of competition in our economy generally. I think I need to do that because the Government puts forward this Bill with very little regard for its consequences, without an appreciation of the contradictory potential of it. With the Government putting it forward, particularly as a program of removing regulation from transportation, it appears to suggest that completely unregulated, untrammelled, unwatched or supervised competition will somehow be a good thing. If we had competition of that sort in an industry like ocean shipping, Mr. Speaker, we could have predatory pricing practices which would destroy the operations of other competitors in the short run, and which might very well destroy ongoing operations of the company indulging in it. We would have in a competitive situation, if it were completely open, a ship arriving in a port without a cargo, conceivably looking for return cargo, fair game for someone wanting to undercut rates being quoted by others, then grabbing the cargo and going on his way. If the competition were severe between vessels of various carriers, one could see practices of this sort very quickly driving operations into the ground, into a deficit area that would make it impossible for companies to survive.
It was 100 years ago that practices of that sort led to the development of the shipping conferences in the merchant marine of Great Britain. It was the necessity to get some kind of organization of trade to ensure that it would be carried on in an orderly way and in a way that provided an amount of profit to companies which allowed them to pay decent wages to their workers and cover their operations. It was that kind of concern initially that led to the organization of these conferences. The result gradually was the spread of such arrangements from country to country, which has been well described by someone already quoted by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), Mr. Ronald B. Gottshall, Managing Director of one
March 5, 1987

of the super-conferences these days, the Transpacific Westbound Rate Agreement. Mr. Gottshall has observed in comments on Bill C-21 that:
Every major and successful trading nation permits and in most cases encourages strong conferences in its foreign commerce. Pacific basin and European countries like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, England, Germany and Sweden, whose economies are heavily dependent on exports and imports, all permit a strong conference system. They do so because stability and equity of ocean rate making, which is strong, enforceable conference system provides, promotes the growth of commerce.
Price instability and discrimination in shipping rates, as these successful trading nations have found, is inconsistent with national trading interests and the development of export commerce.
Those observations on the use made by important trading countries of the conference system can be applied to the Canadian situation. We clearly have not obtained all those gains from a sound conference system. One of the results should surely be the development of a Canadian merchant marine operating on the oceans. We have not seen that happen. I regret that very, very much.
We in our Party have long been concerned about the shipbuilding industry across Canada in several great port cities. We have been concerned about the possibilities of developing the steel and other industries that are subsidiary to shipbuilding. We have been concerned about the possibility of employment for Canadians in a merchant marine. We regret very deeply the failure of Governments past, the present Government particularly, but really no less so the Party which is now the Official Opposition and its failure to do anything about the development of a Canadian merchant marine. If we had done that, we would have strength in a variety of productive areas and employment for Canadians.
Perhaps I shall say in all honesty the reason that has not happened is partly the result of international conditions. After the Second World War the United States led the way in encouraging flags of convenience, registry of vessels in Panama, Liberia and other places. Those vessels lacking safety, labour and other provisions were able to undercut any vessels registered in North America. In the United States the domestic shipping industry has been maintained largely because of the Jones Act which has required American bottoms, American registered vessels, for coastal trade. If it were not for that kind of basis, there would not be very much of a registry in the United States either. I realize those were the international factors within which our Governments operated, but I do not think they made any effort to have the system changed in order to encourage a Canadian merchant marine.
Recognizing that the possibilities of a conference system which have been exploited by many countries were not used in the Canadian situation, we now find ourselves faced with the situation of how to regard the conference. My justification for it has been in the way of making possible employment and productivity in Canada, which is only possible if shipping can be carried on in a profitable way by companies registered in Canada. I am clearly putting forward a case for the conference
Shipping conferences Exemption Act, 1986
which is founded on the profitability within checks, of course, of companies involved in ocean shipping.
There, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most ironic aspects of my comments this afternoon and our debate of this Bill. One would expect a Conservative Government to have a due regard for decent profits in every industry, no less so among companies carrying on the business of ocean shipping. I submit that Bill C-21 will be highly disruptive of ocean shipping and will have a most deleterious effect on the profitability of companies in the business now. So many of them are running in the red already in the economic circumstances of our time and Bill C-21 will only make it worse.
I need to say very hastily in making these observations for my caucus that when I talk about the profitability of these companies, I want that to be within a reasonable range of operations. There, of course, is the very basis of our case for regulation. If we are to avoid the cut-throat, destructive competition in ocean shipping which the conference system was designed to prevent, then the only reasonable response to the situation of organization through conference is to ensure that the system is regulated, that the rates are registered with an authority and that there be the possibility of investigations, roll backs and so on. That of course is the system that has prevailed with the Canadian Transport Commission. That is the organization that we want to maintain in this area.
What do we see instead of that? A number of concepts are being put forward by this Bill that will threaten the viability of the conference system which the Bill appears to be renewing and protecting from the competition law of Canada. If it were applied here, it would of course prevent this kind of an agreement or collusion, if you will, among carriers in one particular industry. First, the Bill continues the exemption from the Competition Act, but puts forward mechanisms likely to be quite disruptive to the conference organization for which the Bill allows. It does so by means of two different arrangements. One is the arrangement for independent action and the other is the arrangement for confidential service contracts.
The proposal for independent action is, by its very nature, a destructive feature for the conference. We have an organization of carriers who have established the rules for their trade, including rates that shall be charged, and who ensure that there will be competition in this system on the basis of published rates known to all. At the same time there is a provision for an individual carrier to break with that agreement and establish a rate, which I recognize must be published, allowing it to undercut the arrangement it has made with others.
The length of time that should prevail if independent action were to be allowed is one of the important features here and the Bill in Clause 4 allows a company to take independent action on 10 days' notice. That is not very long. I note from the material Mr. Gottshall presented to us the insistence of one of

March 5, 1987
Shipping conferences Exemption Act, 1986
the conferences, the Transpacific Westbound Freight Agreement organization, that if there is to be independent action, there should be at least 30 days' notice given. Thirty days' notice allows the other members of the conference to react to the situation. It allows them to consider the possibility of matching that rate.
If the point of independent action is to reduce rates, and I am sure those who developed this Bill had that objective, then a competitive process in which the others have time to respond to information that has been given in order to establish a new rate would seem to be a fine result to achieve. Mr. Gottshall also suggests that there should be for these arrangements a life of at least six months to a year, so that this action would be continued and there would be some measure of stability in the industry when such changes take place.
These comments on the matter of independent action are ones that need to be taken very seriously when considering whether or not it is advisable to introduce this disruptive element into the operations of the conference. If independent action is dubious, when we consider the possibility of confidential service contracts, we consider going back to the worst era of companies doing anything to their competitors in order to make money for the short run no matter what may happen in the long run. This particular provision seems to me to be completely incredible. Even if we were to accept the possibility that the Canadian Government is simply aping the U.S. Government in legislation that came into effect two and a half years ago, it would still be completely incredible.
This provision allows a shipper to make a confidential arrangement with one carrier. Surely large shippers who have much cargo to move will have the ability to persuade a particular carrier to reduce the rate for him. He will be allowed under the Bill to keep that rate secret so that others are not sure, although there will undoubtedly be rumours about what kind of contract exists. This arrangement is surely designed to disrupt the conference system entirely. That makes one wonder what is the point of Bill C-21.
If we are to renew the exemption of the conference system from the impact of the competition Act, then why do we have these destructive elements in the Bill? If in fact we do not want the conference system to operate, then let us make it immediately open to prosecution under the Canadian Competition Act and not fool around with a Bill that supposedly extends or renews the exemption while undercutting it in these particular ways.
These proposals for independent action in Clause 4 and for confidential service contracts in Clause 12 are the two most contentious elements in the Bill. There are other smaller items that are not much less contentious than these for those who are involved in the industry. The ironic thing about Bill C-21 is that it is not only the carriers who are opposed to it. There is no doubt that the carriers are opposed to it, as I can assure Hon. Members from what I have seen in the way of briefs presented. The Hon. Member for Papineau has already read substantially from one of those briefs while saying that others
have already come before the Transport Committee. We do have evidence that the carriers are opposed to the Bill, but we also have before us the quite astonishing fact that the Shipping Federation of Canada, an organization of persons in ports who act as agents in the shipping trade, are no less opposed to it. These are the people who have been opposed to the development of the Canadian deep-sea merchant marine, the reason I feel anything but sympathetic toward them. They have come to Members of Parliament with their critique of and opposition to Bill C-21. Regarding the matter of confidential service contracts, they say that these would primarily interest the shippers of commodities, raw materials and semi-finished products, perhaps a dozen such commodities representing a significant percentage of Canada's water-borne exports. They go on to say:
Confidential service contracts would primarily interest the shippers of those commodities and undermine the ability of conferences to be stabilizing forces- so much so that the continued existence of the conference system would be pointless, if not made impossible.
The deep-sea shipping industry has faced a shippers' market for several years now and pressures resulting from the new proposals relating to service contracts and independent action would only lead to lower rates at a time when rates are already at levels which inhibit shipowners from operating profitably. The result of this interaction between shippers and shipowners would not be in anyone's best interests and would result in shippers ultimately suffering a long-term loss for a very minor short-term gain.
We have at times heard about short-term pain for long-term gain. This is promise of long-term loss for a very minor shortterm gain. That is the reaction of the Shipping Federation of Canada to the Bill.
We also have very great concern about what may happen if both Bill C-19, which deals with trucking, and this Bill are passed. The U.S. has so-called private ports, Elizabeth, New Jersey, being one, which have freedom from a good deal of the law on contracting. That results in very low costs. If the trucking legislation is changed in such a way that U.S. trucking companies can run into Canada very easily it becomes quite possible that much of the container business in particular could become centered in a few American ports from which they could be run into Canada. That would have very serious consequences for some Canadian ports, Saint John, New Brunswick, perhaps being the best example. Conceivably Halifax could be affected as well. Who knows what its impact might be in Vancouver. We can see employment in Canadian ports suffering considerably as a direct result of this legislation.
That is an indication of how serious the consequences of this Bill may be and how important it is that the Standing Committee on Transport be allowed to consider it fully. This legislation should go to the standing committee and not be left to a legislative committee to deal with separately. It is part of the deregulation complex and it should be possible for the standing committee to consider the various dangers resulting from this system.
March 5, 1987

