1989-10-30

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



JOINT PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Joint Parliamentary Delegation to the U.S.S.R. from August 28 to September 3, 1989.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Garth Tiirner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations in both official languages.
This report deals with the issue of credit cards and Canadian consumers. I might just briefly outline the themes that our report discusses. First, we talk about fairness to consumers. We believe that fairness to consumers in terms of credit cards involves reasonable interest rates. We also believe that interest calculations should be done on a common sense basis.
A second theme is the disclosure of the costs of using credit cards on a consistent and industry-wide basis so that consumers can easily compare the different cards that are out there in the market-place.
Third, we believe that society should not discriminate against those who do not choose to use credit cards or revolving credit and we address that fact.
Fourth, we are very concerned about public education. Complex rules now exist in terms of the credit card industry and we want to ensure that consumers have all the information at their finger tips to make wise credit decisions.
Finally, we are concerned with the fraudulent use of credit cards and wish to have measures put into place that would make it more difficult.
I am pleased to table this report and pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to our report.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.] STRIKING COMMITTEE-NINETEENTH REPORT


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the nineteenth report of the Striking Committee. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the nineteenth report later this day, and I would ask that we dispense with the reading of that report by the Clerk at the table as that report concerns only membership changes to committees.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

October 30, 1989
Routine Proceedings



STRIKING COMMITTEE-CONCURRENCE IN NINETEENTH REPORT

['Orders of the day.\nThe Parliamentary Secretary on a point of order.']
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill, that the nineteenth report of the Striking Committee presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition today with regard to the goods and services tax. It is signed by a number of Canadians explaining how they think it is an unfair taxation system and that it is going to hurt people. It is going to tax reading, haircuts, diapers, coffins, home heating fuel, et cetera. They call upon the House to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax, to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations to ensure that if and when there is a consensus on this sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, this reform not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition on VIA Rail which calls upon the House to maintain an adequate VIA Rail system throughout Canada and to ensure that the federal government provide adequate funding to upgrade the service we have at the present time.


Right Hon. John N. Tiirner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting seven petitions, which have been verified by the Clerk of the House, containing the signatures of 328 residents of Vancouver and surrounding regions of the lower mainland, and an additional 18 petitions containing the signatures of 1,178 residents of Sarnia, Ontario. These citizens call upon the government to withdraw its proposal for a regressive and inflationary 9 per cent goods and services tax.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition concerning the goods and services tax on behalf of the constituents of Winnipeg North. Some 200 signatures are included, because they believe that the proposed goods and services tax will impose an undue burden on them and will ruin small businesses. The petitioners hereby pray that Parliament grant them the necessary remedy and reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, my other set of petitions concern the issue of the protection of the life of the unborn. The petitioners, over 500, believe in the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception and believe that there is a need for a just law to protect the lives both of the unborn and the mother and further believe that there is a need for families and communities to develop various forms of support and shelter to provide care and assistance to mothers and mothers-to-be. The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to formulate and legislate law to protect life from conception, a law which seeks to save the life of both mother and child.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition signed by several dozen constituents in Massey and Elliot Lake, Ontario, in which they point out their displeasure with the proposed goods and services tax. They point out that this will cause higher taxes and that it will be especially onerous for low income families, that it will cause higher inflation, higher interest rates and will have an adverse effect on the regions of this country.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition certified by the Clerk of Petitions of this House calling upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada not to cancel in whole or in part passenger rail services in Canada.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured this morning to table four petitions that have been certified pursuant to Standing Order 36. The first is a petition of over 80 pages. It has signatures from British Columbians who are concerned about the South Moresby Park agreement that would allow for millions of dollars to be spent to explore for minerals and hydrocar-
October 30,1989

bons in this first national marine park. They are also concerned that they do not want any more hydrocarbon exploration activities to take place in the coastal waters of British Columbia.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that is certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 36, signed by residents of northern British Columbia who are concerned about the proposed goods and services tax. They call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax because it would shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.


James Ross Fulton: I have a petition certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 36 from residents of northern British Columbia who are concerned about the announced cuts to VIA Rail. They call upon Parliament to maintain VIA Rail as a national network and to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and to give VIA sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 36 regarding Canada's forests. It calls upon Parliament to renew the FRDA agreement for forest renewal with British Columbia, thereby providing a renewed commitment to the restocking of our forest lands, advancing forest research, promoting silviculture and assisting the forest industry in developing new products and markets that will provide British Columbia with forestry jobs for the future.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition which is in proper form under Standing Order 36 in the interest of the National Arts Centre orchestra, which is considered a world-class orchestra. It has brought fame to the capital city and is an important instrument in cultural develop-
Routine Proceedings
ment across Canada. I call upon the minister to consider financial aid to the National Arts Centre and to see what can be done to enable the people of Canada and the people of Ottawa to enjoy the National Arts Centre and its orchestra.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: It is a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to present this petition on behalf of citizens of Thunder Bay and the district of Thunder Bay condemning the government for its shortsightedness in reference to its action on VIA. It is a pleasure to present this petition which has been properly prepared and attested as to proper content and form.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present 1,365 signatures in support of the petition to request the Ministers of Employment and Immigration and Health and Welfare Canada to revise the medical standards for admission to Canada with a view to compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the enhancement of the human rights and dignity of the disabled.
There must be a change in the act which allows families and individuals to be considered on their merit as immigrants to Canada. A medical disability of an individual should not be an automatic bar to admission to Canada.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 in which several hundred constituents from all over Canada have indicated that the government subsidies to VIA Rail are not disproportionate to subsidies required for highway infrastructure or for airports. They request the Government of Canada not to cancel in whole or in part rail passenger services in our country.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to present yet another petition from people in the Madoc, Tweed and Eldorado area of Ontario calling upon the government to reverse the decisions that it has made on VIA Rail.

October 30, 1989
Routine Proceedings PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present this petition to the House on behalf of the people from Sudbury who oppose this goods and services tax.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions objecting to the Government of Canada withdrawing its contribution of $2.9 billion to the financing of unemployment insurance and leaving the financing to workers and employers, pleading with Parliament not to withdraw from the unemployment insurance scheme and not to pass Bill C-21.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition on the goods and services tax objecting to the tax and asking that Parliament not approve the goods and services tax.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, today I have about 15 to 20 petitions with 300 to 400 names objecting to the proposed goods and services tax. The people of Sudbury and the surrounding municipalities are extremely concerned with the effects of such a tax on outlying regions of our country.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition from northern Ontario residents who object to this government's plans to get rid of VIA Rail passenger service. They want to remind the government that many people in rural communities rely exclusively on rail passenger services.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition this morning from residents in Winnipeg, Red Lake and other parts of Ontario and Manitoba who are objecting to the cuts to VIA Rail and point out that the government, through its cuts, is going to cause closure or sale of parts of VIA Rail. It is cutting it by at least one third. It is a pleasure for me to present this petition duly authorized under Standing Order 36.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, like many other members, I have a petition signed by dozens of residents of the great city of Sudbury who are concerned about the GST and what it is going to do, for example, to Sudbury Downs Race-track. Like dozens of other race-tracks across the country it will be forced to close if this national sales farce goes through. The people of Sudbury want the government to revoke any tax, 9 per cent, 7 per cent, on food, on all goods. We want no GST.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a number of petitions which have been certified correct as to form and content. These petitions contain over 860 names from the Calgary area, calling upon the government to revise the laws of Canada relating to extradition to allow the Justice minister of Canada to order the extradition of alleged or convicted criminals at any time after their apprehension in Canada, even during their period of incarceration for crimes committed in Canada.
Over 90,987 names have already been presented to this house, so the total is well over 91,000 names on this specific issue to amend the extradition laws.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of several hundred Canadians opposing the cuts of some $500 million to VIA Rail, the closure, sale or transfer of substantial parts of the VIA Rail system, which will mean a disappearance of one third of Canada's national railway system. They call upon Parliament to maintain VIA Rail and the present national network, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and to bring in a new passenger train act with a revised costing arrangement with railway companies.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions, that points out a whole variety of concerns that the petitioners have regarding the goods and services tax. They point out that it is a mean, cruel and unfair tax, highly discriminatory and are asking the government to simply abandon its efforts to introduce the tax.
October 30, 1989


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are asking the government to reconsider the decision to curtail VIA Rail service and point out a variety of concerns, namely, that it is a very environmentally unsound decision to curtail passenger rail service in the country, as the government proposes to do. They are asking the government to reconsider and actually invest in an enhanced passenger train service so that we can move people efficiently in an environmentally sound way.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen -Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to present two petitions, both certified under Standing Order 36. The first one is, as were others presented before the House today, a petition pointing out that the government has not addressed the unfair taxation system presently in place in Canada, and asking it to stop the present proposed goods and service tax and instead look at real tax reform.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is a petition in which the petitioners from various parts of Canada encourage the Parliament of Canada to renew the FRDA agreement with British Columbia and thereby provide for renewed commitment to restocking our forest land, advancing forestry research, promoting silviculture and assisting the forest industry in developing the new products and markets that will provide us with forestry jobs for the future.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I too have petitions from residents in the ridings of Prince George-Peace River and Cariboo-Chilcotin in the Province of British Columbia urging this government to renew the forestiy resource development agreement right away with the Province of British Columbia to ensure that we can get on with the proper management of our forests.
Routine Proceedings


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 139 and 140.


Mr. Skelly (North Island-Powell River): Has the Bank of Nova Scotia withdrawn surplus pension funds pursuant to the terms of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 at any time since 1969 and, if so (a) on what dates (b) in what amounts?


Mr. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: I am
informed by the Office of the Superintendant of Financial Institutions as follows:
The Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the predecessor Act, the Pension Benefits Standards Act, require that a pension plan sponsor receive authorization from the Superintendant before withdrawing surplus funds from its pension plan.
Under the current legislation, the plan sponsor must follow a detailed procedure, as prescribed in the Regulations under the Act, and must demonstrate its entitlement to the surplus funds before the Superintendant will consider authorizing any withdrawal from the pension fund.
Neither the Superintendant of Financial Institutions nor his predecessor, the Superintendant of Insurance, has authorized the Bank of Nova Scotia to withdraw surplus funds from its pension plan in the period between 1972 and the current date. Government records prior to 1972, in this regard, have not been retained.


Mr. Skelly (North Island-Powell River): Has the Bank of Nova Scotia ever been obliged to make shortfall payments pursuant to the terms of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 at any time since 1969 and, if so (a) on what dates (b) in what amounts?

October 30, 1989
Point of Order


Gilles Loiselle: I am informed by the Office of the Superintendant of Financial Institutions as follows:
We presume that the Member intends the term "shortfall payments" to mean any actuarially determined special payments required to amortize unfunded liabilities or experience deficiencies in the pension fund. According to periodic statements and reports filed with the Office of the Superintendant, the Bank of Nova Scotia made no such payments to its pension fund in the period from 1972 to date because none were required.
Information filed with the government on this plan prior to 1972 has not been retained.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Orders of the day.
The Parliamentary Secretary on a point of order.



POINT OF ORDER


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition, but I do want to raise a point of order which should take me two or three minutes.
I was away last week, but I have followed the debate that went on and some of the events that are recorded in Hansard. I have several procedural questions about the multiple notices which have preceded our entering this order just now. I do not want to argue that the motion is not receivable. That is not my intention at all. I only ask the Speaker to rule on these several questions as a guide for the future.
Since the first notice of this opposition day motion was given last Wednesday, before the government designated
that today would be an opposition day, the first since the week before last, my first question to you is: Is a designation a necessary precondition to giving notice of an opposition day motion, and if not, why not? I submit on this point that our whole chapter of Standing Orders on Supply begins after the designation of the continuing order for Supply with the words in Standing Order 81(2) to be precise, and I quote:
On any day or days appointed for the consideration of any business
under the provisions of this Standing Order-
All the rest of the procedure flows from the appointment of such days. Such appointment is a precondition to everything else, including notice. Surely one reason for this is, as the same Standing Order 81(2) says, that such days are government business days on which Supply business takes full precedence.
My second question grows from what we saw on the Notice Paper Friday, a second motion from the same opposition political party identical in wording to the first, but in the name of another member. My question is as follows: Given the wording of Standing Order 81(2)(c) about the Speaker's power of selection and the commentary on that Standing Order in the Annotated Standing Orders, is it not the case that what is contemplated in Standing Order 81(12)(c) for the Speaker to select from are motions from different political opposition parties, not the same party?
My third question grows from what I see on today's Order Paper and Notice Paper. The original motion from the Leader of the Opposition is the only one on the paper, since the one that came on notice one day later has now I take it been withdraw. While there were two identical motions on Friday's paper, now there is only one. My question is the following: Is it in order for any or all notices for such motions to be withdrawn without the consent of this House?
I have a fourth question, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order, either before or after an allotted day has been designated, for one or both opposition parties to raise multiple notices of motion on the paper, thus giving the Chair, I would argue, the impossible task of exercising its selection power of Standing Order 81(12)(c) in a way I do not think was contemplated, that is within a single political party? Is it the Chair's view that members have to prepare for a possible debate on any of a number of motions?
October 30, 1989

I cannot recall the House having faced the unusual placing of notice, multiple notice, premature notice, and then withdrawing notice that we have seen the official opposition demonstrate over the last several days.
I ask the Chair to see the need for the return to traditional practices concerning the notice of such motions. The designation comes first, notice follows, and the notice stays. Mr. Speaker, am I wrong on that count? If the Chair looks at Hansard for May 28, 1987, notice and calling of debate on allotted days are inter-related in that order. If there is a slip-up anywhere along that path, it has to get set right by the consent of this House.
I submit we should keep our notice system as rigorous as it has been traditionally. This requires discipline for both the government and for private members. I do not believe that the Notice Paper should be empowered to somehow appear to legitimize proposals that cannot procedurally be put to the House and do not belong where we, as members, sometimes want to put them on that paper.
I do not wish to impede the debate today on the Liberal leader's motion. I am happy he is able to propose it here today. We want to get on with that debate. I do ask the Chair to consider these questions I have raised, hear other voices as there may be different views and then help the House out at a later point by giving us some answers to these technical but important questions.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has raised some very interesting points. It is very difficult to know exactly when an Opposition day is going to be held. Normally on Thursday after Question Period, it is the responsibility of the Government House Leader to tell the Opposition parties when the next Opposition day is going to take place. It was very unclear last Thursday whether the government was going to call an Opposition day, which was our turn, on Friday or on Monday. Thus it is very difficult for people on this side of the House to plan any motion that is put down.
I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that maybe if the government would clearly set out its plan of work for the House, then Opposition parties would not have to put down two motions and then withdraw after they find
Supply
out what the government is going to do. I would say in passing that it would be very nice, when we give notice this far ahead, as the Leader of the Opposition has, to have the Minister of Agriculture here to respond.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I too do not want to extend this important discussion. We are anxious to begin the debate on the Opposition motion on agriculture, particularly in light of the Minister of Agriculture's comments late last week condemning the free trade agreement in terms of what it has done to agriculture.
Having heard the various questions that the parliamentary secretary has put to the Chair, I think they are questions that must be answered. As my good friend from Algoma has also indicated, some earlier notification of Opposition days would be appropriate. On Thursday, late in the day, we were still unsure makes it impossible for critics to be here as presumably there is some difficulty with the Minister of Agriculture being in attendance here today. As Opposition parties we really had no alternative but to take some of the steps we were forced to take. Perhaps by responding to the questions of the parliamentary secretary and hearing our concerns we can avoid this problem in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have heard from all three parties on the same point of order. I think the hon. member has brought this to the attention of the Chair. I will take it under advisement and give a ruling at a later date.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: That this House condemn the government for having jeopardized the future of Canadian agriculture by its ill-conceived trade policies, especially the Canada-U.S. Trade Deal,
1)	which have failed to gain access to the U.S. market in spite of the promises of the Prime Minister in the 1988 General Election;

October 30, 1989
Supply
2)	which have failed to counter U.S. protectionist actions (including those taken after the enactment of the Trade Deal) against Canadian agricultural products such as pork and other commodities vital to our economy;
3)	which have failed, as evidenced by the recent GATT panel decision on ice cream and yoghurt, to ensure that Canada is able to maintain its marketing board and orderly marketing systems;
4)	which have failed to have any effect on U.S. agricultural export subsidy programs, such as the export enhancement program, which are contrary to the claimed "spirit" of the Trade Deal while the Canadian government has, at the same time, been moving unilaterally to dismantle programs beneficial to Canada's farmers; and
5)	which have failed to create confidence among farmers in the future of the food supply system in Canada and its ability to ensure long-term food security for consumers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about today is the future of Canadian agriculture. What we are talking about as well in this House of Commons is the future in Canada of the farm family.
This Tory party claimed for years to be the best friend the Canadian farmer ever had, but for the last five years it has done nothing but stab Canadian farmers in the back.

For many years we have heard Hon. Members opposite tell us that rural and farming communities were the natural constituency of the Conservative Party. For years, they maintained the fiction that only the Tories were prepared to defend the farmers, that only the Tories understood the problems facing Canadian farmers. For years, they told us "Wait until we are in power! You'll see how much better off Canadian farmers will be." We are waiting, Mr. Speaker, and it has been a long time. It has been five years, and we are still waiting for the farm revolution the Tories promised us!
Canadian farmers have been waiting for a long time. They have been waiting forever, and we are still waiting here in the House for that so-called farm revolution. The Tory revolution never happened, however. Increasingly, the younger generation is leaving the farm. Farm bankruptcy rates have increased dramatically. Farmers are still facing a debt crisis. Operating costs have gone up. When the Government finally decided to help, those who benefitted most were the big corporations and large operations, while small farmers were at a disadvantage.
Canadian farmers have faced natural disasters. They realize it all part of farming floods, droughts and all kinds of natural catastrophes but the worst disaster they ever experienced was the Tory Goverment.

Most of us in this House represent urban constituencies. I want to say that the urban citizens of Canada, the people of Vancouver Quadra and of all the other great cities of our country take our food too much for granted. We tend to think that if it is there in the store or on the shelf it will always be there and we will always have plenty. But that will only remain true, and I say this to the metropolitan citizens of Canada, if we maintain our self-sufficiency in food production; if we Canadians do not become reliant on another country for our food.
What I want to say clearly to Canadians is that the Tory government, under this Prime Minister, has started us on the road to agriculture dependency. This government signed a trade deal with the United States that will devastate the Canadian farm family. It told us the reason was to get secure access to the American market. We said in the House of Commons, across the country and during a federal election that the only way we would get secure access to the American market for our farm products, or any other Canadian export, was to obtain a specific exemption from the United States protectionist trade law.
Once upon a time that was the government's own position. I recite again to the House of Commons the Prime Minister's interview with the Wall Street Journal on April 3, 1987, as follows:
U.S. trade remedy laws cannot apply to Canada, period.
In the same interview, he stated:
You can't have a free trade arrangement and expect the traditional laws of countervail to apply.
Those were his words. They were echoed by the Minister for International Trade who said in St. John's, Newfoundland, to his own Board of Trade in July 1987:
Unless we get out from under the threat of countervail and other U.S. trade remedy law and unless there is an effective dispute settlement resolution to bind the Americans to their commitments, a free trade agreement with the United States would not be a good deal for Canada.
We could not have said it any more clearly. However, the trade agreement is clear and to the contrary.
October 30, 1989

Article 1902.1 is absolutely unambiguous. It says that the United States still has the right to use countervail against us. It says that the United States still has the right to use any trade remedy law against us. It says, quoting the agreement, that the United States "reserves the right to apply its anti-dumping law and countervailing duty law to goods imported from the territory of the other party," that is, Canada.
We did not, therefore, get secure access to the American market. We did not get an exemption from American trade law, whether that be the all-embracing law of 1930 or the U.S. trade law of 1974 or the recent omnibus trade bill of 1988. All of those very comprehensive trade laws applicable to Canada still apply against Canada and are currently being applied by the Americans against our exports.

Mr. Speaker, what are the implications of the FTA for agriculture? First, seasonal tariffs have been eliminated. Ours is a harsh climate, and our crop season lasts no more than four or five months. Canadian farmers will not be able to compete with their American counterparts in California, Florida, Georgia and other southern states. Why? Because they can harvest crops throughout the year. Canadian farmers know that free trade is impossible in the agricultural sector. With a five-month season here in Canada and a twelve-month season in the southern U.S., there is no way Canadian farmers can compete under the Free Trade Agreement. Only a Tory Government would sign a trade agreement that is completely oblivious of our Canadian climate.

Under the trade deal, our whole marketing board supply management system is in the course of being negotiated away. It includes marketing surveillance over eggs, chickens, dairy products, turkeys, you name it. Every Canadian farm support system is going to be harmonized, to use the words of the trade agreement, with American programs under the negotiation with the United States of the definition of subsidy.
Our programs are specifically listed in an annex to the trade deal. I am going to read a few of them, applicable particularly to the western farmer: the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the Agriculture and Rural Development Act, the Economic and Rural Development Agree-
Supply
ments the Agricultural Stabilization Act, the Western Grain Stabilization Act, the Special Canadian Grains Program, the Prairie Grains Advance Payments Act, the Crop Insurance Act. Every one of those programs is listed for negotiation to be harmonized with the programs of United States and harmonized down to the U.S. level.
Our government could not even wait for the negotiations. It has already started to slash those programs and sell out our farmers to the Americans. Also, before any negotiations began, it sold out the Niagara and British Columbia grape growers. It eliminated the two-price wheat system. It eliminated interest-free cash advances to our farmers. In the last federal budget alone, the minister announced the following cuts totalling $.5 billion by the end of 1990: Crop insurance to be cut by $200 million; grain and flour transportation, $60 million; rail branch line rehabilitation program, $48 million; grain and crops advance payment programs, $54 million; dairy export program, $12 million; commodity based loan program, $15 million; Canadian Dairy Commission, $10 million; ending farm fuel rebate, $100 million; all cuts against the Canadian farmer, all cuts concluded in the last federal budget.
You would think, those guys over there were working for the Americans.


Some Hon. Members:: They are!


John Napier Turner: With friends like that, the Canadian farmer does not need any enemies.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: By the time our so-called negotiators sit down with the American negotiators to negotiate farm support programs, there will not be anything left to negotiate. Look what the Americans are doing in the meantime. They are not stupid. They are taking advantage of a weak Canadian government.
They are using their trade legislation which was specifically incorporated in the trade agreement with Canada to attack our agricultural exports. They have imposed a countervail duty on fresh, chilled and frozen pork. That is in addition to the current duty on live hogs. Now Canadian hog producers are being asked by their own association to contribute $2 for every hog sold, whether the hog is sold domestically or in export to the United States, to help to pay for that duty.

October 30, 1989
Supply

In the case of yogurt and ice cream, the Government says this has nothing to do with the FTA and that it is a GATT decision. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. Yogurt and ice cream have everything to do with the FTA! We wouldn't be talking about this today if there were no Free Trade Agreement. So what happened? Before signing the FTA, we had tariff protection for dairy products. The United States had similar protection. Since the middle of the 50's, the Americans have enjoyed a GATT exemption, allowing them to prohibit imports of dairy products from Canada. Since that time we have been unable to send them our dairy products.
How did the members of the brain trust across the floor, the Tory brain trust, manage to sign a free trade agreement that will eventually eliminate all tariffs on dairy products while at the same time protecting our dairy industry? They simply withdrew dairy products from the protected tariffs list and transferred them to the import control list whose items are supposedly protected by GATT.
The Americans have now obtained a decision from GATT that prevents us from doing so. A decision by Canada to transfer the tariff protection list to the import control list has now been overturned by GATT, and we have no protection whatsoever. What a monumental blunder on the part of the Canadian Government!

