1989-10-20

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise on a question of privilege. I want to indicate to the House that yesterday afternoon, just before the closing of the House, I gave a notice in writing to the Speaker that I wanted to rise on a question of privilege at the earliest opportunity, and I thank Mr. Speaker for recognizing me at what is in fact this earliest opportunity.
I want to indicate as well, Mr. Speaker, that if you deem that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I am willing to bring the matter, by motion, to the appropriate committee of this House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, privilege is defined in Beau-chesne's and of course in Erskine May as-


Mr. Lewis:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Simmons:: You cannot interrupt a question of privilege.


Don Boudria: You cannot interrupt a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: It is an application for privilege. The hon. Minister of Justice rises on a point of order. I am not quite sure what he may wish to say. I certainly will hear him, at least for a moment. I have been listening very carefully, and I want to assure the minister that I will be listening very carefully to the argument. The minister has the floor.


Philip Derek Lewis: I rise only to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it would probably be helpful to yourself and the House if my hon. friend, rather than addressing all of the procedural arguments first, were to outline to the House exactly what incident he is referring to.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Justice, who has some experience in arguing these matters, has made a suggestion that the hon. member may or may not want to follow.
In any event, I will hear the hon. member and I think that it might be helpful to the Chair if the hon. member did indicate what is the factual basis for the argument. I will then of course be guided by the helpful comments the hon. member may make in terms of references to authorities.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems evident that the government House leader already has his idea of what he thinks I am going to raise and wants to hear the argument before I even set out to describe to Mr. Speaker what in fact I believe in a general sense has been offended.
Then of course I will describe the incident and describe what has been breached, afterward, in the normal tradition of presenting these kinds of matters in the House. And, while I will not pretend to be an expert on the rules I will match myself against that minister, in particular, at any time.


Mr. Speaker:: It would not be for your Speaker to suggest or imply, in any particular, which side of the House has the most expertise on these delicate and sometimes difficult matters.
However I can assure the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that I have full confidence in his ability to put his argument.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your confidence. Privilege is generally defined as found in Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 16:
They are enjoyed by individual members, because the House
cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services
of its members; and by each House for the protection of its members
and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.


Mr. Crosby:: What edition?

October 20, 1989
Privilege


Don Boudria: This is from Erskine May. A Conservative member across the way asked what edition. It is from his Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, Nineteenth Edition. That answers the question of the hon. member for Halifax West.
I want to submit to you that it is important for the privileges of this House that have been extended by this House to parliamentary committees to be able to function.


Mr. Cooper:: This is out of order. That happened yesterday. It is out of order. This is 24 hours too late.


Philip Derek Lewis: This is too late.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do believe that I gave notice of this point of privilege yesterday.


Mr. Gauthier:: Don't be distracted by them. Get to the point.


Philip Derek Lewis: Yesterday was an opposition day.


Albert Glen Cooper: Yesterday at eleven o'clock. This happened at 9.30 yesterday morning.


Roger Simmons: So you admit there are a couple of incidents.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's right. They do it all the time.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the incident that I bring to your attention is one that happened at five o'clock yesterday afternoon. It is too bad that some members heckling across the way are so ill informed as they usually are.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: Why don't you want to hear it? You're not going to go anywhere today unless you listen.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member complains, at least momentarily, of what is seen as heckling. The Chair of course in a situation like this always accepts comments that are made across the Chamber in as helpful a way as possibly can be interpreted.
The hon. member has the floor and is making an argument. I think it would be appropriate if we heard the hon. member.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Standing Order 116 of the House of Commons states:
In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders
shall apply so far as may be applicable, except-
And it lists a few exceptions here. It continues:
-the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions-
And so on. In other words, the Standing Orders of this House must apply to committees save and except a few exceptions that I previously listed. Those same Standing Orders of our House state quite clearly that one cannot discuss in the House an item which is not on the Order Paper.
What I am about to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is that in fact the equivalent of that happened yesterday in a parliamentary committee of this House. If what happened yesterday is allowed to continue, I would suggest that none of the Standing Orders of the House, which have been duly passed by this House, would have any effect in committee whatsoever. By extension, I do believe that our privileges have been affected by what has happened. I do believe that such is the case.
A few days ago members of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations received notice of meeting, the committee equivalent of the Order Paper. The document which I have in hand, and which I would like to table before the House, is entitled 'Issue No. 23, Meeting No. 25, Notice of Meeting, Thursday, October 19, 3.30 p.m.'
It says on the order paper that I have here, or the committee equivalent of the Order Paper, that the item to be considered is as follows: "Consideration of draft report on credit cards." Only one item appears on that order paper, therefore I submit that only one item could be considered by the committee yesterday.
It was also suggested that this meeting had to be in camera, although of course I suppose one could alter that if one wanted to. The point I am making is that yesterday afternoon, unbeknownst to members of the opposition, eight Conservative members, most of whom had never been seen at the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is true, that is true.


Don Boudria: -because they are not regular members of that committee, were present. They immediately moved a motion that a witness who had been asked by a motion of that committee to testify on October 24 not be made to testify any longer.
October 20, 1989

The witness in question was Mr. Donald Lander, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Post Corporation. This motion was moved yesterday revoking the previous motion and asking that Mr. Lander no longer be asked to testify next Monday but be asked to come at another date sometime hence.
That item was not on the order paper, not for consideration by the committee and, as a matter of fact, it could have very well been that members generally interested in that issue would have not even known that that item was up for discussion.
If we were, by extension-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I am not going to cut off the hon. member's argument, but I want to ask something.
Is the hon. member making this proposition: that if a notice goes out to members of a committee setting out what is to be discussed or setting out a notice or an agenda, and if something else happens that day, that that is somehow a breach of privilege of members? Is that the proposition?


Don Boudria: Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker, but I submit that you could be right. My suggestion is the following, Mr. Speaker, and let me explain to you why I think that upon instances what you say would be-


Mr. Speaker:: All I can say is that it is terribly hard to rule against when you make such flattering suggestions, but the Chair is serious. If that is the proposition I must understand it as such.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, for instance, the document that I have here states: "orders of the day". If that is the only order of the day listed then that item is as you correctly suggested the one that should be discussed. Of course, without having consulted the steering committee to change the order of the day, then that item should be the only one. Or, alternatively, if unanimous consent of the committee would have been sought and granted, then of course that agenda could have been changed.
As you see, Mr. Speaker, the point I am making to you is that as you indicated earlier it could very well be that this in fact is a question of privilege. It becomes a
Privilege
question of privilege simply because government members on the committee did not seek to do that, moved this motion unilaterally and had it passed.
In conclusion, what has happened is that an item that was never before the committee, a topic that was never before the committee or scheduled before the committee on what was circulated stating "orders of the day".. .and that is what it says on Issue No. 23 of the Standing Committee of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations-was before us.
If we are asked to discuss a different item or items without unanimous consent of the committee to change that order, in fact by extension if we were to apply that to the House, the government could stand here on any day and declare that day to be the budget day, unilaterally, without even asking the previous consent of the House.
We just cannot operate that way. We do not do it in this House. I would submit to you that although the committees are the masters of their own business they nevertheless have to respect the orders of the House and you, Sir, are the custodian of those rules of the House which we collectively ask you administer on our behalf.
That is the point, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to raise with you. I want to say, in conclusion, that I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion if you so deem that I have at least a prima facie case of privilege to be brought before the appropriate committee.


Mr. Speaker:: If I have understood the argument of the hon. member correctly, the hon. member is really putting to the House that if by way of notice set out by the committee to members something else comes up that was not expected it puts the members at a disadvantage.
Do I understand the argument clearly? That seems to be what flows from what the hon. member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has said. At the moment that is the complaint. I suppose what the hon. member is saying is that, given the fact that the notice set out something to be discussed and something else was discussed, that may or may not have affected who would turn up or how many people would turn up. That seems to be the gist of the hon. member's argument.

October 20, 1989
Privilege
The hon. member is arguing with some skill that certain rules which apply in this place ought to, under these circumstances, also apply in committee. Have I understood the argument correctly?


Don Boudria: Generally, yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is nodding.
I will come to the hon. member for Vanier in just a moment, but first I will hear the hon. member for Churchill.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, Standing Order 116 of the House reads:
In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders
shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as
to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the
number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
In other words, Standing Order 116 implies very directly that the committees are bound by the same rules as the House. In the House we have an order paper which lists the government legislation, as it does on page 11 of today's order paper. The government has the right within the legislation listed to bring any one item up for debate. It can switch, it has that right, but it has to be on the order paper.
The paper that was sent out announcing the committee yesterday was an order paper. It is listed as an order paper. It specified that the business of that committee for that day was not what the Conservative committee members in fact did. It was not an item that was before the committee for that day.
I thought, as we set up our standing committees and as we have talked about parliamentary reform and the importance of the committees having their own mandate and being able to exercise certain independence from the government, that we would have got away from those quick moves and the travelling goon squad of Tory members switching the legislation before committees.


Albert Glen Cooper: Order, that is a reflection on members.


Roger Simmons: That is an accurate description.


Rodney Edward Murphy: At an earlier meeting the committee decided that it wanted the head of Canada Post to appear. The committee made that decision with Conservative members there. To have a new group of Conservatives come to a meeting which is called for other purposes and say that they do not want the head of Canada Post to appear before a standing committee of this House is outrageous.
The committee has a right and an obligation to investigate Canada Post. It is an order of that committee. The House has been very favourably disposed to the committee investigating Canada Post and is authorizing travel for that committee for that purpose.
I do not understand why a group of new Conservatives would come to a committee and deny that committee the right to hear from the president of Canada Post, why they would try to do so when the orders of the day for that committee specifically said that the committee was supposed to be doing something else.
I find that the only way we can protect members of the House of Commons from this type of outrageous action happening time after time after time is to make sure that we do send out a notice saying what the purpose of a committee is, why that committee is meeting and that without unanimous consent there is no way the majority of the committee can change the rules midstream. If it does that, we are going to have complete anarchy in all our committees, and that is not acceptable to the House and that is not acceptable to members.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of points.
I do not want to repeat the good points that were put, except to say that we all know that the order paper of the day for the House of Commons has a reserve on it that says: "subject to change without notice". However we are not talking about that. We are talking about orders of the day for committees, not several items but one item agreed upon unanimously by that committee which was, at the last moment, changed by the government members.
I want to make one comment, and a plea to government members. They are the ones that came to me on October 1, 2, and 3 and said,"We do not want any surprises in committee, we will play the game straight and forward". We agreed, among House leaders, that there would be no games played and nobody would be surprised. I put out a press release to my members, as I understood every member of the House was supposed to be advised by the House leaders and by the whips to the effect that meetings of committees were to be held for the sole purpose of hearing witnesses-and I remind government members that it was at their request that we did this-or for business pertaining to the hearing of witnesses, and that no other business be undertaken at the said meetings. Most committees have accepted that as a way of operating in good faith, and not the tyranny of
October 20, 1989

the majority that was imposed on the committee yesterday. That is wrong.
I say to the government, if it wants to operate under those circumstances, we can play the game also. But up to now I thought we were playing up front. We are playing square, we are playing honest games, and the government and its members are not playing good games at this time.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do want to put a few comments on the record, because I think it is important that we lay the facts before you on this particular issue.
What I am told happened in this particular case is that the chairman of the committee at the last minute received a letter from the witness in question, Mr. Landers, which stated that he had a problem appearing on October 24, which was to be the next regularly scheduled meeting of the committee. He said he could not appear on that date because he was going to be out of the country, and requested another date.
The chairman brought that letter to the attention of the committee and asked that someone put a motion changing the date. A member of that committee, a member from the government side, put such a motion. He did not deny the right of Mr. Landers to come to the committee hearings. He did not say that he should not be a witness. In fact, the information I have is that they asked for a change in date, that Mr. Landers be allowed to come on October 30.
Anybody with any ounce of common sense understands that from time to time busy people have scheduling problems. When those people have scheduling problems we, as reasonable members of the House, and members of committees, have always tried to accommodate them. We have always tried to bend over backwards to make that a possibility.
So here we are faced with a situation where a witness in good faith sends a notice to the chairman saying he cannot make it on such and such a date, is it possible for a change. The committee decides to accommodate. What happened then is that the Liberals members of the committee decided that they did not want that motion put. In other words, they are going to insist that Mr. Privilege
Landers come back from the States, interrupt whatever work he has to do, and appear on a date that is obviously inconvenient for him. I am told that what was done, in fact, was to try to accommodate the witness and to bring him in on October 30. That is part of the political side that I think has to be demonstrated here this morning, Mr. Speaker, because obviously that is not what is being expressed to you.
The other thing that I think is important is that this is clearly not an example of the government members trying to frustrate the work of the committee. That is not our intention at all. Our intention is to accommodate a witness, not to frustrate the committee. The committee has itself decided that it wants to look into certain aspects of Canada Post and Canada Post services, and that was agreed to by the government members. It is not their intention to frustrate that investigation in any way. So I think it is important that that be noted.
I noticed that my hon. friend, the whip on the opposition side said-and he used his words very carefully-"in some committees, in some cases there is consensus". Rightly so. We have asked on this side that wherever possible there not be motions that would be used to in any way surprise the committee, or disrupt the committee, or sidetrack the committee. But what we have here is a case of selective application of that principle.
I am told that there was an incident in the transport committee yesterday where in fact there was a surprise motion put that ended up with a bit of a donnybrook in the committee. Even though the committee had already agreed to a number of things, a surprise motion was put by a member of the opposition. So one has to be very careful, when one makes these arguments, that those arguments are on an equal footing and one is treating one side just as fairly as the other.
The other thing which deals more with the actual Standing Orders is that a member from the NDP has said that the order paper notice puts restrictions on the government. Mr. Speaker, you know full well that it does say, as my friend has pointed out, that it is a notice and that things may change, and obviously that is the case with which we have all worked.

October 20,1989
Privilege
The principles of the committees and the principles of reform that we were all looking for are that the committees be masters of their own destiny. That is essentially what we have been trying to work with. That is the kind of thing that I think is essential. Part is that it is absolutely necessary to treat our witnesses with some respect and to do our best to accommodate them when they have scheduling difficulties.
It is not a case of privilege, as I am sure you are well aware already. I think what we have is a political debate, a debate that, if all the facts were known, would change the tone of it considerably to say that we were simply trying to accommodate a witness.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burin-St. George's is rising. I happen to have some indication of what he wishes to say. I will, of course, hear him in a moment.
This may help hon. members. There are two issues in this application. One of them is procedural, and I intend to give it very careful consideration.
The other is a question of what happened at the committee and whether it should or should not have happened. The House knows, and it is the House's wish and has been for decades, that it is not the place of the Chair to interfere with what goes on in the committee.
The procedural point that has been raised by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is that a notice went out which gave people an idea that certain things would be done, and something else was done. That is a procedural point. I am taking that procedural point and I will be considering it carefully. I do not intend to rule on it right now.
I say to the hon. member for Burin-St. George's, who is an experienced member of this House, because I do not know yet what he is going to say, that I would ask him to keep in mind that I am not going into the question of who said what and under what circumstances at that committee because the House, decades ago, made it quite clear that it does not want your Speaker to be doing that. I will hear the hon. member.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I intend to come to the procedural issue. I just want in passing to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that it did not really get bogged down on the issue of whether someone should come on a given date or not, in this case Mr. Don Lander. The real issue and our concern-and I believe the gentleman who raised this issue and I are the only two in this room who were actually at the meeting- was procedural. Our concern was in terms of the precedent it could set.
We saw the green piece of paper that my colleague has referred to as the "order paper". We saw it as embodying a decision of the committee, a steering committee, then adopted by the full committee, according to procedures laid down by the committee.
As an aside I submit, yes, the committee is the master of its destiny, but within the framework of the parameters of the House rules. It cannot go outside them. It is our point that, procedurally, the committee yesterday went well outside the parameters of the way the House operates. The House sets an order of business and can only change it by unanimous consent. No unanimous consent was sought yesterday.
There is another way. Either the chairman could have sought unanimous consent or could have very quickly convened a steering committee either before or after the other meeting. The mechanism is in place in that committee to take care of an emergency which apparently rose yesterday.
I point out, in closing, that it was not the emergency that it has been represented as here. While it happened kind of at the last minute-but not quite-there was time for a government member to have a typed motion when he arrived at the meeting. I submit to you, Sir, there was time for that. There was time to convene a quick steering committee and allow the thing to go forward as is normally the process. We saw it as an absence of some good faith. We think there was a better way. We are concerned in terms of the precedent it could set. If the government can change the order of business one day for a small matter, another day it can change it for a quite more substantial matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary in reply.
October 20,1989


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do not particularly wish to reply to the member. It is more in relationship to the comments you made after I had spoken. I just want to make one comment on your comments when you indicated that you wanted to consider the procedural aspects.
I want to say to you, Sir, that we as a government would welcome any ruling which would suggest that any motions to be placed on the Order Paper would not be placed there in any case by surprise, that there would always be adequate notice. We on this side would be more than happy to accept that principle, if that is the principle the opposition is arguing for. Certainly that is what I hear them arguing for.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have heard enough argument. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary, of course with some skill, put forward a proposition which is not altogether beyond the ken of the Speaker. I am quite aware that depending on the day it may suit one or another in this chamber to have things very clearly set out before a committee meets. However, I think I do have the procedural point. I think I also have the point of the Parliamentary Secretary. I shall be very careful before I wander too far down that path.
Just so that the public who, after all, has been listening to this, understands exactly what it is we are doing here, an application has been made on a question of privilege because the item for discussion that was set out on the notice to committee members was not the item that was dealt with.
The second matter that has been raised in the discussion is whether or not the head of Canada Post can ever appear in front of the committee. It has been, I think, made quite clear from the government side that whatever happened at the committee does not preclude that particular gentleman from coming before the committee. I think I have taken the Parliamentary Secretary's words appropriately. I do not want members to think that what has happened is that the head of Canada Post will never appear before the committee.