The question of what the intention actually is in this legislation forces us to consider for a few moments the context of the American legislation within which the Canadian legislation was surely put forward. The U.S. passed legislation a few years ago in this area and it seems the Canadian Government is putting forward similar or even worse legislation in this Bill. The U.S. does not allow for the confidential service contract. That is a Canadian wrinkle which, as I have said, is likely to be completely disruptive of the industry. Last year, of 29 carriers operating in the westbound trade from North America to Asia, less than half actually belonged to the Transpacific Westbound Rate Agreement. Of those, 13 companies lost an average of $50 million. Among those companies we find U.S. Lines, now undergoing reorganization with a court-appointed receiver because of the financial plight it fell into and in the circumstances which were only made worse by the American legislation. I want to note the following comments of the Shipping Federation of Canada:
Although we are totally opposed, for the above reasons, to suggestions that Canada's legislation emulate that of the U.S., if the Minister is adamant that it be so patterned, then it is our strong recommendation that the passage of new legislation here await the trial period of the U.S. legislation and the study to be conducted by the Federal Maritime Commission as to whether or not it is workable for the longer term. The trial period extends over five years, of which two and a half years have passed, leaving two and a half years more experience to be gained. In the circumstances, it would seem prudent to extend our current legislation until that review has been conducted by the Federal Maritime Commission.
The Federation is well aware of what has happened in the U.S. where it passed a law with little investigation of the situation. Congress legislated in the hope that shipping conferences dominated by other countries in the Pacific, particularly Japanese and Hong Kong interests, would have some sort of freedom of independent action which would allow the American companies to do better against their Asian competitors within the conference system. While the protectionist intent of the legislation was quite clear, its economic effect has been completely destructive of the American companies operating in these conferences. Witness the comments by Ronald B. Gottshall, managing director of the Transpacific Westbound Rate Agreement, speaking in New York on January 8, 1987. In his comments on the policy he says the following:
The last part of the declaration of policy, which states that the Act's purpose is to encourage an economically sound and efficient U.S.-fiag fleet, is one which in my opinion seems doomed to failure as a general purpose of the Act. While there is evidence that there will be an American flag fleet, the question is not "how big?", but instead "how small?".
In my position as managing director of an agreement covering many nationalities and flags, I believe it is essential that each trading partner maintain a presence in trade to represent the transportation interests of its constituents. Without dwelling on the U.S. flag fleet, it's possible that as a result of its adverse effects, the Act won't help anybody.
He then says more specifically concerning the effect of the Act:
Now that we've heard the worst, what do we do about it? Six months ago I was of the opinion that we could survive the five years until review of the Shipping Act and that perhaps even a longer review period was necessary because of the cyclical nature of the shipping business.
Shipping conferences Exemption Act, 1986
Now I'm not sure that we can wait that long. The abuses brought about by "pro-competitive independent action" and "service contracts" have exacerbated the situation, and there may be fatal results for a significant number of carriers before any scheduled review. The shipping public, particularly in the North American trade, customarily presses for faster transit times and more frequent departures; point-to-point services; and systems that will track cargo at any point in the transportation scheme. At the same time, and even though everything they want costs money, many of these shippers firmly believe that transportation costs can be consistently depressed without any effect on the transportation system. To be sure, there was an old saying that, "carriers may go, but ships remain", meaning that there will always be an operator for unemployed vessels.
That truism, of course, depended heavily on the banks who in the past were far more willing to extend operating loans to almost anyone. Today, many banks have backed out entirely or substantially reduced their commitment to the shipping business because of its unpredictability and high default rate. Those banks that are still in the business are less willing to finance new carriers, or even extend credit to existing carriers for expansion purposes where the risk factor is high.
He concludes the speech by saying:
If trade is going to grow and prosper, there must be adequate transportation resources available to carry it. Without being redundant, that takes two things:
A commitment by the carriers to provide the capital and facilities to meet the challenge; and,
A commitment by shippers to pay an equitable price for the services they need and want.
The effect of Bill C-21 will be to allow those shippers who can exploit their strength in the market to force desperate carriers in the short run to undertake contracts that they cannot make a profit on. The result will be quite destructive in the carrier business on the oceans touching on Canada. The fact that 90 per cent of the companies involved in the conferences are owned by Governments of other countries, with the remaining 10 per cent in foreign private hands, if you will, should not be a reason for the Canadian Government to put forward a bill which will be so very, very destructive.
s (1650)
I will conclude my observations on Bill C-21 by pressing, in the strongest possible terms, for this Bill to be considered by the Transport Committee. It is necessary to consider its effects on the ports of Canada, employment in those ports, and on the agencies dealing with the shipping trade in Canada. It is necessary, surely in terms of some regard for the countries, to consider what its effects will be on the various carriers. The fact that the Shipping Federation of Canada is opposed to the Bill, those being the people involved in presenting the cargoes rather than owning the carriers, is the best possible reason to have this matter put before the Transport Committee where it can be properly considered. My colleague, the Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), and others are very active in this.
The Member for Papineau made some comments on Bill C-75 from the last session. I appreciate that Members can be quite myopic about the rest of the country when celebrating what they accomplished in their own region. However, it is manifestly unfair to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, and others in my caucus to focus only on Montreal in the battle to have cost recovery for the Coast Guard removed from Bill C-75. The effort was exerted
Shipping conferences Exemption Act, 1986
on the Great Lakes as much as on the St. Lawrence, and perhaps even more, although I do not want to indulge in the same kind of myopic behaviour. The Member for Papineau knows very well as a result of his visit to the Transport Committee, and I believe with the Seaway committee when he came to Thunder Bay last June, that there is as much concern about cost recovery at the head of the Lakes as there is in Montreal. I say that to balance the record on this matter and I am sure he will accept the accuracy of my observations.
I would like to reiterate, underscore, and emphasize in the strongest possible way that Bill C-21 is part of the Government's deregulation package. It will be a destructive element in deep sea transportation as the other Bills will be disruptive in other parts of Canada's transportation industry. We New Democrats think that an industry has the right to make a decent profit. Only with decent profits being made is it possible for workers to negotiate decent wages for themselves while, at the same time, capital obtains the reward that it deserves. In transportation that calls for open, sound organization, information being made available, and regulation of the industry to ensure that the profits do not become excessive. That is our basis for regulation.
I apologize to no one for putting forward this case which respects workers and capital and recognizes the needs of the industry to provide a service as well as recognizing the importance of a well organized transportation industry for all Canadians producers and all those who want the goods. There is nothing for which to apologize. We New Democrats find ourselves in the very strange situation that we are the only ones making such a case these days. The rest of the world seems to have gone mad with some kind of a free enterprise faith and are worshipping very strange gods indeed.
I would like to underscore something which the Hon. Member for Papineau has suggested. There are many briefs before the Transport Committee. The Member read substantially from the brief of the Eastern Canada Caribbean Rate Agreement. I note that the Inter-American Freight Conference has submitted a brief. I have drawn a great deal of advice from the Transpacific Westbound Rate Agreement. The Asian North American Eastbound Rate Agreement has submitted a brief in another direction. I understand that there are 25 briefs expected from the carriers and their organizations. I am sure there will be others.
The Shipping Federation will want to comment on this Bill in a most critical way. They will call for the Government to take it back and give us simply a shipping conference exemption Act and, particularly, to get rid of the provision which exists in the Bill for the confidential service contract. This is not law that the Parliament of Canada should be passing. I call upon the Parliament of Canada to throw it down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?
March 5, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mrs. Landry (for the Minister of Transport) seconded by Mr. Kelleher, moves that Bill C-21, an Act to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Competition Act, to repeal the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1979 and to amend other 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:: On division.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 2, consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Radio Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek guidance from the Chair. I started to debate Bill C-3 on March 2 at almost the same late hour. As it is almost two minutes to Five, I wonder whether the House would consider calling it five o'clock, or would you like me to speak for two minutes and then continue when the Bill is next before the House? What is the wish of the House, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary wish to call it five o'clock?