We saw that happening last year. I questioned the former Minister of Agriculture, John Wise, who sat with distinction in this House. I asked him about the dairy question, and I have no doubt that the real reason John Wise did not present himself for re-election was because he knew exactly what was going to happen to him.
At any rate, in his amiable manner-I can still see him and so can you-he said to me, "The hon. gentleman can just sit back and relax because we will deliver to the dairy farmers of Canada exactly what we told them we would deliver".
I feel pretty relaxed this morning, but the dairy industry is not relaxed. They have been sold out by a bunch of incompetent amateurs. My colleague from Lambton-Middlesex will talk in more detail about the
fact that the U.S. is not even able to supply its own market and yet now is trying to sell into ours.
The Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, the part-time Minister of Agriculture, is going around complaining bitterly about the American action on hogs and milk products. Just last week, in a speech to the Canada Grains Council in Toronto, then apparently in Calgary, this is what he had to say:
It defies belief that the United States can complain about our quotas while their market is closed to Canadian suppliers.
Where has he been? What has he been smoking, as we say? Join the club. All I can say to him is that it defies belief that this government was dumb enough and gullible enough to sign a trade deal that got us into this whole mess in the first place.
These are the words of the Prime Minister on March 16, 1987:
Our highest priority is to have an agreement that ends the threat to Canadian industry from U.S. protectionists who harass and restrict our exports through the misuse of trade remedy laws.
This was said in the House of Commons in response to one of my arguments. Then he signed the deal. He signed a deal that he said would end that harassment. We told Canadians it would not.
One of the worst things you can do in life, whether you say it to your family, to a neighbour or to a business partner, is to say "I told you so". It is not a popular thing to say. You cannot even say it on a football field. But I will say that we did tell them so and exactly what we said was going to happen is happening to the Canadian farms!
Let me return to the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada. He said last week of the latest American industry plan to seek countervail of our Durum wheat exports which the Americans now claim are causing the decline of prices in their markets:
If the U.S. is serious in its rhetoric about free trade in agriculture, I would hope that they would begin by ceasing this trade harassment on Durum.
Oh, what a late convert. What a slow learner. The Deputy Prime Minister can huff and puff all he wants. The problem is that Canadian farmers just do not believe this government any more.
October 30, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We told Canadians that the Americans would retain all the trade remedies they now have. We told Canadian farmers that the Americans would continue to harass Canadian agricultural exports under the same laws they always had because those laws are not exempted from this trade agreement. They are incorporated into the trade agreement. They have the same remedies against us they have always had.
The Canadian government will not admit it but Canadian farmers now know who was telling the truth. We, in the Liberal party, were telling Canadian farmers the truth.
My colleagues, including our critic for agriculture, the member for Algoma, will speak in more detail about the devastating impact this government has had on rural Canada, not only because of the trade agreement but because of its efforts and continuing policy of shutting down rural and small town Canada, the cuts to VIA Rail, the cuts to Air Canada, selling it off and privatizing, the threats to the post office and the threat to public broadcasting. This country is turning into two Canadas, the country of the rich and the big cities and the country of the neglected poor and the neglected farmer in the smaller communities of our country.
We can strip away all the details, the complicated marketing boards, complex formulas on tariffs, quotas and GATT decisions, but just look at what is happening to our Canadian farmer on the land. He is the person who is growing the wheat we need to feed ourselves and to feed a hungry world. The farmers are growing our vegetables, raising our cattle, hogs and chickens. It has never been an easy life. It is a 24-hour a day job. There are so many unpredictabilities, most of them caused by nature. But this government is making it harder and harder for farmers to stay on the land. Sons and daughters are moving away. We are in danger of losing a whole generation of farmers. I want to say that that would be a catastrophe for this country.
The burden of our motion before you this morning is this: It is time for this government to start telling Canadian farmers the truth. It is time for this government to stop pretending that this trade deal with the United States will help our farmers. It is time that this government admitted that it made the mistake of the century in agriculture. It is time that this government
Supply
understood that the farm family is in deep trouble in Canada. It is time this government understood that its policies are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem, and it is time that this government understood that it is contributing to the disappearance of farm life in Canada. That is what we are saying to Canadians, through you, Mr. Speaker. It has to stop or we will not be the kind of country we were. We will not be self-sufficient in agriculture. We will be dependent on other nations, particularly the United States, for our food and, that, to me, would be an abandonment of sovereignty as severe as any aspect of the trade agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Under Standing Order 81(2), there are 10 minutes of questions and comments. Are there any questions or comments?
Resuming debate with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, when I looked at this motion this morning, I almost believed that the Minister of Agriculture, when speaking in Calgary on Friday, would be our first speaker, because in that speech, he pointed out the shortcomings of the free trade deal and the problems we have raised for ourselves with this free trade deal.
One of the very difficult things about dealing with farm crises is the tendency to deal with each of the disasters, concerns and problems in the farm community separately and to forget about the others for the period of time that you are dealing with that. That is the way that Tory members have been approaching the farm problem and agriculture across the country. They have been dealing with each part separately and have not been taking into consideration the cumulative effect of their actions and policies, upon the agricultural community.
Some of the disasters like the free trade deal are disasters which were sponsored by the Conservative Government, but many of the others that have turned out to be disasters have been put in place by changes in policies or changes in the nuances of policies which give the market the edge in every situation where the Canadian farmer is dealing with that market. At one time it was the policy of the government to make sure that there was enough security in the process of agriculture so that the farmers could have some kind security that they could survive under almost any circumstances.

October 30,1989
Supply
Right now, for instance, there are places in western Canada that are under snow. We used to think that we had security in those kinds of situations. Back in 1984, there was a suggestion by this government that it would put in place a security system which would work when it was needed. We have been waiting for that system ever since. Instead of that, we are getting less and less security, more and more of it is being taken away.
This particular motion talks about the problems developed by one particular policy, the policy of free trade. This government signed an agreement with the United States which was supposed to increase our access to the U.S. market, and it was supposed to put in place the kind of structure which would allow us to make use of that access and consequently, we were supposed to live happily and prosperously ever after.
One of the agreements that we made when we signed this free trade agreement was the fact that none of the trade laws, none of the protectionist trade laws that were already in place or that the government would want to put in place or make use of in the future were going to changed. Consequently, we have a situation now where we have gine in to all of the bad protectionist laws which the U.S. had in place and which we could fight.
Now that government gives itself two alternatives when it wants to defeat the Canadian farmer. If the Americans cannot get what they want under GATT, then they turn to the free trade agreement. If they cannot get it under the free trade agreement, they try and bring it through under GATT. Because this government has established the kind of structure which allows us to be taken in by these kinds of situations, we are worse off now than we were before.
It is kind of interesting to look back a little bit when we are talking about this situation. What did the government say it was going to do for agriculture? What did it say was going to be the situation after the free trade had been put into place? The Prime Minister, when he spoke in Dundurn on October 7, 1988, as reported in The Montreal Gazette, said:
We're not going to allow a single farmer to hang out to dry simply because the Americans and the Europeans have this (subsidy) war going on-Until the matter is brought to a halt, the Canadian government has a responsibility to step in and defend the interests of the Candian farmer.
He said that "free trade will help farmers by guaranteeing access to U.S. markets while maintaining marketing boards. In their response to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture during the election in 1988, the Tories said, "Nothing in the free trade agreement affects our ability to maintain our supply management systems in Canada. The agreement will not require any changes in current supply management programs with the sole exception of the slightly larger import quotas for chicken, turkey, and eggs." They could not really get around the fact that they had already taken a considerable slice out of the possibility of the maintenance of the free trade structure. They said, "these small import quota increases pose no threat to the continued viability of the supply management programs in place for these sectors. In addition, the agreement will not prevent Canada from implementing new supply management programs".
I can go on. They spoke about GATT, saying that free trade was not going to affect GATT in the least. To use one more quote, when the Prime Minister was in his leadership mode, which he stayed in only until he became leader, he made the statement that free trade was a danger to Canadian sovereignty. On Friday, when the Minister of Agriculture was speaking in Calgary, he pointed out that free trade was not working quite the way they thought it should work, that there were some things that were going a little bit wrong with it. He suggested that the U.S. was using the free trade agreement to harass the Canadian farmer. He stated that the United States is harassing Canada with some trade policies which are wrong, unfair, and hypocritical, and he sounded surprised.
A newspaper article reports:
Speaking in Calgary Friday Mazankowski hinted that Canada will have to get tough in response but he refused to specify what actions would be taken.
He said:
Rather than harmony, we have been subjected to harassment and it is timely and necessary to remind our American friends of the spirit within which the free trade agreement was negotiated.
October 30, 1989

The article continues:
Mazankowski said U.S. countervail action on Canadian pork and pork products, threatened countervails on Canadian durum wheat and quotas on dairy products contradict the agreement's purpose of breaking down trade barriers.
And he sounds surprised.
There are two things about this. If he is really surprised, then I suppose we can say he was very gullible because he should have known. But somehow I do not really think that he is surprised at all, that anyone in the government is surprised. I think that when the government dealt with this free trade agreement it had the alternative of saying, "Okay, either we go along with the U.S. and we acquiesce to the U.S. position in these areas, or we do not sign the free trade deal". The government chose the free trade deal and, in doing so, it sold a good portion of the agricultural community down the river.
Right now the U.S. is probably in a much stronger position to deal with their products as they enter Canada. Before the free trade deal was announced we could make the GATT work for us. If it did not work for us, we had at least the opportunity to say we would not accept that ruling. Now they have it both ways. If the GATT ruling does not go their way, they can bring in the free trade agreement. If the free trade agreement does not work, they can go to GATT. In both ways we lose, and in both ways they win.
There is much more under this free trade agreement that needs to be looked at as part of the attack on rural Canada. As the leader of the Opposition indicated, the process of harmonization of the structures of the economies of the two countries to the seemingly lowest common denominator is affecting us much more than it is affecting the United States. They do not have to come up to our standards. They do not have to put in the protection that we have tried to put in for our farmers. All of our supply management boards, programs such as stabilization programs-both the crops stabilizations program and the western grain stabilization program-the special wheat programs, the Canadian Wheat Board and the turkey marketing board are in place for a particular purpose, that is, to allow our industries to survive and to give some kind of security to the production of the products that they produce. In the attempt to harmonize with the United States we are being forced to change these directions.
Supply
The Minister of Agriculture stood up not too long ago at a meeting and told Canadian farmers that it was about time we had a second generation of marketing boards, that the marketing boards we have now are not going to work. Again he seemed surprised that suddenly there was an attack on marketing boards because of free trade when all along the marketing boards themselves, during the free trade negotiations, were putting before this government and before the committee that studied the free trade agreement the reasons why these marketing boards were going to be under attack.
I notice the minister responsible for grains and oilseeds sitting across the way, Mr. Speaker. He very, very cautiously pointed out, ahead of time of course, that the two-price wheat system would not be affected. Of course it disappeared, but it disappeared a year before the free trade agreement so he could say that the two-price wheat system was not affected by free trade. There are some arguments to suggest that maybe he was right, but it would not have happened when it did except for the free trade agreement, and the negotiations which eliminated it would have been quite different if the free trade agreement had not been pending.
Right now the United States is continuing to use its laws to undermine our agricultural industry. For instance, not too many days ago there was an article in a paper suggesting that the European Economic Community is quite disturbed by the fact that even as it has backed off from developing new markets with subsidy programs, the U.S. has offered millions of tonnes of subsidized wheat to China, one of our traditional markets, and to the Philippines. Both of these are new markets to the United States, although they have made some exports to China before. But the point is that even now when there is a shortage of grain across the world, or at least when our stocks are low, the U.S. is out there still trying to gain a major portion of any new market that arises, to our detriment. They are doing it against a supposed understanding that we have regarding free trade. They are saying, "Well, we had this in place before the enhancement program was in place and we did not say we would get rid of it when we signed the free trade deal. It does not matter what you guys thought, we did not say we would get rid of it, therefore we are going to allow it to continue."

October 30, 1989
Supply
There does not seem to be very much relationship between what they say when they are negotiating and what they really intend to do as far as trade is concerned with the States. In fact they told us very directly that the enhancement program was controlled by the Department of Commerce and that they did not have any control of it in trade, that they could not do anything about it.
What I have been trying to point out is that there is a considerable disaster looming in rural Canada in the agricultural community. That disaster is the cumulative effect of many of the policies of this government and its direction which is based on the supremacy of the market. In every example that I can give you, if the government has been forced to make a decision it has made that decision in favour of the free and open market. It has, in every case, sold the farmer short and said, "We have no responsibility for protecting you".
One of the biggest problems that we have in agriculture today is debt. If you wanted to sum up the problems of agriculture in a couple of words you could say "income" and "debt". If you do not have enough income, you cannot survive. But if you allow the debt to grow and grow, eventually you have a situation with which you cannot deal. Regardless of how you look at it, you cannot deal with security of income because the debt becomes too great. That is the situation we are facing in Canada today.
We have $23 billion of debt across Canada in agriculture. The government has said, off and on, that it was going to do something about it. What has it done about it? On the prairies the financial institutions now hold 1.5 million acres of land. A large portion of that, about a third, is held by the Farm Credit Corporation. That is the direction we have gone in the solving of the debt. Instead of helping him the farmer out, foreclose.
Supply management was a strong security system. It gave to those farmers who were involved in it the secure income that they needed. But what is happening to supply management? In the future, the insecurity of income, along with debt, will eliminate a lot more of the marketing boards. If the Minister of Agriculture has his way and we get a second generation, as he calls them, of
marketing boards, you can be sure that that second generation marketing board will be based on the supremacy of the market and not on security for the farmer, because that is the basis under which this government has operated in the past.
We cannot isolate ourselves from the international market but we can be sure that we have some security. The free trade agreement allowed the U.S. to do those things which it thought was necessary to penetrate our market or to guarantee that our products would be cheaper when they came to the United States.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the member's time has expired. Questions or comments?


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the comments of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. I would like to ask a question but before I do that I would like to make a comment about the general trend on the prairies, which I am sure he recognizes, and that is the trend of the federal government to pull support away from the transformation of western Canada. We are all very saddened by the decline in the family farm and the decline of farm income. But we also must recognize that the federal government has a real role to play in enhancing life in the west through other measures.
For example, last week I attended a conference in Brandon on rural development. Speaker after speaker talked about the lack of initiative in the Western Diversification Fund on issues of community planning. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the structure of the current federal government has the minister responsible for grains, which is a very important commodity in the western economy, also being the minister responsible for western diversification. It is a great surprise to westerners that more money is not forthcoming from western diversification to assist small communities in planning alternate futures. Certainly the attendance at the conference of over 300 people indicates that there is a desire among western Canadians to approach their problems differently. One would only hope that the federal government would see its way to changing its style.
Perhaps I could ask the hon. member who has just spoken on behalf of his party whether he, in fact, in concluding his speech, did endorse our motion, or was seeking a different way of approaching this.
October 30, 1989


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the motion entirely. If I were to fault it at all it would be in the fact that it again tries to deal with only one part of the real disaster that is happening in the rural areas. The GST, the VIA Rail cutbacks, the freight rate increases, rail line abandonment, post office abandonment and high interest rates and negatively. If I had to fault the motion at all, it would be the fact that it has the tendency to deal with only one part of the problem, when the problem is the policies of this government in all of those other areas as well.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I am from the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and part of that riding is the fertile Okanagan Valley. As I drive through that valley I see hundreds of acres of barren property where one year ago there were grape vines, cherry trees, peach trees and apricot trees. In one year we have seen the start of the destruction in my area of the fruit-growing industry. The Liberal Party has noted this in subparagraph 5 of the motion wherein it states that the government has:
- failed to create confidence among farmers in the future of the food
supply system in Canada and its ability to ensure long-term food
security for consumers.
Under the free trade agreement and under the GATT rulings, which the government has failed to appeal on behalf of the farmers in my area, in the past year we have seen a glut in the cherry market in western Canada of Washington state cherries. A lot of farmers in my area who normally ship to these markets found their cherries rotting in cold storage. They were scrambling to find new markets to which their product could be diverted. I spoke to some of the American farmers and found that there is a perception that under the free trade agreement they are free and clear, that they can ship into the market up here, and they are doing so with impunity. They are doing so by offering advertising dollars to the locals to sell their cherry products.
As a result of the heavy debt, farmers no longer have security for the future. They have difficulty in knowing where they are going. Those with debt are going to go under. Those without debt feel that they will survive but it is much tougher now to do so. They have just had a clawback of their apple advances from last year because of the apple market they are in. They do not have sufficient support from this government to ensure that their products are able to keep up to date. The high interest rates make it very difficult for these farmers to purchase the equipment needed to ensure that their farms are upgraded on a constant and continual basis in order to ensure marketability of their product. Can the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt tell us what his
Supply
opinion is with particular reference to soft fruit, orchard farming and the wine industry? Almost one year after the free trade agreement has come in, what is his impression of what has happened in this area?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian way has always been to protect the farmer enough so he can survive in those particular areas. The free trade agreement did away with that protection. The government recognized, even as it was developing the free trade agreement, that it was going to affect the wine industry and the small fruit industry. It set up some basic support to help those people in the transitional period but it must be understood and recognized that it eliminated a way of life for large numbers of farmers who had been doing well under the system that was there before, and we got nothing in return for it. We get California wine at a slightly cheaper price, but we have eliminated a way of life and security for a large portion of our agricultural population.
What happened in the small fruit industry and the wine industry was very glaring. What is happening in the rest of the industry across Canada is less glaring but it is changing. There is less feeling of security now among farmers than there has ever been before. They do not think that this government is going to do anything to help them out in those circumstances.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Prince Albert if he will only get into his own seat. Not this time, but next time.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the speech of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt because he raised the whole question of rural agriculture. I am conscious of the fact that the government seems to move unilaterally. In the case of the decision to take oats out from under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board, this was a decision that was opposed at most meetings across western Canada by representatives of the Wheat Board Advisory Committee. These are individuals freely elected from their areas throughout the western prairie provinces. The price of oats had dropped and nine months previously the government had done away with the two-price wheat system which provided some $280 million. I thought the hon. member for Saskatoon- Humboldt would want to respond as to how he sees this decision with regard to oats, especially when many producers are saying we should have some kind of marketing structure for a commodity like canola, whether under the Wheat Board or a parallel structure. A very large percentage of farmers see a need for something like that.

October 30,1989
Supply
It seems to me that the whole free trade deal militates against orderly marketing on the prairies. But we see this decision with regard to oats as being perhaps the first chink in the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board because clearly the large grain companies in the United States have indicated they want to get rid of it. I would just like to hear the hon. member's comments with regard to that decision.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is an important question, therefore I will allow another minute or so for the hon. member to answer. Again, I would say to the hon. member for Prince Albert that he had better move back one more seat, otherwise he will not be recognized next time.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, it is, possibly, the first overt attack on the Canadian Wheat Board, I agree with the member on that. It is not, however, the first attack on orderly marketing or on supply management marketing, which is the basic structural part of orderly marketing in this country. The government will tell you that consultation took place. The consultation showed that a large portion of the organizations were against the idea and the grassroots of the farm community was against any weakening of orderly marketing.
Consultation, in the minds of this government, is to talk to the farmers, listen to them, and then do what it intended to do anyway.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the speeches that have been made here this morning. In so doing, you realize why a lot of people think this place is so irrelevant. If we would listen to the Leader of the Opposition and the spokesman for the NDP who just concluded speaking, we would think that farming in Canada was going to cease to exist.
Certainly there are problems in Canadian agriculture. There have been problems and there will continue to be problems. But to suggest, as the Leader of the Opposition did twice, that we are started on the road to agricultural dependency-and by that I take it he means dependency for food on another country, namely the United States-is absolute nonsense.
I have never heard such foolishness coming from anybody in the House with regard to agriculture as I heard from the Leader of the Opposition this morning.
I listened to him very carefully. I could not detect one positive thing that he said that we had done. If he did indicate such a thing, I missed it. Certainly, in all the initiatives that we have taken agriculturally, there should have been something that he would have been able to find a little bit of favour with. If he could not, it would have been very nice to have him suggest some alternatives as to what in fact we should be doing. I heard none of that.
In lieu of that I guess I have to look at the record of what the previous government did, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member. Some of us remember back to the days of the early 1970s when we had a situation fairly similar to what we have experienced here in the last four or five years when we had surpluses of grain and not enough market. The international wheat agreement was in the process of winding down for the simple reason that nobody wanted to pay any attention to it. It was a voluntary agreement, as a lot of international agreements are. Canada lived by, if you will, the spirit, and certainly the letter, of that agreement longer than anybody else. But in response to that the previous government took us right out of the international wheat market, and got us into what was called the LIFT program.
If you remember, Mr. Speaker, in the early 1970s Canada was producing about 18 million tonnes of wheat. With the LIFT program we faced a difficult international situation, no question about it. I can remember oats being sold for three bushels for a dollar, barley selling for 35 to 50 cents a bushel. We faced a very difficult situation.
October 30, 1989

What did the previous government do? It took us right out of the international market. Our production dropped from 18 million tonnes one year to 9 million tonnes the next. What happened to the United States and the Europeans? They kept right on increasing their production. It took us seven long years to get our production back to the level it was when we started the LIFT program, an absolutely incredible situation. When we had what came to be known as the great grain robbery, which was the period of time when the Soviets came into the market, bought all the grain and drove up prices, we did not have any grain to sell.
Let me contrast that to what this government has done. We faced a very difficult situation, not entirely similar, but in many ways very analogous.
Let me deal with the Europeans and the Americans. Nobody talked about the Europeans. It is all: "blame the Americans for everything". Nobody said anything about the Japanese. But what did the previous government do? They took us right out of the international market.
What did we do? We stayed with the farmers. In a time of very difficult markets we actually increased our market share from something like 19 per cent of the world market in 1986-1987 to 23 per cent two years later, as contrasted to the time of the previous government when our production dropped by 50 per cent.
If we are going to listen to the members who just spoke in the House, they do not offer any alternatives. We have to look at their record. That is their record. Whenever there is a difficult international situation as far as agriculture is concerned, they run, avoid it, don't face up to it. Not only did we increase our market share, we did it at a cost to the Treasury. It was the largest deficit in the history of the Canadian Wheat Board, and they talk about support for the Canadian Wheat Board. The easiest thing would have been to say: "Don't sell. We are in a very difficult situation fiscally, don't sell". We did not do that. We worked with the board and the finance department on a day by day basis. We ran over a $200 million deficit in the pool accounts three years ago. To me that does not look like anything but total support for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Supply
Let me talk about what happened to farmers and why farmers are still facing some very difficult situations in this country. You want to talk about interest rates. Farmers have to borrow money. By the way, it is not all gloom and doom. I do not know whether I am going to have enough time to correct all of the misinformation that was put out here so far this morning. I am not in any way signalling that there are no problems. Certainly there are. But some of those problems are coming around getting to be a little less severe than they were one and two years ago.
With regard to interest rates, I have neighbours where I farm who used to listen to the Bank of Canada rate in 1981, 1982 and 1983, as much as they listened to the weather forecast. When you had interest rates that got to a peak in August of 1981 of 22.75 per cent and five-year mortgages were going at 21.75 per cent, you can understand why farmers were concerned.
We talk about the variables that the farmers have to put up with, such as weather, markets, grasshoppers and wind. When you have a farmer who listens as much and pays as much attention to what happens every Thursday over at the Bank of Canada as he does to the weather reports, that tells you something has been going on with the government. A lot of us, including myself and a lot of my neighbours, were crippled by those kind of interest rates. To have the Leader of the Opposition get up and suggest that the policies of this government are going to make Canada less than self-sufficient and that we will have to go and buy food from somebody else and offer no suggestions based on his record it is Alice in Wonderland. It is incredible.
Let me tell you what has been happening, Mr. Speaker. We have about a $20 billion industry in agriculture, of which somewhere close to half is exported, which means $8 billion and on occasion over $9 billion worth of exports. From 1986 to 1988, we have doubled the trade surplus in agriculture. We have gone from $1.8 billion as an agricultural trade surplus to $3.6 billion. That does not sound to me like a country that is going to become dependent on somebody else for food.
We export 80 per cent of the wheat that we grow, 70 per cent of the canola, 50 per cent of the barley, and somewhere close to 40 per cent of our hogs. We do not produce pineapples or oranges. We do not produce carrots and lettuce when the ground is frozen and it is 20 below. We know that. We have to import those kind of things. But, on balance, we have been running a $3 billion and $4 billion trade surplus in agricultural products.