Don Boudria: We never said that.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we have some assurance from the government side that the government does not intend to take a position that the chairman of Canada Post not appear before the committee. Even though that may not
Government Orders
be the procedural matter we are discussing in this discussion, as far as it has gone, it is in the public interest to know what the government's position is on that particular point. I see the parliamentary secretary nodding that I have interpreted it correctly.
The point that I have to decide, and which I am going to look at, is a very interesting and intriguing one. The hon. member for Burin-St. George's put it clearly in summation, and the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell have argued the point. I will look at it carefully. The hon. parliamentary secretary, of course, has also put some of the implications of that argument to the House, and I will consider that.
I thank hon. members for their interventions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 5, 1989, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Foster (p. 4314).
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Cardigan and as a farmer who has benefited from the advance payments program, I welcome this opportunity to address the House on Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act.
Since the onset of this thirty-first Parliament we have watched this government whittle away at agricultural programs, programs which Canadian farmers have been privileged to use.
The advance payments program is another in a long list of Tory cut-backs in agriculture. The assault continues and will force many farmers off their farms. This government has no compassion or sensitivity when it comes to axing agricultural programs.

October 20,1989
Government Orders
The Advance Payments for Crops Act provides an incentive to producers to store certain agricultural products immediately after harvest so they can improve then-farm income by marketing over an extended season. It gave producers a cash advance to help them to meet short term monetary commitments, an advance that was interest free. On Prince Edward Island alone the elimination of the interest free portion of this act means lending institutions will acquire at least $365,000 on the backs of Island farmers. This represents the amount of interest saved by a small agricultural based island, an island which is also part of this great nation. It is $365,000 which would go directly into our Island economy. This apparently does not matter to this government. The Island economy is very low on its list of priorities.
These savings represent approximately $3,000 per individual producer taking part in this program. It protects the producers from high interest rates. High interest rates are crippling agriculture in this country. There is no interest free money available to island producers. Banks continue to charge prime plus 1 or 2 per cent on operating loans which are needed so producers can feed this country.
Does this government feel comfortable knowing farmers are being pushed to the limit constantly? The elimination of the interest free aspect of the Advance Payments for Crops Act applied increased pressure on much needed cash flow. Farmers are finding it impossible to operate in a climate in which interest rates are so variable. Farmers are in a position of insecure income at the mercy of the market-place and the lending institutions.
In recent correspondence from the P.E.I. Potato Producers Association, the plight in the market-place was described well and I quote:
Prior to the Advance Payments Program, farmers were forced to
sell their crops soon after harvest in order to meet post harvest
production costs.
By losing this free interest there will be increased pressure to dump product onto the market to reduce cash flow problems. There goes several of the stated advantages of the program, as taken from the advance payments for crops administrative manual, which include the following: Dumping products at harvest time is reduced; returns to producers are improved by letting them sell their product when market conditions are good and more orderly marketing of products is achieved.
This government does not seem to be aware that farm loans are considered high risk at lending institutions on Prince Edward Island. Small farmers cannot borrow 100 per cent of required operating money. It is ironic to think that the very people who are putting bread and butter on every table in this country are high risk. Think about it.
The Canadian agricultural industry is not based on luxury. Styles of food do not change with the whims of society. The agricultural industry in this country is based on a long-term debt, as are other industries, but the agricultural industry faces woes of short-term price fluctuations.
The interest free provision of this act could be read as a 100 per cent interest free subsidy program. Although a valuable asset to Canadian farmers, the word "subsidy" is not favourable under the free trade agreement. The orderly marketing of crops in Canada has been seriously jeopardized and, yes, sacrificed at the altar of the free trade agreement.
The market pressure created by the elimination of the interest free Advance Payments for Crops Act is flying in the face of what this government is preaching. You are saying that you want farmers to become more market oriented, more business oriented. This government is a living contradiction. The fact is that any forced increases in farm debt today will force more and more farmers into the Federal Debt Review Board. With the current reductions in every aspect of agriculture, any further reduction in federal programs is nothing short of increasing burden on producers of food.
The lack of priority given agriculture through cheap food policies and the lack of commitment this government has to the food industry becomes even more evident. To give farmers yet another option for guaranteed interest-bearing loans is but another Tory terror dropped on agriculture like a bomb.
Our interest rates continue to explode set by outside forces. This government is nailing the coffin shut slowly but surely.
During communications with the P.E.I. Grain Growers Co-op it was stated: "Eastern producers will have no impact when the giant of the west, the Canadian Wheat Board, was unsuccessful in having a western minister listen to their needs. We in the east, on this nation's great Atlantic shore appear to be shoveling fog in our attempts to be heard by this government."
October 20, 1989

Government Orders
These are the facts. There was no consultation with farmers. The program cut was scheduled. We were told to accept a program which is clearly second best.
The government admitted responsibility for the elimination of the tobacco industry, therefore, the Redux program. Maybe it should also accept the responsibility for the eventual elimination of the agricultural industry entirely.
By strangling farmers financially this government is pushing out the small, successful, proud family farms for which generations have operated across this country. What, in fact, does this government want, corporate farming? It certainly would seem to be where it is heading. Surely this government will change its agenda. I know the Canadian voters are sure to change it for them when the opportunity arises. Hopefully, by then, it will not be too late to salvage what is left in Canadian agriculture.
I plead with the government to reconsider and withdraw Bill C-36. Reinstate the interest-free aspect of the Advance Payments for Crops Act. Please put agriculture back in its proper place in this nation.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in debate on Bill C-36 which is the second attempt by the government to make the interest free cash advance program disappear.
For years we have been listening to Conservative politicians praise themselves and pat themselves on the back for having introduced the concept of interest free cash advances. It was something that was suggested and demanded by farm organizations for many years in advance of that. But, in 1957, the government of John Diefenbaker introduced interest free cash advances in the west. Later on, the hon. Eugene Whelan who was the Minister of Agriculture introduced the same concept for the rest of Canada and for other commodities.
The system worked well. The government and the people of Canada got good money for their relatively small investment. Even now, when inflation and high interest rates have carried the cost of the program up, the Minister of Finance estimated that it would cost in the neighbourhood of only $27 million this year.
When one looks at the cost savings that were achieved from those cash advances, one can readily see that it was a very good investment on an annual basis. It took away the incentive for farmers to plug the elevator system and the transportation system in order to get money. By being able get a cash advance on the grain that was stored on their farms, farmers could pay their operating costs and continue to get through the winter. That is very important in a country like ours where the water transportation freezes up.
If you are a Manitoba farmer, once the Lakehead freezes in December no grain moves. Farmers cannot sell grain. They sit on it at their farms and yet, unfortunately, the expenses that those people have continue over the winter. They still have to eat. They still have to keep their buildings warm. They still have to make repairs to their equipment. The costs go on but there is no chance of income once winter sets in.
Similarly, in other areas of the country where different commodities are being raised, as in the fruit and vegetable area, lack of interest free cash advances will simply mean that they will return to the bad old days when they tended to deliver their produce early. When farmers deliver their produce early, they tend to depress the market. Because they depress the market they have to deliver even more produce in order to get the necessary dollars to pay their expenses, and before they are finished, instead of spreading the deliveries of things like rutabagas and turnips over 11 or 12 months, they are all out of product some time in February, March or early April, and the country has to depend on imports in order to make up the difference. So it is very costly for the country to do that. We think that for $27 million the continuation of an interest free cash advance makes ultimate sense.
In western Canada, in large part due to the interest free cash advance program the commercial elevator system was pared down. We did not need as much commercial storage if there was no incentive for farmers to get it into the commercial system. As long as they could keep their finances in order, they would store it at home. The farmer has already had to pay for storage at home. Most of the commercial elevator system in western Canada at least is co-operatively owned so the farmers own it twice. They were able to reduce their investment in the commercial system by some 40 per cent. If you look at the cost of building new elevators

October 20, 1989
Government Orders
now, and if you were going to return to the kind of storage capacity that the commercial system had back in 1957, that new investment would cost more in interest each year than what this $27 million annually is costing now, and thus we avoid the pressure on the market which keeps the price down.
I can understand why a newly formulated free market oriented Conservative Government like we have had in the last two governments would want to move in this direction. It fits with their philosophy. They want to do things that will assist their friends in the grain trade and that will permit them to get lower priced grain. The government loves to see the market under pressure and farmers being forced to dump their grain and to take less than the cost of production. They love that. I understand why their supporters are all for it. But the farmers are not too intrigued with this idea. They do not think that they should be paying interest on the cash advance. Not only are they opposed to paying interest on it for the reasons that I have outlined, but they look at their international competitive position and they say: "Things are not changing in the United States. If I lived across the line I would be able to have this kind of privilege. Why is our government taking it away from us?"
They look at the Europeans and find the same thing. Why is Canada taking the initiative in this area? Why is Canada doing apparently everything it can to see that agriculture prices are forced down by putting pressure on producers to deliver early and to deliver too much to the market?
Not only does it do that but, as I have said, the forced dumping in many cases with many products means that at the end of the season we are forced to import products as well, which costs the economy of the country. From an economic point of view it makes no sense at all.
The government's arguments have been a real lesson in the modem politics of the Conservative era. They did not tell anyone in the election that this was part of the election program. No one knew that once re-elected this government would take away interest free cash advances. It was not part of the mandate. It was never breathed during the election. The only things we heard from Conservative candidates, including the Prime Minister, were soothing comments about how when farmers need help the government would be behind them and
would always be on the side of the farmer. Why have they abandoned them now?
Prior notice is extremely important in a seasonal business like agriculture where decisions have to be made almost a year in advance. There was no prior notice until the delayed budget of April 27, the first in the history of the country during a sitting Parliament where a government came in to present a budget after the old fiscal year had ended. Virtually all of the farmers had been to their banks to arrange their credit for the summer. Their banks had no idea that there would not be a cash advance program sitting there waiting for them in the fall. The banks looked at their situation and decided how much they would lend them for the summer based on the secure knowledge that there would be a cash advance system available in the fall and the bank would have its money back within six months. Then the budget came.
That did not scare anyone very much in the banking community because there was not any immediate action. In fact, it was three months later, on June 26, that the government and the Minister of Agriculture and Deputy Prime Minister introduced Bill C-32 which outlined the method whereby the government was going to introduce this policy. It became fairly clear at that stage that there would not be any interest free cash advances in the fall.
But the government did not pursue the bill. There were only two days debate in the House before it recessed for the summer. The government decided to make the recess one month longer than normal. When we did come back the new crop year for those in the Wheat Board area had been in effect since August 1, and here we were back in session at the end of September. At that point in time the government decided to withdraw C-32.
When news of that filtered out the day before it was to be withdrawn, there were cheers in the farm community saying that at last the government had good sense, they realized that they were wrong, they are going to listen to the many farm groups and the advisory committee of the Wheat Board, the NFU and so on-
Is it not a 20-minute speech, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will have to cut you off in 30 seconds for Question Period. You may continue afterwards.
October 20,1989


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: They took heart. They thought that at last the government was withdrawing a bad bill and that they had succeeded in getting their message through to the government, as the senior citizens had done before them in stopping the deindexation of pensions many years before. I will continue my remarks after Question Period.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, we will proceed to statements by members with the hon. member for Elk Island.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Brian O'Kurley (Elk Island):: Mr. Speaker, some of the most important manufacturing industries in the province of Alberta are located in the riding of Elk Island. These industries provide tens of thousands of jobs in our riding.
The existing federal sales tax, the MST, is an unfair, unworkable tax on production. The MST is unfair because it results in more taxes on Canadian made goods than on goods from other countries. The MST is unworkable because it taxes some while allowing tax avoidance for others.
The Canadian government must take a leadership role in improving the tax system. Our government must prepare this country for the economic challenges of the future.
The MST is wrong for Elk Island. The MST is wrong for Canada. The MST must be replaced. Let us work together in this House to get rid of the MST. Let us work together to prepare our country for success in the competitive world of international trade. Let us work together to build a stronger economy for a better Canada.


CAPE BRETON ECONOMY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the economy in industrial Cape Breton and indeed all of Cape Breton is at an all time low.
This is coupled with the fact that the Nova Scotia Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency recently released a demographic forecast for all of Nova Scotia to the year 2006, which states: "The population forecast for Cape Breton County, which includes the seven towns and the City of Sydney contained therein, forecasts an average population decline of 936 per year for each year from 1986 to the year 2006."
This news coupled with the tragic economic situation in Cape Breton calls upon the Government of Canada to provide the kind of economic leadership that this region of Canada needs.
I have asked the minister responsible for the Cape Breton Development Corporation to give us a clear and unequivocal commitment to maintain the operations at the Lingan mine in Cape Breton. I have asked this minister to give us a clear commitment with regard to the promotion and the expansion of the Donkin coal mine, on which the Government of Canada has spent close to $80 million.
This is a time for the Government of Canada to intervene in the economy of Cape Breton in order to provide economic opportunities for those citizens.


ACID RAIN
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the all-party Standing Committee on the Environment will travel to Washington, D.C. next week to encourage our colleagues in the U.S. Congress to strengthen their clean air legislation and resolve to reduce acid rain from U.S. sources.
The proposed cuts to sulphur dioxides are just barely in the ball park to help Canada. The proposals on nitrogen oxides are not helpful; the caps on emissions need firming up; reductions of transboundary flows of toxics need targets and timetables.
Canada also has much to do. New dirty coal fired plants are proposed in western Canada. Further actions are required in central Canada. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have yet to bring in much needed regulations. To the great embarrassment of Canada, New Brunswick Power has been pushing for two new Columbian coal fired thermal plants without scrubbers at Belledune. The emissions from such plants are unacceptable to Canada, and as though by political witchcraft these plants are as of yesterday proposed to be fired by low sulphur oil or natural gas.