Philip Derek Lewis: Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think that would be appropriate. The Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is here and prepared to proceed with Private Members' Hour. Our speakers for Private Members' Hour are here as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Therefore, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) will be recognized when the Bill is next before the House so that she can make her great speech.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your consideration, and through you, to thank the Parliamentary Secretary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

March 5, 1987



PRIVATE MEMBERS'BUSINESS-MOTIONS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Jean-Claude Malépart: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a permanent mechanism, consisting of representatives of the government, the official opposition and the government of Quebec, in order to ensure that Quebec interests will be better defended in the future.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful to repeat the motion, whose purpose, and I hope it will be supported by all Quebec Members of the House, is to set up a committee representing both Government and Official Opposition Members, as well as the Quebec National Assembly, and thus provide for better defence of Quebec interests that are being neglected here in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to mention seventeen issues which, after the thirty months this Government has been in power, and that is since yesterday, have yet to be resolved. These are situations where people have lost their jobs and are waiting for the Government to reverse its decision so they can get their jobs back. There are other situations where decisions are still pending, and as a result, jobs and grants will be lost, and also situations where the sick and the elderly are going to have to pay for the federal Government's cutbacks. I would like to mention, one by one, the seventeen Quebec dossiers that are languishing, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I think everyone will recall the case of Montreal East and Vickers, Bombardier and the plan to attract new businesses under the designated-area program. Nothing has been done yet.
We have the shipyards. We have not only Montreal East but also the Lauzon shipyards near Quebec City, where the Minister, the Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have been making promises, promises, promises and all kinds of announcements, but nothing has materialized yet and nobody is working in the yards. And we have the same situation in Sorel and Montreal. The only projects people are working on now are the frigate contracts that were awarded under the Liberals.
Mr. Speaker, there is the paper mill in Matane. There is also the Desbiens paper plant in the Lac-Saint-Jean area. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister came on a visit and made promises. The Minister of Employment and Immigration sent a circular letter and held a press conference to announce that the plant would at last be opened. They, the Minister and the Prime Minister, are giving us a lot of talk but no action. The plant is still closed and people are waiting for an answer.
Mr. Speaker, in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area... and by the way, are there any Member from that area?
Quebec Interests
And what about the potato growers? The Canadian Government decided to pay millions of dollars to potato growers in the Atlantic provinces. There is nothing for Quebec, Mr. Speaker. All they had last week was a cheque for $30,000 to plow under their potatoes, while their counterparts in the Atlantic provinces received compensation. And nobody from Quebec is standing up for them.
Mr. Speaker, at the GM plant in Boisbriand, they are still waiting to hear about the subsidies.
There is another matter that has been going on for some time, in the riding of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), and I am referring to the employees at Melcher's.
Then there is the famous promise concerning a banking centre in Montreal. It now looks as if we might have a counter to deposit cheques during the night, not to cash them! You read newspaper reports concerning the economic fall-out of the space station-Quebec was awarded only one contract while Ontario ended up with ten of them.
There is the matter of equalization payments.
In the immigration sector, the provincial government asked for financial compensation to be able to cope with the massive influx of refugees into Quebec, but again this Conservative Government said no.
Referring to Bill C-18 provisions related to railway transport, Minister Cote said that the impact will be felt in regions far from Montreal, services will be cut back. Again no answer, and no objections raised by Members.
I read an article today which clearly indicates that the Minister asked for funds to clean up the environment, just like Ontario got to fight pollution in the Great Lakes. Sure enough, we were told the Minister had left for Montreal and said: "No way, not a cent!"
Other files. Quotas in the footwear industry. The textile and clothing sector.
I am working on my 17th file concerning Quebec consumer associations still waiting for answers to their applications for grants to promote the interests of Quebecers.
Mr. Speaker, I have 17 files here which have been pending, unanswered. Talk about other files which were settled, Domtar to name one. Why did Domtar get money? Because we had to set up a survival committee to force the Government-and here I must pay homage to my colleagues from Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) and Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) who were very active or. the Domtar survival committee-to award grants to Domtar. But this was not new money, it came from the funds given to the provincial government.
Let me get back to the matter of Montreal East. There was a survival committee made up of people from all political parties. You may recall that the Gulf refinery was shut down, but the Member for Mercier did not even lift a finger. Mr. Speaker, a Minister has resigned. A Conservative Member has crossed the floor, he is now an NDP Member and still nothing

March 5, 1987
Quebec Interests
has come from Ottawa. As in the other case, the Domtar case, the Provincial Government has obtained that half of the refining facilities remain in operation.
Canadair was taken over by Bombardier-the CF-18 contract. I know that in a few moments the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve	(Mr. Desrosiers), the Hon.
Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine)-the three or four who were there today-will try to tell us that the obtained that. That is not true. It was Norm Cherry, the Canadair union representative, who set up a survival Committee, a pressure group, and enlisted all Montreal businessmen, all the church establishment. A council speaking unanimously for the greater Montreal area forced the Government into awarding the CF-18 contract to Canadair, and Canadair was purchased by Bombardier, the highest bidder.
The only thing I can give them credit for, Mr. Speaker, is Petromont, but then it was one of the vice-presidents who got that. The others had nothing to do with it. They will brag, but anyway ... Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for La Prairie has put his head on the block concerning the Champlain Bridge tolls, but everybody still has to pay.
Then looking at the resolution, at its implications, certainly there is not a Member here who will not support the motion if he believes in the interests of Quebecers rather than in stuffing his own pockets, as we saw in those patronage cases, if he is really commited to the interests of Quebecers. He will support this motion, not because the Liberal member for the Montreal-Sainte-Marie riding is asking him to, but because the 50 Melcher's employees under the leadership of Margot Bruneau are asking him to, because Mr. Beaubien, who is the president of the Vickers' employees union and because the presidents of the Bombardier's employees union and the Montreal East citizens' committee are asking for action, on the ground that the people in that area have the right to work. The people in the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve riding have the right to be treated honourably just like the people in any other province in the rest of the country, and they too have the right to get contracts which will give them jobs, irrespective of patronage.
The people from Lauzon to Levis, those of Quebec city should not always have to-the union is forced to organize a march to hang the member for Levis in effigy, to organize a sit-in at the office of the Minister of Region Industrial Expansion in the Quebec area just to get a labour contract or they have to come to Ottawa. It is for these people that I am asking for this. The Matane people are sick and tired of the promises the Prime Minister, one hand over his heart and the other over the Gospel... Matane: Nothing is settled. It is Mr. John Ciaccia, the Provincial Minister of Energy who says that if the Matane case is not settled, it is because the Federal Government is dragging its feet. He is saying that, not me. The Desbiens plant in the Sagueney-Lac-Saint-Jean riding, the potato producers... Is there one single Quebec member of the Conservative Party who can stand up and tell me that the farmers... will the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne), as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, rise in the House and say: The Quebec potato producers are not so good as those in the Maritimes and therefore cannot be compensated. Is that the Government's decision? He will stand up and say: Yes, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is right, Quebec farmers should be treated as equitably as all the other farmers in this country.
You know about the decision, Mr. Speaker, I notice unfortunately that my time is running out when my honourable friends were starting to listen, including the Hon. Member for La Prairie: That might help. I am anxious to hear what they have to say. I am counting on their support and I dare hope for the sake of these people, that with everybody's help we can protect the 10,000 jobs which are being jeopardized in Quebec.


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I take part in the debate today, no so much to speak to the basic issue of the motion but to take this great opportunity given by the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie to Quebec Members to show the vigour, enthusiam, competence and efficiency we put into our representations and efforts to promote the interests of Quebec.
I would certainly commend the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie for being somewhat more restrained in his remarks. He was more reasonable, less insulting than usual, more disciplined, so I think he deserves praise in that respect.
But as far as the motion is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I think he would have been well advised to introduce it when the Liberals were still in office because we should not forget that Quebec's unemployment rate was over 14 per cent when we came to power. Mr. Speaker, 500,000 young people were without work throughout Canada and various industries were closing down in Quebec. So he would have been much better advised to present his motion when his Party was still on the government side. We will not change the world, the parliamentary system exists, Canadians elected a Conservative Government on September 4, 1984 and, until further notice, we are at the helm in this country.
Here in the House of Commons we have standing committees on which Members of the three Parties sit and which have the power to make recommendations, propositions or representations concerning any legislative measure on which they may or may not agree, Mr. Speaker. In addition, I think it is a well known fact that ours is a Government which practices consultation. With respect to our proposed legislation, we have never had a government which has done so much consultation with the people or the socio-economic organizations in Quebec and the rest of Canada. Mr. Speaker, this is why I suggest that the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is quite unacceptable ...