October 30, 1989
Supply
For anybody to get up and try to scare consumers in this country and suggest that this country is ever going to be dependent on food from another country is absolute and total rubbish.
Everybody would consider Japan a sovereign country. I have a quote here made by the Leader of the Opposition during the election campaign that I will not use. He says: "You cannot call yourself a sovereign country unless you are self-sufficient in food". I think Japan would be considered a sovereign country. It runs $50 billion to a $60 billion trade surplus on an annual basis. It has a very strong currency. Everybody wants to see it appreciate so we can have better access to its markets.
Japan is at best 60 per cent self-sufficient in food, because it does other things better but Japan has got some very restrict tariffs and some very restrictive measures at its borders that keep us out of that market. Why? Because it wants to protect its farmers, but it wants access to other country's markets for its electronic things. We understand that.
That leads me to the second point I want to make. This government has taken the lead in trying to get some regular and secure access to international markets for agricultural products. The previous government did nothing. It is the first time in 40 years that we have had agriculture on the GATT agenda. Why was it there? Because a lot of us pushed to have it there. At the agenda setting meeting in Punta del Este in the fall of 1986 the Secretary of State for External Affairs played an important role in having agriculture put on the agenda. The Prime Minister has played a role. We have all played a role in terms of seeing that we have better and fairer trade rules.
I am not sure that the previous government were there at all. The thing that sticks in western Canadian minds is a Prime Minister who came out there from the previous government and literally gave us the finger and told us to sell our own wheat. Contrast that to what has happened here. Not only did we continue to sell our wheat, we increased our market share at a time when there were some very difficult international markets. Nobody mentioned Europe.
There are some interesting figures here from Europe that show what has happened as far as European exports are concerned. This is something that we need to bear in mind. We have problems with the Americans, and we readily admit it. We are doing some things to resolve them. Here is what has happened in Europe, largely with subsidies. Europe used to be one of our major customers for wheat. In 1973-74, about 15 years ago, Europe was a net importer as far as grain is concerned of about 13 million tonnes. It is now a next exporter to the tune of 25 million tonnes. That is a turnaround of about 38 million tonnes.
If we are going to talk about international trade, and if we are going to be fair about it, we also have to point out the major problems that we have with Europe. There are some major problems with Europe.
Europeans have a crushing subsidy on some of then-oilseed products, their canola. I checked it this morning. It is about 300 ECUs, European currency units. It works out to somewhere close to $400 Canadian. That is the crush subsidy. When a European farmer produces canola, sells it to the crusher, the crusher gets a subsidy to crush European produced products. We do not get it if we send it to them. We are not eligible for that. The subsidy is over $300 a tonne, probably closer to $400 if you do the arithmetic on what 300 European currency units means in Canadian dollars.
Do you know what our price is today to farmers? About $250 to $260 a tonne. That says a little bit about the European community common agricultural policy. In my view we have to start looking at some of those things and see what in fact is legal under the GATT. To get up here and simply talk about all of the things that we have been doing wrong belies the actual situation in Canadian agriculture.
Someone mentioned oats. I do not know who it was in the opposition. Let me tell you what has been happening as far as oats is concerned in the last little while. A week ago today in fact we had an announcement in Portage La Prairie, and not from a multinational. Everybody is talking about the multinationals. A Canadian company-in fact a Manitoba company-is going to start an oat processing facility in Portage La Prairie. It is going to spend $17 million. Just think about this. This is not a multinational, one of the big so-called sisters. I do not know what that has to do with anything anyway, but this is a Manitoba company. It is going to spend $17 million to build an oat processing facility in the town of Portage La Prairie. Why? It gave three reasons.
October 30, 1989

Let me give you a couple of them at least. It said because of the increased demand for oat and oat products. Because of the way we look at our bodies these days we want more from food than just sustenance. We want a healthy diet. Oats is becoming more and more looked at in terms of something that we need to keep ourselves healthy. That is one reason.
Bill Kent is the president of this outfit. It calls itself CanOat Milling. I think I can find the quote here.
Mr. Kent made the point that if free trade was not there, in all likelihood he would not be spending $17 million to build an oat processing facility. This is an example where free trade has meant jobs. Additionally Manitoba regularly produces between 400,000 and
500,000	tonnes of oats, just to put this into perspective. This one processing facility in Portage La Prairie anticipates processing about 100,000 tonnes, somewhere between 20 per cent and 25 per cent of Manitoba's total oat production now. That is a pretty significant plant.
It estimates that 50 per cent to 70 per cent of that production is going to go to the U.S. market. Without free trade he said he would not be doing it because he has a larger market when Canada and the United States are put together.
We had an announcement a week ago from an outfit called West Glen Milling in conjunction with ConAgra, a very large American outfit in the United States, indicating that they were going to build an oat and barley processing facility in your countiy, Mr. Speaker, west of Edmonton in a town called Barrhead. Why? Because of the free trade agreement and because it will have access to a larger market.
Do not think for one minute that what is happening in the oat market has anything to do with some of these so-called multinationals. There are a lot of individual Canadians involved, a lot of the small processors. The people who want to set up a cleaning plant in the middle of winter and provide a job for themselves and some of their neighbours now have direct access to some of those markets in the United States, markets that they did not have access to before because of the free trade agreement. That is not in any way an attack on the Canadian Wheat Board. It seems to me that that is something that is done in favour of Canadian farmers.
Supply
So when you hear some of these things that are being said and you talk about Canadian agriculture and what is happening, let me give you some interesting points in terms of investment in the food and beverage processing industry. The most recent estimates indicate that capital expenditures on food and beverage processing will be $1.6 billion in 1989, up 13 per cent from last year's actual figures and unchanged from the earlier 1989 forecast of those expenditures. That says a little bit about the faith that people outside of this place have in Canadian agriculture, and the fact that we produce some of the highest quality products in the world and are willing to invest money to further process them. That is value added, that is jobs for Canadians. Instead of shipping the raw product out, we process it here. It provides jobs and a little more stability for some of the smaller communities like Portage La Prairie.
I would like to say a few things about the over-all health of the Canadian agricultural industry. Based on information from farm lenders, it is estimated that some
17,000	farmers-that is a lot of farmers, no question-or 9.5 per cent of all farm borrowers were in arrears in the first quarter of 1989. That is not a particularly happy situation, but compared to a year ago it is better. This represents a decline of 2.3 per cent from the 11.8 per cent in 1988. We are not saying that is ideal, but things are starting to get a little bit better. Over-all arrears fell by 31 per cent from the same period in 1988. Again, we are not saying that is ideal and that there isn't room for improvement, but things are starting to get better.
Federal agri-food expenditures from 1987 to 1988 were $6.1 billion compared to $3.3 billion for the combined federal and provincial agri-food expenditures in 1981-82. Again, it tells you the part that this government has played in working with the agricultural industry in a very difficult time. We did not back away from them like the previous government did in the early 1970s with the LIFT program. We stayed right there and increased our exports at some considerable cost to the Treasury.
The Minister of Finance has done a much better job of managing the economy. We do not have interest rates at the 22 per cent and 25 per cent. Farmers are not paying nearly as much attention to the bank rate. There is no question that there is room for it to come down. We are not saying that we are happy with the present rates, but they are certainly nowhere where they were-up to the 22 per cent, 23 per cent and 24 per cent-in the early 1980s. To suggest again that this government is not doing anything is wrong.

October 30, 1989
Supply
Let me make one other point. People are concerned about the age of farmers. There is concern that there are not enough young farmers entering the farming business. That in fact may be true. It is like asking how many women are elected to the House of Commons. In my view, not enough. We have more every year but there are still not enough. We have more young farmers entering the farming industry every year, but there needs to be more. Think about this. A longer term perspective shows that the age distribution of farm operators in 1986 was almost identical to that of 1931. I am not saying it was ideal in 1931, but things are not quite as bad as you would think by listening to the opposition parties.
I do not know how much time I have left, but perhaps I could conclude on a positive note. I firmly believe that we are going to make some progress in the GATT round. You understand that any agricultural policy that we have in this country has to be based on trade, especially when about 50 cents out of every $1 that a Canadian farmer earns comes from trade. It has to be founded in some sound trade policy. I believe that we are going to make some progress in the GATT round on agriculture. It has taken us 40 years to get where we are, basically with no rules in agriculture. We have the United States with waivers on some of its programs.
Nobody has ever tested the common agricultural policy in the European community to see if it is in accordance with GATT rules. I think we are going to make some progress there.
Nobody said the free trade agreement is perfect. No one has heard me say it is perfect. On the other hand, it gives us a set of rules that are lot more predictable. There are a lot of people out there who think that that predictability is better than what we had before, as indicated by the increase in investment in food processing and, as I mentioned, the announcement made just in the last week by two oat processing facilities in western Canada. Quaker Oats, by the way, is in the process of spending $13 billion in Peterborough on its oat processing facilities there.
But, above all, Canadian agriculture can compete. I have farmed all my life. I would be very happy to compete directly against an American, European, Argentinian, or Japanese farmer, without having in between us national treasuries.
Nobody is talking about having a total abandonment of farmers as far as the government is concerned. The hon. member who just spoke for the NDP talked about supremacy of the market. Nobody is talking about backing away totally from government involvement.
In fact I can make the argument that in today's world there is probably a bigger role for government in setting international trade rules than there ever has been because of the amount of trade that goes on. With a better set of trade rules and with the kind of quality of product that we produce in this country, and the fact that we are competitive on a day by day basis, have more arable land per farmer than anywhere else in the world, good research institutes and a good transportation system, we are going to be competitive.
By working together we are going to continue to see that the consumer of this country is very well served by the Canadian farmer. Together, the farmers, and the provincial and federal governments working together will see that Canadian agriculture continues to serve this country the way it has in the past into the future years.


Mr. Parent:: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. minister. There were two points that he brought out in his speech that were of particular interest to me. The first one has to do with the fact that he lauded the conditions in Japan where they are, I guess if not to use his words but his thoughts, not completely self-sufficient in food. We all know they are not completely self-sufficient in food in Japan. They have to import a great amount of their food.
The cost of food in Japan, according to the information I have-and I would like the minister to address himself to this-is at least 40 per cent higher than the cost of food in Canada. If that is what he wants for Canada I would like to know his opinion on it.
The second thing is that the minister said that he was and is a farmer. That is very laudable in itself. He said he is not afraid to compete with the United States, nor is any other farmer in Canada, providing we have what his party calls a level playing field.
October 30,1989

I address a question to him about the grape farmers in the Niagara Peninsula who this year have had to rip up thousands-I repeat, thousands-of hectares of vineyards, all because of this free trade deal that this minister is lauding. I would like to know what answer he has for the farmers in the Niagara Peninsula who have had to rip up these vineyards.
The minister said in his speech that the free trade deal was not perfect. I would beg to differ with him. I think it is perfect. I think it is perfectly asinine.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I was not lauding or being critical of the situation in Japan. First of all, I was pointing out what the actual situation was in Japan. There really is no comparison between Canada's capacity to feed itself based on a very large land mass and a population of 25 million or 26 million people and a country like Japan with a very limited amount of land available and 120 million or 130 million people. There is no comparison.
The point I was making is that if we as Canadian farmers are to have better access to that market, we are going to be able to sell a lot more product to them. We regularly sell them a little over 1.5 million tonnes of wheat per year. It is very restricted how much we can sell to them because they protect their domestic market. If we are going to have trade that is even both ways, and the Japanese want to have access to other markets but want to protect certain markets at home, then some of those things in my view are going to have to change. I think the Japanese themselves have realized that and are prepared to address that to a certain extent in the present GATT round.
With regard to the situation in the Niagara Peninsula, he is not totally accurate. Some of the problems the vineyards have are also to do with the GATT. He should also know that in the free trade agreement there are some very significant provisions on the horticultural industry concerning some fresh fruits and vegetables. There is a very quick snapback, as it is called, so that if prices over a five-day period vary a great amount from previous prices, there is a provision that we can snap back to a duty to protect that. That is something that the Americans and we have agreed to.
Supply
We should remember that are the problems that the Niagara Peninsula is having with grapes is not 100 per cent attributable to the free trade agreement. The big part is with GATT. We do have some significant exceptions to the over-all reduction of tariffs over a 10-year period in the soft fruit and vegetable industry to protect the areas that he talked about.


Mr. Funk:: Mr. Speaker, I noted your previous admonishment about being in the wrong seat. I guess I find it hard to separate myself that far from the previous member for Prince Albert who is a very good friend of mine.
I would like to take up the challenge that the minister left with us. I think he is listening to different voices from what I am hearing and other opposition members are hearing from the farm community. I am wondering if he has even heard the voices from his own convention.
Nevertheless, he did leave the challenge for the Opposition to come up with some alternatives. I will mention two that the government rejected. One was to use a crop insurance based drought program, which I think he might even now concede might well have solved a lot of the problems which many of us are still experiencing in dealing with that program.
Second, just last week or the week before the hon. member for Mackenzie rose with a Private Member's Bill which in principle asked the government and all members here to endorse the concept of including farm-fed grain under stabilization which although the government members said was a good idea they opposed. There were two alternatives.
I would like to ask specifically about a third one. The minister did speak about the situation concerning oats. He must remember that most major farm organizations and 70 per cent of farmers opposed taking oats out of the Wheat Board and were certainly happy to see value added activity. I think that could have happened under the Wheat Board.
Nevertheless, I would like to ask the minister this question. He indicated that 70 per cent of canola is exported. Canola is a major market. The Canadian Wheat Board is our major guarantee for access to the international market. It has worked well for years. Is the minister prepared to put the question in a plebiscite to farmers, yes or no, as to whether farmers in the Wheat Board area want canola under the Wheat Board. If he is not for some reason, would he be prepared to accept the results of such a plebiscite if organized by a major farm organization or farm organizations in western Canada?

October 30,1989
Supply


Charles James Mayer: The hon. member talks about the crop insurance based drought program. That is exactly what we did. If you look at the drought program, what farmers wanted us to do was to have a targeted program. We topped up crop insurance both on the yield and on the price side.
If he is suggesting, which I do not think he is, that we should have only provided assistance to producers that had crop insurance, then that would have been a terrible injustice. It would have meant that producers who did not have crop insurance would not have received any drought payment. We should know that the drought program was and is based on crop insurance data.
Second, he talks about farm-fed grain. He should go back and look at the previous House when the Standing Committee on Agriculture was chaired by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and the standing committee undertook a review of western grain stabilization. I was the first person the committee called. I asked the committee to look at a way of including farm-fed grain in western grain stabilization.
The committee came back and said on a practical matter that it did not know how it could do it. If there is a way of doing it that makes sense which is administratively feasible, we are prepared to look at it. The member should go back and look at the report of the committee to see what was said. Some of his own members sat on that committee. They came back with a recommendation which said that while it is a good idea, they did not know how they could do it.
With regard to canola, this is a very involved situation. Before we jump holus-bolus into a marketing board- and I said that I do not have any particular philosophical hang-ups one way or another, and there are some arguments that I can make in favour of a marketing board for canola and there are some concerns about it-the member had better ask the major customers. About 90 per cent of the raw seed that we export goes to the Japanese. Ask your major customers what they think.
We know what happened in 1973 when the U.S. embargoed the sale of soybeans to the Japanese. Brazil
now produces about 18 million to 20 million tonnes of soybeans, whereas 15 years ago it produced hardly any.
It is find to stand up here and say, on a philosophical basis: "Give everything to a marketing board". The member better understand-and we are not saying that we have to be totally beholden to our customer-that it is a very involved issue. There are more things to it than just simply as I said jumping up in your seat and saying, on a philosophical basis: "Give everything to a board". There are some good points and there are some other things that have to be addressed before we want to jump into that kind of a situation.


Mr. Milliken:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before my learned colleague begins his speech, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find, Mr. Speaker, disposition for a House order that when Your Honour calls a member of a party for debate during the 20 minutes that is normally allotted for that speaker, it would be possible for the party at its option to divide the 20 minutes into two periods of 10 minutes. Each ten-minute period would be followed by a five-minute question and comment period.
I can say for the record that for our party for the remainder of the day it is our intention to follow that practice with each of our speakers. So that when Your Honour chooses to recognize a Liberal speaker there would be then two speakers in succession, each with ten minutes and five minutes for questions and comments.
I believe the same will apply for the government party, except on the occasion when a minister may wish to address the House. I understand that the New Democratic Party wishes to follow the usual 20-minute regimen. I wonder if there would be an understanding that we proceed for the rest of the day on that basis.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Speaker, the government would agree to that proposal.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to support the notion of each political party making a decision at the time of their speaker. At the moment our preference would be to continue as the practice would have it, but with the option of changing it if we wished.
October 30, 1989


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Algoma has the floor.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, there are some differences between the clocks, but they all look to be at about 12.59 p.m. I wonder if we might agree to call it one o'clock.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in recent days, there have been deep debates in the country on the Meech Lake Accord. Unfortunately, some regrettable statements have been made, describing Manitoba's position as anti-Quebec, even racist. Ms. Carstairs was right to ask for an apology for Le Devoir's cartoon: it does not reflect reality. The Manitoba report presents the honest position of Manitobans on this agreement.
In addition, the Reform Party of Canada made unacceptable comments when it said that Quebec could leave Canada. We must admit that Quebec has been waiting for a constitutional agreement for years.
We must put an end to this climate of animosity. We must not forget the efforts of Canadians in all regions to preserve the rights of francophones and anglophones.
This is clearly the time to begin an honest and serious debate. The Prime Minister must finally show leadership and find a solution to this problem in a constructive spirit.


NORTHERN TAX BENEFITS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the report of the task force on financial compensation for isolated northern communities recommends that only those north of 51*sco*ro.05' parallel, North latitude, be eligible for financial compensation.
Matagami, Joutel, Lebel-sur-Quevillon, Desmarais-ville, Waswanipi, Miquelon and other places in Quebec will not be able to benefit from this fiscal policy, according to the task force.
The concerns of us northerners are not the same as those in the South and tax incentives are necessary to attract people to remote regions. The inhabitants of the towns just mentioned should be compensated for the various hardships they face.
Mr. Speaker, the cost of living is high in the North because more fuel is used and the price of food and clothing is higher. I am strongly opposed to the report tabled last week by this task force.


SCIENCE
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, the minister of finance and technology expressed surprise that fewer and fewer of our young people seem to be enthusiastic for science and engineering.

The minister seeks an explanation. Consider the quality of the teaching of science and mathematics in the high schools and universities. Consider the absence of any real federal or provincial initiatives in setting national educational priorities. Consider the disgraceful condition of university research laboratories, inadequate operational funds and faculty salaries. Consider the cutbacks in EPF and the failure of government to accept the Lortie report's recommendation for doubling of university research dollars. Consider the predominance of foreign ownership of Canadian industry. Consider the free trade agreement with its acquisition rules, procurement rules and subsidy limits, and its role in keeping Canada a resource based economy. Consider the stories of Connaught, Lumitron and Northern Telecom. Then ask not why our youth do not value science and engineering. Ask what really is the message they get from government.

October 30, 1989


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Elk Island a hard working music producer in the Sherwood Park area has informed me that the current manufacturer's sales tax is crippling the western Canadian music industiy.
This Albertan is well known for his contributions to Canadian music as a performer and as a producer. Ele said that under the current federal sales tax, the MST, Alberta record stores are required to pay the federal sales tax before their product is sold. He recommends a federal sales tax at the point of consumption rather than at the point of production. He says that the GST will help.
We must work together to diversify the economy of western Canada. Our government must take a leadership role in helping the music industry in western Canada. The Government of Canada must replace the existing federal sales tax, the MST, in order to build a stronger economy in western Canada.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal for moderation and goodwill in the continuing Meech Lake Accord debate. The implications of this issue for Quebec and all of Canada are too serious to be left to demagoguery, threats and accusations.
The discussion is becoming divisive and destructive and there is extremism on both sides. I accept the distinctiveness of Quebec and agreed to its original five conditions, but the Meech accord goes beyond those conditions and impacts on many other matters.
Those who propose amendments are not anti-Quebec, nor is Quebec anti-Canadian because it wishes to protect its distinct language and culture in an English North America.
I plead with the government to bring both sides together so that Quebec can live comfortably within Confederation and so that Canada will continue to thrive nationally as a strong political unit.


CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament for a Nova Scotia riding bordering on the Bay of Fundy and the Northumberland Strait, I would like to say that my experience in dealing with the Coast Guard has been nothing but positive in every respect.
Recently, the residents of an area of my riding which suffers high unemployment asked me to approach the Coast Guard in the interest of utilizing two Coast Guard lighthouses to enhance their tourist potential. The local director of the Coast Guard, Mr. Larry Wilson, and his associate, Wilford Ticker, responded immediately by sending a representative to meet with the residents to find out what they wanted and how the Coast Guard could be of assistance.
The happy conclusion was that the Spencer's Island lighthouse was turned over to the community, and the grounds and buildings of the Cape D'Or lighthouse were made available to the community of Advocate.
On behalf of the people of Spencer's Island, the people of Advocate, and myself, I would like to thank Larry Wilson and his staff at the Coast Guard not only for what they did but also how they did it.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, deep concern and mistrust over the Constitution and the Meech Lake Accord are tearing our country apart and the time has come for strong leadership by the Prime Minister.
There is disquiet and discontent out there and the Prime Minister must listen. I fear people are settling into entrenched camps which is destructive for the country and can only be stopped by principled leadership that will listen, understand, and advance solutions that overcome insecurities.
Ultimately, the federal government must safeguard and promote the national interest for all Canadians. Let's end the confrontation. The Prime Minister must restore calm and begin building a consensus. We must make our nation more united by Constitutional change, not divided by it.
October 30, 1989

It is not a question of Quebec versus Canada, nor one of a deadline, but about responding with openness and honesty to legitimate and sincere differences of opinion from all parts of our country.
The Prime Minister must emerge from the First Minister's meeting with an agenda for dialogue in either official language that brings parties together towards a solution allowing all Canadians to live in mutual harmony and with respect for each other.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, this year's Auditor General's report overstepped the bounds of speculative criticism by unfairly reporting on the Sugar Beet Tripartite Stabilization Program. The Auditor General bases his criticisms on the requirement of the Agricultural Stabilization Act to run programs that are financially self-sufficient.
How, in 1989, can the Auditor General be so critical of a program that only started in 1987? He concludes that the sugar beet program is not self-sustaining.
The Sugar Beet Tripartite Program is a 10-year program. Prices have fallen below predicted levels and costs of production have risen very quickly. Over the next eight years, it is not unreasonable to predict that prices will rise and the program, in fact, will sustain itself.
If the Auditor General really wants to assess the impact of federal spending, I suggest he review the impact of our foreign aid spending that increased the production of sugar cane in Caribbean countries and helped drive down the international price of sugar. The Auditor General would be much better off if he understood the magnitude of problems facing agriculture before commenting on them.


ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's decision to join the Organization of American States, where it has had the status of permanent observer since 1972, will enable the Canadian Government to play a more active role on the international scene.
The Organization of American States is the oldest regional organization in the world, and its basic objectives are to promote and reinforce peace, security, solidarity and economic and social development, in addition to protecting the independence and territorial integrity of its member States, which currently number 32.
Through our membership in the OAS, we have become full-fledged citizens of the Americas. Canada, because of its strength, its history and its economic presence, will have a very important role to play in this organization.
Our membership will encourage stronger ties between OAS agencies and interested organizations in the public and private sector in this country.
Even if some heads of State are less amenable than others, the OAS promotes discussion, understanding and co-operation in areas that concern all governments.


WOMEN'S RIGHTS
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, on January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 251 of the Criminal Code contravened the rights of women under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. Following this decision, the government promised that it would enact a new law, and it attempted to produce a consensus. It failed on both counts.
The government then said it would hold off until the Supreme Court ruled on Borowski. On March 9, 1989, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there is no longer an issue because the law was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court sent a strong signal to this House. The function of the Court is to interpret and the function of this House is to make law. The onus is on this government to introduce legislation which will fill the current void or tell Canadians they have no intention to introduce legislation at all. The Daigle and Dodd cases are unacceptable.
Many Canadians want to know when the government will act in this regard.