October 20,1989
The environmental damage from acid rain is well over $1 billion per year in Canada, well over $5 billion per year in the United States. A cut of 10 million of sulphur oxides in the U.S. will cost $15 billion, a cost borne in just three years by the U.S. environment.
Canada had best get moving seriously on cleaning up our acid rain sources, existing and proposed, if we are to expect credibility in our fight to get the U.S. to do the same.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, once again the federal Government, through its Environment Minister, showed its leadership at the federal-provincial conference of Environment Ministers held this week in Charlottetown.
The federal Government agreed to invest $100 million in the clean-up of abandoned contaminated sites in this country. The provinces agreed to do their share by contributing $100 million to this project.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the number of abandoned contaminated sites in this country, Abitibi- Temiscamingue probably and unfortunately holds the record for the most sites in any given region. Governments must act responsibly in this case, and that is why I demand a fair share of this agreement for my region, so that we can deal with the serious environmental problems caused by mine tailings, a major source of pollution.
I therefore want to ask the MNAs for the Abitibi- Temiscamingue area for their support in this attempt to take advantage of the opportunity we now have to do something positive for our environment.


BILL C-21
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the government has ignored the vital expertise of the public service employees who deal every day with out of work Canadians.
The employees of Canada employment centres have called Bill C-21 an incompassionate piece of legislation, forcing them to play a more negative policing role and eroding trust between them and their clients.
They are the ones every day who face the desperation, frustration, and anger of the unemployed without adequate resources.

The employment sector in the Department of Employment and Immigration has suffered substantial attrition during the past five years as a result of Tory cut-backs.

The minister's sole excuse for the devastation she is foisting on the unemployed is more training, more help finding a job, more employment options, yet she has not provided for one additional employee to give these services.
What she has done is to provide in Bill C-21 for the contracting out of these services. Bill C-21 sets up the privatization of Canada employment centres.
The minister intends to pay for this with increased premiums and with the food and rent money she is taking out of the pockets of the unemployed.


THE ARTS
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, October 15, Quebec's cultural industry paid tribute to its artists and performing artists at the 11th Adisq Gala.
Forty-five Felix trophies were given to outstanding members of our artistic and cultural community, including Drummondville's cultural centre and its director, Mr. Roland Janelle, who was awarded the title of "Diffuseur de I'annee" in Quebec.
October 20,1989

The Drummondville cultural centre is considered by the arts community as an outstanding institution with a sophisticated audience.
This award confirms the superiority of the Drummondville cultural centre in the kind of services it offers to artists, producers and the audience.
Congratulations are most certainly in order here, and we wish them well in all their future activities. In fact, I am very pleased that my government has supported a number of projects initiated by this organization for a number of years, for the benefit of the arts world in Quebec and the people of my riding.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a dark day in Canada for the labour movement when the Minister of Labour, who calls himself the Minister of Labour but is not interested in ordinary working people, gives notice that as of the end of this year there will be no further government funding possible for the Canada Centre for Occupational Health and Safety and when he fires the executive director and president who has been the basis and the foundation of that organization for the last 10 years.
I would like to ask the Minister of Labour about the Canada Centre for Occupational Health and Safety which provided information to the people of St. Basile le Grand.

When they had this problem with PCBs, where did they go for information? They went to the Canada Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.

Who is going to be able to speak to the workers who are injured in industrial accidents, who face explosions, who want to understand the basis for chemicals? Who is going to get information about the International Labour Organization? Who is going to get information from NIOSH?
The decision of this minister to assassinate the Canada Centre for Occupational Health and Safety may be a laughing matter for certain Conservatives across this country. It is not a laughing matter among working people, and we intend to pursue this issue with every last breath we have.


EDUCATION
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the end of National Universities Week. Coming as I do from a province which possess several fine colleges and universities, both English and French institutions, I wish to express my respect for the immense contribution which they make to our society.
As other colleagues have noted throughout this week, higher education is more important today than ever before. The rapid growth of knowledge, particularly in the fields of science and technology, is presenting Canadians with ever more significant career challenges and opportunities. Universities do truly open doors to these opportunities.
While a university education is an important personal investment for a great many Canadians, support for universities is also an essential investment for governments at all levels on behalf of society. For example, the research being undertaken at Canadians universities is constantly helping us to address pressing concerns about our environment, health, and our capabilities to maintain the standards of living which we enjoy in the face of ever increasing foreign competition.
In this emerging world economy Canada's prosperity will depend on our ability to lead our competitors. That means Canadians will need to generate knowledge and use it creatively. To do that, Canada needs healthy and productive universities. Let us all commit to help keep them that way.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, in my riding today, as a matter of fact right at this very moment, the media are being briefed on a very special project piloted by Atomic Energy of Canada on the concept of deep underground disposal of used nuclear fuel from Canada's nuclear generating stations, none of which by the way are in my riding.

October 20, 1989
Earlier this week a representative of Atomic Energy of Canada came to my office and presented a series of very impressive and well designed documents, which I have in my hand, explaining this very project.
My staff was told that these media briefings are part of a normal procedure. Elowever I would like to object to such procedures, given that an environmental task force has been set up to independently assess the same project, which by the way has not even started yet.
I find it objectionable that a government department is jumping the gun, so to speak, and has started its own lobbying at taxpayers' expense. I would hope that the Minister of the Environment would want these environmental assessments to be conducted in a fair and independent manner.
Mr. Speaker, you have already ruled on a similar advertising scheme; perhaps you would like to examine this one as well.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the August Supreme Court decision in CN-CP against Alberta Government Tel clearly found that the CRTC had jurisdiction over all telephone companies which participate in Telecom Canada, including the three prairie telephone companies.
The Railway Act amendments proposed yesterday do not change services; they do not change rates or affect ownership. The amendments do what the court said had to be done, that is, provide a consistent national regulatory structure under the CRTC.
The Minister of Communications said yesterday that it was his objective to preserve universal access to basic services at affordable prices while taking into account regional differences. Ele also said that he would ensure that all Canadians, particularly those in rural areas, would have access to quality services.
Residents of the rural prairies will expect that the minister will fulfil his commitment in ways that are fair and equitable.


CANADA POST
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, on October 10, Canada Post has, by way of letter, informed members of Parliament serving the northern regions of Canada including the Northwest Territories that a whopping, senseless 32 per cent increase in postal rates will be implemented following the 30-day notification requirement.
Canada Post is hereby sacrificing the welfare of those living in remote areas for the sake of profit making. The letter states: "Canada Post Corporation operates a business and as such cannot assume the cost of operating in a revenue losing situation".
Canada is a very large country, and each and every one of its citizens deserves equal treatment and has the right to a decent livelihood ensured by services such as Canada Post. It is clearly abandoning natives and northern residents.
Is it the government's intention to cut its deficit on the backs of those who can least afford it? What are you trying to do to the northern residents of Ontario and of northern Canada?


NATURAL GAS
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I was privileged to represent the government and participate in the official opening of the Schrader Creek compressor station owned and operated by the gas transmission division of Nova Corporation of Alberta. This station located in the Caroline area operates on three major pipelines delivering clean burning, efficient natural gas to market.
Nova has been recognized as a good corporate citizen and a good employer throughout Alberta. This station incorporates the latest in technology to improve efficiency of operation, safety for employees and the environment around the plant.
Nova is to be commended for making this investment in its employees health and safety and congratulated for its confidence in the economy of this country which is going to make this investment a very practical one for them and for the country.

October 20, 1989


MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions

['There is not unanimous consent.', 'October 20, 1989\nRoutine Proceedings']
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the recent trip to South Africa by the Conservative member of Parliament for Portage-Interlake must be condemned by all members of this House. This embarrassing incident is nothing new for the member for Portage-Interlake, and unfortunately nothing new for the Conservative party.
The Prime Minister, while trying to project an image as a world statesman and a leader of the fight to abolish apartheid, has work to do within his own caucus.
When asked about this trip with regards to government policy, the member for Portage-Interlake said that he did not agree with all the actions taken. By going to South Africa he has ignored the government position on tourism. By spending money in South Africa he has ignored the economic sanctions the government applauds. By going to the game farms in South Africa for his own pleasure he has relegated basic human rights to only a minor consideration.
The member for Portage-Interlake owes the government, the House, and Canada an apology.



Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Charles Ng has been in Canada for over four years, despite the fact that he is wanted for a series of brutal murders in California.
Ng's lawyers have managed to prevent his extradition through a series of appeals, all of which have been rejected, including the latest appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
It is time to send Ng back. I urge the Minister of Justice to use the Canada-U.S. Extradition Treaty to return Ng to face justice in California.
We simply cannot allow this country to become a haven for fugitives from justice.


SOUTH AFRICA
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. On the subject of South Africa the Prime Minister is quoted yesterday as saying that he wants to bring South Africa to its senses, not to its knees.
This, and the series of weak-kneed statements on the part of our Prime Minister on the subject of South African sanctions, has been alarming to all Canadians and those abroad who care about dismantling apartheid in South Africa.
The South African government's announcement of the international bank agreement easing debt repayment heightens the alarm.
What is more important to our government-diplomatic compromising with Margaret Thatcher or dismantling apartheid in South Africa?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that yesterday I was very clear about the intentions of the Government of Canada, and we will continue to exert pressure on South Africa until apartheid is dismantled. That is our main position.
As for the debt rescheduling to which the hon. member referred, I can inform her that we have always tried to obtain the severest possible conditions. Perhaps I may point out to the hon. member that the measures announced yesterday in this new package provided for only three and half years, as opposed to Pretoria's request for 10 years, and although in most cases where a debt is rescheduled, countries get new capital, South Africa did not.
Furthermore, although a country usually only has to pay the interest, not the principal, South Africa must pay 20.5 per cent of the principal, in addition to the interest. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that the Union Bank of Switzerland, a member of the rescheduling committee, described the agreement as rather harsh and said it was the most they could obtain. We will keep exerting pressure on South Africa, until apartheid is dismantled.

October 20,1989
Oral Questions


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, an amazing comment which appears to be condoning the lessening of South African debt burden.
On September 28, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that 12 of the 14 major banks co-ordinating South Africa's debt "agreed that they would be seeking the highest possible interest payments and the fastest possible repayments", a tough line but empty rhetoric given yesterday's announcement.
What will Canada do to press Canadian and international banks to increase pressure on South Africa's dismantling of apartheid? Or, is this government prepared to simply sit idly by and take no responsibility?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the Secretary of State for External Affairs asked the banks not to approve new loans for South Africa, and this request was upheld. In the present case, there are no Canadian banks on the committee. The committee has rescheduled the debt, and Canadian banks are part of the package. We will continue to ask the banks to do what they have already done, which is to approve no new loans for South Africa, and we will keep up the pressure.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, interesting comments from this government when yesterday the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Hawke, stated that he regretted the bank's decision and the Zambian President, Mr. Kaunda, condemned the banks and stated: "They are sucking the blood out of black South Africans' economy". A Canadian official yesterday is quoted as saying that the South African Bank rescheduling of debt represents "a propaganda victory for South Africa".
This is the wrong signal that we are giving. Will this government immediately announce increased Canadian sanctions against South Africa to ensure that the pressure is maintained?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to an article by Albert Juneau that appeared this morning in Le Devoir, and I quote:
The Commonwealth countries have agreed to maintain current sanctions. Their effectiveness is no longer questioned-
The article goes on to say:
Canada's position was therefore reasonable: no new sanctions, except for stricter credit requirements. From now on, the main issue in South Africa is political. The time is ripe for a dialogue between the various components of South Africa's mosaic. Pretoria must initiate negotiations with anti-apartheid groups. The banks have given it some breathing space. Will South Africa take this opportunity to implement reforms that are already long overdue?
Mr. Speaker, we have taken the necessary steps. We will go on doing so by reinforcing sanctions, and of course we hope that negotiations will finally achieve our ultimate goal, which is to dismantle apartheid.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Yesterday, the National Energy Board approved the export to the United States of over 90 per cent of Canada's Arctic natural gas reserves. This comes at a time when concerns about the environment will likely increase greatly the demand for natural gas, which is considered a cleaner fuel than oil.
Will the minister tell this House whether his department has conducted a study of Canada's long-term natural gas needs, particularly in the context of natural gas being seen as an environmentally safe fuel?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the National Energy Board approval of the export licence, the first point that I want to make to the hon. member is that any approval of the board is still subject to cabinet scrutiny.
I would say to the hon. member that while she makes the point about gas being a clean burning fuel, the government has programs in places like Vancouver, Alberta, Winnipeg, Toronto, New York, Hamilton and San Diego, where we are using Canadian technology to have cleaner burning methods for mass transit systems. Those who are interested in the environment might even think that that is important. We do, but maybe the critic for the environment does not.
October 20, 1989

Second, I say to the hon. member that while the 9.2 trillion cubic feet has been approved, the Canadian Geological Society of Canada places the estimated reserves in the Beaufort at 56 trillion, which is about six times more than the approval on the gas export licence which the NEB gave yesterday.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, those are potential figures. The fact is that the board itself has admitted that it does not know what effect this increased concern for the environment will have on gas demand. In fact one of the authors of the report that was issued yesterday said that it may well be true that gas demand could increase substantially as Canadians look for cleaner fuels.
The minister has just said that cabinet has to approve this decision, and I know that. I want to ask the minister: Will he refuse to approve this National Energy Board decision until a study has been conducted so that Canadians are confident their energy future is not being exported to the United States?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The National Energy Board in any of the approvals that it grants examines the ongoing needs as well as projected needs of Canadians for natural gas.
I gave the hon. member figures from the Geological Society on the Beaufort. There is another point that has to be made. If one looks at the period of the National Energy Program one finds very quickly that gas in the ground when kept does not increase our supply, does not increase our explorations, and does not increase the ability of Canadians to bring more gas on stream.
I believe that the market-place is the best place to do it. I believe that the National Energy Board is well positioned to balance interests for Canadian gas usage and gas consumption as well as gas reserves, along with the economic needs of Canadians.
The hon. member has to remember that in the 1970s when the Berger commission was formed, Mr. Berger himself said there should be a 10-year moratorium on two issues primarily, one being land claims. If one takes a look at the COPE agreement which was completed and the statement of principles with the Dene-Metis which has until 1991 to conclude, one will find that the very people who went before the National Energy Board on
Oral Questions
request for approval for a gas export licence were native people, native leaders.
They are now cabinet ministers in the Northwest Territories. They are looking at the economic advantages. They are looking at their future. They do not want to be any more dependent than any of us.
I say to the hon. member that the best way to bring on more gas is to allow the market-place to get out to find gas, to keep reserves there for Canadians, and to maintain the economic benefits that come from it.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister who I well understand, as the House does, is away on official business, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the government's obvious, deliberate plan to mislead the people of this country about the impact of the trade deal on them.
Since the Prime Minister, in the House on October 10, refused to provide me with an assessment of the job impact of the trade deal and since the minister of trade, on June 20 last in the House, indicated the government was monitoring the impact of the trade deal, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Does the government have some kind of an assessment of the job impact and, if so, will it table it in the House now so that everyone can see what it is?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leader of the New Democratic Party for the question, because it will give us an opportunity to explain what the article in The Toronto Star was referring to.
The document is merely a collection of media clippings from various newspapers which announced plant openings, expansion of employment in this country, and so on. It is not an official document or an official analysis. The Minister for International Trade, recently in this House, made it very clear that he would hope that he would be able to make a report sometime next year after the free trade agreement had been in place for about a year. It is a little early to assess the benefits of the free trade agreement at this time.

October 20, 1989
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. The same minister that he is referring to, namely, the Minister for International Trade, did not hesitate to use the list that he has just referred to, prepared by his officials, in the House on June 20 when he talked and boasted about jobs that had been created by Alcan Aluminium, Cargill, Novacor Chemicals, and others.
He did not mention, as he could have, other companies on the same list that had shut down operations and were putting new investments in the U.S. In short, it was a very selective report from the list to the House of Commons.
The minister has refused and the Deputy Prime Minister didn't answer. What I asked for was a list. I have a copy of the list that the minister himself was using. I want the minister to acknowledge now that when the Minister for International Trade last June was quoting from it he was doing it on a very selective basis by giving only good news and not providing the bad news. When is this government going to be honest and direct with the people of Canada about what is going on in this country?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the leader of the New Democratic Party talk about selectivity because if anybody preaches bad news around this country it is the leader of the New Democratic Party who selects very carefully some cases.
I can give the hon. leader some cases in my community where plants have rationalized and closed down because of the free trade agreement, but I can also give examples of plants that have opened up in my community because of the free trade agreement.