Mr. Champagne (Champlain):: Ridiculous.
March 5, 1987


Gabriel Desjardins: It is even ridiculous, as my colleague the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) has termed it, since, as I have said before, never has a federal governement had a team of men and women so earnestly committed to the concerns and interests of Quebecers, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: All 74 ridings.


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, there are many Conservative Members from Quebec who would have liked to speak in the House today but, unfortunately, given the little time at our disposal, only a few will have the opportunity to speak for Quebec.


An Hon. Member:: What a pity.


Gabriel Desjardins: It is indeed a pity since I am convinced that Hon. Members from Quebec, whether they represent the Abitibi-Temiscamingue area, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, the Gaspe, the Montreal region or any other region of Quebec, would have good things to say about what the Conservative Government has accomplished in their respective regions.
Mr. Speaker, the greatest economic achievement of this Government in Quebec has been the signing of regional economic development agreements. This Government has signed close to ten subsidiary agreements dealing with regional development in Quebec, a type of agreement which the liberals refused to sign when they were in power on account of the hostile, contemptuous and confrontational attitude with which they regarded Quebec. As a Government, Mr. Speaker, the first thing we did was to sign economic development agreements with the Government of Quebec, amounting to more than 1,600 million dollars. It is not peanuts, Mr. Speaker, it is 1 billion 600 million dollars and it explains why the rate of unemployment in Quebec has gone down from 14 per cent to the present 10.8 per cent. It comes from that kind of initiatives.
Our Government, Mr. Speaker, has signed economic development agreements with Quebec in several areas, for example, industrial development, forest development, mine development, transportation, tourism and, more recently, agriculture and agri-food development. I am confident that the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne), if he has a chance to speak, will tell us all the benefits that the agri-food agreement with Quebec will bring to agriculture development in that province. These agreements, totalling as I said 1 billion 600 million dollars, have brought down the rate of unemployment and in my area of Abitibi-Temiscamingue, for example, the rate which was 18.8 per cent in 1984 was down to 10.8 per cent in January 1987. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that this improvement can be attributed to our efforts in regional development.
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, whom we understand and support, likes to defend the older people and the youth of this country. As a Member from an outlying area called Temiscamingue, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that a
Quebec Interests
number of Hon. Members in that same situation would have a proud record of achievements regarding senior citizens and young people. As far as the former are concerned, Mr. Speaker, in a riding like mine, in a period of a year and a half, our Governement has granted 5 million dollars to build housing for senior citizens. Just ask these senior citizens and retirees whether or not they are happy about the money invested to improve their quality of life and environment.
As for young people, which is not only a priority for the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, but also a major priority for the Conservatives, nearly $2 million have been invested in my own constituency in youth programs and organizations, including $450,000 early this year to create a youth resource centre where 40 disadvantaged young people will be able to receive training to rejoin the labour force. This is a five-year program, which means that, in Temiscamingue, 200 young people will receive training, and education to rejoin the labour market within the next five years. This is how we defend the interests of the population of Quebec.
Another issue which the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie rarely mentions, but of which we talk a lot ourselves is the issue of women. In my constituency, over $1 million have been invested in organizations which defend the interests and the rights of women. This is an enviable record. I could have shown today letters of appreciation from various youth groups and women's organizations thanking our Government for its assistance.
An issue which the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie did not mention, and I can understand him because the Liberals have nothing to brag about in this area, is the environment. Before we came into power, Mr. Speaker, Quebec Members were not even aware that the biggest polluter in Quebec-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh! Oh!


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, I understand the reactions of the Members opposite. When the Liberals were in power, they did not recognize that the biggest polluter in Quebec was Noranda Mines in Rouyn-Noranda. In fact, the only statement made between 1979 and 1984 by my predecessor, who should have known that the biggest problem in Abitibi-Temiscamingue was pollution and acid rain, was to the effect that he wished the federal Government would put pressure on the United States to clean up the Niagara River. How shocking! The people of my region must be shocked to know that, while their own health and that of our lakes and forests was being threatened, my precedessor spoke about the pollution of the Niagara River. Such an attitude is unacceptable and immoral, Mr. Speaker!
This Government made commitments in Quebec on environmental issues as never before, to the point that $42 million will soon be earmarked, and I ask Hon. Members opposite to take good note of it, $42 million will go to Quebec, to Rouyn-Noranda, for a pollution control system at Noranda

March 5, 1987
Quebec Interests
Mines which will at last solve the quality of life and environmental problems in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the environmental issue is crucial and Canadians have recognized it in a poll as the most important problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gabriel Desjardins: I hear them heckling on the other side because they do not like hearing good news, since they never had any themselves. But on this side of the House, some of us have good news to spread.


Mr. Rossi:: Mentioning yelping-


Gabriel Desjardins: As regards environment, our Government has shown to the province of Quebec in less than two years that it was committed to solve the problem. I see that I have only one minute left but I wish to conclude on this environmental issue which is most important. The Liberals never took any action against acid rain. But after less than two years, we are allocating $42 million to the solution of the pollution problem in Quebec through an air pollution control system at Noranda Mines.
Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members from Quebec are doing more than ever before to defend the interests of the province of Quebec and we will continue to do so.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in today's debate on the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), and I hope he will be back in the House to hear what subsequent speakers will have to say.
Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this motion, I am not going to try and compete with the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins), who discussed about thirty or so cases in great detail, and I do not intend to emulate the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie who condemned the Government with a verve that was almost as impressive. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the motion itself, although if anyone is to be commended and thanked, I think all Members of this House should thank the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie for raising the subject of the interests of Quebec and Quebecers.
I would like to consider the mechanism proposed in today's motion, because I think it has some deficiencies. It is important that we take this opportunity to discuss the specific problems facing Quebec's economy today. I am referring to the problems in Montreal East, where plants and refineries were closed down as a result of this Government's policies. There are the potato growers and their problems. The shipyards in Quebec City and Montreal are in trouble. There are problems with the textile and clothing industry in the Eastern Townships and Montreal. These are matters with which all
parties represented here in the House are quite familiar. We are all very concerned and take these matters very seriously.
However, Mr. Speaker, when a motion like the one before the House today is presented, we may assume, for the purpose of addressing these problems, we must consider whether it is a practical proposal, a practical mechanism.
Although I admire wholeheartedly the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie and the sincerity and the persistance with which he pursues these issues, occasionally there is a hint of partisanship which also comes to the fore in his motion, and as a Member of the New Democratic Party, I must say that I find no reference to the third party in this House. Mr. Speaker, I note that we have before us a proposal which has to do with the Government or even with Parliament because to be a government institution there are too many players mentioned in the motion, whereas as a Parliamentary institution they are too few.
I should like to ask the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie why such a motion was never moved while his party was in power at the federal level, and especially at the time when his party was in power at both the federal and provincial levels.
Although the idea put forward today is rather new, one should wonder why, when they had the opportunity, the Liberal party of Canada and the Liberal party of Quebec never established such a mechanism as suggested by this motion.
Mr. Speaker, there was a time, not too distant, when it was apparently difficult for the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec to deal with any issue, when any subject was a source of friction between the two parties. Times may have changed or perhaps priorities. I would suggest to my honourable friends on the Government benches that it might have been a change with people which brought about a change in attitude and resulted in . .. Well, I believe it is easier now than it was ten years ago, for instance, for the federal and provincial Governments to discuss problems, and issues which are now perceived as common and shared problems.
Unfortunately, the proposal put forward today is a ridiculous one. It totally ignores the way our Parliamentary system works, under which, according to our Parliamentary tradition, the powers of Government are used by the executive. The executive power being wielded by this Government, surely it is unfortunate in the present context, but perhaps a few years down the road nobody will be complaining. The power is wielded exclusively by the Government while the Opposition may criticize and make suggestions but cannot act where executive power is concerned.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, with this proposal, such an organization would include the federal Government, the Official Opposition-this is not specifically stated but I suppose so-and the Quebec Governement. It would be an hybrid organization, because from a governmental point of view, it is obvious that such a mechanism would only include
March 5, 1987

the Quebec Governement and the federal Government, but if the organization were set up at the parliamentary level, it would include the Government, the Official Opposition and the NDP at the federal level as well as the provincial Opposition and the Quebec Government.
Mr. Speaker, this could be a satisfactory and possibly more interesting combination and surely such a structure could be more productive than the one suggested in the motion. However, I should also ask, Mr. Speaker, what will the other provinces think of such a mechanism. Will we receive requests from other provinces for the setting up of such a joint mechanism with the federal Government. With this arrangement, would we be adding another level of advisory organizations within the structure of federal-provincial consultations which I think is already over burdened.
The present motion, Mr. Speaker, recalls to mind many of the traditional features of the Liberal Party which keeps believing it is natural for it to form the government. When it is in power, Mr. Speaker, it advocates parliamentary traditions, it extols the responsibility and powers of government. When they are out of office, Mr. Speaker, then the agenda, the issues are entirely different. They raise matters for consultation. Pretending to promote democracy, they propose all kinds of supposedly democratic mechanisms that frankly have no other aim than to take way from the government powers the Liberals themselves exercise, favour and keep when they are in office. God forbid their return to power!
So, Mr. Speaker, I think that on Monday, on the matter of the Government's borrowings, we would have an opportunity to discuss all the issues we might want to raise, about the interests of Quebec and all other areas of the country. The concept we have here, Mr. Speaker, is not a practical one, even though the spirit in which it is raised is commendable.