October 30, 1989


CANADA CAREER WEEK
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, October 29 to November 4, 1989, has been designated Canada Career Week. This week is an opportunity for young people to become more aware of the changing aspects of employment and the importance of career planning. Young people must be encouraged to take advantage of the facilities and help provided by the local Canada Employment Centres as well as organizations such as the Niagara Peninsula Industry Education Council and career counselling centres in my area. These organizations increase awareness of labour market trends and stress the importance of career planning.
This year's theme, "Careers in Focus", highlights the positive opportunities that come with technological change. It provides an excellent forum for showing young people that they can take advantage of the opportunities presented by change and carefully plan their education in order to manage that change and achieve maximum benefits in their lives.


TERMINAL 3-PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to building airports, it is not what you know but who you know in the Conservative government that counts. A former Conservative MP received $390,000 from the developers who were awarded the $380 million contract for Terminal 3 at Pearson Airport.
You might ask, Mr. Speaker, what does Mr. Lundrigan know about airports. Well, apparently very little, but he did say that he was an expert on political systems and finances. Mr. Lundrigan said that his clients were "aggressive" and that "they do make waves in Toronto", so that was why they needed his expertise.
This sort of revelation breeds cynicism amongst Canadians about how their government works. Why would the developer hire a consultant who knows absolutely nothing about the contract it has bid on? What expertise from this consultant, other than selling access to government officials, is worth $390,000?
At a time when Canadians are being told of the virtues of restraint and austerity by the federal government, it is absolutely essential that an example be set in the awarding of government contracts. Does the government not realize that if these sorts of fees are being charged for so-called consultancy by its friends then this will mean higher costs for the contracts?
The Lobbyists Registration Act is of no help because it does not tell us the sorts of fees that are being paid for awarding government contracts. We know that Mr. Lundrigan received $390,000, but we do not know how much the major player in the deal, Government Consultants International, were paid. Canadians were promised transparency in government, but it seems that only the promise is paper-thin.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I was approached by a young woman on the Sparks Street Mall who passed me a flyer and encouraged me to come to the rally against the GST. "What is the GST?", I asked. "The general sales tax", she replied. "Can you explain it to me?", I asked. "No, I do not know much about it", she said. "Well", I said, "before you campaign actively against it, don't you think you ought to inform yourself about it starting with the name, for it is the goods and services tax, not the general sales tax?"
It is very difficult for Canadians to be well-informed about the GST, given the negativism and efforts at obfuscation by so many members opposite.
Canadians are free to like or dislike tax reform, the GST, or any other measure of government they please. But good government most often occurs within the environment of an informed electorate and constructive opposition.
I urge the government to renew its efforts through public advertising, if necessary, to see that Canadians are truly informed as to what the GST is and what it is not so that they can make an informed decision about it.
October 30, 1989



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Ttorner@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I, and I am sure thousands of other Canadians, are appalled by the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister's speech in Costa Rica. The Prime Minister told Latin American leaders how concerned he was about Third World debt. He told them how concerned he was about poverty in Latin America, how concerned he was for the need for foreign aid.
Why didn't the Prime Minister tell Latin American leaders according to the official estimates of the Canadian International Development Agency, the current report given to Parliament, that out of his great concern for poverty in Latin America he has cut developmental assistance to Latin American countries by over $20 million this year?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition may have been disappointed at the Prime Minister's speech in Costa Rica. I can tell him that all of the heads of governments of Latin America, the Caribbean, and of North America very much welcomed, not simply the joining by Canada of the Organization of American States, but the clear indication that now Latin America, our neighbour in this hemisphere, is going to be a major priority of this government as we play our full role not only in the rest of the world but also in this hemisphere.
With regard to aid, the Leader of the Opposition knows better than anyone else that the reason there have been reductions in the levels of ODA expenditure is because this government was faced with a massive deficit created by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and by his colleagues when they were in government. We cannot ignore that deficit, nor can we pretend like ODA. What we have done is undertaken a program that keeps our commitment to get the deficit down and allows Canada to play a leading role in contributing to international development in Latin America and all around the world.
Oral Questions


Mr.   Dimer@Vancouver Quadra: Mr. Speaker, why in those circumstances didn't the Prime Minister come clean with his Latin American colleagues that he was cutting aid to their region, instead of extolling himself and his government in a flowery speech to the Costa Rican audience?
Part of a precondition to any membership in that organization should have been a meaningful presence diplomatically and a meaningful presence in terms of aid in the region and, indeed, a full parliamentary and public discussion preceding that decision.

Mr. Speaker, in the same speech to Latin American leaders, the Prime Minister said that external debt problems in this region were a cause for great concern, and that he intended to help them. Again, why didn't the Prime Minister tell the Latin American leaders that last April, the Canadian Government cut Canadian aid to the Inter-American Development Bank by more than 40 per cent, and assistance given to the Caribbean Development Bank by more than 80 per cent? Isn't this rank hypocrisy?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the Opposition will or would be both surprised and pleased to hear that all government leaders present last Friday and Saturday congratulated not only Canada and the Canadian Government for having taken this important initiative to enhance Canada's relations with Latin America. I think it is also important to point out that Canada's decision was approved by a great Canadian, the Hon. Paul Martin, Senior, who said today in a report that Canada's decision to play a more active role in the OAS was long overdue.
As far as the debt is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition knows pefectly well that Canada played an important part in dealing with Mexico's debt under the Brady Plan, that the Minister of Finance led an important initiative to help Guyana, and that all members of the Commonwealth attending the conference in Kuala Lumpur thanked us for the generosity of all Canadians.


Mr.   Dirner@Vancouver Quadra: Mr. Speaker, it is true that since the day he made his first speech in the House in 1935, Paul Martin had considered this possibility, but even Mr. Martin would be sorry to hear this morning that the Government's actions are a direct contradiction of its statements.

October 30, 1989
Oral Questions
As for Parliament, it certainly did not condone this error, Mr. Speaker. Parliament didn't even consider the OAS membership.

In the same speech the Prime Minister told Latin Americans how concerned he was that 40 million Latin Americans lived in abysmal poverty. He told them that he was concerned that half the adults in Latin America do not have a full-time job and how concerned he was about the increasing infant mortality rate.
If the Prime Minister is so concerned about these issues and about world poverty, why did he cut humanitarian food aid by $46 million this year? Why has he cut the amount of food that Canada gives to the poorest of the poor in this world?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend is quoting from someone else's speech. I never gave the speech or the extracts that my hon. friend has just quoted.


Lloyd Axworthy: That's right. You never say those things.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend, unless I misunderstood him, has suggested that I issued that particular statement which I did not. It does not mean that I disagree with some of the things that my right hon. friend says, but I did not make those remarks.
He also says that this matter was never considered by the House. My information is that Canada's membership in the OAS was considered veiy actively and thoroughly by a committee of this House in 1982.


Lloyd Axworthy: Seven years ago.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is true, Mr. Speaker, that seven years is a long time in politics. The Liberals were in a majority. They made a recommendation, as I understand it, that Canada should join the OAS. Paul Martin, Sr., recommended it 35 years ago, and this government has done it.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Today at noon thousands of Canadians came to Parliament Hill and called on the government to drop the goods and services tax.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has the floor.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, obviously my colleagues can hear whatever they like to hear. Today at noon thousands of Canadians came to Parliament Hill and called on the Government to drop the goods and services tax. What more do Canadians have to do to make this government listen and drop this unfair and unholy tax?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to contradict my hon. friend's numbers, but I was advised by people that the media had done a count, which was somewhere around 300, or possibly 350.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition made some comments. I think we should go back to figure out how he counted back in the time when he was the Minister of Finance. Government spending was increasing at a rate of 29 per cent per annum in his last year as Minister of Finance. When government spending is increasing at that rate, that is the sort of thing that leads to high levels of taxes.


John Napier Turner: Did you bring down a surplus?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. member talks again about his surplus, the surplus that he had in his first year as Minister of Finance.


John Napier Turner: Two in a row.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think the right hon. gentleman is talking about the surpluses that he inherited and then we went straight down hill from there as a country as he led us into deficit after deficit.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, if anything, it is the smugness of this government that is ignoring millions of Canadians across the country from coast to coast. Eighty per cent of Canadians are opposed to this goods and services tax.
October 30, 1989

My question is for the Minister.

Across the country, millions of Canadians have said no to this tax. When will the Government listen to Canadians and withdraw the GST? When?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware that Canadians do not like paying taxes. I do not think anybody likes taxes, but we all understand that taxes are necessary if we want to have the programs and services that Canadians demand.
I am sure that when my hon. friend spoke to the group of people that were on Parliament Hill today he took a good deal of time to explain to Canadians the nature of this tax, not just use rhetoric. I am sure that is exactly what he did. It is important for Canadians to understand the details of the tax, how it is going to benefit low-income people, how it is going to benefit our exporting industries and how it is going to benefit small business by removing the tax on their inventories. The members opposite say, "Come on, Mike". These are the facts.


Ms. Clancy:: We say how?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My friend from Halifax says "how". I would suggest she read some of the documentation and that is where she will find the answers to all of these benefits.


ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has just returned from Central America and in a few weeks he leaves for the Soviet Union. I would like to first ask him about his trip to Central America.
As he will know, previous Canadian Prime Ministers and heads of government in Latin America have often expressed the concern about Canadian membership in OAS in relationship to the power American foreign policy seems to play within that organization.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister how he can really believe we will be in a position to have independent sources of information that are crucial to an
Oral Questions
independent Canadian policy when our government has announced cut-backs in our foreign service in Ecuador, Brazil and Guatemala. Is this not a contradiction to be joining OAS precisely at the time we are cutting back on our diplomatic service?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is never obviously a perfect time to do anything. You make value judgments about problems and opportunities and that is what a government is supposed to do.
I tell my hon. friend that we were well satisfied after the visit to Central America that this is a decision very much applauded by all governments in Latin America. They view the Canadian presence there in an extremely positive way.
I refer my hon. friend to some observations made by a distinguished Canadian, the Hon. Paul Martin, Sr. who as minister of external affairs promoted this idea for many years. It is a value judgment that the Government of Canada made. Past governments have refused to join the OAS. This government believes the time was right, that the opportunities are there, and we believed it was appropriate for this government to provide the leadership for this to come about.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer had nothing to do with the question which was how are we going to have an independent policy if we do not have people on the ground to give us independent information?
With reference to the need to have an independent foreign policy in this country, on the weekend the former Canadian ambassador for disarmament had this to say about American pressure in Canadian foreign policy. He said that the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself had been pressed by the Americans to stop Mr. Roche from his pursuing disarmament matters at the UN in the manner that he was. Mr. Roche specifically said that the Secretary of State for External Affairs said his work was "too vigorous" in pressing for disarmament.
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is Mr. Roche accurate in this? Did the United States put direct pressure on the Secretary of State for External Affairs and, if so, what was the Canadian response?

October 30, 1989
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, to answer the direct question correctly, the United States did not put direct pressure on me with respect to Canadian policy.
Now if the Leader of the New Democratic Party is suggesting that in the world of international affairs other countries do not express their views to the foreign minister of Canada then he is living in some kind of a dream world. I have received suggestions about Canadian policy from his friend Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua.


John Edward Broadbent: Our friend is the President of Costa Rica. Talk to your boss.


Charles Joseph Clark: I have received suggestions about Canadian foreign policy from officials of the United States. I have received them from a number of other people. Our rule is whatever other foreign governments might suggest about Canadian policy, we set Canadian policy here in Canada for Canadian reasons. That has been our practice, that will continue to be our practice.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that it was not the New Democratic Party, it was Mr. Roche, a former Conservative MP, a former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament who said this pressure was put on the Government of Canada; it did not come from this side. The minister did not answer the question in an appropriate way, and he knows it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a supplementary to the same minister or the Prime Minister, who is going to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has on a number of occasions recently talked about creating a nuclear free zone in the Arctic. Recently Mr. Gorbachev was in Finland again and he repeated the proposal. Canada has always been cool to this suggestion. I want to ask the Prime Minister if when he goes to the Soviet Union he will respond seriously to this suggestion by the Soviet Union, including asking questions about the Soviet armaments they have in the Kola Peninsula? Instead of reacting in a carte blanche negative way which the United States has to this, will he accept and propose a positive response on this important matter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed. I propose to review with the President of the Soviet Union all avenues of co-operation and to explore with him and his colleagues all reasonable opportunities for progress and for a greater degree of stability.
I really do not know why my friend is so exercised in putting questions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or to me in this regard. I doubt if there has been a greater degree of disengagement by the superpowers than in the last two or three years. I think that any fair-minded person would say that this results on the one hand from a great degree of leadership from the new President of the Soviet Union and also a great degree of firmness and leadership from the President of the United States and the leaders of the NATO countries in solidarity. It is generally recognized that we are entering a new era of hope and opportunity and I would have thought my hon. friend would celebrate that rather than be carping and negative as he enters his-


An Hon. Member:: Swan song.


An Hon. Member:: Twilight years.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The twilight years of a very distinguished career.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
David Walker: 
William Warren Allmand: You should have an agenda.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is it the position of the Liberal party that we should not be in the OAS? I would appreciate some clarification.


John Napier Turner: Know what you are doing before you do it.


An Hon. Member:: Where is Paul Martin when we need him.


Charles Joseph Clark: I know the Liberal party on several earlier occasions has preached a kind of isolationism. They made it clear that we should not play a leading role in the hemisphere. We believe that Canada should play that kind of leading role and I would be interested in knowing the position of the Liberal party.
We did not wait to join the OAS to make representations to Latin American governments regarding the question of human rights. We make those representations regularly and effectively. We will continue to do that. If anything, our membership in the OAS will increase our capacity to make those representations for respect for human rights far more effectively.
Indeed, if the hon. member would read the speech that was given to the meeting in Costa Rica on Friday, he would notice that among the themes upon which the Prime Minister laid emphasis was precisely the question of human rights and the essential relation between human rights and democracy, both of which we encourage by our active presence in Latin America. I am sorry to see that the Liberal party wants to draw back from our obligations in this hemisphere.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Perhaps I can clarify to the Secretary of State what our policy is. The Liberal statement released on OAS membership stated that membership in the OAS cannot be used as a proxy for substantive policy for Latin America.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Christine Susan Stewart: Policy should not be developed without consultation. The Secretary of State, if I heard right, said he had suggestions from the U.S. and Ortega about our relationship in Latin America. Why did this government in this parliamentary session not consult with Parlia-
Oral Questions
ment's own Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade and Canadian non-government organizations before grandstanding an empty policy in Costa Rica? Will the Prime Minister now appear before the committee to justify his move?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that of course is an old question that was raised two or three weeks ago and answered two or three weeks ago.
I understand that there will be an invitation extended to me to come before the standing committee and I look forward to doing that as I have regularly throughout my time as Secretary of State for External Affairs appeared before standing committees to discuss public policy with the members of that committee.
There is an obligation upon national governments to make decisions, to take actions in the national interest. We believe that it is time to contribute, to add more force to an already effective Canadian policy respecting Latin America by joining the organization that draws together the countries of that region and provides a political forum.
The OAS is far from being a perfect organization. We believe that Canada's role in that organization can help strengthen it as the role of Canada in the last four years has markedly strengthened the Commonwealth and as the role of Canada in the last four years has not only strengthened but has allowed the creation of la franco-phonie.
There may be some in this House who think that we should be drawing away from international organizations. We believe that there is a particular Canadian capacity to strengthen those organizations, and we think it is appropriate for us to apply those Canadian talents in Latin American in our own neighbourhood.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he would be very open to suggestions as to how to cut the deficit. I have a suggestion today for the Prime Minister.

October 30,1989
Oral Questions
The Toronto Star tells us that the Prime Minister had his armoured limousine flown to Costa Rica with an additional one to serve as a back-up. What a waste. They could not be used because there was no unleaded gas in the country to put in them.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: When is the Prime Minister going to come back down to earth and realize that the Canadian taxpayers are the ones who are paying for his moments of illusions of grandeur?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are some questions that go beyond the very flexible standards of this House. I think the insinuation of that question is one of them.
Let me make two facts known to the hon. member. I think he might know them already. The first is that decision was not taken by the Prime Minister. It was a decision taken by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are responsible for the security in Canada and abroad of members of the government and of officers of Parliament, including the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
They made an assessment that the security situation in that meeting, at which was present, for example, the President of Colombia, that the security situation was sufficient that it required unusual precautions to be taken. I point out to the hon. member, and this may not be of much interest to him, that there were frequent assassination threats issued upon people who were present at that meeting. During the presence of the President of Colombia at the Costa Rica meeting there was in fact a continuation of the series of assassinations and bombings in his country.
We have a choice. We can back away from the struggles of that continent, we can back away from the fight against drugs, or we can take our role to try to help the other countries of the Americas deal with serious problems that affect this whole hemisphere. We believe it is important for Canada to be there and if the RCMP says that the Prime Minister of Canada should enjoy
security while he is there then I think most Canadians would accept the advice of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, it is always great when you can back up and blame the RCMP. Who runs the RCMP? They are under this government.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: That is where they are. In addition to the limousine fiasco, the Prime Minister had, at times, an entourage of some 41 to 60 secretaries, advisers, valets, bodyguards and other functionaries with him during his 18 day trip to Kuala Lumpur and Costa Rica. This was double the number that Great Britain's Margaret Thatcher had. When is the Prime Minister going to practice what he preaches, tighten his belt and set an example for all Canadians? It is no wonder the Minister of Finance has to levy a 9 per cent GST in this country.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting revelation that Liberal members of this House believe that the government of the day runs and directs the RCMP. That is not the practice of this government, although it may well have been the practice of Liberal governments in the past.
Second, the figures quoted by the hon. member are distorted and are false. Third, we have just heard from the leader of the New Democratic Party the importance of having available to Canada when we are engaged in important international conferences and important international decisions the best Canadian advice available. The Prime Minister was dealing directly in the two conferences from which he has just returned with 65 heads of other governments. We dealt with important questions ranging from trying to fight drug trafficking through to trying to protect the environment to trying to find ways in which we can deal with the burden of debt upon low income countries, not to mention questions with regard to the situation in southern Africa.
Of course we had advisers there to help us ensure that Canadian policy was effective and I think that the hon. member will find when he looks to the testimony of other participants in that conference that Canadian policy on those matters has been effective.
October 30, 1989


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. A major potential loophole for evading the goods and services tax is now emerging around land and housing.
Developers will, prior to the GST being implemented, simply transfer land and houses into a numbered company and then sell the shares of these companies. Of course, the sale of shares is exempt from the goods and services tax. In view of the mounting opposition to the goods and services tax, the increased confusion around the implementation of the tax, including statements made by the chairman of the finance committee on taxing new houses, the statements made by the Auditor General about the inability of the government to collect the tax and now a major loophole in the ability of the government to collect the tax on housing and land, will the minister withdraw this ill conceived goods and services tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have read of the comments made by certain people in the housing sector. The advice that I have received is that that is a very, veiy limited opportunity. We are grateful to receive this type of advice during the consultation period, before we put final legislation to the House, so we can address this type of problem and other problems which are bound to develop as people get a better understanding of the tax. That clearly is a reason why it is important that we have this period of consultation and why we get to Canadian individuals as much information as we can about the nature of the tax.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, what is obviously happening is that they are giving out the information to help their friends evade the tax.
In British Columbia holding companies have been purchasing buildings in order to avoid the 1 per cent sales tax on the provincial property. There is a 1 per cent sales tax on property in B.C. and they have been putting the buildings in the names of holding companies. If this is done to avoid a 1 per cent sales tax, it will certainly be done in spades for a 9 per cent tax.
Oral Questions
Can the Minister of Finance now tell us how he intends to plug this major loophole in his goods and services tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about a 1 per cent tax in British Columbia on housing. There is today an existing sales tax which is levied at the effective rate of between 3 per cent and 4 per cent on the purchase of a new house. This is not something that is not new. What we are trying to do is develop an equitable tax, a fair tax that is going to be balanced across the board and one that will avoid the loopholes that the hon. member has referred to.
On the question of loopholes, let us also not forget that in the existing federal sales tax there are 75,000 tax collectors. There are 22,000 special deals between Revenue Canada and those 75,000 tax collectors. That demonstrates clearly that the existing tax is riddled with loopholes and the hon. member should be on his feet telling us to get on with changing the tax from the existing tax which people can take advantage of and put in a new tax that is fair and is not going to have this type of loophole.


THE SENATE
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister on his stopover. Albertans have been anxious for the Prime Minister to return and celebrate the political reform that has begun in his own country.
In light of an overwhelming victory on October 16, indeed over a quarter of a million votes for one man, when, not if but when can Canadians expect to hear of Mr. Waters appointment to the Senate of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I see applause from the Liberal party. I thank my hon. friend for the question. I have, as the hon. member elegantly pointed out, just returned and-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -I have a strong urge to leave again.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Best news we've heard all day.

October 30, 1989
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps while the right hon. gentleman is here he could answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well all right, Mr. Speaker, if you insist. I thank my hon. friend for the question. I have not yet had a chance to consider this matter with my colleagues. I will do so and be happy to respond as soon as I can.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I know that there has been some time to address this issue since October 16 and I know that the fax machines were busy between here and Singapore after that was over. It is not a matter of when, but it is a matter of why not reform the Senate. I think that we in Alberta are getting restless for this to happen.
The time has come for Senate reform. I heard from a Senator at our weekend convention in Edmonton that the Senate sleeps 104. When will this change be made in the Senate of Canada?
Am Hon. Member: Sleeps?


Deborah C. Grey: That's what a Liberal Senator said at our convention.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, did I hear my hon. friend say that a Liberal Senator was attending the Reform convention on the weekend? It would be interesting to know if this is the new position of the Liberal party. Given some of those principles adopted there I would expect the Leader of the Opposition to call in that Senator and start putting his feet to the fire right now, because I plan to do it at an appropriate time.
With regard to my hon. friend, I have already answered the question and as soon as I can consult with my colleagues I will be happy to give her an appropriate response.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it concerns the continuing Oerlikon saga. We have now learned that following both an RCMP investigation and an internal audit of National Defence that four top officials of National Defence assigned to the Oerlikon's low level air defence project have now been either forced to retire or fired.
I want to ask the Prime Minister what is the link between the investigation, the audit, and the firings in question?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the question that the hon. member asks is a question that has been addressed by the Department of National Defence. There were two internal audits done. There were investigations done by the RCMP. There was not a recommendation by the RCMP to have criminal charges laid. The appropriate investigation has been undertaken and the appropriate action has been taken. There were no allegations and no evidence of anything other than management-


Mr. Kaplan:: What is going on?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The hon. members ask what is going on. There was an audit and there was an investigation. There were irregularities in the management practices of that office. In some instances individuals whose terms had expired were not rehired. The action that was taken was appropriate and if the hon. member wishes additional information he should ask someone else.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I did ask someone else. I asked the Prime Minister. Perhaps he would answer the question the next time.

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is as follows and concerns the Oerlikon affair. The four people in charge of the Oerlikon project have been fired by the Tory Government opposite.
I would like the Prime Minister to give us a reasonable explanation instead of the ridiculous answers we have just heard.
Why were these four people fired? If nothing was wrong at Oerlikon, why fire them?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has reached a conclusion that is not logical, but that is not surprising. He suggests that there is a relationship between actions taken by the management of the Department of National Defence to have efficiencies and management practices that are appropriate for not only the program management office but other departments of government.
October 30,1989

The actions and the firings alleged by the hon. member did not take place. What took place was a reassignment of one individual, expiration of term contracts by other individuals and a finding of inappropriate action by another individual. As the hon. member knows, please ask what actions were taken but do not ask this minister or other ministers to release names of individuals in the House of Commons that cannot be released outside the House.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Sherwin Petersen, Minister of Highways and Transportation for the Province of Saskatchewan.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, with answers like we just heard from the ministers, is it any wonder that Canadians are more and more indignant about this government.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Hard-pressed taxpayers are seeing hundreds of thousands of their dollars going to cronies of cabinet ministers for winning the Terminal III contract at Pearson Airport. This morning it was revealed that $390,000 went to John Lundrigan, a former Tory MP from Newfoundland, for 15 to 20 meetings that he attended.
Can the government, and the Prime Minister, assure this House that in awarding this rich contract, which contains a government guarantee for the promoters against losses, that the Minister of Transport of the time, and the government, were not influenced by the fact that the consultants who made money on this deal included not only the former member from Newfoundland but also the minister's former aid, Chester Burtt, the former Tory Premier of Newfoundland, Frank Moores, as well as two close personal friends of the Prime Minister, Gary Ouellet and Gerald Doucet? Tell us that all these good Tory connections were irrelevant in winning that contract.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, lobbying is not against the law in Canada. It has not been, and will not be in the future. Nor is there any law in respect of how much lobbyists, be they lawyers or otherwise, are paid. What this government has done is introduce a lobbyist registration system
Oral Questions
so that people can know who is lobbying and on whose behalf.
I think it is going some way beyond a sense of decency to infer wrongdoing or impropriety. If the hon. member has evidence of that, let him bring it forward. Otherwise he should keep his mouth shut.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It sure is easy to see why taxes are going up and why the cost of air travel is going up.
If the minister wants the respect of the Canadian people for that legislation, will he accept the amendment that was proposed on this side, and will he, without the amendment, make public, as is done in other countries where lobbyists exist and are regulated by statute, disclose all the amounts that were paid for the winning of this contract and who received them; all the amounts and who?