John Edward Broadbent: Do it!


John Horton McDermid: As a matter of fact, I just opened a plant the other day in Etobicoke, called Kodak Canada, a brand new chemical plant for recycled plastic bottles, and I can tell you it is there because of the free trade agreement, it didn't move to the United States.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister just revealed what we want. We want the government to produce the studies. He has accused us of providing bad news. What we ask for is an honest objective assessment with the pluses and negatives. That is what we want from the government.
The minister of trade promised on the twentieth that the government would be monitoring. According to some, about 57,000 jobs have been lost because of the trade deal. Since the people of Canada have a right to know, will the minister now produce the list, the copy of which I have, and any other documentation that the government has so that the people of Canada can understand in an honest and clear way what is happening with this deal. We just want the truth from this government.


John Horton McDermid: This government is very straight forward. If he is honest with the house, the hon. member will know that during the free trade debate discussions took place regarding rationalization of industries and so on. There are pluses and minuses and we said that at the time. He has to admit that. He has just said yes, so he admits that. There were pluses and minuses. The hon. member stands up in the House and preaches minuses every day.
I can tell the hon. member that the proof is in the pudding. There have been 158,000 new jobs created this year already. That is a plus. That shows that the free trade agreement is working.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of Her Royal Highness Infanta Cristina of Spain.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on August 15, 1984, during the election campaign in Kingston, Ontario, the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, said this: "If the Canadian people see fit to give us their trust we will always give them ours." He went on: "That means an end to the obsession with secrecy."
October 20, 1989

Today the Minister of Finance is refusing to disclose documents which his own deputy minister recommends be made public. Why is the minister refusing to comply with the laws of this country and why is he violating the undertaking that his own Prime Minister gave to the Canadian people?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are going to be making documents available, but there are some documents that are clearly advice to the minister which will not be made available. I think that is-


Some Hon. Members:: Why?


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: The hon. members ask why. Because there is an element of the Access to Information Act which requires that if there are documents that are advice to ministers, that should be retained as confidential advice and should not be made available according to the Access to Information Act. I said in the House that we would be making available information that the applicant was entitled to under the Access to Information Act, and that information will be made available.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the facts seem to be that the minister is refusing to disclose 530 pages of information that his own officials gathered in response to this request, and he says that that is all advice to the minister. It is easy to cover this up in this way. I suggest to the minister that in accordance with the Prime Minister's undertaking to the people, he has an obligation to, in the Prime Minister's words, "end this obsession with secrecy".
How can the minister justify this stonewalling in his own department? Is it because he misled Canadians during the election campaign?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is clearly no. There is a long-standing tradition that information that is advice to the minister has to be kept confidential under the Access to Information Act. If advice to ministers is not kept confidential, then that flow of advice from the officials to the minister will be broken. Clearly it is in the interest of parliamentary government not to have that flow of information broken, which is clearly advice from the deputy minister, from the department to the minister.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this is incredible. The budget forecast documents requested by The Ottawa Citizen were pulled together in five days by the Department of Finance.
Oral Questions
Ninety-seven days later the Minister of Finance rose in this House and said, "It has taken a while to pull this information together".
I want an explanation from the minister. Is it not because release of the documents will show that indeed the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance misled Canadians in the last election?


Geoff Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the reason. We have made it very clear that through the activities and the actions that this government has taken, department by department, we are complying with the Access to Information Act. If the hon. member checks the record of the Department of Finance, I think he will find that the record of providing that information is good. What we are doing today is consistent with what we have done over the past five years, and it is completely in accordance with the Access to Information Act.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I checked the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and I would like to read one of them. During the 1988 campaign, Prime Minister Mulroney said his Government had taken care of the deficit, that all promises made by the Conservatives were and would be within Michael Wilson's financial limits and that everything had been calculated down to the last cent. If the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were telling the truth during the election campaign, why do they now refuse to release documents that would show whether Canadians got a frank and open response to their questions from this Government?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have provided information on a range of things over the course of our experience in government that demonstrates we are providing documentation that is,"frank and open", to use the member's words.
I have commented on a number of occasions about the particular matter that was raised during the election campaign. I commented on that during the election campaign, and after the election campaign.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is in the same area. As the House knows, the minister promised to provide this information back on October 10. We now know that yesterday the minister overruled the advice given to him by his own deputy minister, Mr. Fred Gorbet. We also know that he has

October 20, 1989
Oral Questions
overruled the request of Inger Hansen, the information commissioner.
Can the minister explain to the House today his personal reason for not complying with the request of the information commissioner? What is his personal reason for overruling his own officials and the deputy minister of finance? Did the Minister of Finance indeed practise electoral fraud against the people of Canada during the last election campaign?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member repeat that question?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to know the personal reason why the Minister of Finance has chosen not to release the budget forecast and the forecast on the deficit and interest rates that were made by the Ministry of Finance back in the fall and summer of 1988.
I want to know why he has overridden his own deputy minister of finance, why he overruled Inger Hansen, the information officer? Why does he not have faith in his own officials when they provided him with this information back on August 30? Why did he not release that information? What is the personal reason for that? Did he, indeed, practise electoral fraud against the people of Canada back in 1988?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that is quite uncalled for language. I will not comment specifically on that, but I reject it totally. He asked what the personal reason. There is no personal reason. The reason we are not providing this information is that it was advice to the minister provided by the officials of the department.
The decision that we have taken here is completely in accord with the letter and the intent and the spirit of the Access to Information Act.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that "we have not decided to release the information". What I want to know is why he decided not to release the information. The information was given to him by his own deputy minister, by his own access to information people in his own department.
I want to know why he does not have faith in the judgment of his own deputy minister, faith in the judgment of his people who work in his own department in access to information. I want to know why he made the decision, not we, but why he made the decision not to come clean and give us that budget forecasting information from 1988.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me state quite categorically that I have full faith in the advice of my deputy minister, Mr. Gorbet. If the hon. member wants me to insert "I" for every time that I used "we" when I was referring to the decision, I am happy to do so.


COMMUNICATIONS
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications. It concerns the proposed amendments to the Railway Act which would have the CRTC solely regulate the telecommunications industry.
Can he respond to the concerns expressed by the Government of Saskatchewan that certain services now provided by Sask-Tel could be significantly more costly if Sask-Tel, in fact, comes under the regulatory jurisdiction of the CRTC?


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the opportunity to clarify the intent of the amendments to the Railway Act.
These were called for as a result of the August 14 decisilon of the Supreme Court of Canada. I can assure the hon. member that the amendments which flow to clear up jurisdictional confusion in the situation and to establish the federal regulatory authority in no way affect the structure, the rates or the autonomy of the prairie telephone companies. Indeed, it is my understanding that there have been discussions as recently as this morning between the Government of Canada and Pre-
October 20, 1989

mier Devine. Those assurances have been given and there will be continuing consultations while this bill is before the House.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Since the beginning of the year, businesses in Montreal have published 85 notices of permanent collective lay-offs, resulting in the loss of about 6,000 jobs in Montreal. Yesterday, we asked a number of questions about the loss of 200 jobs in Montreal at Eastern Airlines, while this month, Domtar announced the loss of 500 jobs and VIA Rail the loss of 900 jobs.
Is the government now prepared to listen to Montreal's workers and implement a special program to replace these lost jobs? What does the Government intend to do?


Hon. Jean Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has a very selective memory, because if he took the time to calculate the number of jobs created in the Montreal region between September 1984 and September 1989, he might realize, to his surprise, that 160,000 jobs were created on Montreal Island since our government came to power. We can even do better than that, Mr. Speaker, because if the Hon. Member would take the trouble to compare the results under this government with the results under a Liberal government of which he was a member, he would realize that under his government, Montreal Island lost 4,000 jobs. That is the difference between a liberal government and a conservative government!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, so far this year, 6,000 lay-offs have been announced at Montreal. These include Gillette, 590; Weston, 360; Kraft, 290; Wamaco, 140; Simpson's, 1,100; Marconi, 300; Geoffrion-Leclerc, 300; Northern Telecom, 250; Hostess, Frito-Lay, 110; Rothman's, 239; Vickers, 380; M.A.N. Ashton, 215; Unisys, 230; Domtar, 500; VIA Rail, 913; Eastern Airlines, 200 jobs. When will the government stop its rhetoric and give us some action?
Oral Questions


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, speaking of rhetoric, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace knows full well that under this government, on the Island of Montreal we created 160,000 jobs which compares fairly well to the fact that under the last Liberal government 4,000 jobs were lost. The unemployment rate on the Island of Montreal in Quebec went from 11.3 per cent to 8 per cent.
I noticed also on the list of things that have happened on the Island of Montreal that the hon. member seems to have forgotten a few things, starting with Bill C-22 which this government put through. What about the investment in Canadair that created 2,500 jobs? What about the space agency? What about the Liberal government's memory? The Liberals have know better than to get up and give us a sermon about the Island of Montreal.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the yoghurt and ice cream decision. Last week Robert Wright, the Canadian representative at the GATT negotiations in Geneva, said that the decision on yogurt and ice cream was so narrow that he could not see how the dairy supply-management system could continue to operate and that Canada was being asked to abandon its system. Those are devastating words coming from the Canadian representative at the GATT negotiations.
I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture can make a commitment today to Canadian dairy farmers right across the country, which will have an implication for other supply-management systems and marketing boards in this country, that the government will oppose this decision by the GATT panel and will refuse to implement it.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right, this is a very narrow decision and that is precisely why this government, before the MTN negotiations, has taken the position that Article 11 has to be strengthened, clarified and brought into line with the realities of the 21st century. The fact of the matter is the wording that was developed in 1947 leaves open interpretations that allow these kinds of decisions to come forth.

October 20, 1989
Oral Questions
We started that process, and the opposition has condemned us for it. It has condemned us for dealing with Article 11 in order to strengthen and clarify it. It accused us in that process of undermining Article 11, when, in fact, we are trying to clarify and strengthen it.
We have taken a very clear position in consultation with the dairy industry and with the provinces to fight this particular interpretation. We are soliciting the support of other council member countries, and as the hon. member knows, the meeting where this issue will be considered by the GATT council has been delayed pending further study and implication of this very important issue. My sense is that we are getting support from other council members. I would hope that we have the support of the hon. member.
As I said in the House yesterday, this government stands firmly committed to the principles of supply management and Article 11 is one of the keystones of maintaining supply management. We stand in full support of it in the GATT and we stood in full support of it in the free trade agreement.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, what I asked the minister was whether the government would refuse to accept this decision by the GATT panel and refuse to implement it. I wish the minister would respond simply to that question. We ask that specifically because the former Minister of Agriculture went around the country telling Canadian farmers that by simply transferring yoghurt and ice cream from the tariff list to the import control list he would protect the underpinnings of supply management. We know that to be a fraud.
Would the minister simply answer these two questions? Will he refuse to implement this and will he oppose it? And will he admit that the former Minister of Agriculture and the government, last year during the free trade debate, actually deliberately misled the Canadian people and Canadian dairy farmers?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think we will strike out the last part of that statement.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I find it strange, Mr. Speaker, that when there is a GATT decision that is unfavourable to Canada these guys run for cover when most of the time they believe that you can get your protection from
GATT. This is a GATT decision. This is a GATT panel decision and the hon. member should recognize that. We have several options available. I am not going to disclose our strategy on the floor of the House because it would impair our position in defending the best interests of Canada when this deal is dealt with before the GATT council.


SOUTH AFRICA
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, we have had quite a week as far as Canada's international reputation is concerned as it relates to South Africa. We have seen the Prime Minister boasting of Canada's leading role in fighting apartheid. The rescheduling of the South African debt makes a hollow mockery of that. The Canadian NGO community in Canada told the government what was going to happen. We have no leverage in regard to financial sanctions.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Who is determining Canadian foreign policy; the bankers in the boardrooms or the Canadian government?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I think this Government has shown that its anti-apartheid policy is very clear-cut and very effective.
As stated by the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the Commonwealth Conference, we will continue to exert the pressure on South Africa through our current sanctions, to ensure that the present government will ultimately have to change its position.
As for financial sanctions, as I explained earlier the package was negotiated by 14 banks which imposed conditions that were much stricter than before, and we will continue to initate measures with a view to dismantling apartheid.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the minister, in an answer to the previous question on this matter, admitted that South Africa now has a breathing space. What I want to know is, will the government wipe the egg off its face and immediately impose comprehensive, mandatory sanctions against South Africa?
October 20,1989


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I already explained that sanctions had achieved certain results, and everyone acknowledges this. I mentioned this earlier when I quoted a newspaper article.
We shall continue to strengthen and intensify our sanctions as planned, and of course we do hope, since there have been initial overtures, that the governement of South Africa will back down and initiate negotiations with the anti-apartheid movements.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Alberta is the only province in Canada that does not have a provincial sales tax. Although we do have a federal sales tax, it is presently included in the price of our goods. Alberta business and consumers alike are not comfortable with an add-on sales tax. When we change to the GST, will the federal tax be included in the selling price as it is now, or will it be added on at the cash register?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has pointed out, the GST is a very visible tax, quite contrary to the manufacturers' sales tax which is buried in the price of everything we buy today. We have proposed as a model presentation that the tax be included in the price of a product on the shelf, but that the tax be broken out at the cash register so that when the consumer is making a budgeting decision he knows not only the price on the shelf but the amount of tax when he goes to pay the final price at the cash register.


INDUSTRY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. As the minister will know, the Wonder Bra textile factory in Hawkesbury, Ontario, in my riding announced yesterday that it was shutting its doors, putting 100 people out of work in a community of 10,000. That is about the same as losing 10,000 jobs in Montreal or Toronto, proportion-
Oral Questions
ately. This will not likely feature in the minister's book of free trade success stories.
What is the government going to do for my constituents of Hawkesbury, who are losing their jobs, most of them held by women, on this cold rainy fall day? What is he going to do to assist them?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the last part of that question we have a very good system of support programs for people. Every year in Canada 3 million people change jobs, for lay-offs, for various reasons, and the support systems are there to make that possible.
But in terms of this particular plant, the company in question, Candella has four plants in Canada. It is closing its Hawkesbury plant on February 19, 1990. The 86 employees affected will be laid off but 86 new jobs will be added to the Matane plant. They are consolidating in Matane. The total number of jobs with this company in Canada will remain the same. There will be a consolidation.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that resettlement policy will not impress my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, on November 10, 1987, Investment Canada allowed Wonder Bra to take over its main competitor, Daisy Fresh Creations. Less than two years later, the plants are closing. Why did the government allow Investment Canada to eliminate the competition and make my constituents lose their jobs?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, Investment Canada's responsibilities refer to Canada as a whole, not just Hawkesbu-ly. As I pointed out, in this instance there is no loss of jobs to Canada as a whole.
I understand the hon. member's concern for his constituency, and quite properly he is expressing concern for his constituents. But surely he is not suggesting that the Government of Canada should intervene and say no to this company, you cannot open up 86 new jobs in Matane, you must retain them in Hawkesbury because your member of Parliament demands it. Surely he is not asking that.
October 20,1989

Oral Questions


NATIONAL DISEASE CONTROL LABORATORY
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The decision to locate the National Disease Control Laboratory in Winnipeg has been badly handled right from the beginning. In fact, without being unkind, I could say that it has been botched.
On July 19, 1989, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated that the laboratory would be situated at a site near the mint. On September 29 I received a letter from the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicating that the site had not yet been selected. On October 13 I received a letter from the same minister indicating that the site location would be the mint. On October 20, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated that that location could be changed again in Winnipeg. What is going on here? Could we get some clear, concise accurate information with regard to how this is going to handled? Where is it going to be located?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. member's disappointment in the fact that under his Liberal government no lab was put into Winnipeg, but under this government and under the leadership of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources this initiative has been put forth.
All I can is that I know the provincial government officials have recently voiced some concern with municipal officials about the location of the site. When the final decision is made it will be announced. The only thing that the government wanted to indicate is that if officials, either at the provincial or municipal level, would show some concern and voice some opinion on where the site should be located, the government would obviously listen to them. That is all that this is about.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I had indicated that I had a letter from the Minister of National Health and Welfare that stated that a decision had been taken. Now this minister tells me that it has not been taken. I really do wonder now whether or not they know what they are doing.

My supplementary is directed to the same Minister. Will the initial announcement of an investment of over $90 million be maintained by this Government? And if the Government intends to scale down its investment, could it perhaps tell us what the new amount, the new figures Mil be?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat in French what I told the Hon. Member in English, namely that our Government is delighted to be able to support the plan for a laboratory in Winnipeg, which is being spearheaded by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who has defended this project with considerable zeal. There have been speculations and discussions, and various opinions have been expressed regarding the location of the laboratory, which is not surprising, Mr. Speaker. Every time the federal Government initiates a project of this scope, we have the same problem. What we are seeing in Winnipeg is not unusual. In any case, the government has expressed its intention to announce its decision as soon as possible. Meanwhile, if provincial or municipal authorities have anything to say, let them say it! We are ready to listen.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The entire history of Canadian wealth is one of exploitation of natural resources seized from the aboriginal peoples who first lived here. Those aboriginal peoples have never been fully or even fairly compensated. We now have one last major chance to get it right.
Because the NEB decision on Arctic gas brushes aside the request of the Dene-Metis Negotiations Secretariat to withhold approval until their land claims are fully settled, and because that decision rejects the request of virtually all northern peoples for specific training and employment programs as a condition of the export licences, will the minister advise the Governor in Council to suspend the NEB decision until these conditions are met and until the wishes of all the territorial aboriginal peoples are fully taken into account and honoured?
October 20, 1989


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member reads the decision of the NEB, he will note that the NEB makes reference to the land claims of the Metis and the Dene people. It refers to the statement of principles which was signed by this government and which is being handled by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Negotiations are going forward and there is a time frame up to 1991 to settle.
As well, the NEB points out very clearly that if a pipeline application is heard, one of the conditions that will be examined will be the matter of training and the socioeconomic impact that a potential pipeline might have.
In fact, if the hon. member goes back to the Berger commission, which I am sure he supported, he will find that the Berger commission said that there should be a 10-year moratorium. There has already been a 12-year moratorium. Second, the Berger commission said that there should be land claim settlements wherever possible.
Through the Committee for Original Peoples Entitlement, COPE, that agreement was done. There was a statement of principles with the Dene and Metis people. The point, I think, is this. It is the very native people who are now in government in the Northwest Territories who 10 years ago when we were in office opposed any development because of the land claims not being settled and are now the proponents of the application. I say to the hon. member, listen to them, respect them and follow some of the vision they have for their area of the country.


Ross Harvey: In truth, Mr. Speaker, the Inuvialuit are in support of the pipeline proposal. The Dene-Metis are, at this point, in opposition because their claim has not been settled. If I may remind the hon. minister what it was Mr. Justice Berger said, and I quote from page 196 of his volume 1:
In my judgment, we must settle the native claims before we build the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Such a settlement will not be simply the signing of an agreement, after which pipeline construction can then immediately proceed. Intrinsic to the settlement of native land
Oral Questions
claims is the establishment of new institutions and programs that will
form the basis for native self-determination.
Again I ask, will the minister ask his colleagues in cabinet to suspend the NEB decision until these conditions are met?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, obviously I am not going to convince the hon. member of the validity of the process but I think Canadians are reasonable people. First, what we have to keep in mind is what the NEB approved yesterday was an export licence. Second, what is now to take place are hearings on a pipeline, if in fact the applications go forward. As part of that pipeline hearing, the first gas that could flow would be in 1996. The statement of principle with the Dene and Metis is for 1991.1 think 1991 is prior to 1996, and I would suggest to him that part of the conditions of any pipeline approval, if given, would be one relating to training, one relating to socioeconomic realities, one relating to environmental questions and a whole host of them relating to economic questions.
I ask the hon. member, are you for the development of the lives of the people of the north or is it only rhetoric and are you using it only for political purposes?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has received notice of a point of order from the Hon. Member for Oshawa.


POINT OF ORDER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier in Question Period I made reference to a document that had been prepared in the office of the Minister for International Trade, a document that has been prepared there and circulated to the Secretary of State for External Affairs among other ministries.
I am asking for unanimous consent of the House so that I may table this document.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.

October 20, 1989
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the annual report of the Office of the Superintendant of Financial Institutions for the year 1989.1 hope the information it contains will useful to all members, the general public and of course all financial institutions subject to federal regulations.


PETITIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to four petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-12, an act respecting museums, with amendments.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-267, an Act to amend the Criminal Code.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses the government's lack of action to protect the unborn child. In Canada last year alone, over 60,000 unborn children lost their lives due to the legislative void that was created when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down section 251 of the Criminal Code and thus issued a challenge to Parliament to carry out its duty to protect all Canadians, in or out of the womb.
This bill will include the definition of human being in the Criminal Code, a definition which will specifically include a human foetus or embryo. Thus, the killing of a human being would extend to the killing of unborn Canadians. With the long overdue recognition of the unborn as a human being, this bill will also repeal the provisions relating to infanticide which clearly provide for different types of killing of human beings based on age distinctions only.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Ms. Black:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring a point of order to your attention. I wish to raise with you some concerns and questions that I have about the admissibility of this bill and two other bills which are already on the Order Paper awaiting introduction.
As a new member of the House, I do not pretend to have all the expertise on parliamentary procedure, but it is my understanding, and it has been my personal experience, that no two similar private members' items can be brought on to the Order Paper. Standing Order 86(5) charges the Chair with the responsibility for determining whether two or more items are so similar as to be substantially the same and for ensuring that the second and subsequent similar items never appear on the Notice Paper.
We already have in this House two very similar anti-choice bills which have been introduced. They have been given first reading and now are awaiting selection in the draw. I wonder, if the House should give this bill first reading, whether we might not have three bills which seek the same ends, which would initiate the same debate and which, if successful, would do exactly the same thing to Canadian women.
October 20, 1989

I do not know the details of this proposed bill but my question is whether it contains the elements which make Bill C-266, standing in the name of the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex so similar to Bill C-261, standing in the name of the hon. member for York South- Weston. These two bills, C-266 and C-261,1 think, have the identical effect. They both seek to recriminalize abortion. They seek to imprison for life anyone who performs an abortion. They seek to send any woman who has an abortion to jail for two years. They give only one valid reason for abortion and that is to save the life of the pregnant woman.
I do not want you, Mr. Speaker, or the House, to misunderstand my purpose in raising the question of the similarity of these bills. I do not want to see a curtailment in the ability of members to introduce measures, but I do want to ensure that the rules of the House are not being broken or are not being over- generously interpreted in order to allow a large number of near identical bills to be introduced, bills which seek to curtail the rights of Canadian women.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. My hon. colleague has raised Standing Order 86(5) and I wish to point out that a review of the bills in question would indicate that they do not bear the type of similarity that is shown in subsection (5); that is to say, to be substantially the same.
The bill that I am moving today deals with a number of issues, including putting in a brand new definition of the words, human being, the entity human being, and it also deals with various provisions of the Criminal Code which are not dealt with in the two bills that are already presented for first reading, including the repeal of the word "infanticide" and of the various Criminal Code offences dealing with infanticide. The bill is not in any way substantially the same as the other two.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the member for Scarborough West for his comments and I thank the member for New Westminster-Burnaby. The point raised by the member for New Westminster-Burnaby is a serious matter. I will therefore reserve on this matter.
Just for the benefit of the member for Scarborough West who brought up the bill, I do not intend to rule on this matter today.
Petitions


PETITIONS
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petitions on behalf of several hundred people residing in the province of British Columbia who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to formulate and legislate a law to protect life from conception, a law which seeks to save the life of both mother and child. Indeed, it is my pleasure and duty to present this on their behalf.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting the first of several thousand petitions that we intend to present to save the lives of Canadian workers, specifically with the retention of full funding for the Canada Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. Whereas the human and financial costs of accidents in the workplace are a substantial drain on the resources of Canadian society as 16 million work days were lost in 1987 alone as a result of work related accidents and illnesses, for which $14 billion was spent in compensation, we the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reinforce the national mandate of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety by urging the government, if it truly is a government for labour and for management, to rescind all cuts and restore full funding to the centre and, by doing so, I might add, to save lives. If the saving of workers' lives are important to this government, then, for God's sake, let it restore full funding for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present to this House a petition which, as my colleague, the member for Hamilton East has already declared-a petition signed, in this particular case, by over 50 residents of Hamilton and area-is just the first of thousands to come through the clerk of petitions.
It is a petition that calls on this House to reinstate and reinforce the national mandate of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety by urging the government to rescind all cuts and restore full funding to the centre and to pledge ongoing funding for a centre, a Canadian centre, a national centre of international reputation, one based on trust between government, business and labour.

October 20, 1989
Petitions


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I also have a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, certified by the clerk of petitions, with over 150 signatures from residents of Hamilton West and area that calls on this government to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that I would like to table with the House concerning the goods and services tax, signed by several Canadians who oppose the present plan to impose a sales tax on goods and services. They would like Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of petitions here from constituents in my riding of Mackenzie which calls upon the government to reject the current proposals for a goods and services tax, reform the tax system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, to ensure that if and when there is broad public consensus on a sales tax measure by the federal government to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, that this reform not be just used as an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab. Therefore, they call on the government to withdraw this proposal.


Mr. Dan Heap (THnity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by some 50 or 55 residents of Toronto, Westmount, Montreal, Lasalle and Dunham who are concerned about the action of the Canadian government regarding Goose Bay in Labrador.
They urge this Parliament to join with the Assembly of First Nations and the Innu people of Labrador and other aboriginal peoples of Canada in opposing the use of their lands for NATO and NORAD attack training. They demand an end to these low level training flights in Canada and an end to the proposal to bring a NATO base to Goose Bay and that the money now being spent to promote this should be redirected to improving the lives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada and promoting sustainable development.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by my constituents in Gatineau-La Lievre who object to the proposed goods and services tax. Your petitioners said it was unfair and premature to introduce the tax without first implementing a full reform of the Income Ikx Act. The new tax is definitely unacceptable to all Canadians.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of the people of the province of Ontario, concerning the dress uniform of the Mounties, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The undersigned 4,700 petitioners across Ontario and Carleton-Gloucester humbly pray and call upon Parliament to preserve the distinctive heritage and tradition of the RCMP by retaining the uniformity of dress code with all the recognizable colour and trappings that have such great historical value to this country. The pride and esprit de corps should not be jeopardized by changes to this truly great police force and its proud traditions and uniform.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which I wish to present on behalf of several dozen constituents in Thessalon, Ontario, which is protesting the government's goods and services tax. They point out that the government has already increased the manufacturers' sales tax from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent. The goods and services tax will have an adverse impact on practically everything Canadians buy. It will be especially hard on low income Canadians and that it will be especially harmful to small business.
I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of my constituents in Thessalon, Ontario.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of the senior citizens in Ottawa West who insist on speaking to their government, even if it insists on not listening. They are objecting most strenuously to the clawback of old age security and family allowance and the extreme hardship it will work and will continue to work on seniors and on families in our country.
October 20, 1989


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition that comes from communities across Ontario expressing concern about the impact on the tourism industry and on Canadians of the cuts to VIA Rail, and asking that the government not continue with these cuts.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to present to this House a number of petitions with respect to the goods and services tax, this brutal tax that is about to be imposed upon Canadians, this anti-family, anti-children tax.

I present this petition in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House. This is a bad tax, and the reactions of Canadians have been very negative.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand this morning, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present petitions, 52 from the Belleville and Tweed area of Ontario, and 60 from the Brockville area of Ontario, which are opposed to the government's measures to cut back on VIA Rail across this country. The petitioners are very concerned about the loss of thousands of jobs. They feel that a proper analysis has not been done, where a disproportionate subsidy is required for highway infrastructure or airports, as opposed to VIA Rail. These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada not to cancel, in whole or in part, rail passenger services in Canada.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a number of petitions. The first petition relates to the outrage felt by people in my riding, both on the Saanich Peninsula and on the Gulf Islands, to the horror of drift-net fishing that is occurring in the north Pacific. As my colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan says these drift-nets are curtains of death. Over 500 people in my constituency alone have signed this petition. They call upon the government to act. We should be putting
Petitions
prohibitive tariffs and duties against the countries that engage in this practice.


Lynn Hunter: The second petition I want to present is related to the goods and services tax and is signed by nearly 1,000 people in my riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands, to let the government know of their outrage and distress at this measure. It also talks about their awareness that this is really a device with which to shift the tax burden to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumptive tax. The petition calls on the government to engage in real tax reform.


Lynn Hunter: The third petition I would like to present relates to the clawback of old age pensions. This petition is once again signed by over 500 of my constituents, many of whom are senior citizens who know that in spite of the smoke and mirrors engaged in by this government regarding high income pensioners, we know that the reality is that this is an assault on the universality of social programs.
I am pleased to present these petitions and I will alert the House to the fact that there will be plenty more coming from Saanich-Gulf Islands.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and honour to present to the House a petition executed on behalf of residents of the constituency of Scarborough-Rouge River. The petition has been certified correct and the petitioners call upon the government to reject the proposed goods and services tax for the reason that it will cause undue hardship to low and middle-income Canadians, cause higher inflation and higher interest rates.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present to this House a petition dealing with the cutting off of VIA Rail service. What is most regrettable, as I rise to present this petition, is that the government, because of its majority and it arrogance, will not listen, but through this petition the people of Canada are speaking out loud and clear. The people who in the regions are affected most adversely by these cuts, which are insensitive and have no basis in economic reality. I am pleased to present this petition to this House from the people of Belleville.

October 20, 1989
Government Orders PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in conformity with Standing Order 36, signed by 37 residents of the riding of Kingston and the Islands who object most vigorously to the government's proposed goods and services tax and call upon Parliament to reject this nasty and vicious piece of legislation.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of numerous people asking this government to rescind all cuts to funding to the Canada Centre for Occupational Elealth and Safety, to restore full funding and to pledge ongoing funding.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present petitions from my riding of Northumberland. These petitions are signed by residents from towns such as Campbellford, Trenton, Port Hope, Cavan and Cobourg. These people are very concerned about the government's proposed goods and services tax legislation. These are not wealthy people with discretionary income funds that they can decide how they want to spend. Many of these signatures represent fanners and small business people who feel that the imposition of the proposed goods and services tax will be their ruination.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to present even more petitions from people of my constituency of Prince Edward-Hastings on the government's unrealistic cuts to VIA Rail, requesting the government to rescind those cuts and to take a more realistic look at passenger travel service in Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Foster (p. 4275).
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, when we interrupted the debate to go to Question Period, I was just beginning to point out to the House how long we had waited for the government's initiative on this proposal to take away the interest free portions of cash advances. I was outlining the history of it, how there had been no mention of the government's desire to remove the interest free aspect of cash advances either during the election campaign or in the House. It came as a great surprise during the much delayed budget, and as a result, neither lenders nor borrowers on the farm were aware that this would happen until after their arrangements for the season had been made.
I felt that that was a very good set of circumstances on which to argue that the government should continue with the interest free cash advances. The law exists now. It is there. The only thing stopping interest free cash advances from being in the hands of farmers today is intransigence of the government. It is simply refusing to implement the law that is the law of the land at this moment.
We heard, during the course of this debate and many times before, that the government party, the Conservative Party of Canada, is the party that cares most for farmers and for rural communities. That began to break down a bit during the last election and it lost a lot of its support in rural areas, but it still keeps mouthing the words even though the facts are much to the contrary.
October 20, 1989

The Minister of Agriculture, during the campaign, said several times that he was going to have a drought program that would put $40 an acre into farmers' pockets. Of course that did not happen. After the campaign was over the cheques did not arrive at that level.
That is one of the reasons why farmers are now very strapped for cash and are finding it very difficult to see how they are going to operate without an interest free cash advance. Aside from the marketing problems, the storage problems and the on-farm finance problems, it creates a lot of problems for farm communities. Many suppliers were depending on receiving their payments for fertilizer and parts and chemical weed sprays in the fall when the interest free cash advance was taken out. Those people are sitting without money. Their creditors, their banks, are leaning on them too. They are saying, "Where is the money? You said it would be here in the fall when the farmers pay". So it has a real ripple effect.
We heard the Minister of Agriculture, the Deputy Prime Minister, saying today in Question Period a number of times, "this government is firmly behind supply management" in response to questions from the opposition. If this government were firmly behind supply management, I cash advance program because the management of the supplies of fruit, vegetable and grains cannot take place logically without having those advances in place in order to be competitive against the Americans and the Europeans.
Later on in Question Period, we heard from the Minister of Finance saying that it has always been government policy, and the action of this government follows through, according to him, to make decisions that will permit Canadians to make their own budgeting decisions. And yet this was the Minister of Finance who did not even present a Budget on time. He presented it late. That was the first time in the history of Canada, during the course of a Parliament, that the government has done this. The country ran on Governor General's warrants for a month. There was no reason for it except that the minister did not been some indication of what the government's intention was, but the government delayed until farmers were into seeding already and had already made their borrowing arrangements with the banks.
Government Orders
The decision that we are left with is one, if the government carries it through, that will be as disastrous for rural communities as was the proposal to deindex senior citizens' pensions. The government understood the pain that it was inflicting on seniors when it was conveyed to the Prime Minister in person by a little lady outside the doors of this House who stood on a box so she could be face to face with him and told him that he had lied to the senior citizens of the country when he said that the social programs were a sacred trust. By deindexing pensions he was taking money out of pensioners' pockets each year.
By taking away interest free cash advances, the government is taking money out of the pockets of the farmers of this country. It is forcing their products onto the market-place and forcing them to take a lower price than would be normal. It is forcing suppliers of farm goods and commodities at the community level to wait for their payments, and it is inflicting a good deal of pain on rural Canada because of this policy.
Oh yes, it is a good policy for the banks. The banks are going to get a little more money from interest because the rate will be slightly higher than what the Wheat Board was able to borrow the money at.
It will be good for the international grain companies because they buy supplies in Canada at a lower rate because farmers will always be forced into dumping product on the market at a lower price than they would 2 they could put it on in an orderly fashion under a system of marketing that takes into account the supplies in the market and allows farmers to manage those supplies, which is the whole idea behind supply management. It is bad for farmers and it is bad for rural communities but it is good for the government's friends, the banks; and it is good for the government's friends, the international grain traders.
We have not heard anything yet from the Tory premiers who I thought would have been raising a ruckus about this particular initiative by the government since it is only a few months ago that the government said that the biggest problem facing the provinces and constituents was high interest rates. Where is the first minister of Saskatchewan who is also agriculture minister? Have we heard from him about what these new interest rates will do to his farm community and farm constituents? He has been very quiet. Yet he was the same guy who led the charge on behalf of the premiers some months ago trying to get the federal government to reduce interest rates because it was harmful to the economies of the various

October 20,1989
Government Orders
regions of this country. Now he has disappeared. He is no longer fighting for the farmer. He has decided to stand aside and let the banks and the international grain companies have their way. It is too bad.
This is an important change in the way the government conducts the business of this country. It was an extremely important initiative when Prime Minister John Diefen-baker introduced it back in 1957. It did tremendous good for rural Canada and improved and streamlined the grain handling system of this countiy. To take it away now can only do irreparable harm. I think that this bill should be dropped. We are fighting it in the House. When it goes to committee, we will be hearing from the farm organizations which will continue to fight. The government has to be stopped on this particular piece of legislation.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to stand in this House today on behalf of the people of Haldimand-Norfolk and to talk about Bill C-36 which is an act to amend the Advanced Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
Today we are witnessing the dismantling and demise of just one more program by this government; one more agricultural program that farmers throughout Canada have enjoyed.
Haldimand-Norfolk is an area which is rich in farmland, an area where we have a number of tobacco farmers about which I have stood up in the House on many occasions and spoken. The tobacco farmers are one of the key farming groups that have always used this program. Quite frankly, when I was back in the riding last week, a number of them came to me. They were very shocked about the treatment they have been getting from this government, especially since during the last election the part-time minister of agriculture came into my riding and indicated to tobacco farmers that, yes, the government would support them, that the government was committed to farming.
In fact, he went on to say that the government was committed to supply management and to all of farming. On the free trade deal, the minister said that agriculture would be protected, that our markets in the United States would be protected. We have seen that those markets have not been protected. This bill is just another indication that the government is not committed to farming, that the government is committing itself to budget deficit reduction on the backs of Canadian farmers and on the backs of those people who are least able to afford to pay.
In the past, this program has provided farmers with interest-free government loans up to $30,000 on their storable crops, repayable when the crop was sold. This program has ensured that producers can obtain cash in advance from lenders, knowing that they will receive payments for their crops at some later date. In other words, up until now the government was putting its financial strength behind the farmer, a sign that it really and truly believed in agriculture in Canada. Well, we saw what happened after the last election. As I pointed out earlier, we have seen that there are a number of different programs on which this government has broken its promise.
The government is now proposing to amend the act and remove the interest-free provision, while maintaining the loan guarantee. It estimates that by eliminating the interest subsidy there will be a saving of approximately $27 million in each of the years 1989-90 and 1990-91. This is a minor amount to this government. The government has indicated that it does not feel that this part of the program is essential.
It is coming to the stage where this government feels very little is essential any more, especially in the area of farming. Whereas the Canadian Government used to help its farmers, it is now apparent the trend is to throw them to the wolves; let them take care of themselves.
In this instance the government has not totally gutted the program, it has simply taken away a key aspect of the program, and in the end the government is making it unaffordable and inaccessible to most farmers. I think this shows the government's commitment to farming, the government's understanding of farming, and it shows, by the lack of any minister of the Crown within this House, that the government does not really care. This has become a common practice for the government and I feel that it is unacceptable.
October 20, 1989

Look at how the government decreased by $6 million the funding for assistance to the tobacco industry. As I said, it pulled money out of the tobacco industry, and this after the Minister of Agriculture came into my riding and promised tobacco farmers that he would support them.
Similar cuts were made in funding for crop insurance, branch line rehabilitation, dairy export subsidies, the Canadian Dairy Commission, and the AT and East Grain and Flour Subsidy Program. These have all been cut by this government, all vital programs for farmers, programs that farmers expected.
This government chips away at programs until they are no longer viable or economically accessible. Then the government blames farmers for not using the program. It says, "It is no longer needed. Farmers no longer use it". Well this, Mr. Speaker, is after the government has completely gutted the whole basis of the program. Then when farmers do not use the program because it is not worth their while, Well, that is sneaky. I call that dishonest.
Now to go back to the elimination of the interest-free portion of the advance payments program, what is the purpose of the program? Well, it serves as a bridge to farmers who experience cash flow problems while waiting for the opportunity to market their products in an orderly fashion. Coming from Ontario, I am interested in how this proposed legislation will affect our farmers. I have asked farmers throughout Ontario, and it has been estimated by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture that this measure alone will cost Ontario farmers $3.3 million in the current crop year. This will be felt mostly by com producers, tobacco producers and soybean producers.
The Ontario figures for the crop year of 1987-88 show that almost $100 million in cash advances to farmers could be affected by this change. How will it affect other sectors? Tobacco, soybean and corn producers account for 98 per cent of all advances. Tobacco producers alone receive $52 million. So, as you can see, this is no small amount for farmers in my area.
As indicated previously, the valued interest benefit to Ontario farmers was more than $3.3 million. The breakdown by sectors shows that tobacco and com farmers each received approximately 34 per cent of the interest benefit. Soybean producers receive 27 per cent of the interest benefit. Without a doubt, this program has been beneficial to farming in Ontario.
Government Orders
Naturally, you would think that a responsible government on the other side would keep the program and that a responsible government would consult with farmers prior to making changes to the program. Well, this did not happen. Without consulting, without even asking farmers how it would affect them, without even studying how it would affect farmers, the government has brought in changes to this program which will adversely affect their way of life.
This government does not believe in consultation or seeking advice from different interested parties prior to bringing in legislation. We have seen this in other areas, especially in the areas of VIA Rail cuts and clawbacks to senior citizens. Where was the government's commitment to talk to the people prior to bringing in any legislation?
On VIA Rail it makes the cuts and then it says it will have a royal commission on them. As you very well know, that is not the proper way of dealing with major changes to government policy. Quite frankly, the Canadian people are not prepared to take it.
These are not little organizations that are being affected. The Ontario Com Producers Association represents over 25,000 Ontario com producers. I would like to briefly outline why they oppose the changes to this program. The program has proven to be a major benefit in shifting com sales from the autumn until later in the marketing year, thereby reducing the extent of export sales in autumn and shortage-induced imports during the later months. The net result has been financial benefits to producers, domestic users and commercial elevator operators; total benefits which far exceed the cost to the government.
The advance payments program has also been of great benefit to growers who store their soybeans on the farm at harvest and market them at premium prices throughout the marketing year to domestic processors and into the value-added export and domestic markets for seed, feed and food uses.
These organizations and many others believe that the elimination of interest-free provisions would effectively destroy the program. While the federal guarantee under this program would allow them to borrow money at or slightly below prime, administration charges would mean an effective cost to producers well above the prime. In other words, it is completely useless to them. In the end it will cost them more to borrow money than had they just gone out on the regular market to borrow it. There is no advantage over the commercial sources of credit. It still might prove attractive to those who are high credit risks, but this is not the purpose of the program.

October 20,1989
Government Orders
At a time when trade is a major issue another benefit is that the Advanced Payments for Crops Act is not trade distorting. The Minister of Agriculture can go to our American friends and say that this is not a trade distorting measure. It does not stimulate production, but rather encourages orderly marketing. Just like the rest of our marketing boards, this program encourages orderly marketing. Without it there will not be that same advantage that we have in the orderly marketing of our commerce.
This government should also remember that the GATT Geneva Accord of early April obliges Canada to freeze existing support programs. It did not tell us to reduce them, it told us to freeze existing programs. What does this do for the Canadian government when it wants to go back to GATT and negotiate? It has already given away everything. There is no way that anything is left to negotiate with. As you can see, the reduction of this program gives the Canadian government a number of problems in its negotiating stance. It is particularly important to note that there is no offsetting reduction for the 1989-90 crop year in the U.S. loan program, the American equivalent to this program for grains and oilseeds.
Again, the Canadian government is giving away in this free trade environment while the Americans are doing nothing. They are not reducing their program, which puts our farmers at a competitive disadvantage with the Americans. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker.
Furthermore, this government seems to have forgotten that the Canadian grain and oilseed producers are already contributing their share to national debt reduction. In fact, I would say more than their fair share.
The numerous other cuts that have taken place in agricultural programs under this government have shown that Canadian farmers are doing more than their fair share in deficit reduction. Why is this government bringing in changes to a program which concerns a minimal amount of money and which means so much to Canadian farmers? Why is it picking on Canadian farmers? Why is it picking on those who least can defend themselves?
Several other sectors of the agricultural economy, like domestic processors, also benefit from the APCA. Extending the marketing season from harvest to the entire year benefits domestic processors who rely on a supply of soybeans 12 months a year. This allows them to have that supply 12 months a year. Soybeans stored in commercial elevators under the APCA generate additional storage revenue for the elevator.
Again, this is an orderly way of marketing. The APCA provides an incentive for growers to produce seed for seed companies. Since the seed is not delivered and sold until the next spring seed growers can obtain cash for the unsold seed through the APCA.
Ontario has developed a market in the far east for food quality soybeans. To meet the demands of the market, the soybeans must be segregated from other varieties and shipped on a regular basis throughout the year. Exporters do not have the ability to store a large number of small lots of high quality soybeans and rely on the farmer to store the product on the farm. The APCA helps growers producing for this market opportunity by providing cash at harvest so that the delivery period to the exporter can be extended.
Farm storage is another way to better take advantage of the market opportunities which do exist. Many producers who use the APCA also build storage for the soybeans on their farms. In this way the APCA indirectly helps companies who build these storage facilities. Without this, we are going to see a number of jobs lost in that area. As in so many other cases, this government likes to change the rules in the middle of the game. This is not fair. It is dishonest and a breach of trust between the Canadian government and Canadian farmers, and this agriculture minister knows that.
During the coming year farm organizations can consult with the federal government to develop acceptable alternatives to the current Advance Payments for Crops Act. The main concern is very simple. Canadian farmers' finances are already stretched to the limit. Farm organizations are saying that with all the other increases that
October 20, 1989

have been required to bear by this government, that event one penny more is too much.
Canadian farmers have borne too much of the cost of this government's deficit reduction. It is time that this government stood up and committed itself to helping Canadian farmers.
In conclusion, we have asked this minister and this government to bring in a new bill, to bring it at a later date so as to take effect in the new crop year and allow producers to voice their concerns and their suggestions. The minister has recently announced a national agrifood policy conference to take place in December. He says that he wants to work closely with the provinces, the farm organizations and others to plan and implement an improved policy framework.
Let me suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is an ideal opportunity for this minister to put his words into action. Consult with the farming groups, listen to what they have to say and change this program which adversely affects all Canadian farmers and all Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Carle-ton-Gloucester (Mr. Bellemare), on questions or comments.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member on his excellent speech. He showed the kind of sensitivity that the Minister of Agriculture seems to lack. His knowledge of the subject is exceptional. He has demonstrated his wholehearted support for Canada's farmers, and I would like to ask him how the Minister could communicate and establish a certain dialogue with the farming community in order to get some input.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question.
It is not too hard for the Minister of Agriculture to go into the rural areas and speak to the farmers. There are all kinds of different farming groups that have come out against this bill. He did not have to bring out the bill. He could have consulted first with the different farming groups. He could have said that they have to do some
Government Orders
deficit reduction and asked where it would best fit in, instead of cutting a program which costs very little in terms of the global budget. It costs $27 million, but that $27 million does a great amount for tobacco farmers, com farmers, soybean farmers and farmers in all of Canada. The value you get for that $27 million is worth everything to fanners.
I thank my hon. friend for the question. The minister could have consulted with farmers prior to bringing in this program. Instead, just like the rest of the government ministers, it seems that he brings in the program, brings in the changes, makes the adverse effects and then says: "Oh, well maybe now we will consult". That is not the way to do it. I am sure that is not the way this side of the House would work.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-36, not as an agricultural expert by any means, but as somebody who is very concerned about the implications of the bill and the impact that it will have on farmers, not only in my riding of Northumberland but across the country.
To me this bill represents a sleazy way in which our government is continuing to get rid of agricultural support for farmers and is failing again to provide the necessary support to a very vital industry in our country. I think it is necessary to have an understanding of just what this bill is addressing, and to do that you have to look at the program as it was before. I think that bringing in revised provisions to this act at this time is very poor judgment on the part of our government.
The intent of the bill is to help farmers to store product, to have an orderly marketing process for their products allowing them favourable prices for their products over an extended period of time. The government brought in this bill two days before the House recessed in June and then reintroduced it in September for debate after farmers had actually started to bring their crops in off the field and to store them, assuming that this act was in place, as it should have been by tradition, to support them. It then withdrew the bill because it realized that it was so flawed, and reintroduced it again. The bill that we are debating right now should be referring, if it is to be debated, to government action for next year, not the current year.

October 20, 1989
Government Orders
The funding that is presently available under the existing act should not be held up because we are debating this bill today.
"The Advance Payments for Crops Act is designed to assist producers of storable crops across Canada to market their product in an orderly way". These are quotes from our own government papers.
"The act provides for interest-free advance payments for storable crops other than wheat, oats, barley grown within the Canadian Wheat Board's designated area. The program guarantees bank loans to qualified producers, marketing organizations and pays the interest thereon. This allows farmers to store their crops rather than market them at a time when supplies are plentiful and prices depressed. Administrative costs are to be borne by the producer organizations".
The definition of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act is as follows: "The government makes interest-free cash advances to farmers for storing certain grains on their farms before delivery to the Canadian Wheat Board. The advance is set according to a prescribed formula and the farmer is responsible for paying off the debt after the grain is delivered. The cash advance program is of importance when grain elevators are full and no storage is available. It has been used in exceptional circumstances, such as the postponement of grain harvesting from fall to spring because of adverse weather conditions, the drying of damp grain or when there are transportation problems".
I think these descriptions bring up a few of the criteria that I feel are most important and worthy of discussion in this proposed bill. The most important aspect, perhaps, is the elimination of the interest-free provision under the act.
According to the proposed revision there is no advantage whatsoever, as has been said by other colleagues in the House, to farmers having this program. They can just as easily go to a bank and make a loan there at more or less the same rate.
There is definitely no advantage to the agricultural associations which administer these programs. These associations are liable for 10 per cent of the loans made. It costs them funding to administer the program. There will be so few farmers who will benefit from the revised program that the associations themselves are no longer able, under the proposed revisions, to administer the program. They simply will not have sufficient funds to do so.
Many, many groups across this country have expressed their deep concern about the proposals in this bill. In Ontario, where my riding is, we have tobacco growers who represent a group that has received tremendous assistance through this program. Over one-third of the program goes to assist the tobacco and com producers in our province. But there are nine different commodities in Ontario that are grown and which product benefits the farmers of the areas. These are: flue cured tobacco, com, soybeans, apples, potatoes, processing tomatoes, honey, oats and barley.
Some 33 different producers in the province took advantage of the program last year which advanced $87 million and paid $53.3 million in interest.
I consider farming to be, as I said before, our most vital industry in this country. I consider agriculture or food to be a major security commodity in our world. Our world is changing dramatically. We are very pleased when we look at our world today to see the east-west detente that is taking place at the present time. We do not have the same fear that we did some years ago of nuclear war.
We are very interested to listen to the changes daily with regard to the policies of perestroika and glasnost in Russia, and the opening up of societies in Eastern Europe, but we have to balance this optimistic scenario with the alarming world economic scene in which a few multinational corporations are involved in a growth that is staggering. To quote from a report of the Club of Rome about this: "Every day of continued exponential growth brings the world system closer to the ultimate limits of that growth. A decision to do nothing is a decision to increase the risk of collapse".
I am alarmed as I see the policies of this government which allow our family farmers to go out of business, which allow multinational corporations to take over the food industry, and which dismantle our supply management programs leaving our farmers much more vulnerable than they were before.
October 20, 1989

I am discouraged by the attitude of fanners. I do not blame the farmers for their attitude but it alarms me. I think our government does not understand the crisis that will exist in this country if our farmers continue to fail in their ability to produce and live from their family farms.
I have spoken to many farmers in my riding who speak of the impending closure of their farm operations. I have spoken to farmers whose farm operations have closed down simply because they are no longer able to procure sufficient income to make the high risks that they bear on behalf of the people of Canada worth while.
In my particular riding of Northumberland the farmers who are at risk, the farmers who have had to sell their farms, the farmers who feel that that is imminent for them, are to some extent more fortunate than other farmers in this country.
Northumberland riding is an area of intense growth and development. We have a scarcity of housing. We are experiencing the growth pressures of Toronto where housing costs are enormous. People are looking from large urban areas to the area of Northumberland as a very desirable place to develop. Small businesses are coming in, and we have more and more industrial parks. We have more and more new housing subdivisions. These industrial parks and housing subdivisions are gobbling up number one prime agricultural land.
I cannot accept this. I think that this government has to be more committed to supporting farming in this country.
The revision to these acts, as I said before, is just one more example of how our government is getting rid of agricultural programs that support our farming industry. The farmers that I talk to are discouraged, disheartened and humiliated because of their financial circumstances. In my riding they are able to sell their prime agricultural farm land for housing and industrial development because of the growth experienced in my area.
I know, however, that farmers in other regions of this country who do not happen to reside in areas that are developing like mine also experience the same pressures of being unable to financially continue to maintain their agricultural production. These farmers are having to abandon their farms, their equipment, and walk away
Government Orders
from their farms with nothing. I think this is a disgraceful situation.
I think that this country in this century has grossly underestimated the value of our country's farmers. We do not appreciate the labours of the farmers. It is not a one income operation on our family farms. Every member of the family is still involved, not only in agricultural farming on their own farm, but in order to maintain any level of existence with dignity they are having to be employed in off-farm operations as well.
We do not give credit to our farmers. We do not value in this country the food production we have because we have had it too good. The eastern Europeans and the Europeans are people in my riding who do understand better than others the serious value of food and food production. It is people from Europe who have undergone in this century two serious world wars. These people have experienced hunger and deprivation of basic food. They know that they can no longer even consider their countries to be in a situation of being self-sufficient in agricultural production.
I personally believe that this is important for every country in the world. I certainly believe it is a situation which should prevail and must prevail in our country. This country must be self-sufficient in food production in our basic food products that are easily grown in our country. If we through revisions to acts such as these which affect our agricultural industry allow farming and agricultural production to fail and allow Americans to take over our food production, then we are in serious trouble.
We know that the United States views our resources as being extremely valuable. Food is a security item. The U.S. would love to have our water, our forests, and our mines, all of our resources. If we do not have the ability to produce our own food and we are dependent on the United States for our food production, then we will find ourselves paying with our natural resources, our water, forests, fish and mining products. We will find that we are paying high prices for food in order to provide our resources to the United States. I do not think that is an enviable position at all. It is one that we must foresee and avoid at all costs.

October 20, 1989
Government Orders
I think that this government has to sit down to review and revise all of its agricultural policies and to do everything possible to help and support family farming and food production in this country. This bill is just one more example of how our government is not committed to that policy.
I have received letters from and had conversations with different producers throughout my riding who have addressed the seriousness of this bill in their own way. They say to us that the bill has no advantages for them as food producers, that it has serious disadvantages. They do not consider that it in any way disturbs our trading relationships with the United States. They ask that this bill be withdrawn at this moment and that they be given the advance payments necessary for them right now, necessary for them last month and the month before.
There are many groups in Canada which have expressed their concern about this bill including the prairie pools in the west, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the National Farmers Union, the Manitoba Com Growers Wheat Association, the Northumberland Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Com Producers Association, and the British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission. I could go on and on and on.
The intent of this bill is to get rid of the interest-free provision in the bill. That is totally unsuitable. The bill as it stands without this provision has no value for our Canadian farmers.
The act is in place to try and encourage a proper marketing system in our country. It encourages our farmers to store product. It helps them to maintain reserves, to help our whole country to sustain decent prices over a longer period of time in support of farmers' incomes.
If we do not withdraw this bill at this point in time we will make ourselves more vulnerable to the low commodity prices south of the border. It will have the inevitable effect of accelerating the existing process of putting more and more farmers in this country out of business.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her address. Clearly a number of people who have spoken today talked about the sleazy approach of this legislation. They talked about the misleading approaches of government to a number of things.
We all remember VIA Rail. There was going to be investment before they got into power.
With respect to the trade deal, never, never would there be a trade deal. Of course, what is it?
Remember education? They would support it to the same level. They said they would double research and development. Nothing has happened there either. In fact, it has been cut, cut, cut.
Air Canada was not for sale, they said in 1985. Now it is gone. Remember deindexing? They didn't get away with it, but they are coming at it from another approach. The clawback amounts to the same thing.
I mentioned this morning the national laboratory. It was going to be here, then here, then here. They don't know where in the world it is going to be.
I was really concerned as well with some of the comments made recently with respect to our aid to developing nations.
My question goes back to a comment that was made that prime agricultural lands are being gobbled up by urban sprawl. I appreciate the fact that we need to have a clear policy with respect to self-sufficiency. I am hoping that that is a priority. At the same time I am concerned whether this or any other government actions will have any potential negative effects on the assistance that we normally give developing nations. Is there any chance that that might be so?


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, in response to that question I think that the original intent of this act is an intention of this country in its agricultural policies toward developing nations as well. We are trying to help developing nations to have self-sufficiency in agricultural production. We are trying to help them to orderly market those products. By teaching this abroad, by assisting this abroad and then by repealing the same thing in this country makes us very two-faced.
I am very concerned about the impact in the future, the implications that will occur in the Third World if we as policy-makers do not respect the notion of self-sufficiency in agricultural production.
I would say that we are changing our attitude toward Third World countries and that that would no longer be a priority for our operation in Third World countries, in effect saying that agricultural production is fine in the hands of the multinational corporations.
October 20, 1989

We know, however, that that has very serious consequences. Multinational corporations have the same abilities as any producer. When you go shopping in supermarket in Canada you will find counters that have what the producers call loss-leaders. They are able to sell certain products at very reduced prices in order to encourage buying of that product on the part of the public.
Multinational corporations, as they attempt to take over agriculture on our continent, have the same ability. They can sell to Canada from the United States products at whatever low price they want in order to put our farmers out of production and capture the market.
I think that has very serious implications, not only for farming in this country but for farming world-wide. We are putting agricultural production into the hands of multinational corporations at which point we are vulnerable.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Northumberland made an excellent speech. She made a point on which I wonder if she could comment further.
Yesterday, in the course of his remarks concerning House business, the Minister of Justice and leader of the government in this House made some very strange and most gratuitous comments in respect to our participation in this debate. He said, as reported at page 4883 of Hansard:
My hon. friends will understand that the opposition has been
filibustering this bill for some time and we intend to push forward in
order that the farmers of Canada will receive those very important
payments.
Everyone knows that statement is utter garbage. I am surprised that the Minister of Justice of all people would come into this House and spout such nonsense. I know the Hon. Member shares my view in that respect.
What concerns me is the suggestion in the remarks of the minister that the debate in this Chamber is somehow holding these farmers up from their payments.
Is it not a fact that the Minister of Agriculture could now release the money under the existing act, which would give the farmers of this country more money than they will get under this bill? He is in a position to do that today.
Government Orders
The only reason he is not doing it today is that he is blackmailing Canadian farmers and trying to blame the opposition for the fact that he is not fulfilling his obligations under the law and making the payments under the existing act. Is that not the way it is? Could she perhaps explain it to some of the people sitting behind the ministers on the other side who seem to lack any appreciation of the facts in this matter?


Christine Susan Stewart: Yes, I would agree. I really feel, as do other members in this House who have expressed this concern, that there is no reason for the revisions to this act to be holding up the government's immediate payment to our farmers, the payments which should have been made more than a month ago.
The proposed amendments which we object to mean that the acts will have no real benefit to our farmers. It is a sleazy way that this government has of simply withdrawing an important agricultural promotion program in this country.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would be around here long enough to have to stand up to oppose a government bill which amends the Prairie Grain Cash Advance Payments Act and subsequent legislation that allowed it to cover all crops. If there was ever an alliance between the Conservatives, the CCF, and the farm organizations in western Canada, it was on this issue.
I was a station agent in the little village of Richmond in southwestern Saskatchewan in the days when there were not enough boxcars. The elevators did not have enough storage capacity. Quotas were small and farmers had to buy granaries. They even had to pile grain on the ground and cover it with straw and hay bales to protect it from the weather.
In order to allow grain producers to get more granaries, to relieve the congestion in the country elevator system and grain terminals, to relieve congestion on the railways when there was insufficient motive power and rolling stock, the Prairie Wheat Pools, the National and Saskatchewan Farmers Union, Manitoba, Alberta, the co-operative movement and the CCF started in the late 1940s demanding a system of cash flow for grain producers that would allow them to have income during the periods of time when they were up to their necks in grain and could not sell it or deliver it. That went on until 1957.

October 20, 1989
Government Orders
We all-even political opponents-applauded Mr. Diefenbaker. It was the second thing he did after he was sworn in. He implemented a system of interest-free cash advances on prairie grains. All of us, political friend and foe alike, applauded Mr. Diefenbaker because we ran into stubborn Liberal governments in the 1940s and early 1950s which did not listen. They would not listen and that was why they were defeated.
I have noted that they have not repented their sins. I hope one day one of them will get up and say how wrong they were on this and a number of other items.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was going to deal with the fact that he is talking about Liberal governments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bird):: What is your point of order, please?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It is that we are debating a government bill and there is no minister of the Crown in this House. It is a principle of responsible government that a minister be here. This is a government bill-this is not Private Members' Hour-and there is not a single Minister in this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bird):: Order, please. I am advised that you are incorrect in reflecting on the presence or absence of members.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not mind the interruption, but I cannot think of a minister over there who I want in the place anyway, especially when I consider the hon. member for Vegreville, whom I really like. He is a good friend. We have been associates here for a long time. We were both members of the class of '68. He was one of the strongest of all in the fight for interest-free cash advances. He was one of the strongest of all.
Would you believe it was the same with VIA Rail? Today, he repeated a firm commitment to supply management and orderly marketing and marketing boards. I have been saddened to the verge of tears about that hon. gentleman who I think is basically an honest, decent man because he has stopped getting up to fight for what is right. How this piece of legislation could get past a committee of cabinet with the hon. member for Vegreville being present is beyond me. That is a very sad case, in my opinion.
The interest charges on those cash advances, initially on prairie grains and then subsequently on all crops right across Canada, have been more than recovered in other ways. In effect, it has not cost the government any money. Certainly it also has not cost our economy any money, but it has benefited our economy if for no other reason that just on our export markets, particularly in commodities that were not under marketing boards or supply management. Our farmers were subject to what was called, and still is, the market-place.
Of course when the market-place got flooded with lots of vegetables, fruits or whatnot, the price went right through the floor. But what else could they do? Commodities that could be stored and kept for some length of time took a beating. Farmers and fishermen are the only ones I know of who are price takers, not price setters. All the rest of our economy, all our professional people, all our unionized workers negotiate a price or set a price on what they are producing or the services or labour they are selling. Only farmers and fishermen have to take what they can get. They have always had to take less than what it costs to produce.
I have never been able to understand why any country, let alone this one, would allow that to happen. If we paid our fishermen and our agricultural producers their cost of production plus a decent living, and in order to help those who could not afford the higher cost of food, there are other programs to offset the high cost of food such as school lunch programs, and subsidies for the low income, the poor, and the elderly, then no longer would the finger be pointed at farmers and fishermen about the subsidies they are getting. It would be a consumer subsidy, and the farmers and the fishermen would be in the same category as the corporate community and the manufacturers and the processors who can set their price. Don't tell me about competition in the marketplace, no matter what it is in, but I am particularly acquainted with transportation.
A railway sets a rate, the other railway has the same rate. An airline sets a fare, the other airline has the same fare. It goes on all the time. Lawyers have their fee schedules and if one lawyer starts cutting those fees too much he is in trouble with the law society. The same with architects and accountants, you name it.
October 20, 1989

If nothing else, the interest free cash advances not only gave some cash flow at times when there was no cash income for their production and their work, but it was the decent thing to do. Even subsequent to the defeat of the Diefenbaker government in 1963, the new Liberal government under Mr. Pearson recognized that, kept it, and made some improvements.
When this government came into power in 1984, we got what were called firm commitments from the Prime Minister, the then Minister of Agriculture, the present Minister of Agriculture and Deputy Prime Minister, and Tory candidates all over Canada on these agricultural programs.
I do not use the word "betrayal" lightly because that is a very strong, mean word to use. But it is a betrayal not only of those farmers, it is a betrayal of good, electoral and political process, and it is a betrayal in our country.
The $27 million that I believe is the figure that cash advances cost in interest is less than the cost of storing those commodities, less than the income tax benefits, much less, than the tax benefits for corporations and for the wealthy. My goodness, the government could pick up that $27 million just by charging one-tenth of 1 per cent interest on deferred corporation taxes which now amount to almost $40 billion. In fact, it is part of the alternative that I am advocating to the GST.
If corporations were made to pay 10 per cent interest on their deferred corporation tax, it would amount to $4 billion, and 10 per cent is less than the bank rate. We would be surprised then how fast the CPR, Inco, Bell Telephone and all that bunch would start paying back deferred corporation taxes because right now it is an interest free loan, and it will never otherwise be collected. It is just lying on the books of Canada. Those deferred corporation taxes are nothing more than an interest free loan.
When we look at Canadian Pacific or International Nickel's annual reports, they show it as a liability. They get an interest free loan: Canadian Pacific, $2 billion; International Nickel, $1.5 billion; Bell Telephone, $1.5 billion, each. They can get an interest free loan, but our farm producers cannot any more under this legislation.
Government Orders
My goodness, what is the government doing? It had better think about what it is doing. Those interest charges are less than the increased costs that would be incurred every time the grain companies and the transportation companies get flooded with a rush of grain because the farmers need money. If one were to revert back to the years of the 1940s and 1950s and the early 1960s, those costs would be much higher.
As long as we had the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which, thanks to Mr. Otto Lang and the then Liberal government was repealed, the government would pay the storage costs on grain over a certain amount every year. They did this because it was not the fault of the grain companies and it was not the fault of the producers, and everybody seemed to think that all this surplus grain was somehow not an asset. Grain in the granary is like money in the bank. We had the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act in which the government would contribute as much as $100 million a year. I forget the figure, but I think if there was something like 175 million bushels of grain in storage at the end of a crop year, the government paid the storage charges on amounts above that. That was only fair.
When the government attempted to repeal the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and present Otto Lang's first grain stabilization bill, I and four farmers took him to court because the Minister of Finance had not paid the Canadian Wheat Board the storage charges that it owed for 18 months, and it came to over $96 million. We took him to federal court in Regina, the four farmers who had a direct interest in the matter. We got a writ of Mandamus which is the opposite of an injunction. A writ of Mandamus says you shall do something, instead of you shall not do something. The government had to pay $96 million $2.5 million in interest, plus $2,700 in court costs. We won that fight. But the government still got its way and did away with the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.
I hope that there is somebody out there in the country or lots of organizations that are consulting with legal counsel to see how the law on this bill reads. I understand that even though this legislation has not been passed, the Cabinet and the Treasury Board will not authorize the Canadian Wheat Board to issue interest free cash advances, even though under the law our producers are entitled to it. It seems to me, particularly if the law says the Minister of Finance shall pay or shall allow, then we have to get into the Federal Court and get there fast.

October 20,1989
Government Orders
This betrayal is a classic illustration of the unfair way this government treats certain sections of our society. If it is not VIA Rail, it is farmers. If it is not farmers, it is fishermen. They have a different set of standards or rules for each sector of our society. I think it is a crass, deliberate way of setting off one group in our society against another. It does not enhance our ability to remain a united country in a real Confederation.
I know most Canadians will not get excited about this. Interest free cash advances are not a big deal in downtown Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal. Hells bells, $27 million, that much is lost in the stock market in Toronto on a given day. Who cares? However, it is important in principle and it is important in fairness.
I want to ask the government and I want to ask my friend from Edmonton and all the other government members who are present, all eight or nine of them, would they please go to their caucuses and ask the minister responsible for this legislation to withdraw it forthwith. I don't know why I am trying to help the Tories to get themselves re-elected, but there is a classic principle about politics. The longer you are in the more you work at defeating yourself, and this is a classic example. This one is going to cost the Tories, I predict, a dozen seats in the three prairie provinces alone. I am afraid they will elect some of those wild-eyed idiots who call themselves reform. I call them deformed.
I know I have used up my time but I would sure love to continue speaking until two o'clock. If I am lucky, there will be some questions so I can hold forth some more.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It does not appear that the member is going to be lucky.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak in the House today on behalf of the agricultural community in Malpeque in opposition to Bill C-36. This bill is another example of the abusive treatment that Prince Edward Islanders received this spring as a result of the 1989 budget.
We have the pending closure of CFB Summerside, the changes to the unemployment insurance program, the increase in excise taxes, the reduction in the provincial health and education grants, and the VIA cuts outlined and confirmed two weeks ago with the announcement that there will no longer be a VIA bus to transport rail travellers from Moncton to Charlottetown. The list goes on and on. This government is challenging every aspect of life in my province and this bill is no exception.
Today, I would like to discuss how these amendments affect the Island farmer, how important these two acts have been to farmers both in Prince Edward Island and across Canada. I would like to examine what motivated this government into presenting a piece of legislation so detrimental to our marketing system. The motivation behind this bill is the free trade agreement with the United States.
Prince Edward Island, among many other things, is well known to Canadians as a million acre farm. Our beautiful rolling hills and red soil are famous for the crops they produce. For many Canadians, when they hear Prince Edward Island mentioned, they cannot help but think of potatoes.
Agriculture makes up approximately 15 per cent of Prince Edward Island's gross domestic product. Over 6,000 Islanders are involved in this industry and that does not include related industries like fertilizer plants, truckers, and so on. It is not difficult to see why Islanders are greatly concerned about this government's intention to amend the Advanced Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
I would like to share with the House today some correspondence that I received from representatives in my riding of Malpeque who are opposed to the amendments to this bill. TTie Potato Producers Association of Prince Edward Island states that its organization was "shocked and infuriated by the announcement by the federal Minister of Finance's announcement to remove the interest free provision from the Advance Payments for Crops Act. The Potato Producers Association of Prince Edward Island find the proposed amendments totally unacceptable and request you, as Members of Parliament, to support all agricultural organizations in their request to have the proposed amendments revoked."
October 20, 1989

I also had a letter from the Potato Marketing Commission. The commission states: "If this amendment is introduced, it will basically destroy this valuable program at a time when it is needed most. This is a serious setback to Prince Edward Island potato farmers and will cause real hardship this fall for potato growers facing high interest rates."
The Prince Edward Island Vegetable Growers Co-operative Association asks: "Is this amendment to the Advance Payments for Crops Act an indication of the present government's reversal of agricultural policy regarding import displacement and self-sufficiency and thereby opening our markets to U.S. production?"
I have received other letters besides the three that I have mentioned. Finally, I would like to share the concerns of Mr. Gary Heaney, President of the Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture. Mr. Heaney says: "The change recommended by the Finance Minister in the budget will do little to cut the national debt but, on the other hand, will cause great hardship for our potato growers and others, especially when today's rising interest rates are considered. The Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture is in favour of all Canadians working together to cut the country's debt. But we need a realistic approach rather than actions which harm our basic producers without helping the economy in any major way".
In the minister's opening comments on this bill, we heard from him, once again, how all Canadians must share in the deficit. The minister said in this modest way the government is asking farmers to contribute to lowering the deficit. What this government is asking farmers to do is not modest, by any stretch of the imagination.
I want to share a few facts and figures with you. The impact of this amendment on our potato producers in Prince Edward Island would be approximately $280,000 in lost free interest; tobacco producers, $54,000; vegetable and fruit growers, $10,000; and our grain growers, $18,000. That totals approximately $365,000 annually that our farmers will lose.
The effectiveness of the Advance Payments for Crops Act is certainly well known. For the last few days we have heard a lot of the advantages of the program discussed. Certainly, the most important is the interest free cash
Government Orders
flow which helps create orderly marketing, which in turn brings better prices for the farmer.
The fact that the advances were interest free was the most important feature of the program. It enabled producers to save on interest costs by meeting debt obligations to creditors earlier than might otherwise have been the case.
With a cash flow and the crops stored a farmer could look after his smaller creditors, and pay off many of the costs incurred throughout the growing season. It assisted the small business people in the community as well. It meant that the fertilizer distributor was paid and the fuel and oil distributor was paid. There is no question that this cash advance program was needed and worked well.
A cash advance drawing a high interest rate is a very much less desirable solution than one that is interest free. An interest bearing advance does not improve a farmer's debt position. The burden of interest costs will only be transferred from one creditor to another. As the National Farmers' Union point out, producers have no effective way of passing on interest costs as part of the cost of their product. Interest payments on borrowed money which require inventory of production as collateral is a negative cost burden that many producers could not afford to absorb.
By turning the underlying foundation of the cash advance program inside out, Bill C-36 will destroy another basic agriculture program that provided a degree of underpinning for the Canadian farm security. The amended programs usefulness will be severely limited.
As I mentioned before, the interest free portion in both acts encourages orderly marketing. The Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act provides needed cash flow to producers during times of surplus stock and tight quotas. It permits the Canadian Wheat Board the leverage to time sales to the benefit of the farmers.
Along with a number of farm organizations, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has opposed Bill C-36. Their suggestion is that these two programs be fully reinstated with the interest free portion intact for the 1989-90 crop year. During this time, they suggested that a major study be conducted on the effects of the proposed amendments on the farm economy and farming costs.

October 20, 1989
Routine Proceedings
It is quite appalling that this government has not listened to the farm organizations across Canada. My colleague, the member for Algoma has read into the record the long list of farm groups that oppose these amendments. We have not heard from one organization in support of this bill. This government must consult with those this legislation will so drastically affect. Bill C-36 must not be passed. I, along with my colleagues, trust that this government will listen to the Canadian agricultural community and withdraw this bill.
Another problem generated by these amendments is that the loans under the two acts have been suspended until the House deals with this legislation. The fruit and vegetable harvest is almost complete in Prince Edward Island. Many farmers do not have the cash advance needed for them to proceed with their business debts.
Furthermore, when this announcement was made in the April 27 budget, farmers had already planned their season with the interest free cash advance as part of their annual financial plan. They are dependent on this interest free cash advance for the 1989-90 crop.
It appears that this government is eroding every aspect of rural life in Canada. Our rural communities are no longer properly served by VIA Rail, the rural post office is slowly being removed, and we have the constant threat against the existence of the family farm by high interest rates. We have cuts in rural and regional development programs, and the undermining of our dairy industry.
I would urge this government that Bill C-36 be withdrawn and that the government carefully consult with the agricultural community across Canada before consideration of this type of legislation takes place.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Algoma. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), a recorded division on the proposed amendment stands deferred.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the three parties in the House, and I think you will find that there is consent for us to revert to motions so that we can address a specific motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, which calls for concurrence in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that we revert to motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to move concurrence in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business.
The report has been before the House for some time. It basically is a simple recommendation to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation authorizing it to broadcast on the parliamentary channel a complete replay of the proceedings of the House of Commons immediately after the daily adjournment of the House, until some other arrangement has been entered into.
October 20, 1989

As hon. members know, the committee is studying the question of the televising of proceedings of this House, and until a definitive report has been received from the committee, we are suggesting this as an interim measure. It had full agreement of all members of the committee, and is the unanimous recommendation of the committee.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief intervention. I want to applaud the motion of my Liberal colleague. As a member from British Columbia, the replaying of the House proceedings for western Canada would be most useful. With the time change, we would then be getting Question Period being viewed at prime time. If we want to open up the political process for Canadians from all regions of Canada, this motion could only do well. I applaud the member's initiative in putting it forth.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, may I just indicate, on behalf of the government, that we are more than anxious to co-operate with this motion and would be happy to support it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gauthier:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider giving serious study to the establishment of a Canadian Museum of Oceanography in the National Capital Region, which would include among other things a national freshwater and saltwater aquarium containing specimens of all of Canada's aquatic fauna.
Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to stand in the House today to speak on the
Private Members' Business
motion of my hon. friend from Vanier, particularly after the debate that we heard in the House yesterday. Surely, it must indicate to all Canadians who watched and to those who participated here a recognition of the maritime way of life that is such an inherent part of this country.
Clearly, in Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada, that goes without saying. But other Canadians in different parts of this country who live off the bounty in our waters, be they salt or fresh, recognize as does this motion that it is a huge part of the way we live.
The native people who were the first settlers of this country obviously lived on fish, in the Arctic and in other areas of the country. Those who first came here, the Norse, John Cabot, Cartier, the Basques, and those who followed quite clearly came for fish and for water mammals.
So much of this country has its culture and its history inherent in the water. Sadly, the tragedies that we witnessed last week in Middle Cove and St. John's East bring home how cruel that sea can be. But it is inseparable from how our people have used the sea and the fresh water as a source of their economy and their way of life.
Quite clearly, as a country surrounded by three oceans, and with the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, clearly water is part of our national definition and how we see ourselves. I think it is only appropriate that a country like this have a museum of oceanography that celebrates that history and that culture, as well as its economy, which we talk a lot about in this House, and which is so important to us all.
Part of our concern for this history, culture and economy has to be the future. Where are we going? Clearly, one of the most important aspects of any museum, any celebration or any exhibition of this nature has to be our ecology and the environment that we depend upon for the future of that culture, of that history and perhaps, most importantly, for the future of that economy.
I suggest that to limit this proposal to one part of the country without at least investigating the possibility of this institution being established in the living, breathing part of our maritime regions, particularly the Atlantic provinces, would be, unfortunately, narrowing.

October 20, 1989
Private Members' Business
I would like to propose an amendment to this motion. If it is accepted, this side certainly would move to pass this motion right away. I think it is important on this dismal, rainy, Friday afternoon that we recognize that part of this spirit of co-operation is in celebration of a great festival and a great anniversary, the birthday of our hon. friend from Vanier.
I would like to move:
That Motion 361 be amended by deleting the words: "In the
National Capital Region".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The House will perhaps allow me to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, and I will be brief.

I wish to say a few words to explain that I accept the comments made by my friend from St. John's East. It is, indeed, a proposal which would take into consideration the regions of this country. I do think it may have been a bit far-fetched for me to pretend to entertain an oceanographic type of museum in the national capital region. Nevertheless, the idea was there.
I did want to make sure that the House was made aware that in this great country of ours, surrounded by three oceans, we have to pay attention to our water resources. We are the largest country in the world possessing about one-third of the fresh water of the world. I think it is time for this country to take pride by equipping itself with a museum which reflects this wealth of Canada. I do think that with the environmental concerns of today we would be able to educate Canadians to better understand the richness and wealth of Canada in terms of its water resources.
Having said all that, I accept and thank the member for his wishes on my birthday, but I could not let the occasion slip without reminding the House that it is also on the same day, October 22, the birthday of the Deputy Speaker in the chair at this time. I want to wish you, Sir, a very happy birthday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see this amendment added to the original motion. I notice the motion states that there is a centre for research and conservation, concentrating on oceanographic studies. I want to point out that the Institute of Ocean Sciences is based in my riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands and therefore to suggest that
there is a Pacific coast as well that would be most receptive to a museum of oceanography.
As the member for Ottawa-Vanier has stated such a museum would demonstrate Canada's expertise in the fishing sector. After yesterday's debate one must wonder whether or not our fishery expertise is going to be relegated to museum status rather than a viable industry.
In closing, I also want to say that this always raises the question of the use of federal dollars to support museums generally. In my riding I have two museums that are seeking federal support. One is on the Gulf Islands, on Pender Island at Port Washington where, I believe, they have been denied access to federal funds. This is a community that is trying very desperately to refurbish as a heritage site the Port Washington general store. With a lot of imagination and initiative from the local citizenry they have done great work, yet the federal government seems to want to put all of its museum money into central Canada, and particularly into the national capital region.
I agree with this amendment that perhaps we should be looking at other avenues where the money should be going, not only for a museum of oceanography but for museums generally.
Another example of a museum in my riding is the whale museum in Sidney which is also in need of federal funds, the kind that generate tourist interest in our area.
In closing, I want to applaud my colleague for St. John's East for putting this amendment to this original motion and I am sure we can vote in support of that motion.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the amendment. Of course, representing the city of Halifax, it would, in normal circumstances, be the obvious place for such a museum. But I would like to make a suggestion to the House, that given the situation in Atlantic Canada and, in particular, in our sister province of Prince Edward Island-I am sure that the hon. member for St. John's East would agree with me-that perhaps the place for the Museum of Oceanography might be the town of Summerside.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
October 20, 1989
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Private Members' Business Motion agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being three o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. Monday.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 23,1989