Édouard Desrosiers: Mr. Speaker, I was really looking forward to speaking to the motion presented in the House today by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), but when I saw the motion, Mr. Speaker, I was astonished and appalled. How could a Member with his experience present a motion like this? The whole idea is so unacceptable that I fail to understand how the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie could consider asking for a permanent mechanism.
Especially when we consider that as far as relations with the provinces and the ten Premiers are concerned, more meetings are being held than ever before and relations have never been better, Mr. Speaker. As you know, the provincial Ministers meet on a regular basis to discuss current issues, and now for the first time in the history of this Parliament, there are people who defend the interests of Quebec.
Perhaps I may recall, Mr. Speaker, that a few years ago, three refineries in Montreal East were shut down. Where was
Quebec Interests
the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie when thousands of jobs were lost after they shut those three refineries in Montreal East, since he was referring to Montreal East a while ago? Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie was one of the people who were largely responsible for the situation. What did he do about it at the time? He did and said nothing. The Canadian people finally understood and said: For the first time, we can have people able to defend our interests in the Canadian Parliament if we ask the Conservative Party to govern this country. This is when the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie set up a kind of survival committee.


Carlo Rossi: The polls now give you 10 per cent.


Édouard Desrosiers: After the Conservatives were elected, he put together a survival committee to save Eastern Montreal. Can you imagine? He was there a while ago when the President of the Treasury Board went to Eastern Montreal with assistance worth millions of dollars. The Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie was there in the case of Chemtech in Eastern Montreal. This created hundreds of jobs.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was saying earlier that he hoped that the people of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve were being well served. I have news for you, my dear colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.	The people of Hochelaga-
Maisonneuve have never been better served. I can tell you that, this year, there have been nearly $200 million in subsidies for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and that hundreds of jobs have been created. We were talking earlier about Versatile Vickers. My dear friend for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, I would like to tell you that the Canadian Government has just set aside $611 million for Versatile Vickers in Montreal, Lauzon and Sorel and that this will create hundreds of jobs between now and 1991.
Do not try to suggest that we are not taking care of the population of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. You say in your motion that you want the Official Opposition and the Quebec Government... The Canadian Government is well able to make its own arrangements. We are well aware that these are your friends. In fact, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie used to be a Member of the National Assembly. Perhaps he will want to return to it soon. I would not be surprised because, as I said a while ago at the CBC, the interests of Quebec will not be defended by 57, but by 75 Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament after the next elections.


Some Hon. Members:: There are going to be major changes!


Édouard Desrosiers: And let me tell you, Mr. Speaker-and you will see that the Prime Minister will go down in the history of this Parliament as one of the greatest Prime Ministers Canada ever had, surrounded by outstanding Ministers.


Some Hon. Members:: Bissonnette, Sinclair, Stevens!

March 5, 1987
Quebec Interests


Édouard Desrosiers: I know this irks you. I understand that frustration of yours-it really hurts. We have fellows here who are extraordinary managers, who are putting some order back into all the mess you created.
Remember, my dear colleagues, and you Mr. Speaker, the disastrous situation we inherited from the Liberals. When we came to power, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that we had to pick up the pieces, just like a puzzle we are in the process of putting back together, piece by piece. I know this does not please the Liberals. Of course this is hurting them. In short, we have people here who are competent, conscientious and who want to provide Canadians with a genuine renewal.
Let me tell you for your information, gentlemen of the Liberal Party, that in the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve constituency, there is the Montreal Catholic School Board, which you know very well, Mr. Member from Montreal-Sainte-Marie, being from a neighbouring constituency. You know that in my constituency we have millions of dollars invested in housing- low-rental housing for poor people-we have millions of dollars invested in the Angus Shops. This week, I am going to announce additional tens of millions of dollars, 3,040 units, something that was never seen under any Liberal administration! You have never seen anything like that! The people of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve can see very well what the Progressive Conservative Party is doing. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Catholic School Board of Montreal had trouble for years getting federal subsidies for training programs.
It is a shame to ask in this motion for a mechanism to ensure that Quebec interests will be better defended in the future, Mr. Speaker. I needed just a few weeks to bring here spokesmen of the Montreal School Board, and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) spent a few days to settle the matter; furthermore, we have just given millions of dollars to the Catholic School Board of Montreal. The Conservative Party is distributing the real wealth to the people of Canada, something you never did. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that under the Liberal Government, there were no members representing the West. Today-


An Hon. Member:: People want Serge Joyal back.


Édouard Desrosiers: You can talk about my predecessor. We can talk about him for a long time. He was the shadow Hon. Member and Minister. We knew him well. My constituents can tell you that it took six years to be able to see him. He was never there. He was too busy. Believe me, I am in my constituency five days and five evenings a week. I have thousands and thousands of members in my association, and people are pleased, satisfied, happy to be members of the Progressive Conservative Party because, for the first time, there are honest people in the Conservative Party, serious people and people who work hard. We are going to succeed. I know we are not lucky with the media. You know, most of those people are Grits. The Liberals have been here in Parliament for a hundred years. There are whole families of them in every
department. It is common knowledge. We know the system. We may have trouble at times, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure you that we have the guts, the principles and the strength to defend the Canadian people; whatever they may say to the contrary, we are showing them and we will show them how successful we can be.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the motion of the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) who wants to ensure that Quebec interests will be better defended in the future. I would suggest that if we go back to 1981 when the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie and his colleagues were on this side, all Liberal Members at the time the Constitution was signed completely ignored the fact that there was a province called Quebec. They made fun of the whole Province of Quebec, but now they are asking us to set up a committee to look after the Province of Quebec, yet when they were in office at the time they did even want to admit its existence. No wonder then, Mr. Speaker, that we should be wary about the real meaning and seriousness of the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, I must say that we have come a long way since September 1984 with respect to the rights and the development of Quebec. For openers, on December 14,	1984-apparently the Hon.
Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie has forgotten already- we signed a 10-year regional development agreement, and until now there have been nine subsidiary agreements entailing outlays of $1,235 billion in the Province of Quebec. I must say also that progress in the case of the CF-18 was a topic of long debates, and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie often raised the matter during Question Period to complain and blame the Government. Yet just a few minutes ago I heard him say that the Government did not have anything to do with the fact that the $1 billion contract was to be awarded in the Montreal region, that the aircraft technology would have developed in that region anyway. He just said we did not have anything to do with that. Is that seriousness, good faith, credibility? When problems occur, when solutions are slow to come because of the reflection going on, we are accused of doing nothing, but comes a settlement, and others are supposed to have reached it.
One day will come, and that time has already arrived, Mr Speaker, when people will be sick and tired of hearing such criticism. Indeed, when looking at the latest shuffle inside his Party, one can see that even the so-called leader of his Party cannot bear with him anymore since, officially, he has nowadays very little responsibility inside his group.
As far as Quebec is concerned, one must also talk about the Petromont project. This project provides for transportation of natural resources of gas at a better price once and for all, and this, on a permanent basis, without having industries depend on special grants as our predecessors used to do, thus creating constant anxiety in the sector. From now on, the Petromont
March 5, 1987