Harvie Andre: The contracting procedure of this government is well known.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: The Auditor General has full access to the procedure. There was a competitive procedure.
I repeat to the hon. member, if he has any evidence of wrongdoing he has a duty to bring it forward. He makes a suggestion about the fees paid and so on. I wonder, if he were continuing to act as a lawyer, if he would be agreeable to a system that provided that his legal fees in respect of any action that involved this kind of contract must be a matter of public record. It was for considerations of the invasion of privacy that would be involved that the committee which studied the legislation did not take the recommendation of the hon. member that fees be disclosed.
I repeat again, there is no accusation in the article, none whatsoever, of wrongdoing. It is wrong of the hon. member to suggest wrongdoing when he has no evidence.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Today all the federal parole and case management officers are being forced out on strike by this government. There has been no pay increase for the last three years. This strike is a crisis in the administration of justice. It will mean an even greater overcrowding of the prisons. It will deny prisoners their right to parole, and mean that parolees will not be supervised.

October 30, 1989
Privilege
My question is this. Last week the Solicitor General announced with great fanfare that today of all days is the start of Crime Prevention Week. Is it the minister's idea of crime prevention to turn his back on his own employees who are on the front lines of the administration of justice?
[Translation}


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I already informed the House last week that in consultation with the National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada, we have taken all the necessary steps to deal with the current situation.
I can assure this House that we will take care of all people who are on parole. Management staff at the penitentiaries and the National Parole Board will be monitoring the strike very carefully closely.
I can assure the Hon. Member that since this morning, I have been in touch with the authorities at the National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada, and that at this time, everything is going well. I think that we must act as responsible citizens and avoid raising such matters in public. We must not create false fears where none exist at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Given the time, we will move on. I will hear the hon. member for Windsor West on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, today at noon several thousand Canadians gathered on Parliament Hill-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I was present at the rally. None of the Conservatives had the nerve, the courage or the commitment to their ideas to come out and meet those thousand of Canadians. As between my statement that thousands were there and the comments of the Tories, I suggest that Canadians will decide who they want to believe on this subject since the Conservatives did not have the guts to be present.
These Canadians rallied on the Hill against the government's goods and services tax. Among them were several hundred taxi drivers who had driven to the Hill in a procession and they hoped that at the conclusion of their rally, they could drive their cabs around the driveway in front of the Parliament Buildings and out again. However, the taxi drivers, when they first approached the Hill in a procession, had been stopped by a road-block of RCMP cars approximately opposite the Centennial Flame. When the taxi drivers attempted to proceed around the driveway of the House of Commons and the Senate to the main entrance of the Peace Tower, they were stopped by this road-block.
The RCMP officers who had gathered around the police cars in question persisted in maintaining this road-block even after Members of Parliament entered the cabs at the front of the procession and asked to be driven up Parliament Hill to the main entrance of the Parliament Buildings at the Peace Tower.
I and other Members of Parliament asked the sergeant in charge why we were not allowed to proceed in these taxi cabs. He said that he was acting under instructions and could not remove the road-block until those instructions were changed. When I and other MPs asked the sergeant who had given these instructions he remained silent and refused to say who had done so.
At that point, I and several other members went to see the Sergeant-at-Arms who apparently had not heard about this matter. He came out with us to talk to the RCMP sergeant in charge and, as a result, there was initially an agreement between the RCMP and the representative of the taxi drivers that some 30 cars could proceed around the main driveway by the Peace Tower.
After this was announced to the taxi drivers and a large number of other people who were there watching what was going on, the individual taxi drivers at first said that if all the drivers could not drive their cabs around, none would do so, at which point, I and some of the other members proceeded back on foot to the Peace Tower. At that point, a number of cars came through bearing members of the public and some Members of Parliament.
October 30, 1989

I submit this action by the RCMP raises the issue as to whether this action I have outlined by RCMP officers and those who gave them their instructions breach the privileges of this House. I am sure the officers in question were acting with the best of intentions, but the issue of parliamentary privilege still remains to be considered. I say the issue was there, even though it was possible for members of Parliament, in the case of myself and others, to walk up the hill to the Peace Tower and eventually for several others to ride in taxi cabs to the main entrance to the House of Commons. I say this because when I and a number of other members of Parliament first attempted to be driven by taxi cabs around the main driveway up to the Peace Tower, we were prevented from doing so by a roadblock of RCMP cars and a large number of RCMP officers.
What do the authorities say in this regard. I refer you to Beauchesne's, fifth edition, page 35, citation 104 which states:
The time-honoured privilege of Members to have free and unimpeded access to the Parliament Buildings should be recognized even if there is some question as to the extension of the term " parliamentary precincts", and in particular whether the jurisdiction of the Speaker, exercised on behalf of Members, extends beyond the limits of the Parliament Buildings themselves.
In this case, the obstruction in question took place on the grounds of Parliament, just off the gate from Wellington Street, near the Centennial Flame.
I also ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take a look at Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, Twentieth Edition, page 156, where there is the heading, "Molestation of Members while in the execution of their duties". Erskine May says:
It is a breach of privilege to molest a Member of either House while attending such House or when coming to or going from it- and on June 6, 1780, the Commons resolved, "that it is a gross breach of the privilege of this House for any person to obstruct and insult the Members of this House in coming to, or going from the House-
I repeat that I am sure the RCMP officers in question were acting with the best of intentions, but the fact is that when I and a number of other members of this House attempted to be driven up to the main entrance at the Peace Tower in taxi cabs, we were prevented from doing so by RCMP officers who had created a road-block of RCMP vehicles. I submit that this action falls four square with the accepted definitions of what is involved in preventing members from having access to the House of Commons. I submit that what we have here is a prima
Privilege
facie breach of privilege. If you agree with me, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
I want to say, by way of conclusion, that I realize there are questions of security with which we ask the RCMP to be concerned. However, I say that in instances such as this, these matters should be worked out in consultation with the Speaker, the Sergeant-at-Arms and the RCMP, and no one instructing them should act as the officers in question did today, no matter what their intentions were. We have the potential for a very dangerous situation, where no matter what the intentions are, no matter how well-intentioned the officers may be, the result may well be to prevent members of the public, and as was the case here, members of Parliament from having access to the Parliament of Canada.
I do not think this is acceptable under any circumstances. I certainly do not think it is acceptable in this case, where large numbers of Canadians, in a peaceable way, wanted to carry out their long-standing privilege of demonstrating and expressing their views against a very unpopular government policy, the goods and services tax. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that what happened amounted to a prima facie breach of privilege, and if you agree with me, I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, the point of my question of privilege is one of access, access by an elected representative, a member of Parliament, specifically this member of Parliament, to this place. There was a noon hour rally on Parliament Hill, a rally attended by Canadians who were very concerned about the GST, in fact, so concerned they were protesting the GST. Behind each one of them, I might add, there are thousands more who say that enough is enough.
Following this noon hour rally, members of Parliament who boarded taxis to return to the front door of the House were stopped by police on the lower road. My colleagues and I were denied access to the front door. I questioned an RCMP officer who told me, and I quote, "Potentially 295 MPs, if every one of them took a taxi to the Hill, they would disrupt the dignity of Parliament so bad it would be unbelievable". At this point, the officer said, "Mr. Member, if you would like a ride to the front of the House of Commons, I am offering you a ride." I was not aware of that. I will phone and ask if I have that same privilege available to me tomorrow morning from my apartment.

October 30, 1989
Privilege
I have the honour and the privilege of being a member of Parliament and it is my solemn commitment to my constituents to serve. But how is any member able to carry out his or her duties without total and unimpeded access at any time and by whatever means is at our disposal?
Number one, can a member of Parliament arrive at this place whenever and, more important, however he or she wishes? Two, is there a limit to the number of members of Parliament who can arrive at the front door of this place at any given moment? With all due respect, is there a set of rules governing this activity of which I am not aware, or is it common practice for the Sergeant-at-Arms to make himself available as chief negotiator, as some sort of conciliator, between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the taxi drivers of Ottawa?
You have had put before you and this House, Mr. Speaker, the rules outlined by my colleague, the Hon. Member from Windsor West. I submit that we have a prima facie case of privilege and I would support my colleague's motion, if you so request.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I was one of four members in the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms at noon hour along with the Leader of the Opposition and two other MPs. I was there because I too was one of those who was at the rally of many, many Canadians who were here to protest the tax.
After the rally, I too tried to summon a taxi to return to Parliament Hill. My colleagues for Prince Albert- Churchill River and Saskatoon-Dundurn tried the same thing. There were RCMP cruisers blocking the path by the Centennial Flame.
I and the House leader of the opposition party asked why they were doing this and on whose authority they were acting and they would not tell us. We then went and disturbed the Sergeant-at-Arms who was half way through a lovely lunch in his office. He appeared not to know anything about it so we brought him down to the Centennial Flame and negotiations were undertaken.
The House leader of the official opposition has already referred to that in detail.
My point is really two-fold. I think it is important, because of the possibility of a real confrontation having occurred, because of some of the emotions and tempers that were around, to find out who made the decision that we were not to have access to the House of Commons in taxis.
I have always known since I was elected as a member of Parliament that I have the right to call a taxi and be dropped off at the Centre Block under the Peace Tower, and other members know that as well. We have access to the Hill. You know that, Mr. Speaker, and we all know that. We have access to the Hill, and you as the person in charge of Parliament Hill is the only person who can deny that access under certain circumstances.
I think we should look at this in terms of a question of privilege regarding access to Parliament Hill. Second, Mr. Speaker, I think you would want to find out who made the decision to have the RCMP block the lower road down by the Centennial Flame because that was something that could have escalated into an incident that none of us would have wanted to see.
On behalf of many members of Parliament, I too support this question of privilege. I think it is a pretty fundamental thing. It is something that you as Speaker certainly would want to get to the bottom of as quickly as possible.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point as my colleague for Windsor West. This incident happened in an entirely different set of circumstances.
Shortly before one o'clock, I had a meeting off the Hill and I was returning to the Hill by taxi. We turned in to the entrance way in front of the East Block. As soon as the taxi got on to the property, we were stopped by a member of the RCMP who advised us that we could continue no further and would I walk from that point up to the Centre Block. I acquiesced, naturally.
October 30, 1989

In the House today, I heard my colleague talking about the denial of access and it came to my mind that the same situation happened, so I join my colleague for Windsor West and adopt his arguments on access to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could ask the hon. member for Windsor West whether any members were stopped from approaching the building if they were walking.
Mr.'Gray (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, I thought I had said that members who wished to approach the building on foot were able to do so, but that is exactly my point. I think that access to the building should not be based on somebody else's decision as to the means of conveyance, whether or not it should be on foot.
I respectfully submit that if members of Parliament wish to enter the building by travelling there by taxi or private car, that should be their decision, even if they may well be doing it for symbolic purposes. There was no doubt, there were all sorts of witnesses to this, that when members of Parliament initially attempted to travel from opposite the Centennial Flame to the Peace Tower, they were prevented from doing so by a road block of RCMP cars and a large number of RCMP officers. Therefore, I have decided to present this point to you.
I have made it very clear that members could go to the building on foot. I ask you to consider, Sir, whether anybody, except perhaps yourself on behalf of the House, has a right to dictate to members how they should go up the Hill, whether it should be on foot or in a taxi or in a private vehicle or whatever.
I hope I have answered your question and I respectfully submit that there is an issue of obstruction even though there is no doubt that in my case, I was able to eventually approach the building on foot.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am hesitant to speak on this particular point of privilege, but the point that I want to make is, first it takes me back to the work that was done with the McGrath task force and the whole question of the jurisdiction of the Speaker. One of the things that was found to be real problem is that the Speaker does not have the jurisdiction over the grounds of Parliament and that those decisions are made off of the Hill and are not in any way connected to the Speaker's office.
Privilege
To me, the solution on this particular case would probably be to make a reference to the committee to ask it to look at the whole question of the Speaker's role and that of the Board of Internal Economy in terms of setting guidelines that affect the Parliament Buildings. We, Sir, would not in any way want to interfere with the rights of members opposite to take a cab from the Flame to the centre of the Peace Tower any time they choose to.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is an absolutely gorgeous day here in the nation's capital. Why would anybody concern himself with access when he can get out and walk the very few feet or yards that it is to the Centre Block? It also seems to me that-


Mr. Gauthier:: How did you get here, with a chauffeur?


Charles James Mayer: You ask me how I get here. I make it a practice, if members are interested, to walk on a regular basis. I do not ever use a car to come up to the Centre Block. When the option is there, I use the green buses. I am sure the green buses were still able to run.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: No, they were not!


Charles James Mayer: If the green buses were not running, they were not running. I was not aware of the situation.
The point is that if you have access and a very few hundred yards to walk on a day as gorgeous as this, I think members opposite are being rather frivolous in this kind of a point of order.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Windsor West and others have addressed the Chair on a question of privilege. Basically, the fact, as explained here in the last number of minutes, is that indeed certain vehicles carrying members of Parliament were stopped at least for a while.
There was also some suggestion that members were denied access to the front door. I think that the hon. member for Windsor West mentioned that. The hon. parliamentary secretary has made a suggestion which seems to be quite sensible. There is some difficulty with respect to jurisdiction outside the walls of these buildings and under the circumstances, I am going to find that there is a prima face case and I would hope that the appropriate motion would be put.

October 30,1989
Point of Order


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elamilton West:
That the matter of access of certain members of Parliament by taxi to Parliament Hill today be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognize the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on a point of order.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond, if I may, to assist Your Honour in making a ruling on the matters raised this morning by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. There are two or three questions that he put to you and asked you to answer in a hypothetical way and I wanted to make clear our position on this matter so that Your Honour, in making a ruling, will be able to consider the views of the opposition.
The significant question that he posed was, was it necessary before a discussion on an allotted day and before a motion could be put down on an allotted day that the government designate the allotted day. I have reviewed the authorities as best I can and I submit that the answer to the question is no, there is no need for a designation before any member of the opposition can set down a motion.
I refer the Chair to Standing Order 81(12)(b) which makes it clear that in putting down a motion on an allotted day that is to be votable on a Friday, the opposition must give 48 hours' notice of the motion. If the parliamentary secretary's interpretation of this rule was correct, it would mean that by holding up the designation until Thursday evening on any supply day on a Friday, the government could effectively forestall the opposition from choosing to have a vote on a Friday. It is clear from the reading of the rule that the intent is to leave the leeway with the opposition. I submit that the
answer to his first question must be no, there is no necessity for a designation before the opposition may set down a motion for a supply day.
Second, I want to note that the Notice Paper for Thursday, as my friend will see indicates that the notice was given pursuant to Standing Orders 81(12) and 81(14). It was clear on the designation of the Leader of the Opposition's original notice that it was for a votable supply day on Friday last week.
The government chose not to designate Friday as a votable supply day and accordingly, another notice was given on Thursday for Friday and it appears on Friday's Order Paper, by the hon. member for Algoma. While the terms are exactly the same, the fact is the first notice was given to conform with Standing Order 81(12)(c).
I submit that in making any ruling on this matter, the words of Standing Order 81(12)(c) are relevant, and I have dealt with the other issue. There is no need for designation, in my submission, before the notice is given.
With respect to the withdrawal of notices, the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that it was improper for the member to withdraw without recourse to the House. I refer Your Honour to Citation 543 of Beauchesne's sixth edition which states as follows:
There are only two ways in which a notice can be withdrawn from
the Order Paper, first, by the Member giving a written notice to the
Clerk of the House or second, by the Member informing the
Speaker of the desire that the question be dropped or withdrawn.
I understand that the appropriate notice was given in writing to the Clerk, and accordingly, the notice is withdrawn ipso facto and there is no need for the member to do anything else or seek the leave of the House to withdraw the notice. I ask Your Honour to rule accordingly.
The member suggested that it was improper to have multiple notices. Again, I refer to Standing Order 81(12)(c), which states that when notice has been given of two or more motions by members in opposition to the government, there is no reference to parties, there is no reference to anything except members in opposition.
October 30, 1989

In this case, there were two notices from two members of the opposition and apparently a third was given for today. Again, I suggest the wording of the rule clearly implies that more than one notice can be given and there may be a duty on the Speaker to make a selection. However, in this case, there was no such requirement because of the withdrawal.
Finally, on the question of whether the notice was properly given, I submit it was perfectly proper in this case because under the special order adopted by this House last April, subsequently amended in June, subsequently amended in September, to the best of my recollection and I do not have all the dates of the amendments, the Parliamentaiy Secretary knows that there were two allotted days to be held before the end of October, and as of Thursday, that had to be on either Friday, Monday or Tuesday. It was obvious that there was going to be an allotted day on one of those three days. I submit, in the circumstances, it was more than proper, indeed, it was being generous and fair, that the opposition chose to give its notice on Wednesday night of the fact that it wanted a debate and a vote on agriculture on Friday.
To put this in perspective, I want to read from the words of the Chief Government Whip on Thursday, October 26, as recorded at page 5210 of Hansard. At roughly eight o'clock, or nine o'clock in the evening, he was asked what the business of the House would be for Friday. This is his reply:
Mr. Speaker, the government House leader anticipated being here for a 1 a.m. vote and bringing the information on the business of the House with him on that occasion.
The surprise ending of the debate and the quickness of the vote make it clear that he is not here with us and that that information is with him. We will share it with all members of the House as quickly as possible upon his arrival. The House will start at ten o'clock.
The obvious thing is that no one on the government side at nine o'clock on Thursday night had any idea of what the business was going to be the next day except the government House leader himself who had fled the coop. He was going to come back at one o'clock on the morning of the day and tell us what the business was going to be that day.
It is typical of the way this government mismanages the time of this House. The hon. Parliamentaiy Secretary, I admit, was absent last week and missed this fiasco of mismanagement on the part of his colleagues. Indeed, I suggest that if he had been here, perhaps it would not
Point of Order
have been bungled quite so badly. The fact remains, it was badly botched.
The government could not make up its mind from one day to the next what the business was going to be. When it did not get a designation in for Friday, it had to then make Monday and Tuesday the allotted days and so we changed the notice and withdrew the old notices that had been given, as we are entitled to do.
My final point is this. Your Honour can ignore the mismanagement to Your Honour's content. I will not argue that because that is more a political point than a procedural one. But I say that the government, in raising this point of order, has no right to raise hypothetical questions and put them to Your Honour.
Your Honour must make decisions based on events that have transpired. The parliamentary secretary, at the opening of his remarks, indicated he had no objection to the procedural propriety of the motion that we are debating today and, accordingly, I suggest that his entire point of order be ruled out of order by Your Honour at once because the questions that he has posed are truly hypothetical and ought not be dealt with in a ruling from the Chair given in the normal way.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I sat here and listened at great length to the point of order raised by my hon. colleague, and I just want to say that if a person is to properly represent the matter in a serious vein, which I have no doubt he intends to do, then perhaps he should get his facts straight.
Because I was here I can speak with some degree of qualification. In the first instance he made some reference to the government Whip indicating that at 9 p.m. that evening he was unprepared to give the Orders of the Day because they had expected that the vote would be taken at 1 a.m. I say to you, Sir, I was in the House when I heard, I believe it was the Whip of the Liberal party say, with waved finger: "You will be here until one o'clock this morning voting on the matter." That is the first point.
The second point is the government Whip did not make that statement at 9 p.m. He made it at precisely 7.50 p.m. because immediately following that time I went and attempted to eat at the parliamentary dining room and they told me the restaurant was closed, and that was at about two minutes to 8 p.m.

October 30, 1989
Supply
With those points of correction I think that the hon. member should adjust the tenor of his comments so that you, Sir, might more seriously consider his comments.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this point of order at all, but I think it is important to make one comment.
If I am not mistaken I heard my hon. friend say that 48 hours' notice should be given on what is to be designated as an opposition day. Our point is that in fact the problem we have is if there is no notice on the floor of the House of Commons that such and such a day will be an opposition day, then we find it very difficult to understand how there could possibly be a number of motions placed on the Order Paper for a day that has not yet been designated.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just can't believe my ears. We are trying to make a point. It is very simple. There were three days left in October, that is working days for this House. Two of those had to be opposition days. We therefore thought, because the government will not tell us what was going on, that we would use the rules thoroughly, and we used them. Standing Order 81(12)(a) says:
Forty-eight hours' written notice shall be given of motions to concur in interim supply, main estimates, supplementary or final estimates, to restore or reinstate any item in the estimates.
That is exactly what we did. And when we saw the government still persisting in not wanting to tell us what the work of the next day would be, we put another motion on the books because we thought at that time they were going to play tricks on us.


Albert Glen Cooper: They shouldn't have thought it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, because you are a tricky, tricky government. You do have this in mind. You have a mentality that says "we must play tricks on the opposition". So to avoid you playing tricks we put forward two motions. Nothing in this book says we cannot put two, three or four motions. Mr. Speaker, you would have to choose which one of those motions is going to be taken up when the government makes up its mind as to whether tomorrow or the day after is an opposition day. That is the problem.
The Conservatives will not tell us what the agenda is yet they expect us to guess. Well, if they want to continue that kind of game, we will continue that kind of game also.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to thank all hon. members for their contributions. I know that the Chair will take note of the comments this afternoon and we will proceed to the Orders of the Day. When the House rose at one o'clock p.m., the hon. member for Algoma had been given the floor.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
That this House condemns the government for having jeopardized the future of Canadian agriculture by its ill-conceived trade policies, especially the Canada-U.S. trade deal,
1)	which have failed to gain access to the U.S. market in spite of the promises of the Prime Minister in the 1988 General Election;
2)	which have failed to counter U.S. protectionist actions (including those taken after the enactment of the trade deal) against Canadian agricultural products such as pork and other commodities vital to our economy;
3)	which have failed, as evidenced by the recent GATT panel decision on ice cream and yoghurt, to ensure that Canada is able to maintain its marketing board and orderly marketing systems;
4)	which have failed to have any effect on U.S. agricultural export subsidy programs, such as the export enhancement program, which are contrary to the claimed "spirit" of the trade deal while the Canadian government has, at the same time, been moving unilaterally to dismantle programs beneficial to Canada's farmers; and
5)	which have failed to create confidence among farmers in the future of the food supply system in Canada and its ability to ensure long-term food security for consumers.
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was concerned as to whether the House was trying to talk out our opposition day without getting to the very important matter before us, that being our motion which describes the tremendous uncertainty and the fear of the situation that exists in many rural areas of Canada because of the actions of this government with regard to trade issues. Clearly I do not believe there has ever been a time when marketing boards, the legislation and the support programs for marketing boards have been in greater jeopardy.
October 30, 1989

I found it interesting to listen to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds because he talked about the history of agriculture in this country and all kinds of other issues, but he did not address the four or five points in the motion before the House today which deals with the failure of the Government of Canada to secure access to the United States market.
He did not talk about the failure by the government to counter U.S. protectionist actions on things like pork. He did not talk about the jeopardy in which our marketing boards and supply management have been placed. He did not talk about the fact that we signed a deal with the United States stating that we were not going to interfere with each other's customers abroad, yet the United States is increasing the funding under its export enhancement program. He did not address the tremendous lack of confidence that there is in this country now with regard to our whole supply management system.
I thought it was interesting that he talked about the billions of dollars which the government has provided during the trade wars in the last two or three years between the EEC and the United States. It is interesting that he talked about those billions but did not talk about the $500 million which the Minister of Finance cut out of the budget of the Department of Agriculture last April.
Those programs, amounting to $500 billion, include the advance payments program. It is rather interesting he did not mention that because practically every major agricultural organization in Manitoba-the Keystone Agriculture Producers, the Manitoba Canola Growers, the Manitoba Corn Producers, the Manitoba Pulse Producers, the Western Barley Growers, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which includes the pools, and so on, is opposing the government's position for that funding under the advance payments program which the minister did not bother mentioning.
The former Minister of Agriculture faithfully promised Canadian dairy producers in the spring of 1988 that he would secure and protect the underpinnings of the supply management system in this country. He said he would move products like ice cream and yoghurt from
Supply
the tariff list to the import control list and that would salvage the whole supply management system.
He said it many times in the House of Commons and on the hustings and, yet, today we have the whole agricultural economy of this country, supply management and the marketing boards in jeopardy of being destroyed by a ruling.
We could not believe the minister at the time because the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in the United States, Senator Benson, was complaining at that time. As soon as the government placed commodities like ice cream and yoghurt on the import control list, the United States Government applied to GATT for a GATT panel to strike down the import controls that Canada had placed on it. A decision was made in the past month or so to strike that down and disallow it.
The implications of that decision could not have come at a worse time and they could not have had greater impact on the Canadian dairy industry. The Minister of Agriculture plays lots of games, but if that decision is upheld by the GATT the prediction is that at the end of the day he will accept that decision by the GATT panel at the December 4 meeting in Geneva, probably not implementing it until the end of the GATT round negotiations a year from this December. That precedent at that time in that way, with that timing, is the worst possible decision that could be made. Clearly the government should have made a deal in the free trade deal to control those imports.
The Americans did. They had a waiver which says that those commodities cannot be brought into the United States. If the government was serious about protecting the supply management and marketing board system in this country, there would have been that kind of arrangement in the free trade deal. Now we are faced with the prospect during the next year or so of losing that import control, which is one of the major reasons that we can have supply management. It will be a devastating decision, not only for the dairy industry but for the whole feather industry: broilers, turkeys, and egg products.

October 30, 1989
Supply
That is the one devastating response to the free trade deal. The pork countervail is an even sadder story, although it is hard to choose between the two. Last fall, sometime in October, the United States passed the free trade deal, agreeing to it, and then proceeded to amend in the omnibus trade bill the provisions for the countervail duty.
In other words, they said: "Okay, we are going to have a free trade deal with Canada, but we are going to toughen up our countervail duty in direct violation of the spirit of the deal". In the April 3, 1987 The Wall Street Journal the Prime Minister said: "You cannot have a free trade arrangement and expect the traditional laws of countervail to apply". "Such laws", he said, "can be triggered by any disgruntled group in the U.S. at any time". He said: "It would be illogical in the extreme to negotiate a free trade agreement and then have the other side say oh, by the way we forgot to tell you all of our nice little tricks, our countervail and what have you are going to be kept".
They not only kept all of them, as the Leader of the Opposition said, in section 1901(2), but they reinforced them, made them stronger. They said that any countervail that is applied to a primary product will be deemed to apply to the secondary product, in this case to pork. They have had a countervail on Canadian hogs for the last couple of years.
Now that countervail of 2.6 cents a pound is in place, but we know that the payments on the tripartite pork stabilization program have been very large, I think in the order of $36 a hog during 1989, compared to an average of $6 a hog in 1988. That means that our pork producers, on pork that is sold to the United States, could have a retroactive countervail applied on them back to this past September.
Now we have the situation where the Canadian Pork Council is making arrangements to provide a levy on every hog that is sold in this country, not just on the ones that are sold to the United States which perhaps represent some 25 per cent of our production but on those sold within the country and those sold to Japan and other countries, of $2 per hog. That means we are buying access to the United States market, this access that the Prime Minister talked about in The Wall Street Journal interview in 1987. It does not sound very free if we have to levy $2 on every hog marketed in this country, whether they are going to the U.S. or not.
It is easy to see why the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds did not respond to the motion put forward today because the government has really muffed our whole trading relationship with the United States, and it is having implications far beyond those relationships with the United States.
The other area that we are very concerned about is that under the free trade deal with the United States we agreed to negotiate, over the next five to seven years, a subsidy code, a list of subsidies that would not be subject to countervail duty by each other. It is interesting that in the budget which came out this year and in other actions which the government has taken something like nine out of the fourteen or fifteen subsidies mentioned in the free trade deal are either reduced or done away with completely.
We believe that the government has placed in jeopardy the very important supply management marketing board system, our whole pork production in this country. We believe that their trading relationships have been jeopardized by these actions, not only through the free trade deal but the negotiations which are going on at the GATT. That is why we have put down this motion today condemning the government for its lack of proper action with regard to agricultural trade.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this debate to demand that this government abolish its present policies that are undermining our marketing systems, that are ignoring the needs of Canadian farmers, that are resulting in an exodus of young people leaving the farms across this country and are resulting in a closing down of rural Canada. It is a sad commentary that so many Canadian farmers and their wives have to find off farm employment, not only to survive and put food on the table but to subsidize their farm operations.
It was with a great deal of shock and dismay that I read just recently that the United States Secretary of Agriculture had made the statement that they intend to discipline Canadians and their subsidy programs. If there was ever a pot calling the kettle black, this was it. The western Canadian wheat producers, have the ability to grow the highest quality of wheat in the world. Because they started to make some inroads into the United States markets the United States Government was called upon, by the producers in the United States of the same Durum wheat, to bring a countervail action against Canadian wheat moving into the United States.
October 30,1989

Obviously, because of the fact that this wheat was higher quality and that it was readily available through the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Wheat Board and the fanners were able to fill this market. It seems a sad commentary, after being led to believe that the free trade agreement was going to open up these markets in the United States and secure the access to these markets for Canadian products, that all of a sudden we have had one countervail action on Canadian pork moving into the United States, on live hogs themselves, then later another one on the dressed pork.
When we asked the American representatives about this, they said that of course they have the power to do this under the omnibus trade bill because it supersedes the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement was not ratified until after the omnibus trade bill came into effect.
So we have those actions against our pork and our live hogs, the threatened action against our Durum wheat producers, and still another one that is being talked about toward Canadian beef going into the United States. Yet I have not heard one word from any of the ministers on the other side of this House as to what action they are going to take against the United States or, in fact, what laws the U. S. changed to adhere to the free trade agreement.
I am shocked that a government of a country with the resources that we have in Canada would allow itself to be manoeuvred into a position where we would find ourselves shut off from these markets with the Americans, in addition threatening countervail action that was supposed to have been removed by the free trade agreement.
I am also rather shocked when I read the various accounts of what is happening in the GATT negotiations. We are hearing various buzz words. One that is of primary concern to me is the buzz word "tariffication". If we ask for the meaning of tariffication, some of the negotiators and people in the civil service tell us that tariffication means taking away all import restrictions and barriers that perhaps are not visible but are there, some by legislation and some by statute, and replacing them with tariffs. Then of course the next step, if they do this, will be to negotiate the tariffs downward step by step until there is free movement of product across these borders.
Supply
In all seriousness, while it may sound exciting to hear people saying "yes, we can compete", we have to realize that there is no level playing field because mother nature herself has dictated that that is not the case. In Texas, for example, they can grow up to three crops a year. California can grow three crops of tomatoes a year; in Ontario we can grow one. So naturally we can guess where the products are going to be grown if we go toward the route of tariffication and negotiate away all subsidies.
Canada has tremendous potential and expertise in agricultural production, but we must realize that we are tempered by the climate. In that context, no country should ever allow itself to be put in a position where it cannot produce its own food because it has been traded away.
I had the honour last Friday of speaking to Dr. John Kenneth Galbraith, one of the foremost economists of the world. He said:
I very much think that in Canada, and equally in the United States, we have a cultural identity which identifies itself in the family farm.
He went on to say:
I have always felt as a broad rule that agriculture must be under the constraints of production control or marketing boards. It is the nature of the agriculture market, as distinct from General Motors or (other large corporations), that there is a total absence of control of total output. Such control is essential to agriculture.
Yet we have a government over here that systematically starts to take away the underpinnings of the various marketing structures that have served this country so well over the last number of years, that were put in place by various governments, and that have been the envy of producers of the world. In fact, it has been referred to as the most sophisticated marketing system of any country in the world. At no time have we contributed to world surpluses of any of those commodities that are under that system of planned production.
I just want to compare what is happening here. For example, in the dairy industry we have our production under control through a series of planned production, for both industrial and fluid milk markets, which has been very successful. To compare that to what they have in the United States, at the present time there are four or five states that are facing acute shortages of milk. Georgia, a large producer, is now producing half of what it needs. Alabama and Tennessee are short of product. All of the east coast of the United States has shortages. Even New York State, a major producing state within the United States, is very short of milk at the present time. Even the State of Michigan is short in the area north and west of Lansing. The price is only now starting to

October 30, 1989
Supply
show a return to the producer, and this is after approximately 1 per cent of the producers in the United States per month have decided to throw in the towel and leave the industry.
It is shocking that such shortages would occur within the United States. They are picking up the milk every day from farmers. If consumers want milk on a weekend they must buy it before three o'clock on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon because of what has happened.
That is an example of where this government is leading us. It is leading us to a system of supply and demand and shortages in this nation. I abhor the direction it is taking which will leave Canada as a nation vulnerable to the whims of the market of supply and demand that it no longer controls but rather leaves the control in the hands of the corporate structures.
In closing, I would ask this government, for goodness sake, to stop and take a look at what it is doing to the farmers of Canada, at the credit being made available to them through the Farm Credit Corporation, and at the hardships it is inflicting on the people of this nation.
I have in my own riding a man who is severely disabled. He has been held at the end of a string for the last three months and nothing has been done to help resolve his problem. The Farm Credit Corporation Act states that the corporation may make compromises, rewrite mortgages and do all those things that are conducive to a lending operation. Yet that has been ignored in the case of this family.
I ask the government to show some compassion, not only for the producers of Canada who are facing these hardships, but for those left to the whims of the market-place to wither and die on the vine.
In closing, I just want to ask this government to stop and realize where it is going, how it has been taken in by the United States on the free trade agreement and the subsidy wars that it is escalating at the present time. I
should point out that the United States appropriations committee for the second year has now placed a cap of $770 million on the funding for the export enhancement programs.
The government has to take action, dig in its heels and not allow itself to be pushed around any more.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a couple of comments and ask the member for Lambton- Middlesex a question. As we read through the trade deal which has been touted by the government, the real strength, as it says, is the snapback as far as duties and tariffs on fruit and vegetable crops that the trade deal puts in place is concerned. They brag about the five-day situation there.
I can tell members of the House from experience of producing quite large quantities of these products that the reality is that when you need five consecutive days the damage is done. In other words, if it happens for two or three days and then someone can say it was okay for the fourth day, the five-day cycle is broken.
Let us look, for example, at the production of strawberries in Canada which are produced for about three and one-half to four weeks. Is the damage not going to be done by the time we can prove five days? Then we get through the bureaucratic red tape, et cetera, and the influx of those products coming in. I would like to ask the member to comment on whether he thinks that snapback mechanism has a possibility of having any success.
The other thing, along that same line in fruits and vegetables as well, is that the word "harmonization" is used quite frequently in the free trade agreement. What does the member for Lambton-Middlesex think is going to happen over the years as we harmonize our grade standards, our regulations and our residue standards with the United States? Are we going to continue to have the high standard of food safety in Canada that we are proud to say to Canadians that we have at the present time?
October 30,1989


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question. Obviously the harmonization of regulations that has been going on since the government took office has brought down our standards to be more in line with those of the United States. Canadians can no longer afford to brag that we have the highest quality standards of any nation in the world. This is reflected not only in terms of fruit and vegetables but also in our grains.
We are equally alarmed that the government would bring in a system through the free trade agreement whereby a load of grain coming into Canada does not have to show the grade or the quality of that grain. All it needs is an end user certificate. It could be some very low quality grain that is brought in here in a series of truck loads simply to break and undermine a price structure that exists within our market-place. I think we should insist on having those grades and the quality shown on those end user certificates.
I would also like to comment very briefly on the snapback provision. The member is absolutely right in terms of the tender fruit harvest, in particular strawberries, cherries or peaches, because we have a price structure established at the start of a harvest season. If you have a few truck loads of lower grade quality dumped on the market-place, the price is tremendously undermined and that price normally remains in effect for the rest of the season and ends up with our own producers being forced into bankruptcy or whatever.
A few moments ago I quoted a man to whom I listened very attentively last Friday. He spoke about the concentration of power in the market-place, the power of the big multinational corporations and what they are doing to the Canadian agriculture industry. He was veiy firm in his resolve that the producers themselves must have a counterbalance and a counterbalancing force in the market-place to compete against these people. It is only through structures that we have here in Canada, the marketing board and the wheat board that we are able to do that. It would be a shame if these were ever traded away such as this present government is doing.
Supply


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of comments on the remarks of the member for Lambton- Middlesex. First of all, it is obvious that he is not familiar with the situation in the western prairies especially with regard to wheat and Durum and to the export of Durum wheat to the United States. We have had record exports of the best high quality Durum wheat. Also, Canadian wheat producers can compete in the international market-place. We have without a doubt the best hard red spring wheat in the world. While we have been facing some problems in the international market-place, there is no question about that, there has never been a government in the history of this country that has stood in for the farmers like this present government. I think it would be well if the member would research his material a little better before making statements to this effect.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I should advise my colleague on the other side that I am a wheat producer, maybe not Durum wheat but I am a wheat producer. In fact, about 186,000 tonnes were exported to the United States this year which is up substantially from previous years precisely because of the high quality of that wheat. The quality of that wheat is a credit to the Canadians producers who produced it.
I would like also to point out to him that five prairie farm organizations wrote to the Minister of Agriculture requesting action against this American action. This has not been forthcoming at this time. I would ask my colleague on the other side to put pressure on the Minister of Agriculture and his two assistants. They have three part-time ministers over there. I hope between all three of them they will bring a stop to these actions and protect the interests of our own Canadian producers.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise to speak again in this House on the question of the future of agriculture and how this government's actions are making a much tougher and insecure environment for the farming communities of Canada.
Today particularly it is interesting that we are finally getting around to talking in a concerted kind of way about the effects of the recent free trade agreement which has now run for virtually a whole year. I think some of the chickens are really starting to come home to roost, especially in the agriculture community.

October 30, 1989
Supply
I remember very well as I was running for the nomination for my party in my constituency that this debate was raging in the farm communities in Saskatchewan. The Premier of Saskatchewan, the Hon. Grant Devine, came to Prince Albert and provided a briefing to the citizenry of the area on the free trade agreement. He made two points very, very clearly with respect to agriculture. His big point, of course, was that Saskatchewan is an agriculture producing province, something on which our economy depends. Obviously he could not very well come out in support of an agreement that would clobber the heck out of the leading industry in his own province.
The premier made two points that stuck with me. One is that our access to markets through the supply-management system would in fact be enhanced under this free trade agreement because it was spelled out in that agreement that it was more than iron-clad, that our access to markets would be better than it was.
Second, he said the reason we had to get the free trade agreement and why farmers had to support it was because there was all kinds of potential for the sale of red meat into the American market. Without the free trade agreement that access for red meat not only was not assured but could well be in jeopardy.
I want to say that there were farmers who listened to the remarks of the Premier and who were in some ways convinced by that. They thought we were doing well selling red meat into the American market. We do not want to lose that market. There had been threats of countervail on pork. There was an element of the farm community that said yes, free trade in agriculture is going to be a benefit to farmers.
What have we seen since then? I think it is becoming quite a litany. First, as somebody mentioned previously, we gave up two-price wheat. There was a commitment at that time that the $280 million that we got under the two-price wheat system would continue to flow to farmers. I have yet to see where that flow-through to farmers has come or where the substitution has been on the two-price wheat payment. That just dropped right through the cracks in terms of any kind of benefit to the producer at all.
Second, the marketing board structure has never been under more threat in this country than it is right now since its inception in the 1960s. We have seen that through GATT. It does not really matter, as the Member for Saskatoon-Humboldt pointed out before. What the
free trade agreement has done is give the Americans two routes to get at us, two routes for harassment and they are using both of them. They used them in the case of ice cream and yogurt. If that should stand there is no question that the whole supply management system would start to unravel.
The point is not so much the technicalities of what is happening, but that the Premier of Saskatchewan and agriculture spokespersons for the government made it very clear that what we were entering into is an era of understanding and harmony, that there would not be any more harassment and that we had to co-operate. People like to hear that kind of thing. We do not want to be fighting the Americans for markets or fighting harassment again and again. It is not our way. Where do you see Canadian action against American producers? There was one on com, but it has been very seldom that Canadian producers have taken even the opportunities that they do have to beat on American farmers. That is not our way of doing things. We were told that it would not happen to us, and it is.
Furthermore, the whole thrust of the government's agriculture policy is taking us down a road that interacts with the free trade agreement in such a way as to lead us to an agriculture economy that is going to be based on agri-business very much the way the American agriculture community has moved almost totally into an agribusiness kind of mould. We see the removal of oats from the Canadian Wheat Board.
Certainly everybody agrees with those who say that we need to process more oats at home. There is no reason oats cannot be processed in Canada under the auspices of the Canadian Wheat Board. We have milled flour in this country for years and done a very good job of exporting flour, something which operates under the Canadian Wheat Board. There is no way oats cannot operate just as effectively through the Canadian Wheat Board.
That action was taken in the face of the virtually unanimous opinion of the farm communities. Polls were done by Decima Research, a company the government tends to listen to during election time and most other times. A poll done by Decima Research found that approximately 70 per cent of farmers wanted to keep oats under the Canadian Wheat Board. The reason they want to do that is because the institution of the Canadian Wheat Board has been the main bulwark of our defence and the most successful aspect of our penetration to international markets when it comes to the export of
October 30, 1989

grains. It is the envy of producers all over the world. The Australians have one; they like ours better. I had the opportunity over the Thanksgiving weekend to talk to farmers in the mid-western United States. The first comment you most often get from the American farmer is how we have developed such a successful wheat board and what might they have to do politically to get something like it.
If this government were serious about international markets, and it should be, it should be not only maintaining the current role of the Canadian Wheat Board but it should be enhancing the role, moving it into new areas. When you have a winner you go with it. This government makes a big point of going with the winners. Maybe the losers have to lose, but certainly you go with the winners. Our big winner is the Canadian Wheat Board.
This morning I challenged the minister to hold a plebiscite. I am not suggesting anything that is not democratic or that the majority of farmers are not interested in. I think it is time to hold a plebiscite on whether farmers want rapeseed or canola included under the Canadian Wheat Board.
I might remind our Liberal colleagues here, some of whom might not have been around in those days, that we at one time had such a plebiscite. However, Otto Lang, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board at that time, had a personal prejudice against it, put in a convoluted question with yes, no, maybe, don't know, which needed 50 per cent of the vote. There was no way in that kind of a stacked ballot to get any proper reading.
I challenged the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds to organize a plebiscite in the Canadian Wheat Board area on whether Canadian farmers in fact want canola marketed under the Canadian Wheat Board. I challenge this government to stand by the results of that plebiscite because if it is really serious about using our best possible vehicles for international trade, then it has to take the Canadian Wheat Board seriously. It has to make that vehicle available before canola disappears as a profitable crop in Canada as well.
Supply
I would like to say that when it comes to the whole range of agricultural policies which the government is proposing I note that in a few weeks we are expecting a White Paper from the Minister of Agriculture in which again we will see the same general thrust.
The government talks about self-reliance. It talks about market orientation. What that means is making us much more vulnerable to the ravages of the international market. That is what pits our small producers and our small industries against the international giants. At the same time, rather than strengthening the Canadian Wheat Board and the marketing board system, which have worked very well for us and which are world models, this government should make it clear once and for all that it has gone as far as it is going to go in dismantling those structures and that in fact it is going to get together with the Canadian farm community to help enhance those vehicles.
Certainly nobody on this side of the House has ever said that we do not need export markets in agriculture. We do. We are asking for this government to take the actions that will in fact help farmers, not help Cargill, not help Continental-


An Hon. Member:: We need to make our agriculture more competitive, right?


Raymond John Funk: We have a member from Manitoba who says we need to make our agriculture more competitive. We certainly do. We are not going to do that by cutting our farmers off at the knees.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments of the hon. member from Saskatchewan. I thought he might have listened very closely to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. He was talking about the great record sale of Durum wheat. It reminded me of the speech that the Deputy Prime Minister made last week to the Canadian Grains Council in which he said he was "deeply concerned and deeply annoyed by the recent actions by the United States that run counter to the spirit of the trade agreement". He went on to say: "The American Durum growers are wrong to complain continually about our exports of Durum for pasta and noodles. They are wrong to threaten countervail action."

October 30, 1989
Supply
It occurs to me that perhaps there is something wrong with the free trade deal if these guys are so wrong. We think they are wrong too. It seems to me that it is very naive of the government to enter into a free trade deal in which the United States has the full power to implement countervail action and dumping duty action and expect that groups are not going to do it. It seems to me that it is the free trade deal that is wrong.
It is interesting to note that in this case all the American Durum wheat producers have to do is lay a complaint with the International Trade Commission and they can start monitoring and gathering all the information-this is a very expensive business-so that they can launch a countervail action against Canada for their Durum wheat or whatever the arrangement is. We put that amendment forward in the free trade deal so that we would be able to take similar action. We wanted to try to strengthen it, to improve it, but of course it was voted down by the government.
I just wonder if the hon. member from Saskatchewan, whose producers would be equally concerned about the actions taking place, thinks that the free trade deal is wrong not to anticipate these kinds of problems and have remedial actions within it.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I thank the non. member for that very excellent question. A member from Saskatchewan should not have forgotten to mention the question of Durum, especially in the southern part of our province which has experienced some very tough years through drought, prices and so on. Durum wheat has been one of the few bright spots in the agricultural picture in Saskatchewan. In fact it amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of crop for Saskatchewan producers.
As the member pointed out, we are now being subjected to harassment, as we are any time we do anything that is effective in trade. The Americans are not interested in fair trade. That is becoming quite clear. As soon as we beat them at something they are harassing us. The whole point, as I understood it, of the free trade deal was that it was supposed to take this harassment out of the system. First, the spirit was supposed to be different. Second, mechanisms existed to shake this harassment that constantly is happening to our farm communities.
I was interested too in the Deputy Prime Minister. He sounded like an opposition member. He is the guy who endorsed this free trade agreement. He is the guy who sold it to people as the answer. Now, a year later, he is crying in Calgary saying that it does not work. I was just hoping that he had made those comments personally and perhaps with even more force to the Minister for International Trade who is in the House and who hopefully is taking these things to heart.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated on the first ten minutes and five minutes of questions and comments. The next one is the Hon. Member for Mackenzie.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly on the opposition motion today which condemns the government for having jeopardized the future of Canadian agriculture by its ill-conceived trade policies, especially the Canada-U.S. trade deal. There are five points to the motion. In the 10 minutes that I have I will try to speak quickly to each.
The first points out that we were promised by the proponents of the trade deal that this would allow us to gain access to the U.S. market. It is not obvious that there has been any great gain in access to the market. We have seen instead complaints about our exports of Durum wheat into that market. We have seen a countervail lodged against pork producers into that market.
During the period when the trade deal was being debated the proponents of the deal said that one of the things that we could be assured of if we got a Canada-U.S. trade agreement was that there would no longer be countervail actions against pork and hogs. It turned out that they were wrong. Those of us who read the agreement and looked at the U.S. law were quite certain that they would be wrong. The words were there. In fact, if anything the words strengthened the U.S. position and the U.S. power to countervail provided them with an opportunity under the new U.S. trade law to countervail against the secondaiy product, namely the pork which had previously been seen to be a separate commodity from hogs.
Now under a new U.S. trade law pork is deemed to be simply a byproduct of hogs. If there are subsidies going to the production of hogs, then it is thought that those subsidies apply to the production of pork. Therefore the pork is countervailable. So far, and we are right at the last stage, it looks as if we have lost that countervail argument.
October 30, 1989

The Canadian pork producers are setting aside $2 a hog in an attempt to stop the processors from depressing the market even further. Producers are saying: "We'll take the loss of that American market ourselves and set aside a fund in the event that future rulings permit an even larger countervail action retroactively," something which the American trade law does in fact permit.
The advantages that we had in the pork market and in other agricultural sales to the United States have disappeared in part because of the trade deal, but also because of a change in the value of the Canadian dollar for which we can thank this government and the Bank of Canada's interest policy. As we keep putting the interest rates up, we increase the value of the Canadian dollar and make it much more difficult for our farmers to export commodities into the United States on a competitive basis.
The actions that have been taken by members of this government have been twofold. They have virtually sold out Canadian agriculture interests with the signing of the trade agreement. They have made the economic viability of those exporters less viable because of a changed interest and dollar policy, making it very difficult for us to compete with the export of goods into the United States because the dollar is ever strengthening.
We have not recognized the reality of dealing with a larger power. We made these points during the course of the trade debate. I make them again because I think that all sides in the current GATT round have forgotten that economic conditions changed dramatically in the field of trade. When we are manufacturing rules to conduct trade, we have to be cognizant of what those changes are likely to be.
After the Second World War some of our first efforts at regulating ourselves in the international market I believe failed in the wheat market because Britain and Europe became able to produce their own wheat after the war. It took them five or six years to get their fields worked up again and to get the machinery and inputs there, but when they finally got them there they became almost self-sufficient. A very large market for our wheat and barley largely dried up in the early 1950s. Mr. Speaker, you will remember the glut that we had then. We were at odds as to how we could find new markets.
Supply
We gradually opened up markets first to the U.S.S.R. and then to China. In the midst of these trade negotiations, we are perhaps at a pivotal point in history. Both China and the U.S.S.R. are very close to becoming self-sufficient. At the same time we are seeing a strange new pattern emerging from the United States where for the second year in a row the Americans have failed to produce enough food to sustain themselves. They are beginning to live off the mountain of surplus grain that they have had in storage.
If the greenhouse effect is going to continue and the desertification of the western United States does continue on at its current rate with the result that parts of China and parts of Russia become more productive, we could see a switch in the flow of trade from west to east in the other direction. Our negotiators do not seem to realize that these power positions do change. Governments change. Even world power situations change and the balance of power shifts.
I think the United States and the European Economic Community could be more cognizant of the fact that the shoe could be on the other foot very quickly. During the negotiations they should begin to look at what would happen if they were on the receiving end of some of the policies they are attempting to bring forward in the GATT. That is something that our government did not pay very much attention to during the negotiations with the Americans. Yes, it is true that they are a much larger power than we. Yes, it is true they would have more clout at the bargaining table. We had put ourselves in a very vulnerable position taking on the largest power in the world, a country which is 10 times the size of us economically, and a good neighbour. There was no one else at the table to side with us when the sledding got rough, so we ended up with the kind of deal we got.
During the debates on the trade deal some of us recalled the comments that some of the American business people were making about the deal. I recall the president of Campbell Soups making a marvellous observation about free trade between Canada and the United States. He said: "Free trade will be great. We can shut down all of our Canadian subsidiaries, run the plant in Chicago Sunday night and supply the whole Canadian market". A year after we are finding that the subsidiary in Portage la Prairie is going to be closed. There will probably be other announcements. Maybe some of them have been made. I noticed the one in Portage la Prairie because it is in my region. A lot of his own predictions are coming true.

October 30, 1989
Supply
The problem for Canadian fanners and for Canadian agriculture is whom you sell to. Who do you sell your potatoes and vegetables to when Campbell Soup's plant is down in Chicago? It is pretty hard to ship a product that far when the area around Chicago can produce virtually the same quality of vegetables and produce a lot cheaper. The producers are much closer to the market.
Some of the things that we feared are coming true. This government should be criticized for that.
Likewise with the ice cream and yogurt decision, the decision came down as we predicted it would. It will undermine supply management. It will undermine the Canadian Dairy Commission and the marketing board structure in this country. We do not see this government fighting for the strength in Article 11 which will permit countries to have supply management and marketing systems in their own country. We think the government should be stronger on this. We know it is against its basic convictions, that the market should determine things, but it should always remember that when you leave things to the market you are leaving things to the most powerful and, in this case it is the Americans and the Europeans. We are not particularly enthralled about being in their clutches without some international body standing in between.
We think this government should be siding with the other smaller countries to get a good, fair deal for Canadian agriculture and agriculture in the other smaller countries so that our farmers can survive in the new world that is developing and emerging out there right now.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could tell us what has happened to the price of oats. During the last crop year, they were removed from under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister spoke very glowingly this morning about what has happened in the industry since they were taken out from under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like to know what has happened at the farm level. What has happened to the price of oats? What is liable to happen in the future?
I would also like to hear some comments about several grain sales. In the week of September 21 the United States sold 22,000 tonnes of Durum wheat through its Export Enhancement Program at a subsidy of $6.48 a tonne. On October 5 it sold 1 million tonnes to Egypt, Algeria and Sri Lanka at an $8 a tonne subsidy. It sold 1.5 million tonnes to the U.S.S.R. under the Export Enhancement Program at a subsidy of $8 a tonne.
Is this impacting on the farmers of western Canada? Does this government have any programs to counterbalance those large subsidies? Does the member have any personal suggestions as to how we can stop this type of action by the United States government?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, there were two aspects to the question. The way the U.S. has continued on with the enhancement program I think breaks the spirit and even the letter of the law, but it persists in it. This was raised in the House numerous times after the signing of the agreement when the enhancement program was going on. One of the things that our negotiators seemed to have been unaware of was that the U.S. was moving- at the same time as it was signing this agreement which has a clause which appears to say that the enhancement program would not be used in markets that we are into-to authorize the use of the enhancement program well into the 1990s, unbeknown to our negotiators apparently.
The United States Government does not seem to have any intention to live up to the writing in the deal. This is fairly consistent with previous wheat agreements and other international grains agreements where its perception and understanding of the deal is not what it says in writing but how it feels it should be interpreted. It basically comes down to who is the biggest, who has the most power and who can get away with it. That has not changed with the agreement in spite of all the high hopes of the Prime Minister and the Never Never Land that he comes from.
With regard to oats, since the Canadian Wheat Board no longer markets oats, oat prices have gone into the pits, Mr. Speaker. You should know that. The price is around $1 a bushel this year. It was well over $2 and sometimes approaching $3 last year. We do not have that any more. We do not have a Wheat Board to negotiate prices for producers, and neither do we have an interest free cash advance program so that producers can feel
October 30,1989

confident in holding the oats off the market. As a result, there is a surplus of oats coming onto the market, depressing the market, and it looks as if it will be depressed for at least all of this year. We need the Wheat Board back.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions and comments are now terminated.
On debate, the Hon. Minister for International Trade.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in what is supposed to be a debate. Mind you, we are debating one of the most feeble Opposition day motions ever to come before the House of Commons. Both opposition parties have not got one positive suggestion as to what they would do, were they in power.


Raymond John Funk: Put canola under the Wheat Board.


John Carnell Crosbie: They are Lilliputians. Two Lilliputian parties without anyone to lead them, wandering in the wilderness, and all they can do is act as naysayers. Why, they are against everything. They haven't a positive-


Raymond John Funk: Put canola under the Wheat Board.


John Carnell Crosbie: You might be able to out-lung me. Go ahead and out-lung me if you wish. But if you want to listen to some common sense and logic, keep that aperture there closed and you will be able to hear and, I hope, learn something.
I have only been here to listen to two speakers, both from the lost party, the wandering-in-the-wilderness party, the New Democratic Party. Idi Amin said this: "Sometimes people mistake the way I talk for what I am thinking". Well, in listening to the hon. gentlemen talk, I thought it showed they were not thinking in the first place. There was no evidence of thinking in what they said.
This is a serious topic. The reason why it is serious is this, that about half of the $20 billion in cash receipts generated in our agricultural sector every year are generated by international trade. Yet, if the hon. pygmies opposite were ever to be put into a position where
Supply
they could influence what was happening in international trade, then this half of $20 billion in cash receipts would be under serious threat, of serious damage, because they want to believe that they can operate alone in a world all by themselves in Canada, that they do not have to worry about the rest of the world, that do not have to participate in a world trading system that has rules that have to be observed and a system that needs the rules improved.
Agriculture in Canada and the food industry is big business. Ten per cent of Canada's Gross Domestic Product comes from the industry; it provides 1.6 million jobs, about 15 per cent of all jobs in the country. That is why it is one of the most important priorities of ours. That is why it deserves better attention than this jacked-up, scrambled, disheveled, this confused resolution that we have before us today that states that the future of Canadian agriculture was jeopardized by ill-conceived trade policies, especially the Canada-U.S. trade deal.
The Canada-U.S. trade deal was stated by us to better protect our market access to the United States market, and that is what it is doing.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: And you were wrong.


Ralph Ferguson: You should hear what the hog producers have to say about that.


John Carnell Crosbie: Whether the hon. gentlemen opposite like it or not, the United States market takes 75 per cent of the exports from Canada. That creates 2 million jobs in Canada. The hon. gentlemen do nothing but bray like donkeys or oink like the hogs that the hon. gentleman is talking about. They bray and they oink about the sins and the policies of the U.S. They complain about the Americans every day in the year. They continually blackguard the Americans and they continually ignore the fact that 75 per cent of all the exports of this country go to the United States of America. When are they going to grow up and start accepting the responsibility, they are responsible as well-for trying to improve our performance. They have to get on with the United States, just as we have to get on with the United States, just as most countries of the world have to get on with the United States of America.

October 30, 1989
Supply
If they were travelling around the world today, they would discover that because of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, the rest of the world looks favourably on Canada as a place to invest, as a place for the future, because of our improved market access to the United States of America.
This may have been mentioned earlier today in this debate, I was not able to hear my hon. colleague, the Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board, a brilliant minister, but just look at our record in agriculture. We came to the aid of the farmers of Canada when they were caught in the crossfire of the trade war between the United States and the European Community. Largely to offset the effects of that trade war, we paid about $12 billion in direct and indirect support to grain producers between 1985 and 1989.
That is a record that the hon. gentlemen, no matter how much they caterwaul, how much they complain, how much they niggle, how much they distort, how much they bray, cannot gainsay $12 billion in direct and indirect support. While the hon. gentleman who preceded me was braying away in this House over the last four years, we were acting. We were acting to put $12 billion in direct and indirect support to grain producers.
We want to help grain producers further by negotiating the conclusion of a successful Uruguay Round of the multilateral trade negotiations at Geneva and that is what we intend to do. The only way Canadian farmers and farmers interested in exports are going to have assurance for their future is if we can successfully conclude a trade negotiation at Geneva in the Uruguay Round that will set proper international rules for agricultural products and bring them under GATT from the end of 1990 onwards. That is what will give them assurance because our farmers, if left to compete fairly, can compete, outsell, outdo, outgrow and be more efficient than any other group of farmers in the world.
In fact, over the previous four years the Government of Canada, of which I am proud to be a member, has invested $17 billion in agriculture, double the money spent by our predecessor Liberal government in the previous four-year period. The Liberals are not even in the picture.
We have had to defend farmers against destructive trade practices, and we have defended them. Just keep in mind that the net market receipts for grains and oilseeds dropped from an annual average level of $2.4 billion between 1981 to 1984, to $475 million in 1987, and you can see the impact and the need for the unprecedented support that we have given the Canadian farmer.
Now we have to go on and we have to secure international trade reforms. This is the most important negotiation for the nations of the world since the world began-that is not to sound too dramatic-but certainly, since the GATT system came into effect in the late 1940s. Agriculture is going to be the making or the breaking of this trade negotiation. That is why we have tried to take a leading role in the negotiations that have to do with agriculture. That is why we have been members of the Cairns group to try to get an acceptable compromise agreed upon by the nations of the world in agriculture so that agriculture can be covered by world trading rules.
Middle nations like Canada are not one of the world's giant nations. We are middle power. We do not have supervening power. We cannot ignore all the other countries of the world. We are not one of the world's great military giants. We are not one of the world's great economic giants. We are the kind of country that is going to be really hurt if we cannot get a successful resolution of these issues in the MTN negotiations.
The government has put in at Geneva a market access paper that will apply to Canadian agri-food products as well as to other agri-food products. We have put in papers and subsidies and countervail. We are taking a leading role in these negotiations, non-tariff barriers and other barriers to trade that are being discussed at Geneva. We are working on clarifying and strengthening Article 11 which sets out the conditions under which countries may operate supply management systems.
Now, don't let us get anyone confused by the meander-ings and the distortions of the honourable Lilliputians opposite, the honourable dwarfs-dwarfs when it comes to policy. How often do we ever hear a suggestion with respect to policy by the honourable dwarfs opposite? Very infrequently.
Now, what is our position with respect to agricultural trade reform? We know that agriculture in Canada is going to profit from increased trade liberalization and that is why we are supporting a clear and fair set of rules
October 30, 1989

for trade in agricultural products. That is why we are supportive of the general thrust of approaches such as the one suggested by the United States a few days ago. We want to work with them, and we want to work with the European Community and the other nations at GATT to try to get a substantial result, and work with the nations that make up the Cairns Group.
We are pleased to see that the United States has adapted much of our approach to the subsidy question, and the establishment of three categories of subsidies: those that would be prohibited; those that would be allowed but reduced; and those that would be allowed without any reduction. There is much to be done in negotiation and analysis before that is settled. We are ready to examine seriously any proposal that will reduce trade distorting domestic subsidies and which eliminate export subsidies. But, we intend to maintain our right to develop programs which respond to Canadian conditions. It is clear that all countries, including the U.S., will want to continue to support their agricultural sectors, but in ways which are less trade distorting than are some current programs.
With respect to supply management, our position is that Article ll(2)(c) has to be reviewed and clarified so that countries will be able to operate effective supply management systems within their rights and obligations under the international rules. I am the minister in charge of the negotiations.


Mr. Speller:: Are you sure?


John Carnell Crosbie: I am quite sure. I have my instructions, and my instructions include what I have just passed on to you, that we are going to continue to be able to operate effective supply management systems within our rights and obligations that are set under international rules. That is the purpose of this exercise. We do not intend to negotiate at Geneva or a final result to the GATT discussions that does not meet that principle. We intend to preserve the supply management system in as reasonable a way as is possible, and to have it covered clearly and effectively under international rules. That is our objective. That is why, of course, we cannot accept the American argument with respect to supply management systems as contained in their submission of several days ago.
Supply
It was here suggested that the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement would do away with the problems or irritations that might arise between the U.S. and Canada with respect to trade. No one ever pretended that the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement would do away with U.S. domestic legislation any more than anyone pretended it would do away with Canadian domestic legislation. Just as we have the right to take action to protect ourselves if we think there is an unfair subsidy by foreign exports coming into Canada and take countervail action, the Americans have got legislation that permits the same or similar type actions to themselves.
We think that some of their legislation is unfair. We think that they are too protectionist in the Congress. We know that the American administration does not control the Congress. In fact, we know that no one controls the Congress. Congress is controlled by little coalitions of groups that come together on one issue, dissolve, and form up again on another issue. No one is really in control under the modem American Congress. So we understand how the system works down there and while it is irritating, we have to accept the irritation. There is nothing we can do about that particular irritation.
You can imagine our irritation, Mr. Speaker, at the American position on ice cream and yogurt, when they themselves have a GATT waiver that effectively prohibits us from exporting dairy products to their domestic market, and then they turn around and complain about a quota that we put on with reference to U.S. ice cream and yogurt imported into Canada to protect our own domestic industry.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Which you would not have had to do, if you had done it right in the free trade deal.


John Carnell Crosbie: How would we do it right in the free trade deal? Are we to take the American's arm and put it up behind their back and twist it, and force the big giant to its knees? That is what the hon. Lilliputians opposite would have done, I am sure.
So there is a GATT waiver for the United States, but there will not continue to be a GATT waiver for the United States, if there is a successful and substantial completion of the agricultural discussions which are going to go on from now until next fall in the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations. There will be no substantial results in agriculture if the U.S. continues to hold on to this waiver. There will be no successful result if the EEC continues to hold on to unreasonable

October 30, 1989
Supply
practices that the EEC has involved itself in, or Japan, or other countries as well. This is a multi-way process. Everyone is going to have to give to some extent to get a satisfactory result.
We are well aware of the importance of supply managed commodities. Poultry and dairy, major sectors in Canadian agriculture, contribute about one-fifth of our total farm cash receipts. We know that supply management has provided a strong measure of stability to poultry and dairy producers, and it is going to continue to be an important instrument of our federal agricultural policy.
The Deputy Prime Minister, my colleague, made a speech yesterday in which he outlined some of the annoyances he felt as a result of some of the things that have occurred with respect to U.S.-Canada relations in trade matters as they affect agriculture. One can understand his annoyance. We think that with the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in place both sides should be able to approach these disputes in a larger spirit so that they did not all have to be settled as though they were legal cases that somehow had to go to a court to be settled. Nevertheless, it is a great advantage to us to know that many of these disputes are now going to a binational dispute panel on which we will have representatives so that we have a fair chance of getting a better result when trade disputes occur in the United States of America.
I might point out that the processed food industry is gearing up to take advantage of the agreement. Statistics Canada figures show investment intentions in food processing are up 15.4 per cent this year to $1.3 billion, an increase from $1.1 billion in 1988.
However, as the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, we share the concerns of industry about certain recent actions in the U.S. that we think run counter to the spirit of the trade agreement. One of the silliest areas are the threats by U.S. Durum producers with respect to the sales of Durum by us to the United States market. We believe that U.S. Durum producers are away ahead in the subsidy game. We believe that the subsidies they receive amount to something like $40 to $50 a tonne more than any subsidy that could be alleged to exist with reference to Canadian Durum producers. We think, as well, that the U.S. export enhancement program is a significant factor in depressing prices in
world wheat markets. That is why this agriculture negotiation is so important and so necessary.
It is regrettable that neither the Official Opposition nor the unofficial opposition, neither the opposition party that does not have a leadership contest on at the moment but has simply been without a leader for a number of months and is more than satisfied because it does better in the polls without a leader than it does with one nor the other party that has Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs running around the country trying to compete for the leadership of their parliamentary rump, has made one solid contribution to this debate as to what our policy should be either in the MTN negotiations or in the agricultural field generally.
All we have heard is the usual shibboleths, half-truths, distortions, and gobbledegook about the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. They do not even realize that it is enacted now, it is passed, it is entered into. It has been in effect for 10 months. Chicken Little was wrong. Chicken Little Turner ran around Canada saying that the sky was going to fall if we had this agreement and now the Canadian people-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You can't call him names here.


John Carnell Crosbie: The right hon. Chicken Little Turner ran around saying the sky would fall if we enter into the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. It has not fallen. The sun is brighter than ever. The opportunities are endless, and I thank you for allowing me the time to speak.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the genial comments of member for St. John's West, the Minister for International Trade. He talks about listening to some sense. I was very interested in his comments that it was never expected that the free trade deal would do away with countervail and American trade actions.
It is rather interesting that he is saying that today. He really made a lot more sense in a St. John's board of trade meeting in July 1987 when he said: "Unless we get out from under the threat of countervail and other U.S. trade remedy law, unless there is an effective dispute settlement resolution to bind the Americans to then-commitments, a free trade deal with the United States would be not a good deal for Canada." I think he was making more sense then than he is making now. We always thought he was deteriorating, but this proves it.
October 30,1989

I wonder if he would also agree with what the Prime Minister was telling his friends down on The Wall Street Journal just two or three months before that on April 3 when he said: "U.S. trade remedy law cannot apply to Canada period." He went on to say in the same interview: "You can't have a free trade arrangement and expect the traditional laws of countervail to apply."
How do you believe any of this stuff? It is just unbelievable. He said in his speech: "How would you do the ice cream and yoghurt deal in a right way under the free trade deal?" You know, one thing he might do is start to tell the truth. The Minister of Agriculture ran all over this country and said: "Boys, no worry about the supply management and marketing boards. We have put all those products that are going to lose their tariff over on the import control list. No problem". There is a big problem today and that precedent at the GATT threatens to completely destroy our whole supply management and marketing board system.
But I wonder in a more serious vein if the minister could just answer a couple of questions, just so that dairymen will know in this country. Is the government going to accept the GATT panel recommendation decision with regard to ice cream and yoghurt either at the November 7 meeting or the December 4 meeting?
Could the minister say how he is going to oppose the United States tariffication system for controlling imports? Essentially that system is exactly the system that we now have in ice cream and yoghurt which as the tariffs come down leaves it totally wide open. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.
Is Canada going to oppose that because we are in a free trade area, we are going off to the GATT, and we are going to remove all subsidies? I wonder whether he is getting any support for Canada's position at the Cairns Group. Supposedly we are members of the Cairns Group. Is he getting any support for Canada's position? I wonder if the minister could also comment on whether or not the government is planning to accept the proposed aggregate system of measurement for subsidy systems on farm commodities.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I think we have to forgive the hon. gentleman a certain measure of exaggeration when he makes the quotes that he is allegedly making there. He quotes my leader, the right hon. Prime Minister, and I want to quote one of his leaders.
Supply
The hon. Premier McKenna of New Brunswick said on June 21, 1989: "Because of the FTA we are starting to feel like we are on the move and that we have got an opportunity to share the wealth of Canada in an equal fashion."
This was stated by Premier McKenna six months after the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement went into effect. One of the few Liberals in this countiy one can listen to, pay any heed to, learn anything from, who speaks his mind and has a contribution to make; not a ghost like the present Leader of the Opposition, if they have a leader. One day he is in this Chamber and the other day we do not know where he is. He is not visiting international precincts, that is for sure. He is not giving much leadership.
Premier McKenna, who is a leader of a substantial number of people in the Liberal party, has said: "We are starting to feel like we are on the move, and we've got an opportunity to share the wealth of Canada in an equal fashion." That will explain what the value of the free trade agreement is. I do not need to go on to prove any more about it, but perhaps I should. Who would you like me to quote? Do you want a quote from a politician, a quote from a businessman, or a quote from a business statesman?


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: How about answering the question?


Ralph Ferguson: Just answer the question.


John Carnell Crosbie: You want me to answer the question. With respect to the GATT panel on ice cream and yoghurt, we will decide on that matter as matters proceed as to whether or not we should accept the GATT panel report with respect to ice cream and yoghurt.
I think we want to look at it in the same context as the United States has looked at certain GATT panel reports that have been made with reference to certain complaints with respect to U.S. policy. One of our options, presumably, is that this would be a matter that would be looked at in the context of the whole MTN negotiations during 1990.
Of course there is a considerable difference between accepting or not accepting the GATT panel report and the implementation of that report. Time will tell what our final position will be with respect to the GATT panel report on ice cream and yoghurt. It is a decision that, to some people, was not unexpected and we will have to deal with it in the context of the negotiation that is now going forward.

October 30, 1989
Supply
With respect to the question of clarification, that is a concept that needs examination and careful analysis. We are not going to reject it out of hand. This is the end of October 1989. The negotiations are going forward over the next 12 months before they are concluded. It is a concept that has to be examined.
Trying to get the costs of non-tariff barriers by applying the principle of clarification can be useful. Aggregate measure of support is a very useful concept. It is a complicated, involved, and intricate process. There has been no agreement yet by all sides on what is an AMS, an adequate measure of support. That is a concept that certainly has to be pursued so that everyone can see just what it costs them to give in certain areas and just what they may gain in other areas. These are useful tools, but all they are are tools.
With respect to the laws of subsidy and countervail, Canada has made a submission to the GATT and on all hands this has received considerable support. I hope the hon. gentleman has read it. It is going to be used, I think, as the document for negotiation with respect to subsidy and countervail. If that paper is accepted in the course of these negotiations then the whole system will be that much further ahead and we will have a much more favourable, fair and sensible system with respect to what is legitimate and what is not with reference to subsidies and countervail.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the minister, who spoke late in the day, when the sun was low, observed his own shadow and decided he was bigger than the rest who had spoken earlier. I notice that the minister has belatedly recognized that the U.S. Congress is never bound by international agreements. However, that is not what I really want to ask him.
As I noted in my speech, world situations change rather quickly in agriculture. I wonder if he could explain to us why Canada and other members of GATT have decided to proceed with these arrangements to try to solve for the next decade or so the agriculture and other trade related items without including the U.S.S.R. and China in the agreement. Both countries are showing signs of becoming very large agriculture producers. China has had a surplus for export two years out of the
last three years, at a time when the United States of America is no longer supplying its own needs and has been living off grains in storage for the last two crops.
Does the minister not think that any future GATT agreement with the existing members is almost doomed to failure, as the climate changes that appear to be taking place leave both the Soviet Union and China in a position of being exporters of grain and other basic commodities? How can we be in a position to attempt to resolve any trade disputes when we have left out two of the potentially largest produces of agriculture?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the People's Republic of China wishes to become a member of the GATT and there have been discussions in that connection going on for a number of months now. The U.S.S.R. is interested as well. These countries can only become part of the world trading system when they are prepared to accept the market system and the kind of international trade rules that apply to the world market system. Once they are ready to accept those rules then I have no doubt that they will be welcome.
It often puzzles me, Mr. Speaker, how it is that in Canada our socialists are so retrograde, so far behind their compatriots in New Zealand and Australia, countries which have discovered the market, like the East European socialists. The market has been discovered in Australia and it has been discovered in New Zealand by socialists, die-hard socialists. Yet, here in Canada we have a few Jim Crack socialists running across the country opposing anything to do with the market, which they say is heartless and so on. Here are their socialist compatriots, and the leader of the New Democratic Party is one of them, he is a vice-president, and they are going around the world saying the exact opposite. Talk about inconsistencies.
I might say that Mr. Jack Parnell, the U.S. Undersecretary of Agriculture was here today for discussions with our Deputy Minister of Agriculture and one of the issues we raised was Section 332, investigation of our Canadian durum exports to the United States. It is an investigation, of course, which in itself does not lead to any action being taken against us, but we do not like the suggestion that there is anything to investigate in the first place and that was a matter discussed with the U.S. undersecretary today.
October 30,1989

I might ask hon. members opposite, if the trade agreement was such a bad deal why is it that since the agreement came into effect there have been several major announcements by oat millers? I think the subject of oats was brought up a bit earlier, the hon. gentlemen opposite do not know their oats, I can tell them that. There have been several major announcements by oat millers. They are going to spend up to $30 million. That is the total so far for upgrades to take advantage of the opportunities that now exist for us south of the border with respect to oats, $30 million. There is Quaker Oats in Peterborough, $17 million; CanOat Milling Incorporated, with a $17 million oat processing mill just outside Portage la Prairie, Manitoba; and another unspecified number of millions of dollars by West Glen Milling in Alberta. All of this is to follow up the opportunities that Canadian oat producers have as a result of this agreement.
It is time for the hon. gentlemen opposite to get their nose into the oat bag and learn a bit about it.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, as I begin my comments today, I have a nagging question. Where are the benefits to agriculture that the Tories promised under the free trade agreement? I have not seen any of these benefits as a member of this House, nor have I seen benefits as a farmer. I do not think this government can name one-not one benefit.
Agriculture has been hit the hardest blow. Here is the Tory agricultural record: the two-price wheat system axed; supply management in the dairy industry has eroded; transportation programs are at risk; Advance Payments for Crops Act eroded; At and East threatened with elimination; countervail duties increased on Canadian pork.
These are only but a few of the attacks on agriculture. Is this fear mongering? No, these are facts. Fear monger-ing is a term that is near and dear to this Prime Minister and his colleagues. To satisfy American interests, this government dropped the two-price system to the detriment of the domestic wheat producers across Canada and in particular, to the small fledgling milling wheat industry in the Atlantic region.
Supply
Canadian wheat production is boasted around the world as the stalwart of the Canadian economy, but it suffered the first attack. Since then, Canadian agriculture has become a combat zone, with Tory destruction hitting all areas of agriculture.
Transportation programs in Atlantic Canada are also threatened. Feed freight assistance is under review. This subsidy, and I use the word with great caution, was put in place to equalize the cost of feed grains across Canada. In doing this, it stimulated the establishment of pork, egg and poultry industries in the Atlantic region. These subsidies allow maritime producers to compete with producers in other parts of the country. We can make sure that this review will eliminate this program as we know it, and with it the fair equalization of feed grain prices, leaving Atlantic producers again stripped from protection, another free trade victim.
At and East is also on the block. Bill C-26 has already had first reading. The elimination of At and East will leave Halifax and St. John elevators totally at the mercy of the marketplace, or should I say, American interests. Virtually all export grain in the east moves under rates provided under At and East. As the Maritime Farmers' Council wrote in their position paper of January 1989:
The continued use of the Port of Halifax as a grain export point is
also dependent on the continuation of the At and East program.
Then in March 1989, less than three months later, At and East is listed on the budget cutbacks, demonstrating no concern for the views of maritime farmers.
The grain storage depot for Atlantic Canada is threatened and the consequences on the livestock industry will be severe. The free trade victims are adding up. This government has no commitment to the cereal industry in Atlantic Canada or in this country.
Speaking of commitment, where is the government's commitment to the pork industry? Pork producers across Canada have stated that the countervailing duty order imposed by the United States on fresh, chilled and frozen pork imports from Canada is completely unjustified. Along with this 8-cent duty, the potential exists for supplementary duty amounts to be assessed. The uncertainty this will cause among producers will ultimately affect an already depressed market. This uncertainty in the pork industry is also evident in the dairy industry and is contrary to the stable environment created by the

October 30, 1989
Supply
supply management system, a system farmers and previous governments worked hard to create. They were governments that were obviously concerned about farmers.
This uncertainty has been further strengthened by the action of some banks of discounting quotas by 50 per cent. Banks fear that, "Production quotas will be the sacrificial lambs". They will be sacrificial lambs at the altar of the free trade agreement.
Worse still is that this government has reneged on the commitment made to the dairy industry under the long-term dairy policy. This weakening of the supply management system seriously threatens the dairy industry in Canada. The Americans continue to challenge supply management and this government allows it to happen.
The P.E.I. Milk Marketing Board stated, on February 15, 1989 in the P.E.I. "Dairy Industry Concerns": "It is imperative that the Canadian government successfully defend the United States challenge or the Canadian dairy industry will suffer irreparable damage."
Canada has to uphold the rights of Canadian farmers to control the import of ice cream, yogurt, skim milk, ice milk, et cetera. If this is not upheld, the doors will be open wider to American demands. The fear is that the United States wants full access to the Canadian market, giving us nothing in return. The United States is determining how Canadian farmers will survive.
This government is blindly and uncaringly sitting by and allowing American interference in Canadian policy. Programs such as the Advance Payments for Crops Act benefited all farmers. The government is eliminating the interest free portion of this act, for no other reason than it is considered a subsidy under the free trade agreement. It has nothing to do with deficit reduction, nothing to do with impending markets or any other rhetoric. It has to do with free trade.
The agricultural industry is being seriously eroded beyond redemption. Farming operations are being curtailed and farmers are selling their farms. Farmers do not see any future in farming because this government is
selling them off to the Americans under the free trade agreement.
It is bad enough that this government favours big business and has no vision of Canada, but this government has been kowtowing to the United States. The Tories are slowly and surely turning Canada into a distribution centre and service industry for the Americans. With no viable agricultural industry of our own, the Americans will have a captive market for their own over-production and Canada, sad to say, will be an American dumping ground.
So, as you can see, in less than a year this government has managed to undermine and destroy programs in agriculture that it took decades to perfect. The future looks grim and unless this government starts to put the interests of Canadian farmers ahead of their American counterparts, it will be even grimmer.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the hon. member for Cardigan, Prince Edward Island. While he was speaking I was thinking about the comments that our task force on the free trade deal heard when we were in the maritime provinces a year or so ago during the free trade debate. It was made very abundantly clear to us in our hearings in Fredericton that the kinds of diversified agriculture that we see in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick and in some of the other maritime provinces, we would not see if we go into the free trade deal. The farm groups at those hearings said that if we want to see what agriculture will be like in New Brunswick, and I think we could extend this to P.E.I. and Nova Scotia as well, we could look at the agricultural scene in Maine where there is certainly not the kind of diversified agriculture that we see here. That is why I was very concerned when the Minister for International Trade was talking about agriculture being on the move.
Representatives of McCains Foods said that unless they put in a mechanism to protect supply management, there was a danger that some of their companies were going to be on the move to the United States, that the manufacturing and processing would take place there rather than in New Brunswick. They were talking about frozen pizzas and the use of mozzarella cheese and so on.
October 30, 1989

I was very concerned when the Minister for International Trade said this afternoon that the ice cream and yogurt panel decision would be treated very similarly in the United States to a dispute the United States had dispute with Australia over sugar, they did accept their GATT panel report. It sounds like the minister is also going to accept the GATT panel report on ice cream and yoghurt which would be a devastating move for our industry in this country. It would mean that 60 per cent of all processed dairy products would flow easily into Canada if there is the same decision as that taken in the United States.
Also, I was concerned about his comments that Canada would not reject out of hand the use of tariffication, because tariffication means exactly what has been done under ice cream and yogurt where it starts with a tariff that is reduced over a 10-year period. The minister's comment about aggregate measure of support being a useful mechanism is also of great concern because essentially what the Americans and most of the Cairns group will be trying to do is reduce the price of our supply management commodities to the world price, that is, the American price.
I think the concerns expressed by the hon. member for Cardigan about the government's moves on supply management are well taken.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member for Cardigan. He reiterated that this government was undermining programs for Canadian farmers, so I have a few questions for him. He might want to have a conference with his colleagues from that side of the House because in the previous session it was his party that voted against $500,000 for capital gains exemptions to farmers. It was the Liberals who voted against $92 million for drought relief for western farmers. He might want to question why they voted against such a measure. They also voted against some $200 million to meet the deficit of the Canadian Wheat Board. With all due respect, there he is standing in his place saying that we have undermined programs for western farmers, but in every case it was his party that voted against significant benefits for western farmers.
What about Bill C-92 where there was legislation to improve the operations of the Wheat Board, and again it was his party that voted against that legislation.
Supply


Lawrence MacAulay: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member. Just for an example, let me state what we voted against in this budget. The government wished to withdraw $200 million from crop insurance; grain and flour transportation, $60 million; rail and branch line rehabilitation programs, $48 million; grain and crop advance programs, $54 million; dairy export programs, $12 million; commodity based loan program, $15 million; Canadian Dairy Commission, $10 million. I would like to remind my hon. colleague from across the floor that the free trade agreement is destroying agriculture in Canada, and if we lose supply management, we have no dairy industry, which is the backbone of agriculture in Atlantic Canada. I used the Advance Payments for Crops Act a number of years as a farmer, and I am well aware of what a benefit it is to agriculture and to seed producers. Even if you do not use the program, if the farmer who needs the money gets the advance interest free, it keeps the product off the market which is a major asset to marketing.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in condemning this government's actions and that party for its policies on agriculture and trade. Everyone remembers almost a year ago when the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister for International Trade went travelling throughout this country telling Canadians how free trade would be the best thing they ever voted for and how it would be the greatest thing ever for our agricultural community. Well, we recently found out that this in fact is not the case. With all the recent problems we have been having in the pork industry, in the dairy industry with ice cream and yogurt, clearly this government was less than truthful in what it was saying this past election.
As agriculture is very important to my riding, I take this debate very seriously. I want to outline for members why I believe our agricultural industry is slowly but surely being destroyed by this Minister of Agriculture and his government. It is clear to me that we are facing a new era in agriculture. I would go so far as to say we are facing a new type of Canada under this government.
Agriculture in Canada faces its greatest challenge in recent history. This apprehension has increased in the days following the free trade agreement and following the recent negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Decisions that have been made for us

October 30,1989
Supply
behind closed doors on free trade I believe are tearing down the institutions that took years to build up in Ontario and across Canada, institutions like marketing boards and the food processing industry.
Some of the marketing boards are over 60 years old. The Milk Marketing Board of B.C. was created in 1928. The Ontario Vegetable Processing Marketing Board and the Canadian Wheat Board are well over 50 years old. I will contend to you, Mr. Speaker, that these marketing boards are now in jeopardy because of this government's policies with regard to free trade and its recent agreements at the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade.
My colleagues and I have voiced our concerns respecting this direct attack on the supply management system of marketing and in my role as opposition critic for trade I will continue to defend Canadian farmers and the interests of Canadian farmers against this government's attack on agriculture. Why do I believe that agriculture will be adversely affected by this government?
In the past few years the United States has found its agricultural industry in chaos. In most cases farmers have simply produced, produced, and produced, hoping that they will receive a fair return for their products on the export market. When they do not, the American government uses huge amounts of money to subsidize producers of these products, caring little for what they receive on the world market.
Agricultural trade policy analyst Mark Ritchie, from the state of Minnesota, agrees when it reported that according to U.S. figures, the return on wheat recently sold to the U.S.S.R. only gave them 39 per cent of their cost of production. This, he said, established an artificial world price. Well, if they are subsidizing their farmers by that much how are we to compete? If we are to trade fairly in agricultural products, surely we can expect the Americans to also trade fairly. Nowhere in this free trade agreement, or nowhere in this government's trade policies do we find anything that says that we will have the same trading conditions as the Americans. This is not a level playing field. Unfortunately some years ago under GATT the Americans were given an exemption.
Well, we cannot have a free trade deal while the Americans have an exemption. And this government was neglectful in signing a free trade deal under those conditions.
I believe the government is trying to circumvent marketing boards by increasing imports. Once it destroys the agricultural industry, we will be dependent on our good natured buddies to the south, or the Prime Minister's friends to the south, for our food products. What kind of country will we have when we depend on a foreign country for our foodstuffs? What kind of sovereign nation will Canada be if we will have to continually buy food from the Americans? This free trade deal and this government's policies with regard to trade in agricultural products will eventually lead us to that spot.
Now we have the so-called proponents of the free market system saying, what has worked before must go, and we must be a part of the world chaos in the marketplace. I say this must not go. We must be able to have our own institutions. The former Prime Minister shakes his head. Quite frankly, your negotiations at GATT with the Minister for International Trade have gone nowhere.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know the philosophy on the rules. I am not sure if I can ask a question at this stage. But I wonder if the hon. member would like to compare the multilateral trade negotiations under the Liberal government in the Tokyo round with those that we are engaged in now with regard to the protection of agriculture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There will be an opportunity after the hon. member finishes his debate at 5.30 p.m. for questions or comments.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I could not hear exactly what he said over all the noise.


Don Boudria: It was irrelevant anyway.


Robert (Bob) Speller: As in all the areas of policy this government deals with, we see a long line of broken promises. Let me review this trail of broken promises for you, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid with my short time I will only be able to mention one or two. The one that we are specifically talking about today is the commitment by this government during the past election that our Canadian agricultural industries would not be harassed by the Americans.
October 30,1989

We have clearly seen in recent weeks and months that this is not the case. In fact, in the areas of pork, fishing, steel, yogurt, and ice cream there is constant American harassment of our industries, with no response from this government. In fact, the part-time Minister of Agriculture said recently in Calgary that the United States is harassing with some trade policies which are "wrong, unfair and hypocritical." This is a great time to tell us. Why did he not tell us that during the last election?
When the U.S. omnibus trade bill was passed, the Liberal opposition cautioned the government that this new body of trade laws would have to be applied to the free trade agreement. They denied this was the case. Now we have seen the response. We have seen the Americans using this omnibus trade bill to circumvent any spirit of free trade. They should not have signed a deal without first outlining what a subsidy was. As a result of this neglect, we get this constant harassment by our friends to the south. The government has allowed the U.S. omnibus trade bill to be entrenched in the free trade agreement, instead of securing an exemption from its ramifications as a condition for signing the agreement. Make no mistake, a precedent was set here. A precedent has been set in the pork case. I fear that unless Canada takes a strong stand in opposing this countervail, this could adversely affect our other areas of trade, especially those areas of trade that are supply managed.
Time after time, this government has told us about the good will that will follow as a result of the free trade agreement. It is clear that Canada and its representatives, the Minister for International Trade and the part-time Minister of Agriculture, are simply pawns in the United States game to acquire full access to our markets.
Once again, it is the people of rural Canada, the farmers of our country, who are the losers in this. This action is just one more affront to our supply managed system. The U.S. is determined to see our marketing boards destroyed, and this government does not have the intestinal fortitude to fight back.
In my last minute I just want to summarize by saying that I believe this government, in its policies with regard
Supply
to agriculture, are adversely affecting the lives and livelihoods of farmers in Canada, especially those farmers in Haldimand-Norfolk who are good farmers and good people. They do not deserve the policies of this present government.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief and specific question for the hon. member who has just spoken. Does the member approve of the treatment of Canadian agriculture by the Liberal government in the Tokyo Round of trade negotiations?


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the Uruguay Round. I will tell him that right now. We are worried about the future here, and the right hon. member should know that it is his government that has to stand up for the farmers in Canada or there will not be any farmers left in this country to farm.
It is a serious situation that we have in GATT. The government promised that supply management was not on the table. What do we have? Now it is saying: "Well, I guess supply management is on the table, but we will get the best deal we can". For Canadian dairy farmers that is not good enough. Canadian dairy farmers want this government to have the fortitude to stand up for supply management.
We are not like the Americans. We do not have then-abundance of products. We are not like the Europeans. In fact, it is the Europeans who are now coming over to the Canadian system. This government wants to regress. It wants to go back to an American system.
I hope the right hon. member will go down to a dairy farm in New York State to see how those dairy farmers survive. It is not like our good dairy farmers up here in Canada. It has been that way because of the supply managed system put in by previous Liberal governments.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the hon. member declined to answer that specific and direct question.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I question the second round of questioning by the right hon. member. Is this normal procedure for the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, if there is nobody else rising, and it is a supplementary question. Therefore I will recognize the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.

October 30, 1989
Supply


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my point is very brief. I naturally want to let other members of the House have the opportunity to take part in this debate.
I asked the question about the Tokyo Round of negotiations very deliberately, because those who follow international trade negotiations will remember-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You mentioned that if there were no other members standing you would give a supplementary question to the hon. member. There were other members standing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I did not see them, I am sorry. Is the right hon. member finished with his supplementary question?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I regret this challenge of your authority in the House.
I am not surprised that the hon. Liberal member would not answer the question about the Tokyo Round because his colleagues in the House who are familiar with agriculture, perhaps more familiar than he is, will know that the biggest sell-out of Canadian agriculture in international trade negotiations occurred under a Liberal government in the negotiation of the Tokyo Round because the representatives of agriculture, farm groups, provincial governments and others, were excluded from the process of negotiation, excluded from the process of consultation.
He talked about the Uruguay Round. I had the opportunity to lead the Canadian delegation to the Uruguay Round three years ago and brought with me representatives of Canadian agriculture and started at that time a process of involving directly in the negotiations representatives of producer groups and of farm organizations from across the country. That has continued to be the case.
The hon. member has an obligation to this House to recognize that while there is chaos in international markets, it is part of the obligation of Canada to try to bring an end to that chaos and try to establish a situation in which Canadian farmers who on the basis of their ability are the best in the world can compete successfully in international markets. My question is: Why does he run away from that responsibility?


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. minister surely must know that the free trade agreement was the biggest sell-out to Canadian farmers in history.
With regards to consultation, the right hon. member should ask the part-time Minister of Agriculture what consultation he had with the farmers. Surely the minister must know that the Canadian farmers with him were not in the negotiating room; they were SAGITs. They were set up for consultation with you, but they were not in the negotiating room. In fact the Minister of Agriculture-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The hon. Solicitor General has the floor.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I don't know-


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have completely ignored the Opposition and everybody else around here while you let the minister speak twice. Then you turn around-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. Solicitor General on debate.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether we should blame these Liberal scare tactics on Hallowe'en, but while we are on the subject of our ability to consult, which was mentioned by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), I think we should recall that for sixteen years, a previous Liberal Government and more specifically its prime minister, never bothered to meet farm leaders, so we don't need your advice on how to consult!
Since 1984, the Prime Minister of Canada has met farm leaders nine or ten times. We established the consultation mechanisms you mentioned earlier, such as SAGIT, where farm producers were consulted at every stage of the Canadian Government's decisions concerning the future of agriculture. If there is one shortcoming we are certainly not guilty of, Mr. Speaker, it is failing to consult. In fact, during the last five years, farm producers have been consulted as they never have been before, and they have been involved in our negotiating process at the international and national level.
October 30, 1989

Mr. Speaker, at noon I met representatives of the dairy industry who were at a convention in Quebec attended by representatives of producers, processors and consumers, all in the dairy industry.
For the first time, Mr. Speaker, under this Government, we were able to bring together, around the same table, people interested in developing the dairy industry in Canada, not in working against each other but in working together, to ensure that the agro-food industry, especially in the dairy sectors will be as prosperous in the future as it has been during the past few years.
Mr. Speaker, we agree that as in other sectors, we are facing certain problems. It is clear that the decision handed down recently to the effect that yogurt and ice cream-this is a recent GATT decision-are not covered and protected by the import controls Canada had been using and still uses to protect its marketing boards, that the Canadian Government will continue to defend and protect the interests of farm producers before the GATT tribunal, next week.
It just goes to show that we must defend the integrity of Article 11 of GATT. This question, which may seem technical, is a very important one. For more than 40 years, ever since GATT and its regulations came into effect, member States, including Canada, and especially this area, have always used Article 11 to protect marketing boards. However, about two years ago when we were into the last lap, so to speak, of the GATT negotiations, we realized this was very important, considering the fact that Article 11 is the only article that protects our marketing boards and allows them to exist. It was our sincere conviction that we had to both strengthen and clarify this article. When we consider that a major part of our agriculture, worth several billion dollars, depends on the interpretation of an article that is subject to an international tribunal, it seemed to us, and we still feel, that it is important to clarify this article and ensure that it accurately represents what we want it to represent for Canadian farm producers. Mr. Speaker, we have said many times that this is what we are going to do at GATT, that is what we are doing, and that is what we will keep on doing.
Supply
Farm producers and the people I met at noon, including the president of Quebec producers, are somewhat concerned, and they were very pleased with this meeting, Mr. Speaker, where they sat with us and the processors at the same table, to ensure that the GATT tribunal, which is more or less our last resort, will be able to protect our interests satisfactorily.
Another message which I think is very important, Mr. Speaker, and I believe Members on the other side of the House should pay attention to this, is that marketing boards must change with the times. It is very important to make the fabric of our Canadian agriculture more market sensitive. In the past few years, Mr. Speaker, we have seen a number of often radical changes in the eating habits of Canadians, and all sectors, including the meat sector, the grains sector and the dairy sector, one of the most important ones in Canada, must become more aware of the needs of Canadians. They must be market-sensitive both internationally and nationally.
Mr. Speaker, we must meet the challenge of free trade, which is of considerable benefit to Canadian agriculture. Our exports in many areas have increased since the beginning of this year. However, free trade is not a panacea. Obviously, all agricultural sectors must be prepared to meet the challenge of these new markets, whether they are inside our borders or across the globe. As far as globalization of markets is concerned, Mr. Speaker,-


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the difficulty we had in raising questions and comments after the last speaker because of the minister's two interventions, are we going to have an opportunity before 5.45 p.m. to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No, you will not. The hon. minister has the floor.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I know that I have little time left. In closing, I believe that the message we must with the whole Canadian farming community is one of hope, a message that we have to work together to solve our problems.


Mr. Robichaud:: To repair the damage you did!

October 30, 1989
Supply


Pierre Blais: I was very impressed this afternoon to see around the same table with me processors who take milk and transform it into products that are to be increasingly available-


Louis J. Robichaud: Have you talked to Mr. McCain lately?


Pierre Blais: Yes, in that industry as in others, the individual you mention had threatened to go to the United States the day after the Free Trade Agreement was signed but he has since changed his mind.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the hon. minister's time has expired.
It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the Business of Supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(14).
Accordingly the question is on the motion of the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was late getting in. I had a flight problem. Had I been here I would have voted with my party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6.15 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
Speaker (Mr. Paproski): I declare the The House adjourned at 6.16 p.m.

Tuesday, October 31, 1989