project will insure a long term viability to a great number of businesses using natural gas as the basis of their products. This is yet another achievement of our Government, which also means 250 additional jobs.
We also heard Members on the other side complain a great deal about the banking centre issue. What we have accepted concerning the international banking centre in Montreal is precisely what had been rejected by Mr. Lalonde when he was Minister and yet, today, our Government and Quebecers stood for the creation of such a centre in Montreal. The Montreal Board of Trade, the Board of Trade of Canada, the mayor of Montreal, the Premier of Quebec and his Minister of Finance have all said that they were satisfied with this international centre, but the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) chose not to express clearly his views on that question. He feared losing votes outside Quebec. Not one Liberal Member has given his support to this initiative.
When we introduced our bill concerning the pharmaceutical industry, where were the Liberal Members Mr. Speaker? They know that Bill C-22 will bring $1.4 billion in development in Canada, of which $700 million in the Montreal area. But not a single Liberal gave us his support on this issue, Mr. Speaker.
We are currently negotiating with the United States, through Mr. Reisman and our Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), a trade agreement which will open for us a market of 240 million people. Where is the support of the Liberal Party? There is none. The Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) gave us his point of view. The Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) gave us a different one. The Member for Laval-des-Rapides hesitates and their leader does not know what to say. He said that he will speak when he has to, Mr. Speaker.
The trade agreement with the U.S. is supported by Liberals in Quebec. It is a Liberal Government that gives us his support in that area. Premier Bourassa formally supports us. The Minister for International Trade is constantly delivering speeches in support of the negotiations and of the positions we take in the process. He strongly encouraged us to sign an agreement that will be in the best interests of the people of Quebec. This is what we worked for and what we achieved, Mr. Speaker.
A few minutes ago, I heard someone talk about environment. Instead of subsidies which have to be renewed every year, and which add to the debt we pile on our grandchildren's back, the Government chose for the first time to cooperate with a private business and granted $33 million in the agreement with Noranda Mines which is considered the single major source of pollution. The $100 million allocated to the project will allow further refining. It is not a question of raising the height of the chimney as the Liberals did. We are determined to stop the pollution and that is exactly what we will do.
Mr. Speaker, I should also mention that our Minister who represents the Quebec City area, the Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote), has handled
Quebec Interests
outstandingly well the case of the country's shipyards. Members opposite are no longer raising the question but day after day during question period they would ask for details. They have to be reminded, Mr. Speaker, that shipyards in Quebec, including the great Lauzon shipyard, the Vickers shipyard and the one in Sorel, will be spending $1.22 billion from now until 1991. That has never been mentioned by the Hon. Members, and I can give details, Mr. Speaker. Those are federal Government contracts and assistance to upgrade the shipyard facilities and develop special services; those are no longer mere short term solutions like those we used to have under the Liberals when a ship here and a ship there were contracted out as election time drew closer, and once the election was over the ships were repaired elsewhere. That is what the Liberals used to do. Of course, we will do the opposite. We will build on a long term basis and develop facilities so our eastern shipyards, the ones at Lauzon, Sorel and the Vickers, will be able to face international competition.
I heard earlier the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie refer to East end Montreal. We have recreated employment in East end Montreal, and handed it over to private enterprise. The Vickers shipyards will resume operations and will have a new vocation. The Hon. Member told us that contracts for the frigates were to be awarded. The Liberals had announced that frigates would be built. They bought dozens of elections on that promise as they did in the case of the Matane's paper mill which was referred to by the Hon. Member of Montreal-Sainte-Marie. Time after time, they were elected on the basis of these promises. I could mention the dairy policy, the federal Government's intervention on behalf of the farmers who were subjected to a freeze since 1981. I could also-regrettably, I would have liked, Mr. Speaker, to speak about the remarks of the Hon. Member for Terrebonne which I found impossible to summarize. By the way I noticed the absence of the only Quebec NDP Member, the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin), who did not even care to show up today to discuss a concrete issue facing Quebec.
So, if as he claims, apparently he represents all the Hon. Members of his caucus, then, Mr. Speaker-


Jean-Claude Malépart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) rises on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) has just mentioned that the Hon. Member for Terrebonne is absent. I would like you to call him to order. He knows full well that he cannot allude to anyone's absence. We could mention the absence of the Hon. Member for Mercier (Mrs. Jacques) and of the Member for Rosemont (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) from the Government benches.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine).

March 5, 1987
Quebec Interests


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, as usual, my colleague the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is not behaving in a very civilized manner. It is about time that some people in this House tell him so. I mentioned that the Hon. Member for Terrebonne should have stood up, Mr. Speaker. As he represents 100 percent of the socialist party caucus for Quebec, it would only seem normal that the Hon. Member for Terrebonne should stand in his place and expound his philosophy regarding the evolution of Quebec. Nevertheless, we have neither heard him speak nor seen him rise.
Mr. Speaker, now with regard to what our Government has done-I see my time is running out and I shall conclude shortly-I would like to point out that in the field of agriculture we have been the first to endorse an egg marketing agreement, the first since 1981 to bring security to our milk producers all across Quebec who had been begging for a dairy policy for years. In 1985, we gave them what they had been asking for by introducing a five year program.
For all these good reasons, Mr. Speaker, the proposal made by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie should be given no more consideration than any other statement he makes in this House.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I also welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on the interests of Quebec and the motion presented by my hon. colleague and friend, the Liberal Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), who, as we all know, is doing an excellent job as a true defender of the interests of his province. This fact is recognized by all Quebecers and everywhere he goes in the province, people are aware of this.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard several speakers, including three Conservatives from Quebec who tried to praise the Conservative Government for defending the interests of Quebecers.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with the first Conservative speaker, the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins), who has a lot of softwood lumber in his riding. Mr. Speaker, we did not see the Hon. Member rise in the House to protest. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec lumber industry exports 2.8 of its annual production estimated at 3.37 to the United States. The lumber industry in Quebec consists of 113 plants, mostly located away from the major centres. These small-and medium-sized businesses, Mr. Speaker, employ 38,000 workers directly and 157,000 more indirectly. Whole villages in the Gaspe, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, the Outaouais, the Laurentians, Abitibi and on the North Shore depend exclusively on this industry. Mr. Speaker, everybody knows what happened. They made a deal with the United States and they sold out Quebec's interests. Thousands of jobs are at risk as a result of this policy. And what did the Conservative Members from Quebec do about it, Mr. Speaker?
They didn't say a word and meekly accepted the decision made by the Minister for International Trade.
Mr. Speaker, we rarely have the opportunity to hear the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosier) in the House of Commons.


Jean-Claude Malépart: It is the first time he rises.


Alfonso Gagliano: I do not know if it is the first time. It may be the second since I have already heard that same speech tonight.


Mr. Jourdenais:: He has risen more often. You are not here when he speaks.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member took pride in the fact that this government had met the premier and that they have been discussing. Quebecers do not need words, Mr. Speaker, they need jobs.
Mr. Speaker, he said that it is a good government and that they are good managers. I have a list, but I would run out of time if I had to say in ten minutes what good managers they are and what they did with the taxpayers' money. I will give a few examples only, not all because it would take quite a while. We should not forget, Mr. Speaker, the $1.6 billion bailout for the two western banks to guarantee deposits over $60,000. Everybody knows the banking law: deposits are not guaranteed above $60,000. Those who had deposits in those banks knews very well that they were running a risk, but interest rates were high and they took full advantage. So, the government paid all those people, Mr. Speaker. How much dit that cost? Two hundred million were given to the Hongkong Bank to take over the Bank of B.C.
Those great issues, Mr. Speaker-the Port-Cartier prison, which was transfered from Drummondville to the Prime Minister's constituency-


Jean-Claude Malépart: A scandal!


Alfonso Gagliano: The Gulf/Reichman agreement-$1 billion worth of tax exemptions that were allowed when Gulf was sold to Olympia & York. And then there was the Gulf shutdown. After having been allowed $1 billion in tax exemptions, in return they shut down the Gulf refinery in the East end of Montreal. I could go on, Mr. Speaker. This Tory Government's mismanagement can be weighed by the ton.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind Hon. Members of a date, one they may have forgotten. On July 26, 1984, the Tory caucus was in Quebec and that day, following a Quebec caucus, the then Leader of the Opposition who is now our Prime Minister made lofty statements about the textile industry, the clothing industry, the footwear industry. He was going to protect that industry. He was going to make sure the footwear quotas would remain in place, because that industry was not to disappear, it had to be maintained. But not long after that, only one year, they had forgotten about those promises, those ten-point promises. Everyone knows them.
March 5, 1987

Everyone has read them, and all the newspapers have referred to them with fanfare, but I have no time to spare to read them here. I know very well that Conservative Members do remember them. Then, Mr. Speaker, what happened, one year later, in the footwear industry for instance? Quotas were removed on men's shoes, and a program of quota reduction was announced for women's shoes. I think that by 1988 there will no longer be any quotas left on women's shoes. Under the pretense that Canadian consumers should be protected, because according to the Tories, Canadian consumers were paying higher prices because of quotas. But what has happened after the quotas were removed? Footwear prices did not go down. Quite the opposite, they went up, and consumers paid more. But many, many jobs were lost in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a few figures. For instance, since quotas were removed on November 1st, 1986, Italian imports have increased by 36 per cent, Spanish imports by 147 per cent, Taiwan imports by 238 per cent. According to the Shoe Manufacturers Association of Canada, production went down 32 per cent in 1986. Between August 1985 and August 1986, manufacturers have reported 2,000 jobs lost, 1,700 of which in Quebec. Those are jobs, not rhetoric administrative action or promises. Quebecers are fed up with promises. That is why accordig to Gallup polls, it is clear that the Conservative Party has come down to 10 per cent in Quebec. Never in the history of Gallup polls has a political party tumbled so low. Those are the results they are responsible for. This is what people think of the Conservative Party in spite of all their rhetoric. The evidence is quite clear. You only have to refer to Le Soleil of February 28 where the following can be read: "Wilson is strangling Quebec." Can this be more explicit? It is not the Liberal Party but Quebecers who are saying it. Therefore, I think the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie has presented a motion, and I do not agree with the NPD Member who has dealt merely with the technical aspect of the motion especially since NDP Members are not acquainted with Quebec issues, in which he suggests setting up a mechanism for solving those issues. I hope that all Members of this House will support this motion.


Anne Blouin: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to commend the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) for having had the wits and the guts to move that motion. In fact, this proposal will be a milestone in the history of Canadian parliamentarism and I must draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to the fact that the Liberal Party has now in its ranks a great constitutionalist, a man who does not hesitate to go to the heart of the matter to question the very essence of our parliamentary system, in order to protect his province.
There are several aspects in my hon. colleague's proposal, all of them very subtle that I wish to analyze.
Firstly the purpose of this motion is to bring back members of the Liberal Party to the Government. In fact, the motion provides for the creation of a mechanism which would include members of the Official Opposition. I think, Mr. Speaker, that
Adjournment Debate
Canadians have already voted on that issue and that the number of Liberal members in this House reflects quite well the people's will as to the make up of the Government.
Of course, I am sure that in spite of the small number of its members in this House, the Liberal Party has enough resources to man such a mechanism all by itself-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to say that the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), this order shall be dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise again this evening concerning an issue I have raised with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) since December 10, 1986. On that occasion I asked the Deputy Prime Minister this question:
Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why a similar study has not been initiated by his Government with regard to the utilization of coal from eastern Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for shipment to the Province of Ontario?
The Deputy Prime Minister said in reply:
I will certainly take the representations of the Hon. Member and consider the action he suggested.
That question was followed up in the Adjournment Debate of January 28, 1987. I again raised this issue on March 3 and asked what the Government of Canada was prepared to do about it. I raise this issue again because since December 10, the Deputy Prime Minister has been informed of the unfairness of the treatment of the people in eastern Nova Scotia. I thought he would have had an opportunity to check with officials from both the Department of the Environment and the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and provide the House with a substantive answer. However, when questioned on March 3 his response was, "Yes, I would be glad to discuss it with the Premiers of the Atlantic provinces".
I specifically requested the Deputy Prime Minister to show some leadership and initiative. Not only do we want to see coal from western Canada utilized by Ontario Hydro-


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, it might be nice if he stuck to the question.

March 5, 1987
Adjournment Debate


David Charles Dingwall: -we want to see coal from eastern Nova Scotia and New Brunswick utilized as well. I would have thought that just on the basis of fairness and equity, the Deputy Prime Minister and his Government would have considered my suggestion. Obviously the Government has done absolutely nothing. I am not suggesting he has misled the House.


J. Michael Forrestall: You are the one doing the misleading, blatant misleading.


David Charles Dingwall: What I am suggesting is that the dutiful sheep across the way, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth- Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) who is the Parliamentary Secretary, has sabotaged this initiative.


J. Michael Forrestall: Sabotaged it? Why don't you deal with the question you put down?


David Charles Dingwall: He, like Members opposite, has no interest or concern whatsoever about promoting and enhancing economic development in eastern Nova Scotia. I say shame to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is absolutely gross negligence on his part.


J. Michael Forrestall: At least I am honest and tell the truth.


David Charles Dingwall: Honest? You are not honest at all.


J. Michael Forrestall: You are damn right I am.


David Charles Dingwall: You are not honest. Why don't you stand up and debate-


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


J. Michael Forrestall: Why don't you speak to the question?


David Charles Dingwall: Oh, go back to the bar!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know the Hon. Member would like to withdraw-


J. Michael Forrestall: It would be a hell of a lot more pleasant than sitting here listening to your nonsense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I know the Hon. Member would like to withdraw that last remark.


David Charles Dingwall: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.


J. Michael Forrestall: I doubt very much if he would like to, Sir, but he will.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: He withdrew the remark. The Hon. Member has another minute.


David Charles Dingwall: Before I was rudely interrupted by the Hon. Member I was going to say that I want to conclude by saying it is high time that the Government of Canada start exercising its responsibilities in a fair and responsible manner across the board. We have had enough of the broken promises of the
Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) and, more particularly, the Deputy Prime Minister. They have failed the people of Nova Scotia. In particular, they have failed the people of my constituency, Cape Breton-East Richmond, because they have not taken into consideration the utilization elsewhere of coal from eastern Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. However, they have all sorts of time and money to consider the utilization of coal from western Canada.
It is not fair for the people of Atlantic Canada to be treated in such a fashion. It is unconstitutional. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will have enough intestinal fortitude, instead of being a dutiful sheep for his masters, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, to exercise some real compassion and concern for the people of his region.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the item called for tonight had to do with an unfounded allegation that we had cut Devco's budget by $50 million, thus causing-


David Charles Dingwall: You did!


J. Michael Forrestall: I have not heard the Hon. Member make even the briefest reference to the subject matter he put down. Tomorrow at three o'clock I will ask the Chair to entertain a question of privilege because it happens so often that Members put down one subject matter and get up and deal with another.


David Charles Dingwall: Go sit in a brook.


J. Michael Forrestall: If you were honest, straightforward, and open with your own constituents-


David Charles Dingwall: You're about as honest as a crooked road.


J. Michael Forrestall: -you would have the guts to get up and tell the truth. Or do you know what the truth is?


David Charles Dingwall: Go back where you came from.


J. Michael Forrestall: Do you know what the truth is?


David Charles Dingwall: Go back where you came from.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has only three minutes.


David Charles Dingwall: Then perhaps he should address himself to the issue.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to bring to the Member's attention the fact that the Minister did meet earlier this week with the executive members of UMW. They had a very fruitful meeting which produced a very clear understanding with respect to what is going on in the industry. Obviously the Hon. Member neither knows nor cares.


David Charles Dingwall: Don't mislead the House.
March 5, 1987


J. Michael Forrestall: He is more concerned with coming in front of this Chamber and using scare tactics and misleading information and, above all, indulging himself in the luxury of calling one item and then addressing himself to another.


David Charles Dingwall: You'll regret those words.


J. Michael Forrestall: He knows precisely why-


David Charles Dingwall: You'll regret those words, big mouth.


J. Michael Forrestall: -there is not the sale of Cape Breton coal to Ontario Hydro. I would invite him to get up and answer this question: Under what regime, under what Government, under what administration did we lose coal sales to Ontario Hydro? I would ask him to address that.


David Charles Dingwall: You don't even know what you're talking about. That's typical.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, in his original question the Member accused the Government of cutting $50 million from Devco. He knows that for the last three years we have had an extraordinarily high level of capital expenditure. We are trying to develop the new Phaleen mine. We are trying to get on with the Victoria Junction wash station. Those two capital items are completed and there is, of course, a reduction in this year's capital expenditures. However, that does not lead to lay-offs within Devco, as the Member knows.


David Charles Dingwall: Sit in a brook, will you. Your mind is about as clear as a fog.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


J. Michael Forrestall: That nonsense isn't deserving of a response.


David Charles Dingwall: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Is that all you have to say?


David Charles Dingwall: It's a lot more intelligent than what you said.


J. Michael Forrestall: Come on outside.


David Charles Dingwall: Aren't you tough?


J. Michael Forrestall: What did you say?


David Charles Dingwall: I said, "Aren't you tough".


J. Michael Forrestall: Come on outside and say that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I cannot hear the hon. gentleman.


IMMIGRATION-SALVADORANS AND GUATEMALANS-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT. (B) PROCESSING OF REFUGEE STATUS APPLICATIONS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very troubled that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Adjournment Debate
Bouchard) has done great harm to many refugees coming from the United States to Canada, particularly Salvadorans and Guatemalans. Because of his decision to send them back to the United States to wait for their inquiry in Canada, he has not only forced them to live for weeks and months in absolute poverty and in extreme anxiety through fear of being sent back to the country from which they fled, but he may in fact have caused them to be deported from the U.S. to El Salvador and Guatemala because when they are returned to the United States, they are arrested and charged with being illegal aliens.
This issue arises from a question I raised in the House on February 20 when the Minister made his announcement. On that day the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration told the House:
-Canada-and this dates back to some time-has an agreement with the United States of America which provides, particularly in this case, that people who apply for refugee status in Canada and whom we are unable to process immediately will not be deported by the United States.... We are exchanging correspondence, but I see no point in tabling documents today. I repeat, nobody has been deported by the United States, and I have been assured that none will be.
There was evidently a reason why the Minister was unwilling to table that correspondence. That reason was that the correspondence did not in fact take the position attributed to the United States by the Minister. In fact, that correspondence took a contrary position. Mr. Alan Nelson, the U.S. Commissioner of Immigration, wrote that correspondence to Mr. Joe Bissett, the Director of Immigration in Canada.
He said that district directors will, on a case-by-case basis, at their discretion, set a reasonable period of time for the alien to effect such a departure. He said that the arrangements between Canada and the United States would not cover certain cases of refugees, including those where the refugee was under a deportation order, had a criminal record or where there was derogatory information.
Another spokesperson for the U.S. Immigration amplified this position. He said that the U.S. will not bend its policy to protect refugees turned away from the Canadian border purely because they have a request from Canada.
The Minister said at the end of his answer that he had an assurance which in fact he either knew he did not have, or if he did not know that, he should have known. On February 26, I wrote to the Minister pointing out this information and suggested that one of two things must be true, either the Minister was aware that his statements were, so to speak, inoperative, or he was not aware of the correspondence. If he was aware of it, I suggested, the only honourable course would be for him to resign for misleading the House. If he was unaware, then he owed this House an apology as well as the resignation of his executive director, Mr. J. B. Bissett, who had received the letter from Mr. Nelson.
I have had no reply from the Minister of Employment and Immigration. However, we have had public nonsense from his front man, the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
March 5, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Weiner), who was quoted in the Montreal Gazette on Thursday, February 26, as claiming that the United States has a "model record" on human rights issues. How utterly false. The Minister of State for Immigration must know better. He has access to the facts of immigration and acceptance of refugees. He must know what he says about the United States is wildly untrue. In the matter of human rights for Salvadorans in the United States, the U.S. record is shameful. It deports them back to those lands of prisons, torture and murder with only a token nod to refugee claims. For example, between September 1985 and October 1986, the United States processed 2,183 refugee claims of Salvadorans and admitted only 55. That is only 2.5 per cent. It forced 6,047 back to El Salvador. Of 471 refugee claims by Guatemalans, it accepted only five, which is 1 per cent, and forced 3,502 back to Guatemala. Was that just? Not by Canadian standards.
During 1983 to 1984 Canada found that from 25 per cent to 59 per cent of Salvadoran refugee claimants were true refugees. At the very least that is 10 times the figure found in the United States. From 57 per cent to 70 per cent of Guatemalan claimants in Canada were found to be true refugees. In other words, the very lowest rate of acceptance in Canada is 10 times as high as the highest rate in the United States. Shame on the United States of America. Shame on the Minister of State for Immigration for calling that a model record. Shame on the Minister of Employment and Immigration for throwing many hundreds of Salvadorans and Guatemalans back to the United States. Shame on him for telling the House that he had been assured that they would not be deported to El Salvador and Guatemala when he has no such assurance.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to comment further the response of the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) on February 20, 1987.
I would like to tell the Hon. Member that the American authorities and a United Nations Commissioner have stated on several occasions since the implementation of the temporary control measures that, under the agreement between our two countries, claimants who are scheduled for a hearing in Canada will not be deported to their country of origin.
The representative of the High Commissioner for Refugees in Ottawa stated on March 3 that no refugee status claimant had been threatened with deportation from the United States since the implementation of the temporary control measures.
Canada has received assurances that no claimant staying in the United States would be the subject of a deportation order and that these people would not be denied access to the border.
We have also obtained assurances that those for whom an inquiry date has been set would be allowed to remain in the
United States in the meantime. In addition, the United Nations Commissioner has said that there is no indication that this agreement between Canada and the United States will not be respected.
We can therefore assert, Mr. Speaker, that no one is in any danger.
The Deputy Commissioner of the Inquiry Directorate in the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service said that the U.S. Government had informed the Canadian Government it would allow the people involved to remain in the United States until the day set for their inquiry in Canada.
Our policy is humane, Mr. Speaker. All applications from people seeking refugee status will be examined individually.
When a person is not facing deportation from the United States, we set a date for an inquiry and he or she will be allowed to stay in the U.S. until that date. Should the U.S. Immigration Service indicate that the person is under an expulsion order and will be deported very shortly, he or she will be allowed to enter Canada immediately to await the inquiry.
The Government believes that these provisions afford sufficient protection to claimants coming from countries where they might be endangered.
To answer the Hon. Member's question regarding the process of granting refugee status, I would like to remind him that the new rules put in place May 21st, 1986, were designed to exclude from the process people coming from countries on list B-l, because they were the most likely to get a favourable decision. In effect, they would have received permission from the Minister upon filing a claim in Canada. It is clear that increasing numbers of non-genuine refugees, even from these countries, have taken advantage of these provisions and the Government had no alternative but to return to the procedure in existence before May 21st, 1986.
Such a policy change appeared to us as the only way to adequately protect and accept, legally, the true refugees in Canada.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY-ELIMINATION OF 9 PER CENT TARIFF ON AUTOMOBILE TRADE BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES-GOVERNMENT POSITION. (B) REQUEST FOR MAINTENANCE OF TARIFF DIFFERENTIAL
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: In this discussion I am pursuing the questions that I directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and which were answered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). First, we are focusing on the automotive trade, and second what the consequences would be for automotive trade both in Canada and the United States if the duties which presently exist were eliminated as part of the broader free trade arrangement between the two countries.
March 5, 1987

I asked the Minister if he was prepared to commit himself to the maintenance of that 9 per cent tariff which presently exists between the two countries. The 9 per cent tariff has the effect of operating as a sanction with respect to the Auto Pact. Parts and automobiles that go back and forth across the border are not subject to the 9 per cent duty. The reason is that they meet the qualifications which are set out both on the Canadian side and the American side of the border. In particular, on the Canadian side of the border, they meet the 60 per cent Canadian value-added safeguards which were promised by letter by the various producing companies to the Canadian Government in 1965 at the start of the Auto Pact.
I must say that in my various exchanges on the subject of free trade with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I have never received such complete non-answers as in this case. The Minister must have returned from a trip and been totally out of touch with what had been taking place, and had absolutely nothing constructive to say. I regret that the Minister took that course, because ordinarily he is a Minister for whom I have some respect.
However, what we are facing with respect to the automotive industry is an extremely serious crisis which is highlighted today by the fact that the auto trade figures have been released by the Canadian parts manufacturers. These figures indicate that the Canadian auto trade balance dropped between 1985 and 1986 by 72 per cent. Our deficit with Japan went up over 36 per cent to a total of $3.1 billion in deficit in auto trade with Japan. The deficit went up by over 12 per cent to $1.9 billion with Korea, and other countries.
Therefore, we face a shrinkage of what used to be quite a healthy surplus in this sector of our economy to a mere $310 million. This is very small when considering the total Canadian automotive trade was $68 billion in 1986.
The key point which these figures show is that we must defend our capacity in a world of changing patterns of production and a world of changing technology. We must defend our capacity as a relatively small country but a country that can produce automobiles quite successfully.
We must retain our capacity to protect the existence in Canada of important production facilities. In short, we must protect the production safeguards of the Auto Pact. We must also extend those production safeguards to the Korean and Japanese companies which are being established here.
This is why I moved a Private Member's Motion to have all parts of the auto industry in the country meeting the 60 per cent Canadian value-added content requirement. However, let me point out that the Government has had, right from the start of the discussions on the Canadian-United States free trade arrangements, warnings by its own bureaucrats in secret documents, of which we have received copies, indicating that if the tariffs were reduced, the safeguards would become inoperative.
Adjournment Debate
Let me quote specifically from Annex II which is labelled "secret" to a document entitled "A Canada-U.S. Free Trade Area Agreement". It reads as follows:
Unless the sector were excluded from its product coverage, a Canadian-United States free trade agreement would of course lead, after the transitional period, to the elimination of Canadian duties on vehicles and original equipment parts ...
In the absence of any other constraints, this would mean that automobile producers (as well as Canadian car dealers and consumers) would be able to import vehicles and ... parts duty free and in effect the Auto Pact's production safeguards would become inoperative.
That is precisely the point we were making in our question.


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the Hon. Member who has raised, once again, the question of the treatment of automotive trade in the current bilateral negotiations with the United States. This time it is as a result of a response given in the House on February 17. While the question has been asked many times previously, and the answer has not changed, I will be pleased to restate the position of the Government for the benefit of my hon. colleague.
I believe our position with regard to automotive trade in the negotiations with the U.S. is quite clear, consistent, and reasonable. The Government has said repeatedly that the Auto Pact is working well, and that Canada would not be raising it at the table during the trade talks-"if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
In the meantime we have undertaken a fact-finding exercise with the United States on automotive issues. This was in no sense a negotiation, but an exchange of information on the situation and trends in the automotive industry.
The Auto Pact is not the only auto related issue, however. A substantial and increasing portion of North American automotive trade takes place outside the Auto Pact. In 1984 this amounted to $3.3 billion Canadian. We will have to consider how it would be affected by any comprehensive agreement we might strike with the United States.
Remembering also that the over-all aim of these negotiations is to achieve a trading arrangement as free as possible from all impediments to trade, we will of course want to negotiate issues such as tariffs, customs procedures, procurement, imports from third countries, duty remission programs, and subsidies on both sides of the border. These important matters could well affect trade on automotive products.
The position taken by the Government of Canada is that if the United States side has proposals to make which would be of benefit to Canada by enhancing Canadian employment, production, and trade, we will listen with interest.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, March 6, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers