1989-10-05

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to petitions Nos 342-0892 and 342-0946.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops on a point of order.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I was noticing that no ministers were rising to make a statement. I must say that as an Albertan by birth, as are many of us, we were offended by the comments made by the chairman of the finance committee in Edmonton. Considering that he is a senior representative of the government I was assuming that a minister of the cabinet would certainly be standing today to apologize for the rude comments.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member from Kamloops rises on a point of order concerning a statement that may or may not have been made. It certainly has been interpreted by the hon. member for Kamloops, as an experienced member of the House, in such a way that he wishes to raise a complaint about it.
I have to ask the hon. member to bear with the Chair. The point has now been raised, but there may be other ways the hon. member would like to follow up on it that are more appropriate than at this time in routine proceedings. I understand the hon. member's position.



BILL S-2 TABLING OF COMMITTEE REPORT

['Agreed.']
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill S-2, an Act to implement conventions between Canada and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Canada and the Polish People's Republic and an agreement between Canada and Papua New Guinea for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax without amendments.



Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business. This report deems motion No. 441 presented by the member for Western Arctic a votable item.
I also have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business. This report would authorize the CBC to broadcast a video tape repeat of the House of Commons proceedings which would allow Canadians to have greater access to Parliament. It is the hope of the committee that we will move for concurrence of this report from the House at a later date.

Routine Proceedings


CONSUMER PACKAGING AND LABELLING ACT
[Stage Direction]
October 5, 1989

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West) moved: for leave to introduce bill C-265, an Act to amend the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act (nutritional value of food).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, briefly the purpose of this bill is to ensure that the nutritional value, including vitamins, carbohydrates, fats and calories per portion of all processed foods is clearly stated on the package. This will provide important information for consumers to use when deciding which processed packaged foods to purchase for consumption.


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

Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 133(2), the petition of Mr. Leslie Benjamin, seeking the passing of an Act establishing a national passenger rail service, filed after the time limit specified under Standing Order 132, be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business, together with the Second Report of the Clerk of Petitions thereon, presented to the House on Monday, October 2, 1989, for any recommendations the Committee deems advisable.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? The Hon. Minister on a point of order.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I think I may be able to assist my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan, the House, and yourself. We have had an opportunity to examine the motion. I understand the difficulty here is a technical one. The hon. member has not had the opportunity to present his petition and from a procedural point of view has run into a problem. I can inform the House and the hon. member
that we are ready to offer unanimous consent so this matter may be sent to committee as asked for in the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: On the same point of order, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the government's desire to expedite this matter. I would, however, like to have an opportunity to briefly explain the purpose of the petition and of the request from Mr. Benjamin.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the procedure, except that if there is going to be a debate, we will be there.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan may proceed as is his undoubted right to enter into debate on this.
In view of the comments of the minister, it is appropriate to say to the House that the Chair will, of course, apply the rules. The Chair will also be taking into account the fact that this is a procedural matter and that is what must be addressed. I hope hon. members will take that into account as the Chair will certainly take it into account. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to stick to the procedural aspects. Under the Standing Orders petitions for bills from private individuals should have been tabled in the first six weeks of the sitting of this House, that is, by May 12 of this year.
The reason the petition was submitted late is that at that point in time we were not aware of the need to develop a new national transportation system because we did not know that the government was going to eliminate the existing one. The Budget came down on April 27, so that was after the fact, decisions of yesterday were after that deadline. I submit to you, Sir, that the reason we are asking for this matter to be referred to the appropriate standing committee is so we can have that deadline waived allowing us to proceed to do what this government has refused to do and that is to develop a national transportation system that has permanency and legislation.
October 5, 1989


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his intervention. That has been a clear and concise explanation of why this is being asked. We have a situation at this point where the government has completely and utterly acceded to the request of the New Democratic Party.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: In talking to the procedural aspect of this question, I could give the House a brief explanation as to how to proceed with private bills and how members file petitions. I could read document after document into the record as to the difficulty with the standing order and other information that I have. I hesitate to do so because I think the Speaker would show his impatience with me.
My only comment is that, indeed, we are upset and believe that the government should have presented a global comprehensive approach to transportation before going ahead with the VIA Rail cuts, and the savaging of railroad transportation services. But we would certainly give unanimous approval that this matter be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition obtained by my friend, the Hon. Member for London East, on behalf of many of the people living in his riding, who oppose the goods and services tax being imposed on Canadians by this arrogant government. The petitioners humbly pray for Parliament to reject this outrageous tax.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to present these petitions from the undersigned residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance to this House. This grievance
Routine Proceedings
has to do with the VIA Rail service. They humbly ask this House to maintain and upgrade the service across Canada and offer the Canadian people an alternative to highway congestion and airport delays.
These petitions have been certified by the Clerk of Petitions.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present to this House two petitions. One is from my own riding of Cochrane-Superior, and the other is from the riding of London East. The petitioners are demanding that the Government of Canada rescind the goods and services tax as it is a step backwards and does not address the crucial issue of fiscal reform in Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a number of petitions dealing with the Conservative government's proposal to impose a goods and services tax on Canadians as of January 1, 1991.
[English\
The people who signed these petitions are from my riding and the surrounding area. They would like to make it clear to this government that they totally disagree with the application, and soundly oppose this new goods and services tax which is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians. It will hit them not only with higher taxes, but with higher inflation, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present on behalf of hundreds of people from the ridings of London East, London West and London- Middlesex, including people from the St. Thomas area, a petition calling on this government to rescind its action on this cold, callous, and irresponsible, new goods and

October 5, 1989
Routine Proceedings
services tax which will affect every man, woman and child in those ridings.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to table today a petition that has been certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions according to Standing Order 36. The petition is signed by a number of residents of the City of Toronto. They point out that this government, like its Liberal predecessor, has refused to provide VIA with the necessary support to fully realize its potential to develop the kind of national passenger rail network that Canadians want and deserve. They call upon Parliament to live up to its original pledge to support VIA Rail.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: have the honour of tabling, pursuant to Standing Order 36, two petitions by Canadians who call upon this Government to withdraw the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present to this House a petition from the people of London, Ontario, which humbly asks that the proposed goods and services tax being brought in by this government be rejected.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions from Canadians in London, Ontario, who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present four petitions which have been certified correct. All four petitions, with a total 116 signatures, deal with the proposed goods and services tax, and ask Parliament to do what it is supposed to do, namely, to listen to the people of Canada and, in this case, to categorically and unequivocally reject any legislation which is brought forward for the purpose of implementing the goods and services tax.
This will be just the beginning of many tens of petitions that the people of my riding will be presenting to the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of westerners who were concerned-actually this was before the fact-about the proposed cuts to VIA. Now we could say the cuts to VIA. The petitioners are asking the government to reconsider that decision.
It is an honour to present this petition.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to also rise today under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present to the House petitions duly signed and certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions. These petitions from Canadians rights across this country call upon the government, in light of the now well-defined cuts to VIA Rail, to reconsider these cuts and to modernize the VIA Rail services in those parts of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally-sound, and energy-efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 75 could be made an Order for Return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speak:: It is the pleasure of the House that Question No. 75 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	Which policy, budget and programs, based on the 1989-90 estimates, in each department or agency (a) implements (b) discourages the implementation of environmentally sustainable development?
2.	For each such program, what are the respective budgets and person-years?
Return tabled.
October 5, 1989


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Foster (p. 4314).
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, in the approximately 10 minutes that I have I would like to outline for the House what the bill is. In listening to the opposition yesterday and a little bit on Tuesday, you would never know what this bill is.
Quite simply, this is a bill to change the way the present two bills, the Advance Payments for Crops Act, and the Western Grain Advance Payments Act operate. The Advance Payments for Crops Act was put into effect a little later than the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. Up until now farmers were able to go to their elevator, in the case of the Canadian Wheat Board, or make use of a producer association as far as the Advance Payments for Crops Act was concerned and obtain an advance on crops already harvested but not yet sold. Presently that legislation limits the amount of advance available to $30,000.
What the government is proposing to do is to not take away the eligibility for advances as surmised from listening to the opposition. It is to change the way the two acts presently operate so that interest is payable on those advances. We are not in any way removing the farmer's ability to obtain an advance. What we are proposing to
Government Orders
do is to charge interest on those advances once they are obtained.
The suggestion has been made that this will hurt the orderly marketing system. Let me say that that is not the case. I do not see that as being the case at all. In fact you can make the other case that, to the extent that a farmer is able to obtain an advance before he sells his crop, it does not necessarily put a lot of pressure on him to sell his crop in order to get money. There are cases where that has actually hurt the orderly marketing system, maybe not to a large extent but there is that factor.
The suggestion was made that in terms of interest this will cost more money than you would have to pay if you went to the bank. Again, I do not think that that is necessarily the case. In fact, I would argue the opposite. We will have to wait to see what happens in practice. With a government guaranteed loan there is every reason to expect that the amount of interest that the farmer would pay, once he obtains a loan would be at or less than bank rate.
Certainly, in the case of the Canadian Wheat Board the Canadian Wheat Board operates, when it borrows money, at less than prime. To the extent that the board will be involved and will be able to offer those cash advances, there is every reason to expect that that could be better than the normal interest that a farmer would get from a bank. Again, that is not the case.
There is evidence, and there are cases, where a farmer does not need the cash advance to pay bills. The fact that the cash advance is there with no interest means that a farmer can go to the elevator, in the case of the Canadian Wheat Board, or make use of his producer association, in the case of the Advance Payments for Crops Act, obtain the advance, pay no interest on it and essentially have free money for a period of time. I do not think that that is a wise use of taxpayers' dollars. Again, I am not suggesting that that is a widespread practice but everybody knows that there are occasions when that has happened. By charging interest we will be making farmers look at how they use these two acts and make sure they use them with in good business practice.
I listened yesterday and the day before to all these things that are going to happen. Some of those suggestions are absolutely silly. I am trying to put into perspective what in fact these two amendments to the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Western Grain Advance

October 5, 1989
Government Orders
Payments Act will do. You are still going to be able to get them, but you are going to have to pay interest on them.
Let us put this into perspective by considering how many people use them. In the case of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is where the majority of it is used, something less than 20 per cent of all of the producers use them. Even in the case of 1981-1982 when interest rates got well over 20 per cent, out of about 140,000 or
150,000	permit book holders only 33,388 producers took out cash advances, about 20 per cent. Not everybody uses them, and again I am not minimizing the importance of this program to the people who use them. Certainly it is important to the people who use them, but by no means has a majority of the producers used it.
In the case of Advance Payments for Crops Act it is even less. Again there are cases where they are very useful even though they are used by a small minority of farmers. In the case of the Ontario growers, about 25,000 corn growers in Ontario, last year 536 Ontario com growers made use of the cash advance. We are not at all crippling the farm community, as one would think from listening to the opposition. Let us put that in some context.
I want to emphasize one point. To the extent that the opposition members believe the rhetoric that we heard from them yesterday and the day before, they then have a responsibility to see that this bill gets through. I hear them saying that this is going to decimate the farm community, using words like horrific and saying that it is going to destroy the family farm, that it is going to do all these things.
If that is the case, let's pass the bill. The cash advances will be available, and let it be clear to everybody involved in this issue-the farmers who want it and the farm organizations that want it-that the reason for this bill being held up is the opposition. The reason that farmers are not going to have cash advances available in any form is what the opposition is doing in holding this up.
It is one thing to have opposition and to get up and debate the merits of the case, but that is not what we heard yesterday. The hon. member for Mount Royal, a very fine lady for whom I have a lot of respect, got up to speak. With all due respect, when you see that kind of opposition it is simply opposing for the sake of opposing. The hon. member for Skeena, there is nothing to do with
farming in his area. He is simply opposing for the sake of opposing.
If opposition members are as concerned as they make out to be, they should pass the bill and let the farmers have cash advances but let them pay interest. As I pointed out, it is not going to be nearly as bad as one would think from listening to the opposition.
Additionally the bill provides some amendments I hope members opposite would agree with which would raise the limit.
Previously you could get $30,000; now it goes up to $250,000. Admittedly you are going to have to pay interest on it, but it certainly gives farmers a better chance to cash manage and to market some of their crops. For those who grow some of the vegetable crops it doesn't take a lot when you have a large amount of money invested per acre to get over $30,000 and up to $100,000 worth of crop. That is a useful amendment in the bill.
We are prepared to proceed as quickly as we can within reason so that the bill can get passed. Farmers would then have this program available to them. They are going to have to pay interest, but at least they have the option.
I say very directly to those sitting opposite who have made up their minds to oppose this bill at any cost simply for the sake of mindless opposition and opposing that it is their responsibility, to the extent that they hold this bill up, that farmers are not going to have available to them cash advances in any form.
Let me say again that the amendments we are proposing here today are going to have interest payable but the limit is going to be raised to $250,000. I think that is something very useful.
I think I am getting close to the end of my allotted time, so let me make the point again. Nobody in a government likes having to increase taxes or taking away something that has already been there, but when we face the kind of financial situation that we have in this country this is one of the things that we are going to have to do.
As I have pointed out, a relatively small percentage of farmers make use of it. Admittedly they do find it useful. We are not taking away the program at all. We are making the program available but with interest payable. We are increasing the amount of dollars available under the program. To the extent that farmers used it in the

past, I suspect that there may be more farmers using it with the limits raised. There are some useful things about the bill and I hope that members will agree it.
We are not trying to rush it through unduly, but I think it is important to proceed with it as quickly as we can. Opposition members make the point that we should have had this done by the end of June. Perhaps they have a point there, but this is not the end of June. That is hindsight.
This is the beginning of October. The sooner we get the bill through, the sooner cash advances will be available to producers. I would ask the members of the opposition to use the reason they give for opposing the bill, that it is so important to farmers, as the reason to pass the bill so that farmers can have cash advances as quickly as possible.
In conclusion, the longer we wait, the more marketing there is going to be and the less use in the present crop year that farmers are going to be able to make of the bill. Again, to the extent that the opposition is simply opposing for the sake of delay, that is the responsibility of the opposition.
I would hope the opposition will see fit to pass this bill as quickly as possible so that farmers can have cash advances available to them as soon as possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Algoma on a question or comment.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. It must be one of the most pathetic defences that I have ever heard from a minister on a bill being brought in. He is not only trifling with the opposition that there is to this bill across the country; he is misrepresenting what the bill is and the importance of the existing program.
I would just like to point out to the minister that on Monday of this week, October 2, 19 major commodity groups met in Winnipeg. They are calling upon the Prime Minister of Canada to withdraw the bill, to obey the law of Canada and to provide the interest free cash advances. Which of these groups does he not agree with? There is the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, the Western Barley Growers Association, the Alberta Pulse Growers, Focus on Inputs, Keystone Agricultural Producers, the Prairie Canola Grain Grow-
Govemment Orders
ers Council, and the Manitoba Canola Growers. He is from Manitoba himself. There is the Saskatchewan Canola Growers, the Alberta Soft Wheat Growers, and the United Grain Growers. These are all responsible farm groups calling on the minister to abandon this foolishness, this law that would take away cash advances. We are not just talking about $22 million or $25 million of interest assistance. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of cash flow assistance to farmers not only to assist them at the time of harvest but to assist them in the returns.
If you look at Ontario Com Growers, it estimates that for every dollar spent by the Government of Canada on interest free cash advances, the benefit to the growers of com in the province of Ontario is some $16. That is a cost benefit of 15 to 1. Surely even the Minister for Grains and Oilseeds would agree that that is a tremendous advantage. If that is what the government is trying to do, for every dollar that the government spent on support programs for farmers would return a benefit of 15 to 1, then no farmer in this country would ever have difficulty. Clearly this program is perhaps, in returns to producers, one of the best that the government actually has.
The minister says that the farmers have to bear some of the pain of deficit reduction. They are bearing $500 million worth of pain. In my view these are the best spent funds that the government provides under government programs.
I would hope that the Government of Canada would withdraw this bill or let it die on the Order Paper, as the 19 major farm organizations and another dozen or so are asking it to do; obey the law of Canada and provide those funds interest free.
It should provide the cash advance money to the Wheat Board, to the com and oilseed producers-all these producer groups right across the country-because that is what they are asking the government to do and it should listen to these producer groups. It should obey the law and provide the money now. We are not holding up this money. It is the government by not obeying the law of Canada and making these cash advance funds available right now interest free.

Government Orders


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a well educated gentleman. He is a doctor of veterinaiy medicine and he knows very well that the way he uses figures is about as creative and as imaginative as can get. Euclid would be absolutely astounded to see the way he uses figures. He gives the impression that once the money is lent to farmers they never have to pay it back. This is silly. Surely he can come up with a better statement in the House of Commons than that.
The point is that sure the fact that a farmer can obtain a cash advance means that that money goes out sooner than it otherwise would. That is, by definition, what a cash advance is. A cash advance is an advance against the sale of a crop harvested but not yet sold. When the farmer sells his crop he has to repay the cash advance. The benefit to the farmer is in the form of interest forgone. That is what we are talking about. It is approximately $25 million and it varies from year to year. The figure used is $27 million; about two-thirds in western Canada and the remaining in the other parts of the country for other crops.
To suggest that there is that kind of a cost benefit ratio is absolute nonsense. If they are so concerned about not having cash advances available and not having that kind of money injected into the economy, surely the way to do it is to pass this bill. There may be even more money injected into the economy because you have raised the limits.
We have said right off the bat-and I said it today and yesterday-that farmers are going to have to pay interest. I am not disagreeing with any of the farm organizations. People want as much as they can get, especially from government, but there comes a time when you have to say there is a limit and we are saying that this is one of them.
When the hon. member uses those kinds of numbers and suggests that they mean anything, I suspect that he does not even believe his own figures. He is simply trying to use some numbers to dramatize a point that he really does not have. Again, if the opposition is so concerned about cash advances, let it pass the bill; we will have cash-advances and farmers will then pay interest.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I have to reject completely what the minister has tried to put across here in the House, that we are delaying the passage of this bill.
This bill was tabled on June 26 in this House. On the second day after Parliament was recalled, on September 26, the bill was discussed. The government asked permission to withdraw it from this House because it was totally flawed. That reflects the incompetence on the other side of the House and that was part of the delay.
We did not get to the debate until this week and I think the government is suggesting now that Parliament should give up its right to debate in order to cover up the incompetence of the government for its having to withdraw the bill and the delay that it caused which is keeping the money from the producers.
However, when he says that it is due to a budgetary cut or trying to save money, I wonder if the minister could comment on the fact that the total tax he will be collecting on tobacco and alcoholic beverages for the coming year will be $3.5 billion. Some $27 million is small potatoes compared to that. When we considered what is coming out as a result of primary production in terms of the tobacco tax and the grains that go into the manufacture of alcoholic beverages, I think that is a small return the government should be obligated to maintain to help the producers produce the products that result in such a windfall for this government.
I want to ask the minister once more: if you are concerned about getting the money into the hands of the producers, will you withdraw this legislation, revert to the former legislation, sign your agreements with the producers and get money in their hands if this is your wish?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is easy to get up and make statements in isolation. The hon. member makes the point that we collect all this money in taxes and I think wants to leave the impression that the only money we spend as a government in support of farmers is money in the previous legislation, the interest forgone. That is not the case at all. He knows that.
The record of this government in supporting farmers is a very good one. I do not know if I can give figures off the top of my head, but I think in the last calendar year in direct and indirect payments we have probably spent over $3 billion in support of farmers. We are spending a considerable amount of money, aside from the interest that the government pays on behalf of farmers in these
October 5, 1989

two acts-the Western Grain Advance Payments Act and the Advance Payments for Crops Act.
Let us put this in perspective. I am not suggesting that we pass the bill without debate. What I am suggesting is: when I listened to the debate yesterday in the House and I read parts of Hansard from Tuesday, this is not really opposition in terms of real genuine debate. It is simply opposition for the sake of opposition. Let us get it out of the House on second reading, get it to committee, and get the process under way, as opposed to putting up member after member who are reading speeches that are put in front of them and do not know anything about the bill. That is what is going on.
If the opposition is interested, let us conclude the debate today, right now, get it to committee as quickly as we can, call witnesses, and go ahead and proceed with the legislation. Then farmers will have available to them cash advances. Admittedly they are going to have to pay interest on it, but also they are going to have more cash advances as far as dollars are concerned because we are raising the limits. That is what we should be doing, instead of having this mindless opposition simply for the sake of opposition.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that the minister has made the statement in the last few minutes that we on this side of the House do not understand the bill and made the accusation that we do not understand agriculture. I would like to challenge that statement.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not say that the opposition does not understand agriculture. That is not what I said at all. I said that some hon. members during the debate that I heard yesterday did not understand this bill. They were obviously reading from a prepared text but on a personal basis did not understand this bill. So let us be clear on the points that I just made.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the minister what I wanted to tell him. I also resent the fact that the accusation is being made that we are intentionally holding up the bill. I can tell the minister that I came to the House to partake in constructive criticism. I do understand the bill and I feel that I have that right and will take advantage of that right to make that construc-
Govemment Orders
tive criticism. That is the vein in which we are speaking on this bill.
We know what the purpose of the bill has been. We know what will be the effects of the amendments that the government is proposing. In effect, the bill is going to gut the use of the act for many of the producers who have used it in the past. It will no longer be useful to them as the management tool it has been in the past.
We know that as far as the ministry is concerned the purpose of the bill is to save some $25 million to $27 million. This on the backs of the farmers who have used those programs. Later I will outline for the minister and challenge him to show me many other programs where investment by the government has returned many fold on the investment it has made by paying the interest on this loan.
I cannot believe what I have seen happening in the last few months I have had the privilege of being in this House as far as the gutting of many agricultural programs is concerned. This is just another one. Farmers are asking me daily and weekly: "What is going to be done to us next? We were told we had protection under Article 11 and those words are still there". In the last week or two the dairy farmers have lost a lot of confidence. They need to be reassured. The pork producers have lost a lot of confidence and now the grain farmers and vegetable and fruit farmers are saying: "Here goes another tool that we used. What is next?"
Farmers need all the financial management tools that they can possibly get in their hand. They get very unsettled and very depressed when they see them being taken away from them.
I would just like to ask a few questions and then discuss some answers in reference to Bill C-36.
First, has this program been a good investment of tax dollars? I think it has. The relative cost of the program has been minimal compared to the benefits it has generated. We have heard the figures from the Ontario Com Producers. The minister says that only 536 of the Ontario Com Producers use the program. But what is wrong with only 536 using the program? The Ontario Com Producers say that probably very few of them will use the program in the future if the minister gets his way in charging interest on this.

October 5, 1989
Government Orders
If we look at the 1987 crop, for an investment of $2.61 by the government per tonne, if a grower used this in an orderly marketing system over six months the return to that grower was $12. That is a big return over six months.
In the year 1987-88, which was a different crop year, it was used again by many producers. I know if it happened in com it happened in other grains and other crops as well. For an investment of $2.42 for each tonne of grain, if the grower marketed that nine months later, he got a return of $57.75. That is a return of 24 fold over a period of nine months. I might say that that is a fantastic investment by the Government of Canada in agriculture.
I could go on with other examples. This program is not only one that has been used by com growers; this is a program that has been used by fruit and vegetable growers in B.C. It has been used by fruit and vegetable growers in Ontario. It has been used by farmers on the prairies. It has been used by potato farmers in the maritimes and all across Canada.
As well, we must realize the spin-off that comes from the effectiveness of this program. The farmer by using this financial tool is able to hold more of a crop in the bin or more of the product in storage and market it at a better time when he will probably, in most if not all cases, get a better price and therefore have more dollars to put back into circulation.
The spin-offs are spreading to the trucking industry, to grain elevator storage, to fruit and vegetable storages, to cold storages and elsewhere. The spin-off also benefits the farm implement dealers because the farmers, having had this management tool available to them, can build new storages, purchase new granaries, spend that money and keep it in circulation. That is to say nothing of the orderly marketing of these products so that the farmers can market them to the purchasers and make them more readily available throughout the year for all purchasers, whether they be grain or fruit and vegetable products.
Next, will the intent of the bill be attained if interest is charged on the advance? I admit that some farmers will still use it. Basically I feel the effectiveness of the program will be gutted when the farmers are told they are going to have pay interest on this. It has been a financial management tool that has been available to the
producers and has enabled them to repay their spring operating costs before the year was completed.
As we know, most farmers operate on the cash system. When they have been able to borrow that and repay their suppliers in the fall for their fertilizer or seed, they have been able to take advantage of post harvest changes in the prices of their product and reap the benefit. This has been very successful for many but not all producers because every producer does not need to avail himself of every management tool there is, but this has been an effective tool. I state again that it will not be nearly as effective when the whole rule of the game is changed.
I ask the next question: if the government insists on doing so, is it fair to be making this change at this time of year? Farmers made their budgets and did their financial planning last January and February. At that time the old program was in effect. Nothing was said at that time that the rules were going to change part way through the ball game. I am sure many teams would like to do that if they could, but I do not think it is fair ball to do it at this time of year.
It could have been done in June. Admittedly the planning by the producers would have been done at that time as well. In fairness to the producers and the organizations, if the government insists on doing this it should look at the amendment put forward by this side of the House. It should have consultations with the producer organizations in the next month before taking this action.
I do not like to use the word blackmail, but the minister has said unless the new amendments are made the old program will be used after August 1. You either play by the rules or you do not get anything at all. It is not even obeying the law that is present on the books. That is upsetting many people out there.
The harvest is complete, tax planning and budgets have been done, bankers have sat down with their clients and worked this out. Now the farmer is in the position of having to go back to those that are assisting him and financing his program for the year and saying: "Well, I am sorry, the government changed the rules and we are going to have to do this in a different fashion".
Is the Canadian agricultural industry being challenged at the GATT with respect to the old program? I do not believe it is, although it may very well be challenged by producers to the south of us. We know this is one of the things the United States pointed its finger at as far as the so-called level playing field is concerned. We hear those
October 5, 1989

words a lot. We have to be realistic. It pointed the finger and said that we should not do that. It concerns me that every time somebody points a finger at us we say: "Okay, we will change".
I am getting the impression that we are suckers; we are the good guys. We are the guys that are doing what other countries say should be done. We could debate that at another time, but then we do it, and they say thank you very much but they do not make any changes themselves. I think that is very evident.
I read the other day that the 1990 U.S. farm bill is virtually not making any changes as far as assistance to agriculture in the United States compared to the 1985 bill, but the United States is pointing its finger at Canada and saying that we cannot do this and we cannot do that. We had a finger pointed at us-so we literally lay down and died-then said, "Okay, if you don't want us to do it, we won't do it." It is going to be done off the backs of the farmers to the extent of $25 million or $27 million a year.
This is a program that does not stimulate production. This is a program that has been used for orderly marketing and will be used for orderly marketing by a few people, I will admit, but not by nearly as many and that is the concern.
The government agreed back in April at the GATT rounds to freeze the level of agriculture support. Here we are, being nice guys again to the rest of the world, saying, "Well, we won't freeze. We will reduce more whether you fellows do or not".
The other question I may have already answered: Is this program unlike that of any of those of our neighbours to the south? No, it is not. They have their loan programs and we do not get any impression that they are reducing them. It upsets me when we say that we are going to reduce ours. If they will reciprocate and reduce some of theirs, then that is a different game. We are in a different situation.
Where is our spine? Are we just going to lay down and die on this, or are we going to say to some of the finger-pointers, "No, this is something that we want to do for agriculture in Canada. This is something that we
Government Orders
feel is a good return on tax dollars, and this is something we are going to fight for". Farmers feel that they have given a fair bit. Farmers are not opposed to giving their share toward attacking the deficit. They have been told they are going to do it on the excise tax. They have been told they are going to do it on dairy support programs.
Pork producers know that through actions that have taken place about which the government is not happy, and I hope that it can be successful in fighting it, there are countervails on pork, ice cream and yogurt. We pleaded for exemptions to the United States trade bill before we signed the deal last winter, but we did not get them. Now we re paying the price.
I request of the ministry that we debate these items back and forth with our neighbours to the south. I implore the minister to get as good a list of the support programs that they have south of the border as they appear to have of ours so that we can go back and argue some of these points.
Another question arises: Is the government consulting or even listening to the advice of the agriculture sector that is involved in this decision? I know the government is getting the information. I do not know whether it is reading it. I do not know whether it is listening to it if it hears it.
Farmers have recently and more often asked me if the government has lost the word "consultation" from its dictionary. I say that I certainly have that impression. The government does not seem to want to talk. It does not seem to want to listen.
I will quote from a letter to the Minister of Agriculture of September 20, from the Ontario Com Producers:
The Ontario Com Producers Association respectively requests that this bill to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act (APCA) not be passed in its present form.
We request that the current APCA programs be continued, with the interest-free provision, at least for the 1989-90 crop year.
During the coming year, OCPA and other farm organizations could consult with the federal government to develop acceptable alternatives to the current APCA programs.
Failure to enter any agreements for 1989-90 would result in financial difficulties for the many producers who have prepared cash-flow statements for 1989-90 and have received credit for the coming crop year based on the assumed continued existence of the APCA Program.

Government Orders
Elimination of the interest-free provision will effectively destroy the program and will result in an ineffectual program with minimal participation even if current advance loan levels are significantly increased.
I ask the minister, will he sit down and have that discussion? Not only did he received that letter that I quoted from, he received letters from the other 18 or 19 associations asking the minister to consider that. Will he not do that?
I realize government members have a majority. I recognize that they can do whatever they want, because if they do not have the nerve enough to put it forth before the House, they can do what they did with VIA Rail yesterday, they can do it by Order in Council. If members of their own caucus oppose it, they do not have to be embarrassed by they either not showing up or standing up and being counted as voting against it.
I find it very hard to believe that all of the members on the other side of the House can support this bill as it is before us now. I recognize all that. They have that majority. They can do it if they wish. I also state that that does not necessarily make it right or that does not necessarily make it fair.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member, and we have had conversations. I know he is a farmer who has had a lot of experience with various crops and I respect his views.
He makes the point that for every $2.51 that the government invests-and I take it that is what he means by interest that the government pays on the loan-there was a return of $12 and some cents. Surely that is a case for passing this bill. He is saying that a farmer is not smart enough to pay interest, the $2.51, in order to earn the $12.
If the member follows that statement to what I would think would be its logical conclusion, he should pass this bill. He is then enabling the farmer to make that investment of $2.51 instead of the government making it on his behalf and the farmer then would earn $12. Surely that is a good investment. By saying that they are going to dig their heels in and that they do not want to pass this bill, the member is denying that very farmer the ability to make use of the example that he just used. I wanted to point that out. Sure, we agree that interest is going to have to be paid by the farmer, but there is still a very great return there in his own numbers. I do not know
how he gets those numbers, but I take them at face value. That is a very good and cogent argument for the opposition letting this bill go through and be passed.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, as I stated several times, this is a management tool that the government has provided for the farmers to use in the past that has been cost-free to the farmers. Farmers are losing a lot. They are having a lot taken away from them.
No one likes to spend money unless a person has to spend money, yourself included, and that is quite obvious because you want to save $27 million in assistance to the agriculture community by withdrawing that aspect of this bill. I am saying that farmers have used that provision before and they wish to continue to use it as before. If it is a good investment for the farmer, is it not a good investment for the government and agriculture as well, to show the faith that this government has had in the agricultural community? As I say, the farmers are asking what is going to be taken away from them next.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to compliment the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. I thought he made a very good presentation why the government should not be taking away the advance payments program.
The minister responsible for grains and oilseeds suggests that somehow or other the program is not going to be destroyed. All he needs to do is talk to the executive secretary of the Ontario Com Producers, Mr. Daynard, and he will find out that in the past something like 1,200 farmers have used the program and that the group has probably analysed the program better than any other which has been making representations to members of Parliament. The group had a board meeting last Thursday and it was calculating whether it might be as low as 50 farmers who would actually use the program. That suggests to me that, in fact, something like fewer than 5 per cent would use the program when it is only a loan guarantee that the government is providing.
The minister makes the argument that if a fanner has the cash and credit to hold the crop over the winter, he will do better. The problem is that many farmers do not have the borrowing power, after having a production loan all throughout the crop season, to get this additional funding. There is no question in anybody's mind that
October 5, 1989

removing the interest-free cash advance program for many producers will destroy the program.
Perhaps with the Wheat Board and the western oats, barley and wheat, they will probably run the program with other groups like the Ontario Com Producers and soybean producers. Where such a very small number of producers would use the program, it is questionable whether they will even be bothered running it when something fewer than 5 per cent of the membership actually use it. There is no question that this change destroys the program for many producers. In any event, if producers are in a position where they can borrow the money at the bank, the advantage, according to the Ontario Com Producers, for those who have reasonable credit is probably less than 1 per cent.
I just thought the hon. member for Prince Edward- Hastings would be very interested in the words of Mr. Glen Findlay. I know that the minister responsible for grains and oilseeds would not want to listen to this, but this is from the Manitoba Government. The Conservative Minister of Agriculture there has called on the Government of Canada to resume making the interest free cash advances to grain producers so that they can continue to pay bills while waiting to sell their crops. He said this on September 19. In a letter to the federal Minister of Agriculture, Findlay said he was concerned that the advance payments to producers were not available August 1 when the new crop year started. Mr. Findlay wrote:
Producers have come to rely on these programs as an essential source of farm cash flow at harvest time. I would urge you to start issuing advance payments as an immediate priority, so that cash flow problems currently felt by Manitoba producers can be alleviated as soon as possible.
It just seems to me that the Conservative Minister of Agriculture of Manitoba is making the argument that every producer group is making in this country, namely, that this is an important means of cash flow at harvest time. It helps those producers in Manitoba who have a low-quality crop. In some areas of the prairies, there has been damp and wet weather during the harvest season, and farmers end up with a low-quality No. 3 or No. 4 wheat which cannot be put into the pool system because the demand is not there immediately. In those cases, we have the interest free cash advance available. For those
Government Orders
producers who have already suffered because of a lower-quality crop, this makes money available to them.
I am sure that if the minister would just quietly let this bill die on the Order Paper or withdraw it, he would be answering the request of Mr. Findlay. I thought perhaps the member from Prince Edward-Hastings would be interested in this communication from Mr. Findlay because I am sure it would apply equally to some producers in Ontario as well.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting piece of information because it goes along with what the other organizations are saying. I repeat, we realize the government has a majority. We realize that the government is probably going to go through with this whether anyone likes it or not, but I do not think it is fair to change the rules in the middle of the ball game. That is what many of the organizations are saying. We don't like the way the rules are being changed at all, but at least if you are going to change them, don't change them half way through the game.
I would like to quote briefly before I sit down from the September issue of the Ontario Com Producer magazine and I believe the Ontario Com Producers Association has a pretty good telephone line and pretty good communications with the minister's office. I am surprised it has not been more effective in getting its message across. I will read from it:
At present, it remains the OCPA policy to oppose the change (at least until such time as comparable changes are made in the U.S. Farm Bill), as we believe that any benefit conferred via an interest-bearing program will be eliminated via the myriad of administrative procedures (and cost borne by producers) which this program entails.
I think that sums it up.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I have three brief points. First, producers. The numbers that I have here indicate that between 500 and 600 producers out of approximately
25,000	make use of the program. I do not know where he gets his numbers, but these are numbers that we have from the department for the 1988 crop year.
Second, the member gets up and reads a letter from the Minister of Agriculture in Manitoba. He wants the bill to be passed to alleviate cash flow problems. That is exactly what this bill will do. He does not say he wants the bill to be passed to save interest payments. He says he wants the bill or the program to go ahead, and I wrote

October 5, 1989
Government Orders
down the wording, "to alleviate cash flow problems". That is exactly what this bill will do.
To go back again, if I can, to the member from Prince Edward-Hastings, he makes the case himself. He says that for $2.41 invested, which is what the government does when it pays interest on a farmer's loan, that farmer receives $12 in benefit. What he is suggesting is that nobody is going to use this program because farmers are not smart enough to know that. That is the implication that the members opposite make.
A farmer is going to make-I forgot the numbers-over $12 for an investment of $2.41. A farmer is going to be smart enough to do that, but he cannot do that if we do not pass this bill. The cash flow is going to be there. That same advantage as far as marketing is going to be there. It is a five to one return, as the hon. member said. All we are saying is that the farmer is going to have to pay the $2.41 instead of the government.
Let us pass the bill. Let us get it out of second reading today. Let us take it to committee. Let us bring it back. Let us get it through as quickly as we can within reason. We are not talking about railroading it. Let us get it through as quickly as we can within reason so that the farmers can have a chance to invest $2.41 and make the $12 that the hon. member talks about himself.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because clearly when I read from the letter from Mr. Glen Findlay, the Minister of Agriculture for Manitoba, I said that he has called upon Ottawa to resume making interest free cash advances to grain producers so they can continue to pay their bills while waiting to sell their crops. The minister from Manitoba is not saying we should pass this bill. He is saying he wants interest free cash advances.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, going back to this government's Throne Speech opening this session of Parliament, it was not kidding when it said that agriculture is a burden to the federal treasury and that it was determined to reduce that burden in a drastic way.
All by itself, this government will show the world how selfless it is. The government will show the way to an
unsubsidized agricultural world. It is prepared to sacrifice agriculture in Canada to show the world its good intention.
We are the only country in the world that is cutting down on the support we give to our farmers. The United States is not doing it. The Europeans are not doing it. Japan is not doing it. There is no concrete evidence that any other country is withdrawing support from its producers of food. Not only is our government withdrawing support from our fanners. It is doing so without knowing to what degree other countries, especially the U.S., are supporting their agricultural industries.
We now find ourselves in a peculiar position eight months after signing the free trade agreement. We are setting up a committee to determine what the American subsidy programs are. This is unbelievable. We signed a free trade agreement with the United States which will have a dramatic effect on our agricultural industry, both on producers and on processors, and we are making dramatic cuts through a budget without knowing to what degree the Americans are subsidizing their agricultural industry. We are just now trying to find that out.
We now know that the Americans know all about our subsidy program. Take the hog countervail action as an example. The American hog growers and the U.S. Department of Commerce know exactly how our hog industry is being assisted. Do we know how the American hog industry is being subsidized? No, we do not.
Even our tripartite stabilization agreement with hog growers which our Minister of Agriculture assured us would not be countervailable because it is an insurance program is high on the U.S. list of objections in the American countervail action. So much for ministerial assurances.
Why is our government going ahead pell mell to remove perceived irritants to the free trade agreement as it pertains to agriculture when we do not have any idea what the definition of a subsidy will be? Why is this government cutting freight rate assistance? Why is the government cutting the At and east grain and flour program? Why is the government eliminating the fuel tax rebate? Why is the crop insurance program being changed? Why are changes being made to the Farm Credit Corporation commodity-based loans?
October 5, 1989

This is what the hon. member for Prince Edward- Hastings was referring to when he said that the farmers of our country are becoming depressed. They do not know what will be hitting them next.
The potato farmer in Prince Edward Island will be especially hurt because of the fuel tax rebate cuts. Potato farming is, by its nature, a crop which uses considerable amounts of fuel when compared to the farming of other crops. Potato farmers are required to extensively use their farm tractors in the planting, cultivation, spraying and digging of their crops which necessitates the consumption of large amounts of fuel.
The cutting of the fuel tax rebate program will add thousands of dollars to potato farmers' cost of production. In just one instance, for the potato farmer who grows 300 acres of potatoes, it will cost him $10,000 more to plant and harvest his crop than it did previously.
The Farm Credit Corporation will no longer be giving commodity-based loans. We will have a situation where the U.S. government is providing its farmers with 6 per cent loans while our loan rate is from 12 to 12.75 per cent with the removal of commodity based loans. This is what our government calls a level playing field. Instead of trying to make our farmers more competitive we are making sure that they will not be as competitive.
Despite statements by this government our dairy industry with its marketing board structure is in considerable jeopardy. The first signs were this government's agreement to place a cap on the input costs for a period of 24 months. Then, in addition, there are budget cuts to the dairy export program and the Canadian Dairy Commission.
Canada finds itself in a great deal of difficulty with the preliminary GATT ruling on yogurt and ice cream. GATT nations respect bilateral agreements like the one we have signed with the United States. They usually adopt the recommendations made by their panels. Now Canada finds itself in a tight spot. The U.S. will have access to the Canadian market for its yogurt and ice cream while the U.S. will not allow Canada or any other country to export dairy products into its country by virtue of a law passed in defiance of a GATT ruling in 1954 which allowed other countries to export dairy products into the U.S.
Government Orders
What a mess we are making for ourselves in order to be liked by our neighbours. The government is saying that if agriculture cannot make a profit in a market-driven economy, then it has to be sacrificed. This notion is evident with the changes to the Advanced Payments for Crop Act.
The Prairie Grain Advanced Payments Act came into being in 1957-58, over 30 years ago. Why was this act passed? Obviously, the government at the time, and we all know its political persuasion, felt there was a compelling need to assist farmers, especially western farmers, in meeting some of the cash flow problems. The government of the day also saw the need to control and/or regulate the supply of grains. It wanted to eliminate the situation where there was a large glut every fall, a glut which had the effect of dramatically lowering the price to the farmer.
The Prairie Grain Advanced Payments Act resolved both these problems. By allowing the farmer to receive an interest-free advance payment, this act encouraged the farmer to withhold deliverable grains until later in the year when he could then receive a much better price for his product than he would have had he been forced to dump it in the fall.
The farmer did receive a two-fold benefit. His interest free advance allowed him to meet his cash-flow needs and he received a better price for his product. For many farmers these two factors turned a marginal operation into a viable one.
If this interest free incentive is lost we will be reverting to an intolerable situation. A farmer in Canada does not need special legislation in order to go to a commercial financial institution to borrow money and pay the excessively high current interest rates. He can do that at present on his own with his crop for collateral.
I would like to ask who will provide this extra storage space which will be required when the even flow of grain has been disrupted. Who will pay that? If the Department of Agriculture responds in the same vein as the Department of National Defence does in similar situations, the answer will be, "that is not our responsibility. We just cause these problems, it is someone else's job to resolve them". If you want evidence of this just examine the ongoing saga in Summerside.

October 5, 1989
Government Orders
My colleagues from Algoma, Lambton-Middlesex, Winnipeg-St. James, Prince Edward-Hastings and others have outlined the Liberal Party's position on this bill in a most competent and eloquent manner. I want to add to their commentary in a specific reference to Atlantic Canada.
In 1977, the Advance Payments for Crops Act was passed because of the excellent experience with the original act. The government extended the same basic considerations to root crops, some field-grown crops, honey and maple syrup.
This legislation, Bill C-36, which removes the interest free provision from advance payments, strikes at the very heart of the single most important agricultural crop in Atlantic Canada and that is potatoes. In the province of Prince Edward Island the National Farmers Union, the Federation of Agriculture, the Potato Producers Association of P.E.I. and the P.E.I. Potato Marketing Commission have unanimously condemned this bill. I would like to put on record some of the sentiments expressed by these organizations. I quote:
The now-defunct interest free cash advance programs served a vital function. The program, in place for many years, was useful not only to producers but also to marketing agencies. Many producers depended on that system for cash flow during the harvest season. In some cases it was their only source of cash flow.
This is from Art Macklin, vice-president of the National Farmers Union. From a letter to the Prime Minister from the P.E.I. Potato Marketing Commission:
Prince Edward Island potato producers are extremely disappointed and upset at your budget announcement that the Advanced Payments for Crops Act is to be amended to remove the interest-free provision. If this amendment is introduced, it will basically destroy this valuable program at a time when it is needed most. This is a serious setback to P.E.I. potato farmers and will cause real hardship this fall for potato growers facing high interest rates.
The no interest advance payments program has been extremely valuable in encouraging producers to market their crop in an orderly manner over the marketing season rather than being forced to sell early after harvest in the fall.
What is being proposed will have a serious destabilizing effect on the fall potato market at a time when Canada's potato industry, with the support of the federal
Minister of Agriculture, is working hard at improving the present system of orderly marketing of potatoes. This is from Lloyd Palmer, the chairman of the commission.
In addition, a letter to me from the Potato Producers Association of P.E.I. states:
Our organization was shocked and infuriated by the federal Minister of Finance's announcement to remove the interest free provision from the Advance Payments for Crops Act.
The Potato Producers Association of Prince Edward Island finds the proposed amendments totally unacceptable and request you, as members of Parliament, to support all agricultural organizations in their request to have the proposed amendments revoked.
Peter Van Nieuwenhuyen, President.
A letter to me from the Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, reads:
I am sure you are aware of the importance of the potato industry to our province. However, you may not know that 40 per cent of our potato growers have been using the advance payments program. That accounted, this year, for $6.5 million in interest free advance payments to our potato growers.
The change recommended by Mr. Wilson in the budget will do little to cut the national debt but on the other hand will cause great hardship for our potato growers and others, especially when today's rising interest rates are considered.
The P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture is in favour of all Canadians working together to cut the country's debt, but we need a realistic approach rather than actions which harm our basic producers without helping the economy in any major way.
That is from Gary Heaney, president of the federation.
The evidence is overwhelming. The agricultural community objects in a most serious fashion to the removal of the interest free feature in the Advance Payments for Crops Act. Many farmers in this country are already having a very tough time, a time made tougher by the provisions of the free trade agreement. Why does this government want to introduce legislation to increase these hardships?


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I was listening with interest to my colleague's comments on Bill C-36. I listened with particular interest to the fact that the producers in Prince Edward Island want this bill withdrawn, the same as the producers in western Canada. The 17 organizations that met in Winnipeg again last Monday morning all called on the Prime Minister to have this piece of legislation withdrawn because the agreement should have been signed with the producer
October 5, 1989

organizations long ago. Those cheques should have been in the mail by now.
However, I want to ask him if he has any indication as to how long those loans are usually applied for. Is it four months out of the season, from the time of harvest until four or six months later? Does he have any indication on that? He mentioned that 40 per cent of the potato growers in Prince Edward Island use these loans. Does he have any indication as to how many would use them if they take away the interest free provisions of the original legislation?


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. The answer is that as far as the potato growers are concerned the time they use this interest free advance payment is from six to eight months. Many of our farmers are building temperature controlled storages which enable them to hold their very perishable crop for very extended periods of time from harvest time until the following June when the prices normally go up and they can receive a better return for their product.
As I stated in my speech, 40 per cent of the potato growers use the advance payments scheme. I am told by the minister of agriculture in Prince Edward Island and by some of the producers in Prince Edward Island that they will no longer be using the program. In effect what the government members are doing is eliminating this tool from the arsenal which the potato producers have to make a viable operation of their farm. They are making it such that they will no longer be able to use it. As far as they are concerned the government may as well do away with the bill in total, because it will be of little benefit to them.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak in the House the other day on the main motion, and now it is my privilege to be able to rise and speak on the amendment to that motion.
The fact that I felt compelled to rise again to speak on this general debate really is as a result of some of the statements which the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds made earlier in the day and when he began his remarks on this subject yesterday.
The minister said yesterday that he felt somewhat sad at the tone of this debate, that he felt bad about some of things that he was hearing coming from the opposition
Government Orders
benches. I do not blame the minister at all for feeling sad and bad about what he is hearing from the opposition benches because the report from the western producer that I read into the record, which included even people from his own constituency association, reflects very clearly the fact that what he is hearing from the opposition is in fact what he is hearing from the people of Canada, from the farmers of Canada and their organizations. He knows very well that this government of which he is a part is flying in the face of farm opinion from coast to coast. If I was the minister who had to stand up and defend that I would be sad as well.
I think it is a clear indication that this government has turned its back on the farm community, that it has written off the farm community. It thinks it need only appeal to the people in the suburbs who might gain some benefit through some of the financial manoeuvring on the stock markets and so on. This government likes to encourage those who might benefit from the large pools of capital that are left floating around the country, but it refuses to collect taxes from large corporations. Certainly that is the segment of the population this government wants to appeal to and no longer the farm community which kept it alive from the time of my predecessor John Diefenbaker on.
The minister also accused the opposition, I think his words were, of making some outrageous statements about the bill that is before us. I think the most outrageous thing that I have heard is the government's defence of this bill when he accused the opposition of dragging its heels, holding up this bill and keeping farmers from getting their money. He said he hoped that farmers across the country would jump on the opposition and call us to task for holding up their money. That is just totally preposterous. I did not think somebody who is as widely respected as the Minister for Grains and Oilseeds would even make that kind of a statement because the record on this is very clear.
The reason that we are into this in the first place is that the government, on April 27, did not include in its budget the leaked document that we hung around here at night trying to take a look at, the $27 million that was needed for cash advances in this year. The government was required by statute to include that money in the budget. It is a statutory provision and the government broke that, so it was then caught in the position where

October 5, 1989
Government Orders
the law said it had to provide money but there was no money in the budget. It was the government that caught itself in this net. It did not seem to realize what it had done for a long time because it was not until June 26 that any mention was made at all of the situation that now faces farmers.
That bill was only introduced on June 26 and was not discussed in any way while the House was still sitting. It obviously was not urgent then. When we came back, I believe on September 26, the government realized it had botched the whole writing of that bill so badly that it could not stand scrutiny and would not even work, could not even be made operational. So the government withdrew the bill. The next day it came back with the bill that we see before us today.
If you look at this, there were 152 days between when the government broke the law by not providing money for a statutory program and the time when the government introduced the legislation that was supposed to correct this oversight. There have been eight days since then, about eight hours of which have actually been spent by the opposition debating this bill, and the government has the nerve to accuse us of dragging our heels and keeping money out of the hands of farmers when, first of all, it broke the statute and, second, it did not introduce a proper bill for 152 days.
That is just the kind of thing that the farmers of this country are not finding acceptable. That is making farmers coast to coast, including a lot of Conservative farmers, very angry with this government. I think this government is starting to feel the heat, and that is why the minister says that he feels sad.
I would in fact like to go so far as to have him discuss this with my colleagues. One way that we could get money very quickly to farmers, if we do not want to go through the whole process of debating this bill some more, having it go to committee, putting it through third reading and report stage, proclaiming it, then gearing up the bureaucracy it will take to administer this bill, is for the government to allow this amendment to pass.
Otherwise, even at best we are probably looking to the new year. If it is like the drought payment it could well take until March or April to get all the mechanisms in
place, given the record of this government. We could get money flowing tomorrow if the government would allow this amendment to pass. I am sure that my colleagues on this side of the House would immediately approve the $27 million and the Supplementary Estimate in the same way we did for the drought program in June, to get this money flowing to farmers. I am sure I have the support of members on this side of the House for that kind of an initiative. I ask the minister to very seriously consider that.
The minister also made considerable effort to place this bill in the context of the government's over-all fiscal policy, the need to cope with the deficit by making the farmers assume part of the deficit reduction in this country. But again it was a totally contradictory approach that the minister took. First of all, he brags on the one hand that in the last year the government has spent $3 billion on the farm sector of which he is very proud, but then on the other hand he said this $27 million, which is a very key element right now for a lot of farmers' cash flow and in the operation of marketing organizations from coast to coast, absolutely has to be cut and cut right now. It just does not make any kind of sense at all.
The other argument that the minister made is that this deficit reduction has to take place because what is really killing farmers is high interest rates. That was one time when I in fact agreed with the minister. I applauded the minister for his insight in saying that, yes, high interest rates are killing farmers.
In fact they are, but it seemed very ironic coming from a minister who stands up in full support of the Governor of the Bank of Canada when he persists, in the face of virtually unanimous opinion from the forecasting and economic analysis community, the bankers and everybody, many of the government's friends, in keeping interest rates much higher in this country than they need be. In fact, the stubborn refusal to even consider changes to the interest rate policy by the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada is what is killing the economy in all sectors, not just agriculture.
I cannot see how the minister can say that to lower interest rates we have to cut this $27 million when it is his own government's policy that is causing the high interest rates in this country. Furthermore, if he is that worried about high interest rates, why is he out there
October 5, 1989

supporting the grab and steal tax that his government has introduced?
The government concedes that that particular tax is going to create another 3 per cent inflation, which brings us from 5 per cent to 8 per cent inflation. You have to assume that there is going to be some way to catch up on that another 2 per cent or 3 per cent. Then we are at 10 or 11 per cent inflation.
Given the fact that this government stands behind the Bank of Canada policy of raising interest rates to counter inflation, it takes no imagination at all-in fact I think it is a very accurate forecast-to say that if inflation as a result of the grab and steal tax gets to 10 and 12 per cent we could be looking at 18 to 20 per cent interest rates within the next year or within a year of that tax being introduced.
It is totally preposterous for the minister to suggest that farmers have to eat this $27 million to lower the interest rates when both their interest rate policy itself and their approach to the grab and steal tax are going to raise those interest rates.
The minister failed completely to deal with the whole question of fairness that is involved in this matter. He went so far as to say that it is going to enhance orderly marketing and so on, because there are all these farmers out there who refuse to go out in 40 below weather in the morning to shovel out their augers and tractors and get their machinery running to shovel grain.
He is saying that these are the people who are destroying the orderly marketing system and that they have to be brought into line by making them pay interest on cash advances. That is one of the most outrageous statements probably ever made by a Minister of Agriculture in this House. I am looking forward to sending out copies of Hansard to farmers in my constituency and to other farmers I know in the country, so that they can see what the minister's analysis of the orderly marketing system is. There is an inherent unfairness to this and it has been pointed out by many members but it does not seem to have penetrated into the minister's thinking in any kind of way.
As has been clearly outlined-and nobody denied it; certainly he did not-the grain handling system only has capacity for less than 40 per cent of the grain that is produced in any one year. Therefore, 60 per cent of the grain cannot in fact, no matter what the business climate,
Government Orders
no matter what the intentions of the farmers, enter that grain handling system when it is taken off the fields.
What the minister is in fact saying is that those people who get their crop off earlier, or happen to have harvested grades of wheat that are currently in the shipping program of the Canadian Wheat Board or other marketing organizations, can obviously get cash up front because they can sell their crop for cash. Those farmers who have a late harvest because of adverse conditions, which it often is in the part of the country that I represent, the northern prairies, cannot get their grain in; the elevators are plugged.
Or perhaps, as is the case this year again, there is an awful lot of feed wheat and very poor quality grain on the prairies for which the Canadian Wheat Board has not developed a marketing program because it did not know it was there. The demand is there for high quality wheat, so the people who have the high quality wheat can get their money up front; but the people who harvested late and are already in trouble, already have poor grades of grain, are going to be out of luck. They are going to have to pay interest solely for the reason that there is not room in the elevators and because they had a poor and a late crop.
How can the minister say that in any way that is fair? In the same way that discriminates against farmers geographically. The most classic example, ironically, is in his own province. In Saskatchewan and Alberta grain farmers have the advantage of being able to ship grain through the ports of Prince Rupert and Vancouver. That is always an option. There is a well developed grain handling system that heads off to the west coast. That system has ice-free ports and can function right through the winter.
However, for Manitoba producers it is a much different situation because their grain gets shipped out through Thunder Bay which has a long shutdown through the winter, which means that Manitoba farmers have no marketing option at all and no delivery option at all. Once the elevators are full and the port freezes up that system shuts down, so the very producers who he represents are the ones who are going to be hit the worst by this. It is no wonder that an executive member from his own constituency association rises at the Conservative convention and says his chances of re-election are slim and nil. I think it is very clear from this kind of an

October 5, 1989
Government Orders
action that he is ignoring the interests of the farmers who are, in fact, his very neighbours.
Similarly the government's initiative in the budget to cut all funds for branch line rehabilitation, even those rail lines like those in my constituency where there had already been a public investment in upgrading the road bed, putting down ballasts and putting down ties when all they needed was heavy steel. The government said that it is going to waste the money which has been invested in that till now by not adding the little bit of additional money that it takes to put on heavy steel.
That just perpetuates even more the rationalization of the grain handling system which had been occurring over the last number of years and has in fact been hastened, with all due respect, by my colleagues from the Liberal benches. The removal of the Crow rate was certainly a factor in the rationalization of that railway system. Nevertheless, no matter whose fault it was, it has occurred, which means that people who live on the railway mainlines which are the ones that get all the investment and all the attention have elevators and local delivery points to which they can deliver virtually at any time, because those trains are moving through there every day taking grain out of those elevators. However, the people who live off those lines on branch lines, especially in communities where there are no more branch lines and are already hauling a long way, do not have a similar delivery option.
The minister is saying to farmers who live far away from the main lines-and we are talking here in some cases of hundreds of miles-that they have much less of an opportunity to sell their grain and to pocket the money for their grain at the time of harvest and to make a quick delivery than do people who live far away from the branch lines.
I know my time is starting to run out here, but there is one more point that I would like to make in relation to the minister's comments.
The minister from time to time has talked about, has in fact asserted, that farmers are clamouring for this bill to be passed, indicating I suppose that he has been in some kind of consultation with the farmers. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This government's record
on consultation in the agriculture field is just dismal and getting worse.
Certainly we saw that earlier in this session when this whole issue of taking oats out of the Wheat Board came forward. There were even polls done by the Conservatives own pollsters, Allan Gregg and Decima Research, which indicated that 70 per cent of the farmers did not agree with the minister's initiative on that particular matter. Farmers, including many good Conservatives, stood up by the hundreds at meetings all over the prairies out and out condemning the government's initiative, but the government never listened at all.
In this case we have documented here not only some of the large organizations like the Saskatchewan Wheat Board, the National Farmers Union and the Federation of Agriculture, but even the very organizations that supported the government on free trade and supported it on taking oats out of the Wheat Board, organizations like the Western Canadian Wheat Growers and the Canola Growers. They have out and out condemned this legislation. They are not calling on the opposition to let this thing go through quickly. They are calling on the government to stop this legislation in its tracks and bring back the old bill whereby they can have cash advances immediately, interest free. All those organizations are calling on the government to do that, but the minister is not listening.
In conclusion, can the minister identify one other sector in the economy in which this government totally ignores opinion in the farm community right across the country, across the political spectrum? Is there any other sector where the ministry so totally ignores the opinion of farmers and their representatives as the government has on this particular measure? I invite the minister to respond to that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River has made a very eloquent address and indeed his summary of the events leading up to the introduction of this bill was erudite, succinct and extremely accurate.
I think he will agree with me when I say it showed the fumbling and bumbling that has characterized this government in its failure to get the legislation in order. It adjourns the House and then expects us having had a lengthy adjournment to rush back and pass everything with no debate and to allow this kind of dreadful legislation through without proper discussion. The hon.
October 5, 1989

member, I think, was very clear in his explanation of how the government did that.
We in the opposition very much appreciate support from the third party in this House. We know that his party has been very good in assisting us in our opposition to this particular legislation. I know the hon. member for Kamloops shares my views. The thing that made we wonder when listening to the hon. member's speech- and as I say he spoke very well-is whether the voters in Saskatchewan do not read "Liberal" when they see "NDP" on the ballots, because everything he said we in this party have agreed with and indeed suggested in this House on a regular basis. I commend him for his comments.
Having said that, I would like to pose a question to the hon. member. I see the hon. member for Maclead on the other side. He must be very nervous about seeing this kind of legislation go through because his friends and neighbours would not approve of this bill.
Two-thirds of the money formerly spent under this bill, according to the minister's figures, were spent in western Canada. Those moneys, I am sure, were going into the riding of Macleod and indeed throughout the province of Alberta in a big way. Here they are being taken away by members of this government through this attitude that is in my view improper. They have an obligation to pay this money out under the existing legislation. They cannot assume, as they are doing, that this bill is going to pass this House. Indeed, if the members from Alberta and the hon. member for Winnipeg South would get on their hind legs and oppose this legislation, as their friends, neighbours and constituents I am sure would wish them to do, and vote against this bill it would not pass this House. Then we would not get this dreadful legislation in Canada and the government would have to dole out the money under the existing legislation as it is required by law to do.
I must say I was pretty astounded when I saw them applauding this legislation as the Minister of Agriculture made a speech introducing it the other day. One can only wonder whether or not they are accurately representing the views of their constituents, whether they are doing the job that the hon. member for Prince Albert-Chur-
Govemment Orders
chill River is doing in representing his constituents' views today.
Does the hon. member not agree with me that the other members of Parliament from Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan in particular are going to have their constituents' rights destroyed if we pass this legislation? Is this legislation not going to take out of their hands two-thirds of $27 million or about $18 million as I calculate it? Is this legislation not going to take that $18 million right out of their pockets and thereby deprive them of the sustenance and the livelihood to which they might have otherwise been entitled? Does he not think that is an outrage?


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that question from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. In fact it takes a bit of the pain away from the fact that he defeated a very talented and excellent candidate for the New Democratic Party in his constituency, Major Len Johnson, who in fact was bom and raised in my constituency in the Prince Albert area.
Because he is from central Canada and perhaps has not had the exposure to the politics of the west, I would like to tell him that the reason that people in the west in fact support the NDP rather than the Liberal party in many cases is that they are very progressive people and they have found through experience, especially in Saskatchewan, that they do not have to recycle these progressive ideas through the Liberal party in order to get them implemented. In the west we have demonstrated that the NDP does a much better job of implementing them.


An Hon. Member:: But you don't get in.


Raymond John Funk: Well we certainly have there. We certainly formed some successful governments in western Canada and I think people there appreciate that. Hopefully that is something that we can extend from coast to coast. I suspect a fair number of the members now sitting as Liberals would in fact applaud that and might well want, at some point or other, to consider joining us in that effort.
The question, however, was a good one because it had to do with the pressure that the government members opposite I know are getting from their constituents. Those constituents are very angry. They know exactly what is happening to them and they expressed it very

October 5, 1989
clearly at the Conservative convention, but it seems the government's policy is to ignore its own convention.
The government is taking money out of the pockets of farmers. Furthermore it is not only the 18 million bucks or the 27 million bucks, but the farmers of Canada know very well what this government means when it starts talking about market driven and self reliant. That means this government is planning to leave farmers high and dry in this country and farmers are not going to put up with it, including Conservative farmers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have a very short time for questions and comments from the minister.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I want to make three brief points. There has been reference today and yesterday to the fact that the government, if not directly stated certainly implied, is breaking the law by not providing cash advances under the present legislation.
Hon. members I know would not want to mislead the House. That is not the case. The legislation says that under certain conditions the minister may provide cash advances. It does not in any way state that the minister shall. So let there be no illusion. There is no law being broken by cash advances not being available because the legislation says the minister may.
Second, the member said that we are the only country in the world to reduce expenditures on agriculture. The hon. member should know that the U.S. is proposing to reduce expenditures on agriculture by something like $1 billion. To the extent that he makes the point, that is certainly not accurate.
Last, the New Brunswick potato agency, as I understand it, has indicated that it will make use of this program once it is passed with interest payable, and the potato people in Prince Edward Island where the hon. member comes from have been non-committal. They have not said they would not use it; they have not said they would use it, the point again being that the sooner we pass this legislation the sooner farmers will have the opportunity to have cash advances once again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A very short reply from the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, the minister may well be correct with regard to the technicality of the law but western farmers assumed that when John Diefenbaker
told them in 1957 that this money would be there every year, that it would be there, and I think the minister should remember the moral obligation that John George Diefenbaker left upon the Conservative Party when he introduced this legislation originally.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Right Hon. John N. Tbrner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, our most famous transcontinental train, the Canadian, was created as part of the terms of entry of British Columbia into Confederation in 1871. The transcontinental route is not a frivolity; it is a constitutional commitment made to the people of British Columbia.
The geniuses in cabinet apparently believe that they can dishonour that commitment to British Columbia on economic grounds. They should, however, have read VIA's annual report that says on page 10, "The Canadian, our western transcontinental train-this one train generates $100 million for the tourist industry each year".
They should also have read the official cabinet background document tabled here yesterday before they cut the Victoria-Courtenay route. That document says that the Vancouver Island service will increase by 42 per cent in riders. They cut a route which their document says will produce a profit.
Only a Conservative Government would break a constitutional commitment to British Columbia and, in the process, destroy two train services which generate millions of dollars in profit.
Sir John A. Macdonald, the first Conservative Prime Minister and the first Prime Minister of our country, must be spinning in his grave.
October 5, 1989


VIA RAIL
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, my topic is appropriate.
The VIA Rail cutbacks recently announced were painful and disappointing to many Canadians. As difficult as they are, I support the minister's approach to both maintain national passenger service and to address the tremendous cost of VIA to the taxpayers.
No matter what we do as families, businesses, or government the costs must be weighed. At a cost of $5,000 million to the taxpayers over 12 years I agree the changes just had to be made.
People in my riding are insisting on cuts in government spending and I agree with them. To me, our debt of $350,000 million is a threat to all of us. It must be addressed and not conveniently swept under the carpet.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Quebec the Minister of Health and Welfare threatened that social programs will be jeopardized unless a 9 per cent goods and services tax is implemented. He admits more money was spent this year on reducing the deficit than on social programs. This former Minister of National Defence who was willing to spend billions on nuclear subs now indicates he is willing to reduce the deficit on the backs of pensioners, the disabled, the sick and the unemployed.
Instead of using blackmail threats against the provinces and others who oppose the GST, he should press the government to implement progressive alternatives to reduce the deficit. The government could begin by reducing interest rates, introducing a corporate minimum tax, taxing capital gains 100 per cent, and eliminating unfair tax breaks.
As Minister of Health and Welfare he must maintain and improve Canadian social programs, or he should resign.


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, October 3,1989 was a most important day for the people of Vanier, a community located within the riding of Quebec East. On that day, the Vanier Police Department launched a drug prevention program under the honorary chairmanship of Guy Lafleur, a well-known and much-esteemed hockey player. Under the theme "Drugs-No Future", the Vanier police are calling on young people from 5 to 20 years old to join them in saying no to drugs.
Mr. Speaker, this initiative involves activities in schools, social clubs and youth groups. This terrific project brings together a whole team to fight drugs and to educate the young people of Vanier and make them aware of the problems and dangers of using alcohol and other drugs.
Thanks go to the Vanier police, the City of Vanier, the Knights of Columbus and the Nordiques hockey team who are pooling their energies for the health and welfare of our youth!


ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, the same mismanagement, incompetence and disrespect for Parliament that the Prime Minister has shown with respect to our transportation policy such as cutting VIA, with respect to the taxation policy and the introduction of the GST, both decisions made without consulting this House or the people of Canada, he is now showing on the international scene.
I drew to the attention of this House recently concerns about the Prime Minister's expected decision to join the Organization of American States. Our party has repeatedly requested that he put off making any decision until we have heard from our NGOs and from the people of Canada.
To date, neither the Prime Minister nor the Secretary of State nor the chairman of the standing committee on

October 5, 1989
external affairs have given any indication that prior to making this decision they will hold full hearings into this drastic change in Canadian foreign policy.
Once again, and I cannot stress strongly enough how important this is, I urge the Prime Minister to hold off making his decision until we have had an opportunity to fully explore and discuss the pros and cons of Canada becoming a full and active member of the Organization of American States.


SIX NATIONS RESERVE
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the residents of the Six Nations reserve are facing a crisis in their community.
Over 1,200 elementary school-age children of Six Nations have not been able to start school this year due to unsafe and unhealthy conditions at the school facilities. These include: asbestos in the schools, failure to meet fire code standards, failure to meet safety standards, inoperable and unsafe windows and doors, unsafe water and drainage systems, and inadequate washroom facilities.
It is unacceptable that the federal government which does an annual assessment of schools and which has declared each year since 1985 that the safety and health standards are deficient does nothing to improve these conditions and, indeed, allows Six Nations' children to attend schools slated for demolition.
The federal government has breached its responsibility to Six Nations. The government is neglecting basic human rights.


PATENT ACT
Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, on October 1, fundamental changes to modernize Canada's Patent Act which were passed by Parliament in November, 1987, came into effect. The new act is an important element of this government's program to boost science and technology and to make Canada a strong competitor internationally.
As we all know, keeping abreast of new technology is critical to business success here at home and in the global market-place. That is why these changes were
specifically designed to speed the transfer of technological information to the Canadian business community, thereby encouraging innovation and increasing productivity.
Among the big winners will be small and mediumsized businesses which do not have the capacity to conduct their own research and development. The new act will more quickly put the latest technologies from around the world at their fingertips.
We have also taken important steps in the interest of Canadian inventors. On October 2, the day after the new Patent Act came into effect, Canada ratified the Patent Co-operation Treaty. This treaty provides Canadian innovators with the means to more effectively protect their inventions abroad.
Finally, in the years ahead, this government intends to build on the changes to Canada's new Patent Act with the multi-year program to automate the patent office. Eventually, companies across Canada will have direct access to the largest collection of technological information in the country, the Canada Patent office.


NATIVE CHILD CARE
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, during the first week of August the Ministers of Indian Affairs, National Health and Welfare and the Prime Minister received a copy of the Assembly of First Nations inquiry into native child care. To date the only response they have had from the Tory government is silence.
This study, funded by a grant from the Child Care Initiative Fund, found less than 70 child care centres operating in the 1,000 First Nations communities. Most, if not all, are understaffed and/or ill-equipped to meet the needs of native children.
Up until the day of the infamous budget leak, native leaders were assured that the money for the native child care initiative, $60 million, was not in jeopardy. It had been approved by Treasury Board. It was separate from the Tories child care initiative. Native leaders were dismayed to learn that this government made a conscious decision not to fund child care services for their children.
While $60 million does not meet the demand for native child care services, they feel it is a first step, a sign of a commitment.
October 5, 1989

I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to respond to the Assembly of First Nations inquiry, to listen to native people and to respect their choice for child care services for their children. The time for study is over. The time for action is now.


ROYAL WINNIPEG BALLET
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, last night's gala performance of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet was a tremendous and exhilarating event. A celebration of 50 years of entertaining people through the finest of ballet, interpreting a story, theme, or rendering emotions through the artistry of dance and music brought the packed audience to a frenzied excitement.
I am sure that all members of Parliament would want to praise the Government of Canada for its wonderful initiative in supporting the Royal Winnipeg Ballet. The funds will be used to defray some of the costs of activities marking the dance company's fiftieth anniversary.
Founded in 1939, and given its Royal Charter in 1953, the Royal Winnipeg Ballet is the oldest dance company in Canada. It is appreciated for both its classical and modem repertoires. Two famous graduates of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet School have been award winning Evelyn Hart and the late David Perigrine.
The Royal Winnipeg Ballet, which will be on tour for 20 weeks this year, is known for the number of visits it makes abroad and for the immense success of these visits. A gold winner in Paris, Vama and Tokyo, the company has earned an international reputation.

I take this opportunity to wish the Royal Winnipeg Ballet much success in the next 50 years.


VIA RAIL
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the Draconian cuts announced yesterday by the Minister of Transport constitute yet another arrogant
and abusive Tory tactic to destroy one of our national institutions. Why else would the Minister cut early morning train service from Canada's fifth busiest station, Kingston, to Canada's largest city, Toronto? This is a service that carried over 76,000 passengers last year according to the minister's own figures. Why else cut this train that serves Napanee, Belleville, Trenton, Port Hope, Cobourg and Oshawa? Why else cut redcaps who help the elderly, the infirm and the handicapped?
The cut of the Kingston-Toronto train makes it impossible for someone from Kingston to go and spend a day in Toronto and return on the same day. It is regressive. It is stupid. It will lessen travel in the corridor, travel that the minister in his statement yesterday admitted was vital for the future of VIA Rail.
The minister's announcement that VIA is for sale represents the total dismantling of a major Canadian asset owned and operated by Canadians. The Minister should be ashamed.



Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport made one of the most courageous moves in the history of Canada. Through the restructuring of VIA Rail he has taken the first major step toward developing a rational transportation system in Canada.
While some people in Calgary may be disappointed at the reduction in their service, virtually all understand and applaud the minister's efforts to cut spending and reduce the deficit.
We hope now that the minister will do everything in his power short of introducing new subsidies to facilitate and encourage the introduction of private enterprise solutions that will expand and vastly improve rail transportation to and from Calgary.


COMMENTS OF FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the finance committee has reached a new low. Yesterday, he managed to insult the entire population of western Canada.

Who is this man to go into the province of Alberta and in response to serious and thoughtful concerns over the proposed GST, say, "I have never seen such stupidity in all my life"? Where does this man get off telling Albertans, "I wonder what they are, out to lunch". What gives the chairman of the finance committee the right to come from Metropolitan Toronto to western Canada and say, "I fail to understand how the level of education could be so low in the community". Why does the Member for Mississauga South remain in his job after commenting, "I guess what we ought to do is send a bunch of grade 5 teachers out here".
We in the west have had enough of this man's insults, his arrogance and contemptible behaviour. He owes us an apology. Better still, he owes us his resignation.


HOUSING
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: The Minister of Housing again is backing away from the positions of principle he took when he was a back-bencher. First, he agreed that the government had failed to provide affordable housing. Then he stated that the 30 per cent of income for housing is no longer a realistic figure. Now the minister says affordable housing is not a national priority.
How can he say that housing is not a priority when 1.2 million children in this country live in poverty, poverty often caused by the lack of affordable housing and high rents? How can he say that affordable housing is not a priority when the Canadian Real Estate Association says there are major affordability problems, not just in Toronto and Vancouver but in 27 areas of Canada.
This minister continues to be an apologist for the government's shameful lack of commitment to providing housing for Canadian families. This minister continues to make explanations in the House for his outlandish statements that are not believable.
Those in need of affordable housing and housing organizations have reached their limit of frustration with this minister's cavalier statements and his lack of action.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, the announced cancellation of the VIA Toronto, Peterborough, Havelock line through an area of rapid housing development has put the future of public transportation in the area in jeopardy. Spokespeople for GO Transit have stated that GO would be interested in the route as early as 1993.
Yesterday, the Minister of Transport stated a willingness to have discussions with the Government of Ontario about the future of the Toronto-Peterborough line. I urge the Minister to request his officials to initiate negotiations immediately with their Ontario counterparts. The objective would be to develop an interim plan to continue passenger rail service on the line until such time that GO Transit would inaugurate permanent service on its own initiative.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Brian O'Kurley (Elk Island):: Mr. Speaker, farmers across this country, particularly in western Canada, depend upon the co-operation of the Canadian Government to ensure success in their farm operations.
The advance payments program is an important part of the co-operative relationship between our farmers and Canada's government. The Minister of Agriculture is committed to passing legislation that will provide advance payments for our farmers.
However, the Liberal Party of Canada, in its political wisdom, has chosen to put a road-block in the path of the minister's efforts to help our farmers. Canadian farmers will not tolerate political games by the Liberals.
Our farmers are important. Let us work together in this House to help our farmers. Let us pass the advance payments bill so farmers can get on with the business of farming.
October 5, 1989



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: My question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Minister of Transport said, and I quote from the transcript, "The results of our study are clear. The restructuring of VIA will have a minimal effect on the environment. It will not result in substantial increases in energy consumption and emissions". That is what the minister said.
I want to refer the Prime Minister to the official document which formed the basis of the cabinet decision and which was tabled yesterday by the minister in the House of Commons. It is entitled Review of Passenger Rail Transportation in Canada. At page 110, this is what the document states: "The elimination of passenger rail service would result in an increase in fuel consumption by 63 million litres in 1990 and increase pollution; 62 per cent of VIA's passengers would be diverted to automobiles and 12 per cent to airlines. These two modes are far less fuel efficient and generate more pollution".
I want to ask the Prime Minister this, in view of what the official document says, slashing VIA Rail will have a negative effect both on energy consumption and on pollution, will he tell us whether when he approved the decision he had read the official document?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I maintain what I said yesterday. The Department of Transport did a preliminary study on the impact of the new VIA Rail network, and this study gave us the assurance that the environmental impact of the new network would be negligible. That is why we saw no need for an in-depth inquiry into the environmental implications of the new VIA Rail network.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I was quoting from the official document tabled by the Minister in the House yesterday to justify his decision. He cannot contradict what his own document says.
Oral Questions
For months, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport kept saying that we had to wait for the official documents. No rumours, no gossip!
Now I would like to quote from the French version, at page 111, because the Minister of Transport said yesterday that chopping half of VIA Rail would eliminate only 2,761 jobs. Here on page 111, we read that in 1988, VIA contributed $860 million to the Canadian economy. Tourists who travelled by train spent $660 million more, which represents 57,000 jobs.
A little further, Mr. Speaker, on page 114, we read that eliminating passenger trains would be a permanent drain on the Canadian economy.
Could the Minister or the Prime Minister inform the House whether they read the official document?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we are of course aware of the contents of the official documents, and I still maintain that establishing the new VIA Rail network represents 2,76 lay-offs. From the way the Leader of the Opposition read the document, one got the impression that a large number of jobs are related to tourism. I agree, but people or tourists are not going to stop travelling tomorrow morning because in some cases, certain parts of the railway network have been abandoned. They will use other means of transportation and they will continue to invest in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and we will have a national network, a network that for the first time in many years Canadians will be able to afford.


Mr.   Dimer@Vancouver Quadra: Mr. Speaker, the minister can waffle all he wants. I am reciting the official document prepared by VIA Rail which formed the basis for the cabinet's decision and which he tabled yesterday to justify the cabinet's decision.
I would like to read another section. Does the Prime Minister or minister know that this official document tabled yesterday has this to say at page 103
"People over 60 and people with family incomes under $30,000 tend to travel by rail more than the total population. In general, people with modest incomes such as the elderly, young and the people from economically

Oral Questions
depressed areas have less access to automobiles and a greater need for economical public transportation such as the train."
Has he read on page 9, Mr. Speaker, where the document has this to say:
"Cutting VIA Rail will represent a serious hardship particularly for the elderly, the handicapped and people travelling with small children."
How does the minister justify this decision which has such an unequal economic and social impact on the people of this country?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the document to which the Leader of the Opposition reffered was prepared by VIA Rail. It was submitted by the VIA Rail Corporation. It is a study, a document we used as reference, but in fact the Department and the Government consulted a series of documents concerning the decision to be made.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this document does not make any recommendations to the Government. We have considered it, but our decision to establish a national network commensurate with our ability to pay will not change. That is the kind of network we opted for yesterday and I am proud we did, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is interesting to note again that while the government is cutting 2,700 quality jobs with VIA Rail which will lead to the loss of another 6,000 jobs in related industries, it is proposing to hire 3,000 tax hounds to enforce the governments goods and services tax. That is Tory logic.
There are still one million unemployed Canadians in this country. There are still 1,200 CN workers in Moncton who are out of work due to government policies. The government is introducing these cuts at a time when the Minister of Finance is predicting an 8.5 unemployment rate in 1990, and at the same time the government is cutting unemployment insurance.
Will the government suspend these VIA Rail cuts not only until the transport committee reports but until the
government comes forward with a plan to retrain and/or to re-employ these VIA Rail workers in quality jobs, and to do it now and to put that plan before Parliament?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend places this in the context of job creation and employment. I think it is important-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, jobs, jobs, jobs. Since this government was sworn in 1,555,000 new jobs have been created.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Inasmuch as my hon. friend is interested, the unemployment rate in Canada has fallen from 11.6 per cent since the day my hon. friend left the ministry to 7.4 per cent in Canada today. Almost 60 per cent of those jobs created have gone to women and there has been greater job-creation for minorities across Canada.
It is true, obviously, that when there are lay-offs it is up to the government through retraining programs and severance packages to make sure that the employees are dealt with with the greatest of consideration.
I am informed by the Minister of Transport, and others who have examined this, that the severance package available to VIA Rail employees who will be affected by this decision is among the most generous ever initiated by Canadian industry.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Social Planning Council of greater Toronto points out that 90 per cent of those new jobs are in low-paying service industries.

Mr. Speaker, a third of these jobs eliminated by VIA Rail will be in Montreal, where the unemployment rate is now 10.7 per cent. These cuts will result in 3,000 more jobs being lost in related industries in Montreal. Other companies have recently shut down in Montreal, including Vickers, Gillette, etc.
My question is: What plans does the Government have to replace all those jobs lost in Montreal, especially the quality jobs like those that will be lost at VIA Rail? Montreal wants action now, Mr. Speaker!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend mentions- [English]


Ms. Copps:: Social Planning Council.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Toronto Social Planning Council. I have not read the document. But perhaps my hon. friend would be interested, inasmuch as they predicted job losses this year, that since January 1 this year there have been 209,000 new jobs created in Canada, and 95 per cent of them are full-time jobs.

As for Quebec, 344,000 new jobs were created since September 1984, compared to a net loss of 30,000 jobs under the Liberal Government.
In Montreal, 127,000 more people were on the labour market in 1988 than in 1984. Montreal's unemployment rate is 8.7 per cent, down from 11.3 per cent in September 1984. That is tremendous progress! We realize that there are serious problems in Montreal and we will deal with them seriously, in order to solve them permanently, as much as possible, for the benefit of all Montrealers.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, VIA Rail's business plan that was released by the Minister says the Atlantic maintenance centre will be closed. In this House yesterday the Prime Minister said it will remain open.
Given that the maintenance centre is designed to service the RDC trains which currently run on the now to be shut down regional Atlantic routes, and that the transcontinental trains are serviced in Montreal, is he now planning to shut down operations in Montreal? Which is it, people out of work in Halifax or in Montreal?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said yesterday, as I said, that the Halifax maintenance centre will be maintained. I also said the discussions are ongoing with the president and chief executive officer of VIA Rail to see how the operations of the maintenance centres will be managed. That is exactly what we are doing.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the Minister in his opening statement at the press theatre yesterday said that the details should be left to Mr. Lawless to tell us. Obviously the two did not have their act together because they are saying different things in different documents.
Oral Questions
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister said very clearly that the cost to the taxpayer of the rail system in the corridor was $100 per passenger. The actual cost is $15.77 per passenger. I ask the Minister of Transport to indicate to the House which is the accurate figure in terms of the subsidy level paid by the Canadian taxpayer-the one of the Prime Minister's or the one that shows up in his documents?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, my friend should be serious. He said $15. The average in Canada is $110. He speaks about the corridor, but he should say that on some routes in British Columbia it is $483 for every passenger on a train.
I believe we have to repeat. This network we propose is a national one but also an affordable network. If we listen to what is said by our friends in the NDP, we will expend money we do not have and we will kill VIA Rail. We will keep VIA Rail alive, but what we must have is a reasonable, affordable, national, and sustainable network now.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. On August 19, 1988, three months before the election, the Prime Minister appeared before 1,000 residents of the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe, on the platform of the station in Acton Vale, and reminded them that it was his Government that saved the passenger rail service between Sherbrooke and Montreal after the Liberal cutbacks. Yesterday, the Prime Minister did an about face and announced that this very important service, whose ridership increased by
6,000	between 1987-88, had been cancelled. My question to the Prime Minister is this: Why did he mislead the people of Saint-Hyacinthe and the people of Quebec about the future of their railway service, just to get their votes?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is wrong, because although it is true there have been cuts in the service between Montreal and Sherbrooke that includes a stop in Acton Vale, I can inform the Hon. Member that Canadian trains on the Montreal-Sherbrooke route will continue to stop three days a week in Acton Vale.

October 5, 1989
Oral Questions


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of His Royal Highness Prince Mohamed Bolkiah, Foreign Minister of the Sultanate of Brunei.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Over the last two days the Prime Minister has demonstrated that he does not care about increased traffic on our highways, he does not care about the environment, the poor, the elderly or the thousands of people who are going to lose jobs.
I want to ask the self-appointed czar of the free market system in Canada about competition. The government's official document that we were asked to await, Review '89, states that air fares are going to increase by 30 per cent over the next 24 months and that the loss of rail passenger service is going to accelerate that trend toward higher air fares.
What steps, if any, does the Prime Minister intend to take to protect Canadians from being gouged by increasing air fares or if, indeed, the elimination of VIA Rail passenger service is part of the package to ensure that the privatization of Air Canada is a financial success?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the minister has already spoken and, as time goes on, will respond to all members in respect of various alternatives that would be analysed. Indeed, I think my hon. friend may even eventually agree that the royal commission that we are proposing on passenger service and transportation in the 21st century will turn out to be a very viable and important instrument for Canada.
I regret that my hon. friend has little use for my views on transportation and refers to me as a czar. Perhaps he would be interested in the views of someone closer to his ideology and views, a man with a great deal of expertise in this area who sat as Minister of Transport in the Liberal government.
This morning Jean-Luc Pepin, interviewed on Mom-ingside, said: "But the truth of the matter is that we have seen four revolutions since the advent of railways: the revolution of the automobile, the revolution of the bus, the revolution of the plane, and the revolution of electronics. There is no way we could have kept the railway system we had in the 19th century, no way at all. We had to adjust. That's what we are doing now".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect to the Prime Minister and his new found friend, Mr. Pepin, we rejected that gentleman's views in 1982, 1983, and we reject them now.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Dick:: You didn't reject them in 1982-83.


Mr. McDermid:: Explain.


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


Brian Vincent Tobin: The very last paragraph of the government's own long awaited official document says: "Passenger rail is one of the safest modes of travel. If passenger rail is eliminated most travellers will be diverted to the automobile and fatalities will increase".
Why is the Prime Minister, according to the government's own estimates, dumping 2.7 million Canadians who rode the rails in 1988 on to the highways, highways that are already congested, dangerous, and too often fatal.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that the very distinguished Minister of Transport has responded quite fully, already, to many of the concerns raised by my hon. friend and in point of fact has indicated a series of inquiries and initiatives that will define for Canada the kind of transport policy that we need and that my hon. friend seeks for the citizens of his province and for Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We don't have a train in Newfoundland any more, Brian, thanks to you.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend mentions Newfoundland and the passenger service. I notice that he was quick to repudiate a very distinguished member of his party, Mr. Pepin, a former minister of the Crown.
October 5, 1989

I wonder if he would repudiate those members in his party of the government of 1967, when the Liberals introduced action to eliminate passenger train service in Newfoundland.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I did, absolutely.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. For those Canadians who lost rail passenger service yesterday the prime concern now is: Is rail abandonment going to follow, especially since the president of CN was named the president of VTA Rail and given the job of recommending what routes should be cut thereby enhancing his own argument for rail abandonment?
Will the Prime Minister, knowing the importance of rail freight service in eastern Nova Scotia particularly Cape Breton, unequivocally assure the residents of eastern Nova Scotia that the rail line there will not be abandoned?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the National Transportation Act gives to the Governor in Council the ability to determine the policy concerning branch line abandonments. We know at the present time that CN and CP have made many requests to the NTA for the abandonment of branch lines.
Those proposals will be considered very carefully. I understand the concerns that my friend has, particularly on the section between Sydney and Halifax. It is something that I will consider once again very carefully, and we will do the best we can to maintain the best freight rail service in the country.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Yesterday's announcement on VIA Rail is a plan that will undoubtedly separate Canadians geographically, economically and socially.
I want to ask the minister whether or not he is aware that the termination of the Halifax-Sydney route will negatively affect the tourism industry, that it will deny
Oral Questions
Cape Bretoners the opportunity of good health care in Halifax, and that it will prevent students from affordable, reasonable transportation costs to pursue their education?
Will the minister explain to the Canadians in that region why this government persists in treating this area of the country as second-class citizens?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that this member can say what he just said, because 85 per cent of Canadians in Nova Scotia, as in any other province in the country, use their cars or the highways to travel in this country.
This line, Sydney-Halifax, has experienced since 1984 a 45 per cent decrease in ridership. We had to maintain a national network, we considered that the lines which were the least used normally, particularly the regional lines, had to be abandoned. What we have done is for the good of the national network.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Government of British Columbia announced that it is suing the federal government for its breach of its constitutional undertaking by eliminating the last remaining rail service on Vancouver Island.
Was the Cabinet aware that it was riding roughshod over the Government of Canada's solemn undertaking when it destroyed the last remaining passenger service on Vancouver Island? Will the Prime Minister indicate that the government will now agree to abide by the promise made by this Parliament and the Government of Canada to the people of Vancouver Island?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, we have reviewed the matter and in the opinion of the government there was no constitutional obligation to maintain such a passenger rail service. We are not aware of any contractual arrangements which might be construed as creating an obligation on the Government of Canada.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to get into a legal argument with the learned and distinguished member.
Let me at least quote from a contract which the Minister of Rails and Canals on behalf of the Government of Canada signed in August of 1883 which provided that contractors will lay out, make, build, construct,

October 5, 1989
Oral Questions
maintain and work continuously a line of railway from Esquimalt to Nanaimo.
Now, once again the government puts the boots to Vancouver Island and the west. How does this government square its call on provincial governments to stick by their commitments on constitutional change when it trashes a 106 year old agreement and commitment to the people of Vancouver Island?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we have honoured all of our contractual agreements. If in fact there is a case to be made that case will be made in court.


Kenneth Ross Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Will the minister direct his officials to negotiate an interim agreement with Ontario to continue the passenger rail service on the Toronto-Peterborough line until such time that GO Transit might otherwise take it over on a permanent basis?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I wrote to all my colleagues at the provincial level to discuss any proposal which could be made by the provinces, particularly for the Toronto-Peterborough-Havelock line.
We have immediately started discussions, and I am quite confident that we will reach an agreement to transfer the line Havelock-Toronto to the GO Transit system in Ontario.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport.
By cutting the vast majority of VIA Rail's secondary routes in Canada, including Cochrane-Kapuskasing, Marathon, Terrace Bay, Schreiber and Nipigon, the Minister is telling senior citizens, the poor, students and the disabled that they no longer have access to affordable transportation.
How does the Minister think these disadvantaged groups will be able to travel in Canada?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, when I consider the ridership rate on the routes to which my hon. friend referred, people were certainly using other means of transportation as well, because 85 per cent of Canadians, on these routes and elsewhere, take their cars, 5 to 10 per cent take the plane and the bus, which means that about 5 per cent of the local population, and this applies to any other region in this country, takes the train. So I have to assume that 95 per cent of senior citizens will continue to use the means of transportation they were using before.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister.
I would like to ask him about the insensitive way his Government made cuts at VIA Rail. During the 1988 election campaign, the Prime Minister was bragging about how he had restored VIA Rail services in certain communities across Canada. So why did the Prime Minister cut VIA Rail services by 25 per cent between Ottawa and Toronto and by 40 per cent between Ottawa and Montreal, in my riding? Why did the Prime Minister once again forget to tell Canadians the truth during the election campaign?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, quite simply because in order to give all Canadians a national network, we did what we had to do to apportion railway services between Vancouver and Halifax. According to the Hon. Member's proposal, with the money you left us we would only have a network between Toronto and Montreal. Thanks, but no thanks.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Given the maintenance centre in Winnipeg will be completed in 1990 at the cost of $13.5 million, given the drastic cuts to VIA services announced yesterday, and given that the president of VIA wears the same hat in CN, could the minister assure this House and Manitobans that this newly constructed centre will remain a viable centre in Winnipeg and that it will not be given to CN but that it will be retained for VIA?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the operation of the maintenance centres in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal is a corporate decision by VIA Rail.
What I know is that the Winnipeg centre will continue its operation but that it will be done in light of the decisions made by the corporation, VIA Rail.
October 5, 1989


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister.
The slashing of VIA Rail service will cost up to 800 jobs, directly and indirectly, in my province of Manitoba. The cuts and lay-offs are justified by this government on the need to improve VIA's efficiency. However, VIA's corporate plan, and I refer the minister to page 18 of the plan, says that VIA's operating subsidy per passenger mile will increase by over 50 per cent in 1990.
Is this the minister's idea of efficiency? Is this any way to run a railroad?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I just want to say to my friend that if he will read these documents he will see that the province of Manitoba and Winnipeg in particular will lose 217 jobs.


COMMENTS OF FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister who will be well aware that two weeks ago the chairman of the finance committee insulted Atlantic Canadians by calling them all "nobodies".
Then last week he insulted all senior citizens in the country. Yesterday he fanned the fires of western separation and western alienation by referring to westerners as "ignorant, stupid, out to lunch" and then he threatened to send in grade five teachers to educate Albertans.
Will the Prime Minister do the honourable thing and extend an apology to all western Canadians on behalf of the chairman of the finance committee and do the right thing and ask for his resignation? If not, why will he not do that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I should tell my hon. friend, you should hear what he calls me.
I know what you call me. I have not read the remarks to which my hon. friend refers. I imagine when I do that the grace and elegance of them will leap off the page.
Oral Questions
But I will examine them very carefully and I will speak to the member as soon as I can and I will report back to my hon. friend.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the Prime Minister to report back to his hon. friend. What I am saying is that there are many members in this House who are representatives of the people of Alberta. Many of us were bom and raised in the province of Alberta, as is his seat-mate. We consider these kinds of remarks, to be called stupid and ignorant, insulting and we would expect the Prime Minister to do the honourable thing and indicate right now whose side is he on? Is he on the side of the chairman of the finance committee, or is he on the side of grass roots Albertans?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I have not read the transcript of the remarks. I understand that the committee is moving from city to city and I have a tough time keeping up with the comments that are being made. I am starting to quiver because he is heading down toward eastern Quebec, but the Quebecers figure: "What the hell, you had him last week".
I will examine this carefully. I think we all know that the chairman of the finance committee is known for things other than the elegance of his language. But he is known as a very hard working, devoted parliamentarian, and I am sure that he would have nothing but the highest regard for all westerners, and in particular, my hon. friend.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. If he is quivering now, wait until he hears from the patrons of VIA Rail.
The Prime Minister has admitted by establishing a royal commission that he has no idea of the transportation needs of Canadians now or in the future. Yet he has chosen to destroy a rail transportation system that is vital to the future and which is absolutely essential for the maintenance of this country.
Why did he wait until yesterday to establish a royal commission? Why did he not establish a royal commission into VIA Rail in 1988 when he still supported it?

October 5, 1989
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is quite inaccurate in some of his statements.
The possibilities for the royal commission are quite impressive. When my hon. friend see the names and the professional qualifications of those associated with the royal commission, he will be very well pleased. I know that transportation is for his area of Miramichi and for New Brunswick a particularly important issue.
I can give him the assurance that we will all be working together to make sure that what binds Canada, and has done so historically is strengthened and improved upon in the light of new transportation needs into the next century.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, because my hon. friend is from New Brunswick, by referring him to a statement made by Mr. Pepin this morning. He said: "But to say, as the Premier of New Brunswick has said, that we need VIA in order to keep the country together is really romanticism, is really a dream. We have other ways of keeping the country together".
One of the ways we have of keeping the country together is by bringing about a sound competitive economy which will boost prosperity, increase productivity and create new wealth for all Canadians. That is what we are trying to do.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, P.E.I. lost its only remaining rail connection, a bus that runs from Charlottetown to Moncton. Some 28,000 passengers used this service last year, an increase of over 25 per cent from the previous year.
P.E.I. is now totally severed from the rest of Canada. Islanders and tourists cannot purchase a VIA ticket either to or from Prince Edward Island. This will have a great effect on tourism. Are we no longer considered a part of this country? Will the minister return this service to Prince Edward Island?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we have made this decision in light of the national network. My friend knows very well that we are working at the present time on different options for Prince Edward Island in terms of keeping the link between the island and the mainland.
He also knows very well that in terms of the current system of transportation between Prince Edward Island and the mainland we have a very good ferry system. I believe that Prince Edward Island has not been deserted by the decision yesterday.


COMMENTS OF FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister knows that he and I can share humour on the proper occasion and exchange a barb at each other's expense when that is appropriate and relevant. But I do not think members of the House, certainly on this side, would agree with his response to the question from our colleague for Kamloops.
The member of Parliament for Mississauga South, who is the chairman of the finance committee of the House of Commons is representing this place across the country in Vancouver and in Alberta.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Have you read his statement?


John Napier Turner: I have read transcripts of his statement.


Charles Joseph Clark: Have you read the whole statement?


John Napier Turner: I have read transcripts of his statement. In the last two weeks he has said to the people of Newfoundland, when he was discussing the itinerary of his committee, that it is not worth public money to go to the province of Newfoundland to hear what the citizens have to say out there. Now he has said to the people of Alberta that they are ignorant, that they need education at the grade five level, and that their evidence is not worthy of being listened to.
Whatever the Prime Minister may think of his own problems with the member for Mississauga South, by refusing to repudiate the member he is condoning what that member is saying. I urge him to reconsider on the floor of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the statement by my right hon. friend that I am condoning what a member says is quite inappropriate.


Mr. Fulton:: You sure did.
October 5, 1989


Martin Brian Mulroney: When we had some particularly egregious statements in the last few days by the member for Hull-Aylmer and the member for Scarborough-Agin-court, I never once suggested that those reflected the views-


John Napier Turner: Both of them apologized.


Martin Brian Mulroney: They apologized-


John Napier Turner: Then that member should apologize.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and they should have apologized because they were outrageous statements. I never once suggested that my right hon. friend in any way condoned that kind of statement. Why would my right hon. friend want to impugn my motives in this regard when I have already indicated to my hon. friend for Kamloops that it is my intention to read carefully the transcript, to speak to the member, and to have him respond at an appropriate time when he returns.
I did not know that my right hon. friend believed that simply because something is said outside the House that I would endorse it. Of course I would never endorse statements like that. I thought my right hon. friend would give me the benefit of the doubt as I have readily given him the benefit of the doubt in circumstances much more serious in the past.


John Napier Turner: The question was not raised as a joke in this House of Commons. If the Prime Minister is taking this issue seriously, can we take it from him then that he is going to require an apology from the member for Mississauga South when he returns to this House, on behalf of all members of this House, because he is representing us all as he is hearing public testimony across the country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I think he knows, I can assure my right hon. friend that any matter raised by my friend for Kamloops-Shuswap I take seriously. When he raises a matter like this, even though there was an exchange and some good humour between us, it does not in any way diminish the seriousness of the question that he raised and I will pursue it in that light and respond to
Oral Questions
my hon. friend as quickly as I can. I thank him again for bringing that to my attention because I had missed it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Dun-dum. I would ask him to make his questions very brief.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, but in her absence I would direct it to the Prime Minister. The minister tells us that 30,000 Canadians will lose their jobs as a result of changes to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The Canadian Labour Congress tells us that the number is 130,000, a difference of 100,000 claimants.
Even the minister's own estimates reflect the tremendous amount of misery that will occur because of these changes. Let us take one example. In the Avalon Peninsula, on the basis of Bill C-21, 10,000 Canadians will be dispossessed of unemployment insurance. I want to ask the minister how the government can possibly justify that kind of devastation to the Canadian public, and I would like an answer right now.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the statistics used in the study on unemployment insurance reform are correct, and I have every confidence in our statistics. They do, however, allow for the change in attitude we hope to see as a result of unemployment insurance reform, while the statistics to which you referred do not allow for changes in the behaviour of Canada's workers.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government spokesman whether he can inform us of the business of the House for the next few days and perhaps the bills he intends to bring to the House for consideration, and also give us some indication of the business of the House for the next few days, tomorrow and perhaps next week.

Government Orders


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I should be delighted to answer the question put by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. Tomorrow, we expect to consider the report stage of Bill C-10, Bill S-2, and second reading of Bill C-23. On Tuesday, October 10, since Monday is a holiday, we intend to consider the report stage of Bill C-20 and possibly second reading of Bill C-28. And finally on Wednesday, we intend to continue second reading of Bill C-28, followed, if time permits, by the debate on second reading of Bill C-33.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Foster (p. 4275).
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I stand here today to speak with respect to Bill C-36, a bill that is going to affect the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
Initially I would like to respond to some of the comments of the minister of grains and oil seeds this morning when he indicated that it was the opposition which was holding up this bill; and that was the reason farmers and producers were not receiving advance payments. With all due respect, the minister knows that that is utter nonsense. That is simply more dialogue coming from the Tories in order to mislead Canadians.
As the minister well knows, this intention to remove the interest free provision on advance payments to farmers was introduced last spring, on April 27. It took the government some 152 days introduce this bill. Now, if it had any sincerity with respect to farmers across this country and really had the interest of farmers at heart, it would have introduced this bill a long time ago. The government knows that many producers, many producer
groups and many associations throughout this country have a lot of concern with respect to this bill. They are concerned that it is going to adversely affect agriculture in this country and they want to be heard. It is unfair for the government to simply bring in the bill at a time when farmers need advance payments and then say it is the opposition's fault for not passing the bill.
It is clear that when the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, and the Advance Payments for Crops Act were introduced some time ago, they had dual purpose. First of all, they were introduced at a time when the grain handling system throughout western Canada was in difficulty.
The purpose of the bill is to allow the Canadian Wheat Board to more orderly market its grain. It encourages producers to maintain grain in their own bins until the Wheat Board calls for it. As we know, the farmer only gets paid when he delivers his grain to the market. By allowing some advance loans, it allows the farmer to pay off his debts and still store the grain, which is an advantage to both the Canadian Wheat Board and to the producer.
As well, by keeping the product off the market, it avoids the situation where there are large amounts of grain entering the market, thereby adversely affecting the price of grain, particularly grain that is not part of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Advance Payments for Crops Act was a benefit not only to producers, but to small businesses as well. As we all know, the farmer lives on credit for a good portion of the year and advance payments allow him to pay his bills to small business people, who themselves are suffering
With this change in the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, it is quite clear that farmers will not be utilizing the programs as they have before. A recent study by the UPA in Quebec indicated that approximately 10 per cent of the producers now utilizing the Advance Payments for Crops Act will utilize it when the interest amendments are added to these acts.
This is going to cause a lot of difficulty in a number of areas. First of all, it is going to mean that small business people will be unable to pay their own creditors because they will be carrying a credit from farmers. Small business people throughout Canada are under a tremendous amount of pressure today. If they are not receiving the credit that is owed them, it makes it difficult for them

in turn to pay their own bills, which is going to mean that small business is going to suffer.
It also means that there is going to be pressure on the open market. There is going to be pressure for farmers to deliver their grain as soon as they can and that is going to adversely affect the market. It is going to drive prices down which, in turn, is going to adversely affect the price that producers are receiving for their grain.
It is sad that the government is taking this type of approach, because today rural Canada is under severe stress. The rural infrastructure in this country is about to collapse. A new phrase, in fact, has been coined throughout this country, "rural desertification", and it is true that community after community is losing people. They are losing services. Seniors no longer want to stay in communities where they were bom, where they have lived and where they wish to retire, because they cannot be guaranteed services. Young families are hesitant to move into communities for the very same reasons. Family farms throughout this country are also under stress.
I think it is quite clear that this bill is not intended to help the small farmers across this country. Certainly, if it was, the government would not have put the limit at $250,000. Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars is a large sum of money. I know very few family farms that can take advantage of a loan of that size. It is only going to be the large industrial farms that will be able to take advantage of it.
This raises another problem. There are many industrial farms that are managing quite nicely. If they can take out a loan at a lower interest rate for $250,000, there is going to be a real possibility that these industrial farms will invest that money in term deposits for a few months and actually make money out of it. The people who will suffer will be the small farmers, the family farms across this nation, that have contributed so much to the development of this country. The pressure the government continues to place on the family farm simply cannot be sustained.
Government Orders
In fact, this bill is simply part of a ongoing philosophy that has existed in this country with successive federal Liberal and Conservative governments since World War II which has put increasing pressure on the rural structure. The number of farms that have been vacated in the last 40 years is phenomenal. The number of people who are leaving rural Canada is phenomenal.
The number of small businesses that are suffering in rural Canada is extraordinary. It is not simply because of an advance in technology, as some members may suggest. Certainly, that is part of it. It is true that as technology advances, it is easier for a producer to farm a large amount of land, but it is also made possible by the programs and the attitude that governments have had toward agriculture. The changes that Bill C-36 will invoke on the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act are simply one more step in successfully reducing rural Canada to a situation that it simply cannot sustain.
We in the New Democratic Party have recognized this stress. We wish that the other federal parties would recognize this problem as well. In fact, we have appointed a committee suggestions and policies that will benefit rural Canada. The Tory's philosophy is to simply look at the bottom economic line. The Tory philosophy is: "If it makes money, it is fine. If it does not make money, let it go."
We are committed to developing policies and programs that are going to maintain a viable and vital rural infrastructure throughout this country. This will be an ongoing program and we are very proud that this committee exists today.
When the minister calls for this bill to be passed immediately, he is ignoring the numerous groups and associations across this country that have real problems with this bill. There are numerous associations that want to speak to the legislative committee that will be appointed to look at this bill after second reading. This government is asking us to simply pass this bill and ignore those groups.
The government always talks about consultation. Well, here is another example of the Tory's type of consultation. It is no consultation at all. It is simply a ramrod approach while it makes up excuses and blames the opposition. But it is not going to work, because those

October 5, 1989
Government Orders
groups are going to be heard. After second reading, it will go to committee, despite what the government proposes, despite the government's intention on ramming this bill through this House. It will go to committee.
The reason that farmers are not receiving advance payments now is not because of the members on this side of the House, it is because of the members on the government side of the House. If the members on the government side of the House had the interests of farmers at heart, had the interests of producers at heart, they would allow advance payments to go through this year, as they have gone through for the last number of years, in fact past decades.
An. Hon. Member: Since 1957.


Rodney Edward Laporte: It would allow this bill to be debated properly, would allow for groups to speak to the committee, to speak to this government and put their positions forward. But the government does not want to hear any opposition to its proposals. That is why it is attempting to ram this bill through. It is the government's fault, it is not the members on this side of the House who are at fault. It is the government's fault for denying farmers throughout this country the interest free loans, the advance payments that they so rightly deserve and that they and all of rural Canada need.
In conclusion, I would just like to point out that we in the New Democratic Party are committed to a viable rural community, a community that has the compassion to maintain seniors in their homes, in communities where they grew up and lived, and in communities that they love and where they want to stay.
We are committed to developing policies that are going to allow young families to locate in rural communities if they want to locate there. We are committed to developing policies that are going to allow small businesses to be viable. Let us not forget that small business in this country creates more jobs than any other sector in this nation. This government is ignoring small business.
We are committed to the development of those programs and we are committed to providing services to those communities so that they can be viable and vital throughout this nation.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for his observations on this bill and the impact it
will have on the farm sector in Canada. Will he comment on the level of producer support for this bill across western Canada and state whether that support and resolve on behalf of the producers and their organizations is even building in favour of the amendment that is before this House at this time.


Rodney Edward Laporte: There is a lot of concern throughout western Canada about this bill. Certainly I have spoken to some groups who wish to be heard and have their positions put forth. The prairie pools wish to have their message heard. Certainly the National Farmers' Union which represents many farmers throughout not only western Canada but all of Canada wish to be heard on this matter.
Other groups such as the Manitoba Com Growers Association and the honey producers from Manitoba and Alberta wish to have their positions put forward.
There are groups from various commodities, various aspects of agriculture who desire to be heard. They have a lot of concern that this bill is one more nail in the coffin of rural Canada, in these advance payments. The imposition of an interest rate on these advance payments simply is not beneficial to rural Canada.
Further, the government is increasing the amount of the limit to $250,000, of which it is guaranteeing 90 per cent. It knows full well that most small producers will not come anywhere near $250,000. To even bring that amount up indicates the government's attitude toward agriculture. The government always claims that it is helping agriculture. Well, if you are a large producer, if you are on an industrial farm, that might be true. It sure is not true if you happen to be a small producer, a family farm, whether it is in Saskatchewan, or Alberta, or Ontario, or Quebec, or in the Maritimes.
This is a government that cares not or thinks not of this type of producer. Yes, there are many groups in western Canada and throughout all of Canada who are very concerned about this bill, who would like to see the government simply put this matter on hold, to allow for advance payments to go through interest free and allow for a proper and thorough debate of this bill so that Parliament can do its real duty, that is represent the people of all of Canada.
October 5, 1989


Mr. Monteith:: The hon. member might comment. He talks about the number of producers in Saskatchewan and across Canada who have used advance payments. I wonder if he would comment on the fact that last year, in the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, of the total of 69,000 producers, 561 members used the service. He mentioned the honey producers in Saskatchewan. In the Saskatchewan Beekeepers' Association, 56 of 350 producers used the service; and in the Saskatchewan Vegetable Growers Association, 8 of 150 producers used the service.
Across Canada no more than 4 per cent of the producers used advance payments. I wonder if the member would comment on that.


Rodney Edward Laporte: The hon. member questions the number of people utilizing the advance payments act, implying that it is not utilized and is something that farmers don't even want.
I would like to remind the hon. member that in western Canada for the last three years we had a tremendous drought, and farmers never had the grain to get an advance payment in the first place. There have been a lot fewer farmers utilizing the advance payments because of the lack of crops in that region and, in fact, have been waiting for the government to bring in a permanent drought relief program. We are still waiting for it.
In 1985 the government promised that it would bring in a permanent drought relief program, a permanent agriculture program, and where is it? I haven't seen it. And no farmer in western Canada has seen it. Yet this member can go on about the fact that farmers do not want or use this advance payment. When they have no crop to deliver, they do not utilize the payment.
I would also like to point out to the member that two-thirds of the payments that were used with respect to the advance payment came under the Advance Payments for Crops Act and not the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. It is a program that is required and used by family farms throughout this country.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, it may seem strange that in a debate such as this someone from a riding such as Scarborough West would rise to speak, but the Minister of Housing will, I am sure,
Government Orders
remain to hear what I have to say on this very important topic.
As a matter of fact, the reason I join in the discussion this afternoon is because I wondered what the dispute was with respect to Bill C-36, which is the resurrection of Bill C-32 from the last session.
The people of Scarborough West, like all Canadians, know that the health of our nation is dependent on the health of our agriculture industry, on the health of our farms and on farmers. Therefore, what is the dispute with respect to this bill?
Well I am not a farmer, I am a lawyer. So I begin my analysis by looking at the bill. I do not have to go much further than the third clause to see what one major problem is. The clause, and I am citing directly from it, states that the minister is going to:
-guarantee to the producer organization the repayment of that advance, and the interest on that money that is attributable to that advance.
That is the amendment which is proposed. So, of course, we have to take a look and see what is proposed to be struck. What is proposed to be struck is:
-where the Minister so guarantees, the Minister shall pay the interest in accordance with Paragraph 12.(l)(a).
Well, it becomes obvious that one of the effects of this bill is to strike out the interest free characteristics of this particular act.
We now know what is being intended. As a non-farmer, a person who is not involved in agriculture, with no farms in my riding, what is my next step in analyzing this situation? Well, it seems to me that I have to turn my attention to the people who are directly involved. So I started receiving and reviewing letters.
The Manitoba Com Growers Association, in a recent letter, says quite clearly that: "The Manitoba Com Growers Association would like to make you aware that we are opposed to the removal of the interest free provision of the Advance Payments for Crops Act".
The Prairie Pools Inc. consisting of the Alberta Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and the Manitoba Pool Elevators, say that it cannot support Bill C-36. They say that the current suspension of the act should be lifted and that the programs should be fully reinstated: "-with the interest free portion intact for the 1989-90 crop year. It is critical that this be done immediately".

October 5, 1989
Government Orders
Why? Well, among other reasons, the Pools say: "The interest-free advances encourage orderly marketing.
In my own province, the Ontario Com Producers Association, in referring to the predecessor of this bill, called upon the Minister of Agriculture not to pass it in its present form. They state that: "Elimination of the interest free provision will effectively destroy the program and result in an ineffectual program with minimal participation".
Going to the other end of the country, the British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission asks that the proposed elimination of the interest free portion be reversed. Finally, the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association is concerned and says that the program has been run to date at very little cost to the government or producers. It seems that looking at these various organizations and groups Canada-wide that are involved with agriculture on a daily basis, there is a clear consensus that the removal of the interest free provision should be reversed. How did that happen? What is the history behind this?
We know that in 1957 the Prairie Grains Advance Payments Act was introduced by another Conservative government, the Diefenbaker government, by the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Hon. Gordon Churchill. Thirty-two years later we are having that reversed. It seems the government has chosen to ignore the rationale behind the program and the integral role that the interest free payments play in the program's success. This is because the government has represented the program in the budget papers describing the program thus: "The objective of the program is to ensure that producers can obtain cash in advance from lenders on the strength of their marketable crops." This was not the objective of the program. This was one of the means by which the objectives of the program were to be met. Integral to meeting the objective was also the interest free provision of the Act.
The objective then, 32 years ago, as it should be now, was to encourage on-farm storage of produce. The program resulted from a recognition that the commercial storage capacity of the country was far less than the productive capabilities of the country. As Mr. Churchill,
32 years ago, clearly stated, "The legislation is necessary because of the large surplus of wheat."
Imagine the consequences if Canada failed to maintain adequate reserves and we suffered a crop failure in this country. If we had insufficient reserves, we could very well lose important markets for our produce for many years to come. We saw with last year's drought how quickly foreign countries rushed forward with their reserves to take advantage of our shortfall. Further, imagine if the world suffers crop failure, not in one but perhaps two or more years in a row. Imagine the consequences in terms of food security that could result if we have insufficient reserves.
It is a well-known fact that elevator companies have reduced their commercial storage capacity in the last 10 years and have increased through-put. We are now more dependent on our producers to maintain our reserves than in 1957. Yet now the government does not even want to recognize the true historical objective of the program, let alone the very real necessity for it.
According to Grain Matters, storage capacity in Canada is limited to only half of our annual exports of grains and oilseeds. Conversely, the United States of America, Argentina and Australia all have greater storage capabilities than their annual exports. These interest free advance payments are means to encourage storage to attempt to ensure Canada remains on equal ground with our competitors.
During the free trade agreement debate we heard time and time again from the government of the necessity of developing a level playing field with the United States in order to be competitive. Although the deal fails in substance to do that in our view, the objective was valid.
Now, with the goods and services tax, we are hearing the same argument advanced; that Canadian industry needs the goods and services tax to be on a level playing field with the world. I ask what of a level playing field with the world in the agricultural industry.
Instead of scrapping the interest free provision which will scrap the historical intent of the legislation, this government, if it were serious in promoting the Canadian agricultural trade and in ensuring food security, would be introducing legislation to increase not diminish our storage reserves. Do we need to go through the crisis of 1957 again to see the necessity of this provision of the program? Should we wait until those countries which maintain reserves steal our markets before ensuring our
October 5, 1989

own reserves? That day is coming and this legislation will only accelerate the decline of our already dangerously poor storage capabilities.
In 1957 the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act was introduced to meet a national objective. As Mr. Churchill stated: "This resolution will be for the benefit of the people of Canada". The Conservative government was bringing this in for the benefit of the people of Canada. This government, a Conservative government, now refuses to recognize this objective. Instead, it refers, and again I quote from the budget papers, to "the elimination of the interest subsidy".
This is not a subsidy. It is a payment to the producer for storage costs incurred with the rate of payment determined by the interest rate of the advance. Note the word "subsidy", a word not yet defined under the free trade agreement. Is the government somehow afraid that this is going to be brought up by the United States, that it will somehow be embarrassed and forced by the United States to remove this because it is a subsidy, a word yet undefined? Is this somehow an effort to remove this argument before it is even raised?
In 1957 Mr. Churchill stated: "The cash advance is not a handout or a subsidy to western farmers". What the interest free component does is recognize the economic consequences to the producer when we, the Canadian public, ask him to store his produce for our rainy days. In 1957 there was a crisis because every producer attempted to sell his crops at once to bank his profits, to ensure he could afford to plant a crop the next year. The interest payments are an attempt by the government to ensure that the farmer is not penalized for participating in a program of a national objective.
Now, however, we do not see a government that recognizes this national objective. I am confident, as we debate this issue today, that the government will continue to deny the need of this national objective. It is just cut, cut, cut. It does not recognize the national objective under which this particular provision was brought on by its own party 32 years ago. It is not only those on this side of the House who recognize the true objectives of these two programs.
Government Orders
I would like now to quote from an independent source as to the objective of this program to balance against the view presented by the budget papers. The Canadian Tax Foundation in its issue, The National Finances, has described the objective of these programs for many years thusly: "Under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, the government makes interest free cash advances to farmers for storing certain grains on their farms".
It should be noted that this program is described as an exchange of advance payment for storage services provided by the producer. Finance is wrong in the budget papers to see it as merely a guarantee of credit. It is an agreement that provides the producer with a payment for contributing to the fulfilment of a national objective and that is the storage of our crops. Yet in the budget papers, we have a government saying: "The interest free aspect is not fundamental to this objective". Clearly it is fundamental to an objective that the government no longer feels is necessary. That objective is quite simply stated as food security.
The government's agriculture policy into which eliminating this interest-free provision fits is one of Canada should not purchase food. That is not the way we see it on this side of the House. Food security means just that, secure access to food. That means we must maintain our reserves and we must recognize that the $27 million we are currently paying our producers to maintain reserves in this country is cheap at 10 times the cost. We should encourage storage and not punish those producers who maintain those reserves should we ever need them. This government's hidden policy of purchase instead of produce is like attempting to buy fire insurance the day after the fire.
It is vital that we keep this legislation intact, that we understand the purposes for which the interest free provisions were brought in. We accept that they have not changed. We agree that the national objective must remain, and therefore those are some of the reasons why our party is opposing Bill C-36. It is not simply objective for objection's sake. We are putting forth concrete reasons why Bill C-36 should not be considered by this Parliament.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Scarborough West on his very articulate and excellent address. I want particularly to compliment him on the interest he has shown on behalf of his urban

October 5, 1989
Government Orders
constituents. I am sure it must be on the minds of his constituents in a very large urban riding, as he mentioned in his address, regarding the security of supplies of food. We have heard in the last two days about the erosion of farm programs by this government. This concern is endorsed by almost all of the farm organizations in Canada and today was even further reinforced at a luncheon meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture when Mr. Jack Proulx, a member of the CFA executive, made an impassioned speech opposing this bill.
With the current trend of this government toward the free market philosophy and the dismantling of farm programs, I want to ask my colleague if he has given any thought to making food production in Canada a matter of national security. He talked about security of food and I wonder if he might give us some of his thoughts on making it a national security, security of supply of high quality Canadian grown food for the Canadian consumers.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, it is almost incredible that we would even have to be discussing whether or not we should make agriculture a national priority. It is incredible in a country like this. We have the second largest land mass in the world. We have incredible and vast areas devoted strictly to agriculture.
You can go back as far as you want in the history of mankind, even as far back as ancient Egypt when there were the seven lean years and the seven years of plenty. Of course, we should always be harvesting our agricultural produce in such a way that we never end up in a situation of want.
This is a country of great plenty, this is a country that can for the most part supply itself. It seems to me that it should be a given, not something for discussion, but rather a given that a national objective of ours is that we are not caught short at any time and that we always have sufficient food to feed our people and, indeed, sufficient food not only to feed our people, but to help others in depressed areas of the world in the event of a tragic famine of some nature.
In answer to the question, I would simply say that we should not even be talking about it. It should be automatic.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the statement and question of the hon. member. The idea that we should produce enough food to feed ourselves is something that has become lost over the last number of years. We now have come to the position where we are thinking of rural Canada less as a producer of food and more as a place where people might want to live if they want that lifestyle.
Rural Canada is under a tremendous amount of pressure because we in Canada have not made it a requirement to keep agriculture going. I would like to ask the member, as an urban member, if he is prepared to allow the price of food to go to the level which would be required for us to stay viable in agriculture all across Canada.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his question. It is a rather broad question and I am not quite sure that I understand the full import of it.
Is my hon. friend suggesting that for some reason an apple that, for example, presently costs 80 cents really should cost $2.50? I do not know whether that is what the suggestion is. Speaking as an urban member, obviously people want to be able to afford to buy food. It is veiy important in order to be able to buy food that we produce it.
It seems logical that foods produced in our country and shipped to points in our country should be less expensive than foods imported from other countries. I am not entirely sure what the hon. member meant by his question and how it related to urban families wanting a rural lifestyle. Beyond that, I do not know whether I have responded fully, but I am sorry, I did not quite understand the question.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify it. Farmers in Canada are going broke because the price of the product that they are producing is too low. Right now there are over 10,000 farmers in Saskatchewan with foreclosure notices.
They are going broke because the price that is being paid for the product that they are producing is too low. It is too low because it can be produced more cheaply in other parts of the world. The hon. member's suggestion that we should produce enough food to feed ourselves would require that we pay enough for that food so that the farmers who produce it can survive. That is not true in grains; it is not true in apples. We will not pay enough for apples for apple farmers to survive. It is not true in grapes; it is not true in most of the areas of agriculture.

Canadians are unwilling to pay the price for the food which would allow farmers to survive in that kind of production. The only places where we are able to survive fairly well is in exports.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I would say that the people in my riding of Scarborough West have never complained to me that the price of food is too low. There must be something going on between the time that the farmer sells the food at such a ridiculously low price according to the member and the time when my constituents buy the food. That is where there is a problem and that is what we can examine at some later date, but not when we are discussing Bill C-36.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York West-Immigration-Investor program-Special ministerial permits/ Government Response; the Hon. Member for Trinity-Spadina-Immigration-Backlog of refugee determination system; the Hon. Member for South West Nova-Fisheries.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Foster (p.4275).
Government Orders
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak on Bill C-36, an act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and the amendment to the motion which essentially calls for the bill not to be read at this time but six months from now.
Speaking directly to the amendment, I first want to suggest that postponing this bill for six months is not the effort that farm producers and producer groups would like to see. They would like to see this bill withdrawn completely and the existing act which was in place prior to the April budget of the finance minister be in force so they may have the full weight of the benefits of the advance payments act which existed prior to this year.
To clarify that a little further, the bill before us today essentially brings into practice what the Minister of Finance announced in the budget in April of this year, that the government would no longer pay interest on advances for the purchase of grain. The argument raised, of course, is that the government would rather use the $27 million expended on this program than have the producers in the field use it.
Farm groups, of course, have said the advances are important because they allow producers to sell their crops when the prices are high, when they are in the bins and they cannot sell them, and I will elaborate on that a little bit more in a few minutes.
We have to remember that this program was brought in in 1957 and has served the farm community extremely well since then. The farm population has utilized the program and has found it to be of great benefit. The fact that the government is now in financial difficulties is no reason to penalize the farm community which oft-times have no other place to turn than this particular program.
There are a couple of things that I should mention. This program is extremely valuable at times like this when the agriculture community is in such a state of stress. The financial crisis in the farm sector is absolutely real. It is having an impact right down to the human level. In some cases farmers have taken their lives because they felt that they failed their fathers' generation, their fathers who had broken the land and had often lost hands or legs while building up the country and producing on the land for their children. Then their children come along, and because of policies of the previous government and this government, they can no

October 5, 1989
Government Orders
longer maintain their farms. Some of those farmers feel that they have failed their fathers and their grandfathers, and their sense of being has been destroyed.
The crisis is very real and we will remember a few things. We have to remember that this government is pushing more and more of the costs on to the farmers and they are getting absolutely no support from this government in terms of raising the price of the product. My colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt earlier today talked about the prices for farm products and he is absolutely right. Bills like this one before us today would be unnecessary if the price paid for farm products was adequate to meet the needs of the farm community.
Other programs that this government boasts about would be unnecessary if the price paid for the farm product was adequate to meet the needs of the production. A lot of the farm community is looking for that opportunity to indeed be carrying the weight of the economy. This is not the time to be pushing more and more costs on the producer.
I just want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, and some of the government members here today of what is happening out there in the farm community and why interest free cash advances are so important.
We know that the price is down on almost all commodities. Therefore, with the price down and support from the government down, obviously farm income is down, but interest rates remain very high. We cannot forget that the previous government had interest rates up to 20 per cent and 22 per cent and that is what forced many of the people in the farm community to get into this crisis situation.
Input costs continue to increase. With the free trade legislation and the goods and services tax being brought in, all of those input costs are increasing at the farm level. The expenses rise, the price continues to fall, and more and more of the costs of doing business are being transferred to the farmer.
We cannot forget that earlier this year oats was removed by this government from the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. Subsequent to that move, the price of oats has fallen dramatically.
There was no stabilization payment for grains this year, even though in a period of time like this one
following a drought, stabilization payments are more important than ever. Do not forget the deficiency payments that the Minister of Agriculture has been so proud of have been stopped, and there was not a dollar of deficiency payments made to any producer last year or this year.
The rail line rehabilitation program has also been terminated, meaning that more and more producers are going to have to haul their grain further and further to the elevator. Again, the cost of that transportation cost has been pushed over on to the farmer, and there is absolutely no support for the increased price that is paid for that product.
I can go on. I am going to list just a few other things here. We have to remember that the compensation payment that this government promised after it took away the two price wheat system last year because of the free trade deal has disappeared, and $270 million was promised, a one-time payment for a price that has been paid for years and years and years on the use of domestic grain in Canada. It disappeared.
The Minister of Agriculture was in Prince Albert not too long ago talking about crop insurance and how the crop insurance program that this government is going to implement is going to be the salvation of the agriculture community. Crop insurance is a very important aspect of the farm price circumstances, but the crop insurance system is not the end all answer to supporting the income of the farmer and certainly not if the farmer has to come up with higher and higher premiums every year just in order to stay in that program.
Too many of the people in the farm community are on the line. They have just barely enough cash flow, if any, to go from one year to the next. Interest and expenses cut into that cash flow significantly and we cannot increase that in any way.
One of the things that I discovered this summer as I worked more and more closely with labour market conditions in my own riding and as I looked around the province of Saskatchewan, was that Canada Employment Centres across the prairies are indicating that there is a tremendous lack of skilled farm labourers available at harvest time. Not only do the producers have to pull off these crops with more and more expensive equipment, because of course the cost of this stuff has all been increasing, but they are having to utilize it with less and less skilled labour. It is becoming a tremendous problem
October 5, 1989

throughout the prairies and particularly in Saskatchewan.
Last, I mentioned the significance of cash flow on the farm. The goods and services tax proposed by this government is going to just destroy that cash flow position of the farmer or the producer on the western prairies. We can be sure that when the people in the farm communities start to look at all of these things, decisions made by government which could be made in another way that are affecting their lives, their ability to produce food from the land, they are certainly going to have second thoughts about the way in which they direct their attention in the future.
Two days ago in the House of Commons, the Minister of Agriculture spoke to us and he had a number of interesting things to say about this bill. I would like to make a few comments on what he had to say.
You will recall that he was talking about the opposition holding up this legislation. Here we are into the harvest, in fact the harvest in Saskatchewan is over. The grain is in the farmers' bins and they are looking for ways to sell it. In fact, if you go out and look at those bins you will find that a lot of them are full of grain. If you go to the grain elevators you will find that they are also full. The elevators cannot take any more of the grain that is in the bins but the farmer has to sell that grain.
This government is forcing that farmer now to take an advance on grain he can't sell and actually borrow the money for the sale and pay back interest. A number of those producers are sitting there with grain that the board is not buying at this time, grain which, because we had poor weather in the fall, is now fit for feed instead of export. That grain is not going to be bought for transport now. The grain that is being purchased now by the elevators is used for our exports, our best quality grain.
So the farmer who is sitting there with feed grain is wondering how he can go to the elevator and get paid for the grain that he has grown without having to borrow the money, which is what this government is now asking him to do. I am afraid this is a situation that is intolerable and shows the ignorance of this government about the conditions on the farm and how things work.
Government Orders
Before I come back to the Minister of Agriculture I have to mention a statement made yesterday by the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. He said the major hold-up in all of this is because farmers out there don't want to haul their grain in winter. He said:
There is no point in the guy hauling in the middle of winter because it is 40 below and he does not want to start his tractor, blow out the lane, get his truck going and all that. He has got his money. But if he has got to haul the grain to get his money, that helps as far as orderly marketing.
Well, I am sure there isn't a farmer out there who is going to read that statement, think about last winter when the weather was 40 below, and think "Oh, if I had not got my money then I would have shovelled out my driveway, shovelled out the road, got out to the elevator and delivered my grain because I needed the money." That is not the nature of this at all. What we are talking about is selling product when you can sell it and not having to borrow the money because the grain is in the bin and there is nothing you can do about it.
The Minister of Agriculture boasts that the limits have moved up from some $30,000 to $250,000. Big deal, Mr. Speaker. When you are not paying the bill you could put that up to $500,000, make it a million dollar limit. When you are not footing the bill it makes no difference. They can claim all the credit they want on this one for boosting the limits, but when you are borrowing the money at the producer level it doesn't make any difference on that side. It is still a loan and it is still a transfer of the cost to the producer. As I have indicated, the producer at this point does not need those additional costs.
We can't forget that the payments that were going into this program before amounted to some $27 million. When you look at the western economy, $27 million out of that economy, no matter how you look at it, is a lot.
I also want to make a suggestion. Earlier in the House today it was said that only a few farmers take advantage of this program, this is becoming more and more typical of this government. The government says that only a few use it so it is okay.
That is what the government says about the VIA Rail users. While this debate is going on, the same debate on VIA Rail is taking place. Only 3 per cent of the Canadian population use VIA Rail so slash it by 51 per cent. What an attitude!

October 5, 1989
Government Orders
The Government may say it is only a few. I do not care whether it is a few. I know it is not a few, not for farm producers and not for VIA Rail users. Those are important people and important parts of our society which deserve the support that they have been getting both on VIA Rail and particularly on this bill, the Advance Payments Act. These people, the producers and travellers, are not expendable in our economy.
My colleague last night in the House of Commons also suggested that the government, if you want to extend this logic any further, will next be closing down heart support units in this country because only a few people use those as well. I am afraid that, as disgusting as that thought may be, I tend to agree with the suggestion.
The Minister of Agriculture also talked about how the budget cuts have to extend through to the farm sector, and said that the government was not walking away from supporting the farmers of Canada. He is very proud of the distinguished record that the government has had in the past. Again I say, "Oh yeah, some record". We just recognized that we have the most serious financial crisis in agriculture in the history of this country and this government is bragging about all that it has done. It may have put more money into agriculture than any previous government, but that tells me one thing, that no previous government has supported agriculture properly or adequately, and, secondly, because the crisis is still there, that no matter what it has done to this point, it has not been adequate, it has not changed the problem, it has not helped get producers from one time to another.
We still have producers throughout the prairies who are looking to that great crop next year because that is what they need to survive. There have been so many things that have been pushing them down that there is every reason for the Saskatchewan producers to continue to believe that they do live in "next year country". Unfortunately, as long as governments take positions like this, it is always going to be next year country in Saskatchewan because there is nothing that is going to help to get them ahead.
I want to make one more comment on a quote made by the Minister of Agriculture. He said:
We are asking the agriculture sector to do its share and to help
overcome Canada's deficit problems. Farmers, like other Canadians,
in the long run will benefit from the action we are taking today to put
this country on a sounder financial footing.
Wonderful words, Mr. Speaker, but what he is saying is that the farmers who are left may benefit from the programs that are put in place by this government. I would suggest that there will certainly be no benefit at the farm community level for any of the producers who are sitting there now and dealing with the crisis that has been perpetuated by this and the previous government.
Over the last little while I have had numerous representations from individual fanners within my own riding and from various producer and commodity groups across the country. A number of those groups have suggested that we have to do everything we can to convince this government to maintain the interest free part of the advance payments act. Those groups are wide-ranging across the board, from those who are active in my province to those who are active across the country.
Obviously they have made those pleas to the government on the opposite side of the House. Both ministers who have spoken in this debate, the Minister of Grain and Oilseeds and the Minister of Agriculture, have discounted what they have been told by these major farm organizations. I am afraid I find that much too similar to the other activities that are going on. The government is not listening to the people on the goods and services tax, it is not listening to the people on VIA Rail, and now it is not listening to the interest groups that are active in the industry.
I have information before me from the Ontario Soybean Growers Marketing Board, the Com Growers Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee, the National Farmers' Union and many others, all of whom are saying, maintain the interest free portion of the cash advance. It is crucial to the western farmers to keep the cash flow and keep the grain flowing from the farmer to the elevator to the export market.
I thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to speak in this afternoon's debate and I wish the government well in pursuing its agriculture policies in the future.


Mr. Simmons:: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend my friend from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. I have listened with great interest to what he has had to say. Many in this chamber will think of fish when
October 5, 1989

they see me rise in my place because much of my riding depends so heavily on the fishery and I spend a fair amount of my time in this chamber talking about that.
There are two important agricultural pockets in the riding of Burin-St. George's. One is called the Codroy Valley, a very agriculturally fertile valley where there is a farming segment extending up into the Robinsons area. The other is on the Burin peninsula, the Winterland area in particular. So in my riding of Burin-St. George's there is some concern about farming matters generally.
I rise, not only because I am proud to represent farmers in this House, but for another reason. I want to put a question to the member and in so doing state my second reason for rising. The amendment by my friend, the member for Algoma, seconded by my seatmate and friend and colleague from Lambton-Middlesex, has the solution to this problem and I am wondering whether the gentleman from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake shares our view on what the solution is.
The existing legislation adequately addresses the problem. I heard a gentleman on the Tory back-bench today rave on about how the big bad Liberals and NDPers were holding up things and keeping money from the farmers. Let us keep the record straight on this. The existing statute allows the advance payments to flow. This legislation that we are now debating would put some restrictions on it, would make the amounts more measly and would introduce the question of interest and so on.
We understand what the Tories want to do, because we see a pattern here. It is the same thing they are trying to do to the fishermen. It is the same thing they are doing on VIA Rail, on Canada Post, on the Canada job development program.
If you want an umbrella phrase for all these apparently diverse issues, the umbrella phrase is "Chinese water torture". They are now doing to farmers what they have been doing to the fishermen for a long time, what they are doing to postal recipients in rural Newfoundland and rural Canada generally. They are sending out the message as part of the Tory agenda that if you live anywhere
Government Orders
other than the Torontos, Vancouvers and Montreals of this world, we do not need you.
And so by a process, a slow Chinese water torture process, they are sending the message to farmers, aided and abetted by Tories who represent, however temporarily, farm ridings, to fishermen in rural Newfoundland and all parts of the Atlantic and the B.C. coast, through the Chinese water torture approach, that you are not part of our agenda, you are not part of the mainstream because you do not live in Toronto and you are not middle income. That is what this bill is all about. It is another step in the process, another cog in the wheel, another effort, another sequence in the Chinese water torture.
So I rise to put a question to my friend from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. Does he not see in this bill an effort by the Tories to put the farmer just a little further underfoot? Also, does he not support the amendment put down by my friend from Algoma, and seconded by the gentleman from Lambton-Middlesex, that would give this whole thing a six month hoist, get it off the chamber floor, and let the fanners know where they stand on this so the government, under existing statute, can send out the payments as it should be doing instead of monkeying around with this cowardly bill here in the House in the first place?


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Newfoundland for the question. Before I answer the question he raised, I would like to comment on the closeness of the people of Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. They are very much like close cousins. Newfoundlanders have the ocean and we have our oceans of wheat that wave and blow in the breeze. We also have producers who rely on seasonal conditions to maintain their entire economy. The price of wheat and fish, the quotas day. Neither the producers in Newfoundland nor the producers in Saskatchewan have any control over their ability to maintain their life from year to year or from day to day.
The hand of government is heavy on the people who live in Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. In that regard, we have a tremendous amount in common. I have great respect for all those who come from Newfoundland and I hope and trust that they have the same for people from Saskatchewan.

October 5, 1989
Government Orders
The member talked a lot about the existing legislation and I agree. I thought I made it clear in my speech that the existing legislation which has been in place since 1957 has been very good to the producers in this regard. The interest free advance payment is just fine.
The problem with the amendment put forward by his colleague in the Liberal Party is that it does not ask or request or demand that the government actually implement the existing legislation or bring in the statutes that are required from it. The government has stated very clearly that there is nothing available for producers. If we stall this bill there will continue to be nothing in place until such time as the government decides what it wants to do. Until we get that commitment and something that guarantees that the interest free portion of this act will continue I will have difficulty supporting the amendment even though I agree that the change has to be made.
I would like to make one other thing clear, Mr. Speaker. During the time I had allocated to me I did not get a chance to specifically tie the reason for implementing this bill to the economic conditions in the country, namely, what the Conservative government sees as the big problem, the deficit. I maintain that if this government was serious about combating the deficit in Canada it would not be doing it on the backs of farmers, it would be hauling the Bank of Canada in here before us and demanding that the interest rates in this country be lowered. Until that happens, none of these other things will make a great deal of difference.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, the poetic interventions of our colleagues from Newfoundland and Saskatchewan are a tough act to follow. However, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak on Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
I would like to begin by congratulating my colleagues from Algoma and Lambton-Middlesex for the excellent interventions they have made on this bill. I would hope that the government will listen as well to the points they have raised and listen to the many farmers of this country who also oppose this bill.
The government must realize that Bill C-36 is both counterproductive and harmful to Canadian agriculture. Many members of this House have received a considerable amount of correspondence from various national
and provincial agricultural organizations regarding Bill C-36. I have received letters from groups such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Soybean Growers Marketing Board and the Ontario Com Producers Association. Each and every one of these organizations are against the passage of Bill C-36. Obviously organizations such as these are aware of the needs of farmers and are aware of what actions the federal government should or should not take in order to ensure the success of Canadian agriculture. These groups have outlined several reasons why Bill C-36 should not be passed. I suggest that groups such as those I have mentioned have put forward valid arguments as to why Bill C-36 should not be passed. Unfortunately, the federal government in its infinite wisdom seems willing to ignore the views of the expert voices of Canadian agriculture.
One of the main reasons why farm groups do not wish to see Bill C-36 pass is that the bill eliminates the interest free provision of the cash advance program. These interest free advances are important factors in maintaining market stability in particular agriculture sectors. By eliminating the interest free portion of the advance payment for crops program the value of the entire program and its use by farmers will be reduced.
The advance payment for crops is a vital avenue for supplying farmers with the necessary funds to pay their operating costs and purchase supplies. It enables farmers to be in a position where they are not forced to sell their crops at harvest time when the market is flooded and prices are low. The advance payment for crops program has traditionally played a vital role in assisting farmers in the planning of their operations for the crop year. By cancelling the interest free provision of this program the government will place farmers in a difficult situation. They will no longer be able to rely on the fiscal and market stability which existed previously.
The interest free portion of the program enabled producers to store their crops at harvest time and still pay their bills and buy supplies for the coming crop year. This program has provided farmers with the flexibility to sell their crops at a time when the market price was high so they could meet financial obligations and prepare for the crop year ahead. The market also avoided being flooded at harvest and avoided shortages later on. Thus
October 5, 1989

both the producer and agriculture benefited by this program.
With Bill C-36 all this will change. Farmers will have to pay interest costs on the advance payments. This added financial outlay will be expensive and detrimental to the usefulness of the program. With interest rates being as high as they are the financial burden to farmers who participate in this revamped program will be considerable. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has already stated that the elimination of the interest free portion of the program takes away one of the few avenues farmers have to deal effectively with high interest rates.
The Ontario com producers argue that while the federal guarantee under the ACPA will allow farmers to borrow money at, or slightly below the prime interest rate, administration charges would mean an actual cost to producers at well above prime. This, in effect, will provide no advantage over commercial sources of credit. The elimination of the interest free provision will effectively destroy the program and result in an ineffectual program with minimal participation. This even if the current advance loan levels are significantly increased as provided for in Bill C-36.
By eliminating the interest free provision of the advance payments program the government will not accomplish too much toward addressing the federal deficit. The government states it will save $27 million in the 1989-90 and 1990-91 crop years by not having to pay the interest on the cash advances to farmers. However, the government will at the same time create an agricultural sector with reduced farm incomes and a weakened marketing structure.
Furthermore, a number of farm organizations have argued that the relative cost of the APCA marketing program has been minimal when compared to the benefits the program established in the agricultural sector. The program was a useful one for producers and it achieved its intended goal of creating an orderly marketing system for the crops involved.
This program benefited farmers and the agriculture industry alike. Why then, if the program was such a success and the costs comparatively minor compared to the benefits produced, does the federal government now want to eliminate the interest free provision? Such a decision is illogical and completely inconsistent with this
Government Orders
government's promises to support Canadian agriculture and Canadian farmers.
It is worth remembering the untenable situation which existed in agriculture prior to the advance payment for crops program coming into effect. Farmers sold their crops at harvest time when crop prices were traditionally low as they had no choice if they were to address their financial obligations.
The selling of crops at harvest created supply and demand imbalances and brought about price cutting and predatory marketing. The Advance Payments for Crops Act was viewed as an important remedy to these serious problems.
In a very real way the government is now planning to turn back the clock by disposing of the interest free provision of the program. If Bill C-36 passes, farmers will be charged interest on the advance payments they receive for their produce. The net result is higher costs for producers and a depressed price for their produce in an unstable market system.
If the government proceeds with Bill C-36 it will be displaying the lack of concern it has for farmers who have relied upon the interest free provisions of the program. The government will display its callous attitude toward maintaining a strong and effective marketing system for crops and it will also display its unwillingness to assist and support Canadian agriculture.
The situation in Canadian agriculture today is not one which instils a lot of confidence. Many farmers believe that the future of supply management in Canada is being threatened. Recent Canada-U.S. conflicts over yoghurt and ice cream as well as pork when added to the other problems such as industrial milk prices and the agricultural talks at the GATT, have generated a feeling among farmers that they cannot rely upon the government to assist and support their industry. Now the government wishes to cut the interest free part of the advance payments program. One can easily understand why our farmers feel the way they do.
The governments of other countries have not instituted similar actions in areas relating to programs such as advance payments for crops. The United States have their storage loans programs and Europeans have their intervention purchases which maintain commodity prices in the European community. These governments maintain interest free provisions in their respective programs.

October 5, 1989
Government Orders
They have not indicated any plans to transfer the interest paying burden to their producers.
The GATT Geneva Accord of April, 1989 calls upon countries such as Canada to freeze existing support programs. This accord does not force Canada to remove the interest free provisions of programs such as the APCA. Thus, there is no international pressure upon the Canadian government to remove the interest free aspect of the program.
It cannot be said that the advance payments for crops program is trade distorting. It isn't. The program does not stimulate production, it merely encourages and fosters orderly marketing of crops and grains. Thus, there is no conflict with either the program itself or the interest free provisions with regard to international trade.
I believe it is time for the government to show Canadian farmers that they are still important to the country. The advance payments for crops program was designed to assist farmers and facilitate effective marketing. By watering down the effectiveness of the program both farmers and agriculture in general will come out the loser.
I would like this government to start implementing responsible initiatives in agriculture rather than putting forward legislation such as Bill C-36.1 urge the Minister of Agriculture to use the existing Advance Payments for Crops Act and Prairie Grains Advance Payments Act legislation and sign the agreements with producer organizations for this crop year. The minister must surely be aware that the harvest period has been completed in western Canada and is proceeding in other areas of the country. Farmers deserve to know what is in store for them.
The government would like us to believe that the interest free aspect of the advance payments given to farmers is not a fundamental part of the program's over-all objective of providing cash in advance on the strength of marketable crops. I would argue that having the interest free provision assists the farmers in the ways I have already discussed and is, in fact, vital toward assisting in the maintenance of an orderly marketing system.
This in itself is enough to view the interest free provision as being quite important to the over-all program.
It is expected that this measure to remove the interest free provision will lead to higher interest costs for farmers, with the increased cost dependent on interest rates and other dimensions of the loan packages arranged by farm organizations. Some of these organizations in western Canada have predicted that borrowing costs will increase by some $1,500 to $2,000 per farm per year. This is indeed a significant cost for producers to bear especially with the high interest rates currently in effect.
With regard to grain, Bill C-36 may cause increased congestion in a shrinking elevator system as farmers deliver early in order to receive payment. Thus, there will be added pressure on grain companies to ensure shipping points have adequate storage facilities. This is yet another example of the problems Bill C-36 will create.
Some producers believe that the orderly marketing of grains may be hampered as a result of Bill C-36. A number of agricultural groups believe that these cash advances have facilitated grain marketing, enabling grain to move smoothly through the system. Bill C-36 may well lead to increased pressures for high quotas early in the year.
Grain and oilseed producers have already paid their share to deficit reduction with the phasing out of excise and sales tax exemptions on diesel fuel and gasoline used in food production. I guess the government wants to go one better and have these producers shoulder more of the burden.
In conclusion, we can clearly see the harm Bill C-36 will cause if it is passed. It will have a negative effect upon com and soybean producers in Ontario and grain producers in western Canada. Our farmers deserve better support from their federal government. They deserve to have the interest free advance payments for crops program and an orderly market system.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas would share his thoughts on the security of our food supply in view of the demise of the fishing industry and the severe downturn in the farming industry.
October 5, 1989


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and particularly for her concern as I know it is a source of serious concern for her and for all of us in the House. I would not leave out anyone in the House. I think it is a concern of national interest to all of us.
In speaking with many producers in Stormont-Dun-das, many of whom have family ties that originate from European countries such as Holland, they speak from past experiences within their own families in their original homelands. They have tried to impress upon me on many occasions that Canada should never leave itself vulnerable in such a critical area.
I think it would be callous of any government not to protect the security of each and every Canadian by maintaining a supply of food necessary to feed each and every one in the nation. I think we have to go one step better because it is expected of us by the international community, living in a rich country as we do, benefiting from the vast agricultural lands and so on.
We are certainly well placed to assist the international community where many people in various countries have far less than we do. Canadians have and will continue to show not only their respect but their generosity to all peoples of this world. We should be able to assist increasingly in feeding people around the world.
In closing, I thank my colleague again for raising the very important concern that she and all of us have.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this measure which is very close to my constituents and very close to myself. It has been an important part of western Canada's ability to keep grains on the market.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this measure would amend two acts, one of which is the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and the second which is the Advance Payments for Crops Act. These two acts service two very specific parts of the country. The Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act services the area of Canada which produces wheat, barley, and it used to for oats, those areas which are under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board is the administrative body for this particular act.
Government Orders
The Advance Payments for Crops Act covers almost all other crops designated across the country. There are people in almost every province of Canada who have taken advantage of this act. In British Columbia, 1,000 people took advantage of it. In Prince Edward Island, where I think the amount is not quite so large, 214 people took advantage of it in 1987-88. The total who took advantage of the act in 1987-88 was close to 10,000 farmers.
The Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act serviced a good many more than that. Twenty per cent or 25 per cent on occasion, sometimes higher, of the farmers in western Canada who hold permit books have taken advantage of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
Right now, in both of those areas, there are farmers in crisis situations. In fact, in rural Canada-and I am not speaking entirely of agricultural rural Canada-forestry, fishing and agriculture are in crisis positions. Therefore it is very difficult to understand why this government which claims to be so concerned about the welfare of the agricultural community should choose at this time to withdraw from this particular field. This withdrawal amounts to approximately $40,000 out of the pockets of the farmers of western Canada in this year in interest to the loans that they could have made. As far as the Advance Payments for Crops Act is concerned, it is my understanding that very few people will find it of value if they have to pay interest for their loans.
The reason for these two acts is interesting. The history should be known as part of the debate on this issue. The Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act was put in place by the Diefenbaker government in 1957. At that time we in the prairies were having difficulty in getting our grain to market. We were having difficulty storing it and the world did not need our grain in the fall. So the Diefenbaker government put in place the Prairie Grains Advance Payments Act which allowed the farmer to get some of the money for his crop. It actually enabled the farmer to sell some of his crop. When he delivered the grain to the elevator later on, that portion of the loan was taken from the crop he delivered.
Once it was in place, the government, the farmers and the grain industry recognized that this had far-reaching benefits because it allowed a spread-out of grain deliveries across the year. It allowed the Wheat Board to not

October 5, 1989
Government Orders
get a huge amount of delivery in the fall. It allowed the delivery of grain to be spread out so that they could supply the world market in a more orderly manner.
Because the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act operated so well, in 1977 the government brought in the second act, the Advance Payments for Crops Act. This was essentially brought in to cover crops in eastern Canada. However, it now covers crops in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island. It covers those crops that are not under supply-management and those crops that are not under the Wheat Board.
The primary purpose of the Advance Payments for Crops Act was to encourage orderly marketing. It has been very successful in doing that. This government has a penchant to deliver to the marketing structure rather than to allow security for the farmers or the producers of variety products. Their bible, if you wish to say that, is the market system. The market system, however, in agriculture always seemed to pay less in the fall when we had the crop. Then, after you had delivered it, the prices started to go up. When you did not have any grain or any crop to deliver in the spring or in the mid-winter, the prices were high.
The act allowed the farmer to hold the crop in his bin, get some money to pay his bills and then sell it at the higher market. It worked well. It worked for the benefit of the farmer, but it also worked for the benefit of the processors and the products that were handled in the industry, because it spread the delivery over a long period of time.
The government says that it is urgent that it get this bill through. How is it urgent? There is an act in place. If the legislation is in place which would allow this government to provide interest free loans to the western grain producers, if they wanted it, and interest free loans to the producers of other crops across Canada, there is a statutory requirement in place that all they have to do is make the move and the money will become available. Nobody here or in the country believes that they could not do that and could not make that money available very quickly if they really felt strongly about getting this money out to the farmers at this time.
The reason the Minister of Agriculture gave for the change in the act was the deficit. The cost of this program, about $40 million, is about $20 million out of the farmers' pockets this year and another possible total of $100 million over the next crop year. This total would be the cost to the government. It is not much of a contribution to the deficit, yet it is a tremendous amount to take out of the pockets of individual farmers.
Over the years it has become quite obvious that in agriculture, along with fisheries and forestry, rural Canada needs some kind of structure in place which allows sustainability, which allows those parts of Canada that are dependent upon those industries to remain productive and viable. These two acts were a very small part of a structure which attempted to do that. What we need is something much larger and much more secure than these two acts. But these two acts were there and gave the farmers the kind of support they needed when they needed it.
We have a tendency to say that this is support to the farmers. It is much more than that because the farmers across Canada get their supplies, usually on credit, from the small villages, the towns or even the cities around which they live. They buy their inputs from those areas on credit. When they get these advance payments, they are able to pay their bills. They are able to pay their bills without increasing their debt burden.
One of the things that everybody in Canada knows is that the debt burden of people in agriculture is huge. The total debt for agriculture across Canada right now is something over $23 billion.
What the government is asking these farmers to do, because it is the farmers who are already short of cash and who will make these loans, is to add on to that debt and increase the possibility of them going under. The possibility of them being foreclosed on or going under is veiy real.
In my province alone there are over 10,000 farmers right now being served with foreclosure notices, foreclosure notices which will take part of their land, part of their machinery or affect them in some way. Those are only the notices that we know about, the changes in ownership and structure of the rural community that we know about. A lot of farmers just throw up their hands and sign a quit claim which allows them to turn over, with a certain amount of saving of face, their farm or part
October 5, 1989

of their farm and either rent it back or let somebody else farm it for the next few years.
We have a disastrous situation, a crisis situation on the farm these days. We have a government which says: "We want to save a little more money and this is one place where we can save it", at the expense of the farmer.
The point has been made often today and before that it is not a large number of people. It might not be a large number of people, but it is a fair sized group. As I pointed out before, the number of people in 1987-88 who made use of the Advance Payments for Crops Act across the country was something around 10,000 farmers. The number of people who made use of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act was approximately 20 per cent of the 150,000 fanners who have quota books.
It is not as if this is a small group. Of course, it is the group that needs it most, in most cases. I know, and the government can point to this I am sure, that there are people who make use of these acts who do not need it. However, it would be very simple to put into the applications for advance payment some requirement which would at least force them to tell the producer organization, which in many cases is made up of their friends and neighbours, whether or not they had a cash flow problem. I am sure that the supplier down the road could tell you right now which of the farmers in the community have a cash flow problem and which ones do not and, therefore, which ones need advance payment and which do not.
I reiterate, this is not the time to move away from interest free advance payments. This is not the time to move into something which puts the farmer in a position where he has one more burden to worry about.
I support wholly the hoist motion which was moved by the member for Algoma which suggests that we forget about this bill now and look at it again six months from now. I would much rather of course see the government withdraw this bill now and put into effect the present legislation which would allow, within the next month or to, the bringing in of supplementary estimates, if they wish-they say they do not have any money in the
Government Orders
budget-which would allow them to cover the loans that might be made.
This government has, over the years, suggested that they do everything by consultation, that they are very good at consultation. We have had a number of farm organizations that have questioned that. They said: "Yes, they come to us and they tell us what they are going to do. They leave and do what they want". They do not consider that consultation. In this particular case had they consulted with the farm producer groups across Canada-and those farm producer groups are a crosssection of the agricultural community and include the Prince Edward Island Potato Marketing Board, the Prince Edward Island Grain Growers, the Corn Growers of Ontario, the Ontario Com Producers Association, the Ontario Soybean Growers Marketing Board-maybe they did consult and went ahead, as usual, doing what they intended-they would have found that there would be no support for the removal of the interest free portion of these acts.
The government has suggested that one of the reasons why it changed the act was to increase the levels, which were $30,000, $60,000 and $90,000.1 suggest, first, that it is very easy to do this if you are borrowing the money and not having to pay the interest on it yourself. Second, this is a pretty good indication that the people they are worried about are the top level people who may not need this in the first place. It is the small fanner who made good use of this and would continue to make good use of this.
I support fully the hoist motion that this bill be put aside for six months and be brought back and, in the meantime, that the present legislation be continued.


Mr. Weiner:: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the Order of the Day is called for resuming debate on the motion for the second reading of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, and any amendments proposed thereto, I will move that the debate shall not be further adjourned.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is out of order. I am still in the question period of my speech. Consequently, he does not have the floor for that particular reason.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair finds the notice by the minister to be in order.

October 5, 1989
Private Members' Business


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member who made that motion is in order, but it would have to come from an urbanite like that to slander the farmers of this country. I, too, live in a large city, but I would like to stand up in my comments and questions to tip my hat to the farmers and the food producers of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jesse Philip Flis: They are the hardest working and most efficient food producers in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jesse Philip Flis: With markets around the world becoming so competitive, we should be doing everything within our power to help our farmers stay competitive and be more competitive. What is this government doing? It is doing everything in its power to pull our farmers under.
I would like to ask the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt what the trend is in his riding because I drove through there this summer visiting places like Kuroki, Wadena, Watrous, Wishart, Wynard, all the way to Saskatoon. I am sure his riding touches many of these towns.
I was born and raised on a farm. My parents farmed for 25 years. With four sons and two daughters, my father saw no future on the farm. He had to abandon the farm. I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether that trend is still continuing or are we saving the family farm. Is the trend of abandoning farms still continuing?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier, in my province, even very close to my home constituency in that area where the member was travelling, in some cases as much as 75 per cent of the farmers in some communities have received foreclosure notices and are in the process of losing part or all of their land. They may keep on farming it for a couple of years, but in the end it will go out of the family. It usually goes to somebody else. It means consolidation. The lands will continue to be farmed but by fewer people.
If we had in place a structure which would guarantee a fair price cost of production return on the products which are produced, we would have a viable and an economic industry right across Canada, particularly on the prairies. But we do not have that guarantee. Only if one is in a supply management product can one have that
kind of guarantee. Even that is being undermined by the policies of this government.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Lang-don) that he is unable to be present to move his motion during Private Members' Hour on Friday, October 6, 1989.
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence pursuant to Standing Order 94. Accordingly, I am directing the Table Officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Private Members' Hour will therefore be suspended and, in accordance with Standing Order 94, the House shall revert to the business before it prior to Private Members' Hour.

It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.




Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) moved:: That in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of undertaking research on the cumulative or combined effects of food additives and pest-control products in the Canadian food supply.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on an issue that dramatically illustrates the connection between concerns for the environment, human health, and the connections between those two things and economic decisions.
October 5, 1989

As the critic for health for the New Democrats I have been advocating the restructuring of our health care system to emphasize preventive measures. A full program of preventive care requires that no government decision be taken without integrating concern for human health into the equation.
To me this is a logical step to take along with my party's expressed support for sustainable economic development as set out in a valuable study recently completed by my colleague from Skeena, entitled "Towards a Sustainable Future".
As a species dependent on the earth for our mental and physical well-being, environmental issues are at the same time health issues. It is becoming increasingly clear that by destroying the environment, we create health risks. Destruction of ozone leads to skin cancer; lead emission from car exhausts cause cancer; global warming affects growth patterns causing food shortages and so on. The list is a long one, as we all know.
The issue is not simply protecting the environment. The issue is protecting ourselves. The topic of food additives and the use of pesticides integrates the environment and human health into economic decisions. The misuse of pesticides as we know can destroy wildlife and damage water systems. The accumulation of chemicals in the food supply is increasingly becoming a health hazard.
It is my belief that most members of this House support the goals of reducing our dependence on chemicals and ensuring the highest possible standards in our food supply. Of course taking this approach will give rise to expenditures of money at a time when all initiatives are being sacrificed by this government on the altar of deficit reduction. Those who place government austerity above measures to protect our environment should be looking over their shoulders. Most Canadians are willing to pay to protect the environment and their health. They are showing a greater willingness to vote on the basis of those concerns. Even food suppliers, and Provigo is a good example, are beginning the process of responding to that demand by agreeing to disclose all pesticides used on produce they sell. So while business is responding to these things it appears the government it is not doing all that it might.
Private Members' Business
I encourage the Standing Committee on the Environment to continue the work started in the last Parliament on pesticide use. In particular, the review could be of assistance in encouraging public participation and public information in the ongoing debate over pesticide use. In particular, the ongoing review by the Pesticide Registration Review Secretariat, which I welcome, should be accompanied by the greatest possible public participation. The review could allow for public hearings next year to cover the whole pesticide debate. Involvement of the Environment Committee could ensure that wide attention is brought to the efforts of the secretariat and pressure this government to clean up pesticide registration, the control process, and the enforcement process.
There are two points that I think the Review Secretariat might pay particular attention to. The first relates to concerns voiced in a very wide-spread manner about risk benefit analysis versus risk assessment. In terms of risk benefit analysis generally what is at stake is the risk, for example, the risk to our health against the economic benefit on the part of producers. That sort of economic trade-off has given rise to considerable problems over the last little while and given rise to considerable concern about the use of pesticides and chemical additives in our food.
The second point the Review Secretariat might want to pay particular attention to is that there is no public participation in the whole process of licensing and enforcement. There is not adequate information on decisions which are made and the reasons for those decisions, nor of the health and environmental data used in considering the registration of pesticides.
Canadians are concerned about pesticides and the dangers associated with them, and with the dangers associated with other chemical residues in our food. There is considerable concern in Canada now with the safety of our food supply.
The use of pesticides is widespread. They are sprayed on fruits and vegetables and on other plants to kill parasites, fungi, and weeds. They help protect produce from bruising; they ripen it and give it a better colour; and they are used to control parasites that bother farm animals. As a result, they show up further down in the food chain in the meat we eat. They are a pervasive presence in our food supply.

October 5, 1989
Private Members' Business
The issue has been treated as one of balance, of balancing the health interests of Canadians against the economic interests of producers and manufactures of food and of importers and retailers of food.
There are those who express an optimistic view of the effect of pesticides and chemical additives. Among those, is Dr. Losos, director general of the laboratory centre for disease control of the health protection branch of Health and Welfare Canada who says:
No one can state for certain that anyone ever got cancer as a result
of eating something that contained pesticide residues.
Such a cavalier approach to the problem is counteracted by the fact that some 10,000 cases of bacterial food poisoning are reported to health and welfare each year. I think we have to be concerned about the effects on the health of Canadians of these additives and pesticides. We must put safety and health first. We must ensure that we do not risk the health and safety of Canadians. We must reduce the damage we are doing to our environment.
Scientific opinion recognizes that virtually all pesticides are toxic, at least to some degree. Much of the debate to date has been about the setting of limits and the process by which limits are set.
Pesticides play a vital role in modem agriculture, but there are concerns about dangers to users, the environment, and consumers. Many chemicals and derivative compounds apparently in use are carcinogenic, and other chemicals can have neurotoxic effects and can alter neurological functions.
Food is highly likely to contain some level of pesticide residues. In fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1987 found that 50 per cent of all fruit samples had detectable levels of pesticides. There is no safe level. Regulators cannot guarantee safety and cannot guarantee that no harm is occurring. Instead, we talk of risk benefit. Does the benefit of the product, usually economic, outweigh the probable harm in terms of health of the user, in terms of health of the consumer?
The objective of the process of regulation should be to ensure that only those pesticides and food additives which are safe and do not create a health hazard are put on to the market. The process at the moment of registration and control is an often haphazard one
involving Agriculture Canada, Health and Welfare and provincial agencies.
There has been a good deal of criticism of the way in which both the risk benefit analysis has been carried out, the concentration on risk benefit analysis, and on the resources available for ensuring that effective controls are in place.
The Auditor General recently criticized the process of testing for pesticide residues, concluding, in part, that for many products the Department of Agriculture does not know the extent of human health risks posed by chemical and bacterial contamination in these foods and cannot assure itself that its inspection resources are directed to where these resources are greatest.
I would like to raise one other concern about the present situation in which we find ourselves with regards to the regulation of pesticides and food additives, in particular dealing with pesticides and then perhaps make a couple of suggestion.
This already difficult situation with regard to the registration of pesticides and the enforcement of pesticide control and food additive control has been extenuated by Schedule 7 of the free trade agreement which Canada recently signed with the United States. Schedule 7 deals with pesticides and with a move towards the equivalence of standards. Schedule 7 requires that there be work toward equivalent guidelines, technical regulations, standards and test methods; that there be work toward equivalent residue monitoring programs; that there be work toward equivalent technical regulations, standards or certifications for those pesticides; and work towards equivalence and the process for risk benefit assessment, tolerance setting and the setting of regulatory policies with respect to certain pesticides.
Canadian standards tend to be more rigorous than those in the United States, and the government has agreed, through this process of equivalence, to begin the process of reducing our standards and thus the degree of protection available to Canadians. At least, in this particular schedule, the free trade agreement does not talk about harmonization, but it does talk about equivalence, the bringing down of those standards.


Mr. Boyer:: Or the raising up by the Americans.
October 5, 1989


Chris Axworthy: Well, it is very unlikely that we are going to see the Americans raising their standards to our standards.


Patrick Boyer: Why?


Chris Axworthy: The
number of producers in the United States is significantly higher than the number of producers in Canada and the number of products available is significantly higher than those available in Canada.
What we need is a new method of pesticide registration to ensure that questions of health and environmental effects are more effectively put into the technical and economic equation. The costs and risks of pesticide use must be determined and research must be conducted into additive effects of chemicals on the environment, the users, and the consumers.
Users and consumers must be fully informed of the risks they face, and that includes adequate labelling of pesticide products to include health assessments. Food labelling must also include additives and the probable presence of pesticide residues in food irradiation. All those things would assist in ensuring that consumers are well aware of the procedures to which their foods have been subjected.
It would be useful also, as many have called for, if the government would create a new classification for fresh and processed foods which are pesticide free or organic foods which ensure that the consumers are well aware of the lack of presence of pesticides in some of the products that are available.
One of the serious problems that has arisen with regards to pesticides and chemical additives, as raised in the motion, is that we have very little knowledge of the cumulative effect of the various pesticides and chemical additives in our food today. There is a notorious chemical soup of products and additives out there and we really have very little understanding of how they all fit together.
Tests which are generally conducted are tests about the toxic nature of one product being used alone, separate from all others. What scientists see from these toxicity studies is the specific result of using just one chemical, one pesticide, or one additive. What Pollution Probe has called for is a significant exploration of the
Private Members' Business
interaction between chemicals and the total chemical load on the population from pesticides, food additives, and the seemingly endless list of industrial chemicals that are available.
The number of pesticides alone is formidable. More than 600 of them are used throughout the world and about 220 are currently approved in Canada. Because so many factors, including pesticides, chemical additives and many other things that are present in our environment, contribute to the health difficulties that people face, we need another way of assessing toxicity and of testing for chemicals other than just concentrating on one single commodity at any given time. There are many things that the government could do to place a higher priority on the health of Canadians in this context.
As I have mentioned, first of all we need a more public process for the assessment of regulating pesticides and food additives and we need to ensure that we not only perform risk benefit considerations, that we do not face off health and economic matters, but indeed that we ask the real questions as to what risk these products give rise to.
We must pay particular attention to the compounding effects on all of the various chemicals utilized at different stages of our food production process. We must find out what is happening. We must conduct research on the cumulative effects of food additives and chemicals. This would be a critical step to take.
In conclusion, I would say that the government should take action on this immediately.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal before us today is to consider whether the government should undertake research on the cumulative or combined effects of food additives and pest control products in the Canadian food supply.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure all members of the House are aware, rigorous controls are in effect with regard to both pesticides and food additives. For example, pesticide products are registered in Canada under the Pest Control Products Act. This act is administered by Agriculture Canada with registration of products occurring only after extensive consultation with various other government departments, including the Department of National Health and Welfare, and Environment Canada.

October 5, 1989
Private Members' Business
Health and Welfare evaluates the safety of these pest control products, both for the potential hazards of residues in foods and for occupational exposure risk to workers using these materials. Unlike the registration systems in some other countries, the Canadian registration process is extremely rigorous and places paramount importance on the safety of the pest control product both to the users and consumers of foods treated with these substances.
Residues in foods are regulated under the Food and Drugs Act and regulations through the establishment of maximum residue limits. Such maximum residue limits incorporating substantial built-in safety factors are set as low as possible and are based on both safety considerations and good agricultural practice.
Over the years, the increase in scientific knowledge, coupled with the evaluation and re-evaluation of pest control products has resulted in Canada enjoying one of the safest food supplies in the world. New pest control products are subjected to more and more stringent evaluation while older products such as DDT and Alach-lor exhibiting definite or suspected safety hazards have been removed from the Canadian marketplace.
This strict evaluation process, in conjunction with the maximum residue limits under the food and drug regulations have shown positive results in the national pesticide monitoring survey, which indicates that a very small number of violative residues are being found in foods. In addition, the ongoing Canadian market basket survey indicates that the majority of foods consumed by Canadians contain little, if any, pesticide residues.
It must be kept in mind, however, that the food supply is, in fact, a collection of chemicals, such as proteins, minerals, vitamins combined in a variety of ways. Many of these chemicals are eaten in concentrations much higher than the residue levels of pest control products. It has often been stated that some of the naturally occurring chemicals are much more toxic than most of the pest control products in use today. If these natural chemicals were subjected to the same rigorous evaluation as the registered pest control products, it is possible that portions of the Canadian food supply would disappear.
Because of the vast number of chemicals and the multitude of permutations and combinations of interactions involved, a study of all possible combined effects of selected substances would be virtually impossible to carry out. It would also be extremely costly.
It also to be borne in mind that foods have been eaten for centuries with little evidence of any cumulative or combined effects. One therefore wonders when the residues of the pest control products are so low in comparison to other naturally occurring chemicals, what additional benefits for the consumer would arise by a study of the cumulative or combined effects of this group of compounds either singly or in possible combination with other substances such as food additives. This is particularly questionable in the face of no substantial evidence of existing hazard.
As I mentioned before, the available monitoring data indicated that the use of pest control products in Canada generally results in residues which are either non-detectable or at levels well below the established maximum residue limits established under the Canadian food and drug regulations. Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that Canadian consumers have been exposed to hazardous or harmful pesticide residues in food as a result of the legal use of these products.
In fact, over the past three decades, there has only been one case of pesticide poisoning due to contaminated foods. This case, which was handled by regulatory authorities, was due to an illegal use and resulted in only temporary discomfort for the consumer involved.
Another fact to consider is that the majority of the pest control products sold in Canada are herbicides which are used for weed control. These herbicide products are generally applied very early in the growing season and therefore usually result in very low, if any, residues at time of harvest. Based on these considerations, together with analytical data on residues, the potential for the cumulative or combined effects of chemicals in foods to produce adverse consequences is, indeed, relatively small.
It is also important to note that the Canadian diet is very diverse and it is very unlikely that an individual would eat the same food every day without fail for his or her lifetime. Even so, the scientists in health and welfare assume this to be the situation when establishing maxi-

mum residue limits in order to determine the worst case estimates of intake.
I would like to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. It is important to note that the Canadian diet is very diverse and it is very unlikely that an individual would eat the same food every day, without fail, for his or her lifetime. Even so, the scientists in health and welfare assume that this is the case and that that is the situation that exists when establishing maximum residue limits in order to determine the worst case estimates of intake. This procedure, therefore, provides an additional margin of safety for the consumer.
It is also of interest to focus on the question of the cost of the studies which have been suggested by my hon. friend. The best information from private companies and national organizations involved in the pest control product industry indicates that the cost of development of a new pest control product in Canada is $30 million to $60 million and represents at least seven years of intensive research. The cost of the toxicology assessment portion of this data package represents an estimate $8 million to $10 million. These costs are borne by the industry interested in marketing a given product.
To suggest, therefore, that the Canadian government undertake research on the combined or cumulative effects in the pesticide area, which would cost millions and millions of dollars, would certainly be a tremendous burden in an era of restraint, particularly when no substantial benefits to the consumer would likely result.
In summary, there has not been any substantiated reports of combined or cumulative adverse affects in humans due to pesticide residues in food with or without other components such as food additives. The products used on any one crop are generally diverse and do not have the same mode of toxic action. The residue levels of pest control products in the Canadian food supply are generally very low or non-detectable. Acceptable daily intake levels, which are determined for individual chemicals based on extensive toxicity tests on laboratory animals, have built-in safety factors.
Private Members' Business
All of these facts lead this government to believe that this motion and its potential for expenditure of millions of taxpayers' dollars and years of government research manpower is not supported by a real need.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today asks us to consider whether the Government should undertake research on the cumulative or combined effects of food additives and pesticides in Canadian food products.
The Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare is responsible for monitoring pesticide residues in food and the use of food additives.
These chemical substances are currently subject to a comprehensive assessment process before they are approved for use in Canada. At this point, it would be useful to take a brief look at the assessment process, especially where pesticides are concerned. A similar procedure is also followed for additives.
The term "pesticide" includes a whole range of products such as insecticides, fungicides and herbicides.
In the case of most of these product categories, progress made in chemical research during the past twenty years has led to new types of compounds with enhanced specificity, reduced persistence in the environment and lower toxicity for mammals. In many cases, enhanced specificity has meant a reduction in the quantities involved, selective application and lower concentrations of residues in food crops treated, at the time of harvest. Nevertheless, food may contain low concentrations of pesticide residues, and the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare is responsible for evaluating the potential dangers of these residues and establishing, if necessary, maximum limits in accordance with Canadian food and drugs regulations. We may point out that the presence of pesticide residues is not necessarily harmful to consumers.
Maximum residue limits are established only after a complete assessment of various toxicological tests that are used internationally. These tests include studies on acute toxicity, both short and long term, and are carried out on various animal species in order to investigate a wide range of possible harmful effects, including cancer.

Private Members' Business
The daily admissible dose for a pesticide has a built-in safety factor that allows for the kind of toxicological effects observed in the animal species tested. The daily admissible dose represents that quantity of pesticide that may be ingested daily during a lifetime, without harmful effects. This figure is used to determine the safety and appropriateness of the suggested maximum limits.
The use of pesticides in Canada is based on the principle that the quantity of pesticide applied to a food crop should be the minimum that is required for effective control. Maximum limits are established after analysing the data on residue obtained through tests in real conditions based on the worst case estimate of intake in other words, one tries to obtain the strongest concentrations that could be expected under typical conditions of use. The maximum residue limit represents the maximum quantity of a given pesticide that may legally be found on a given food product. These limits are usually established using a whole, unprocessed agricultural product at the time of harvest, which may be seen as an additional safety margin. Since the concentration of many residues decreases during storage and transportation, and of course when the food is washed, ground and cooked, the residues in many cases fall well below the maximum acceptable limit and frequently are not detectable.
To enforce the food and drug regulations, the Health Protection Branch continually monitors Canadian and imported food. This surveillance shows that generally food contains pesticide residues in concentrations well below the maximum thresholds. In the rare cases where violations are found, they are mainly due to the use of a pesticide on a crop not being registered in Canada, although in some cases, higher upper limits had been authorized for the same pesticide on other food products. When violations are brought to light, appropriate measures are taken, including recall of the food product, Mr. Speaker.
The statement that actual pesticide residues are well within the statutory limits is also based on the preliminary results of the most recent comprehensive diet study conducted between 1985 and 1988 by the Department of National Health and Welfare. This study makes it possible to estimate the proportion of chemicals in humans from an analysis of these substances in composite samples of representative foods in the average total food intake of the population. The samples analysed are
obtained in the marketplace and prepared for use just as in an average home kitchen.
Preliminary results confirm previous findings that any pesticide residues are in concentrations well below the statutory limits and that for the most part, they represent only a small fraction of the allowable daily dose calculated by the Health Protection Branch.
Mr. Speaker, no pesticide can be considered absolutely safe, but it is important that this danger be linked to exposure.
As was mentioned before, the mere detection of a small dose of such a substance in food does not mean that this substance is necessarily dangerous. Indeed, some common garden vegetables naturally contain substances that produce significant toxic effects in laboratory animals when administered in high doses.
In some cases, the concentrations of these vegetable substances is higher than those reported for synthetic pesticides or food additives. In any event, no data lead us to believe that eating such food as part of a well-balanced diet can endanger consumers' health.
Before beginning research on the cumulative interactions and potential combined effects of these residues in low concentrations with other substances in food, we should first consider Canada's safety record over the last 20 years. No death or illness due to pesticide residues in legal amounts has been recorded. Indeed, the only proven death resulting from the consumption of a pesticide residue in food that was recorded in Canada was due to the illegal use of a veiy highly toxic pesticide on cucumbers.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, since the recorded concentrations of pesticide residues in Canadian food supplies are very low and Canada's food safety record with respect to these substances is excellent, doing research into the cumulative or combined effects of pesticides with other substances such as additives in Canadian food products does not seem a priori to be a priority for now or likely to become one.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing has in a very thoughtful speech put before us this afternoon this question of what happens when food additives and pesticides that are about us everywhere and in the food
October 5, 1989

chain combine one with another. What is the cumulative effect, the cascading effect, of more and more of these being added.
Given the fact that over 5 billion of us humans not to mention hundreds of billions of other animal and life forms are taking nourishment in various ways throughout every single day, there is no question but that this topic is one of central importance and in some respects relates to survival, because nourishment is what sustains life in all its forms.
I was glad to hear him take a thoughtful and essentially non-partisan approach in bringing this subject to the floor of the House this afternoon. I can, I guess, overlook a couple of areas where bias got into his remarks, where he felt he had to condemn the government and also take a side-swipe at the Americans and the free trade agreement.
I only want to say that I think Canadians expect parliamentarians to deal with issues of the environment in a way that is beyond partisan politics. There are certainly times and issues on which there will be differences in party opinion, differences of ideology, but in effect we have something here that, like several other issues in our country and at the international level, really are of transcending importance. Most Canadians that I know do not care what a party platform is or what a personal partisan drive is on an environmental issue. They want to hear answers that are concrete and specific.
To do that, I would first like to elaborate on the hon. member's plea to the government for a more public process and begin by referring to action that is now under way this year in the formation of the Federal Pesticide Registration Review Team.
This document which relates to the current activities of this Pesticide Registration Review Team has three points in it that I would like to mention fairly briefly. The first has to do with who are the members of this team. There are representatives from consumer groups, environmental groups, the farming community, labour, public health, biological, federal regulatory agencies, the forestry sector and the pesticide industry. It is a completely balanced, comprehensive and representative
Private Members' Business
team of people to be involved in any review of pesticide use and registration in Canada.
The second point relates to a statement of purpose of this body. It is very brief, admirably expressed in one sentence, as follows:
Recognizing the principles of sustainability, the purpose of the Review Team is to formulate recommendations for the Minister of Agriculture to adapt the Pesticide Registration process to changing policies and conditions with a view to ensuring the efficient federal regulation of pest control products that minimize the risk of harm to human health and the environment while meeting the needs of the stakeholders.
The third point that I would like to extract from this document for the purposes of the debate this afternoon is to note that as a result of their very first meeting earlier this year-this group continues to meet actively-20 separate issues were identified as constituting their initial focus. We are beyond the stage here of dealing with general statements or good intentions. We are down to dealing with very specific aspects of Canadian policy dealing with pesticides.
The issues include having a clear and central focus on where the federal decision-making authority for regulating pesticides is located; the extent and cause of backlogs in registering new products; the effectiveness of the existing Minor Use of Pesticides Program; the role of risk management principles in making regulatory decisions; the role of the public in the registration process.
Others include the co-ordination and co-operation with the provinces; co-ordination and co-operation between Canada and the United States; co-ordination of pest control products regulations with the important new legislation, Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System; enforcement program and penalty provisions; research permits; labelling; an ongoing review mechanism to ensure that the regulatory process can adapt quickly and fairly to changing needs and conditions. So it goes.
I am not reading all of this into the record but I did want to take the occasion to raise that for the consideration of members, particularly the member whose motion is before the House now, to indicate that this is not something that is new. This is not something that has caught the government by surprise, it is an issue that has for years been of central importance to Canadians, including previous governments. That is why Canada has had very strict and high standards relating to food, to consumer labelling, to ingredient identification. There is a separate issue that is somewhat related to this subject. We currently have a problem in Canada, and I believe

October 5, 1989
Private Members' Business
the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was responding publicly to it today, of American products coming into Canada that do not comply with Canadian labelling requirements. For example, there are boxes of cereal on which the Americans talk about cholesterol, but we cannot in this country even use that word on a product. There are many Canadian standards that are much higher and stricter which I would speak of if I had time, but perhaps another member can pick up this point.
I want to deal with the procedure that is followed in Canada for testing food additives, approving them and controlling them, because Canadian standards in this area are very high. Frankly, the member is promoting further research. I do have significant reservations about research which involves animals for testing. I recognize that medical research is very important in that area, but there are a lot of other areas of testing where I think we have to look with more care than we have in the past as to what we wish to subject animal populations to in the name of some form of research.
This is something that two other members of the House and I are currently investigating, the various animal testing laboratories under the aegis of the federal government. I will leave it to another speaker to go into that procedure in detail, but the result of that procedure is that Canada has the best record of safety in food on the market of any countiy. We have in fact a remarkable state here that whenever there is some problem with food poisoning, whether it be with the kinds of difficulties that the hon. member was mentioning, it is a cause for great consternation and discussion because it is the exception to the rule.
I think the issue is important but we must be very careful not to raise unfounded fears in this area but to deal with the facts and keep the system that we do have on the track, especially as it can be modified as the result of the work of this review team to whose activities I have drawn attention.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this private member's motion by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing which reads:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of undertaking research on the cumulative or combined effects of food additives and pest-control products in the Canadian food supply.
I heard the member opposite say Canada has the best record in terms of testing and control for safety. I would submit that a part of progress is always to build on our strengths and to continue on. Research does not mean that we are putting into question the current state of the situation. It means we would like always to work for the health and safety of all Canadians.
People are becoming less and less confident about the adequacy of government regulations limiting drugs and chemicals in foods. The government does not ban fruits and vegetables when it finds low pesticide residues or forbid the dosing of animal meats with hormones and antibiotics. Warnings about tainted food may be issued only when a consumer falls ill, when a citizen becomes a patient. That is too late. That is not prevention.
Several events in the past year indicate that there is good reason for the public to be increasingly concerned about what is in the food they eat. I would therefore like to laud the member who introduced this private member's motion.
In October our own Canadian Auditor General, Mr. Kenneth Dye, questioned the adequacy of government food testing and pesticide-regulating programs in his annual report. So obviously there is room, in fact a great deal of room for improvement.
A study released in February by the Natural Resources Defence Council, the NRDC, in Washington, D.C., estimated that up to 6,200 pre-schoolers in that part of the country may eventually develop cancer because of repeated exposure to pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables. That figure certainly is alarming and is not acceptable to any citizenry, certainly not to Canadian society. The major cause for concern is the pesticide daminozide, known by its trade name Alar.
October 5, 1989

The Ontario government released a study last September that concluded that dioxins and furans, two families of toxic substances, can be found in low levels in many foods, including meat, poultry, wheat, eggs, fruits, vegetables and milk.
Now I would like to speak more about the pesticides. Federal government officials estimate that between 250 and 300 pesticides are in use. Pesticides are sprayed on fruits and vegetables and kill parasites, fungi and weeds. They help to ripen produce, improve its colouring and protect it from bruising.
Agriculture Canada states that about half of fruits and vegetables have residues below the tolerance level, and most meat products also contain minute traces of pesticides. But Diane Kirkpatrick, Director of Health and Welfare Canada's Bureau of Chemical Safety, says that while the government should remain vigilant in monitoring levels, unless that is done, consumers may not be safe because residues are below the stated limit. So there is a need for continuing research. There is a need for research into the cumulative effects of additives and food pesticides.
She also said that the government is not worried about minute levels of Alar on apples and that there is no concrete evidence from animal studies as yet that Alar is carcinogenic. But there is a principle in law: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". We would not like to wait for the harm to happen. When we have demonstrated the harm, even in animal studies, we have to accept that and presume the safety of the individual is foremost in our minds.
The NRDC study states that Alar is a potent carcinogen. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, while it believes that NRDC's analysis is exaggerated, has, nevertheless, announced it is accelerating its proposal to ban Alar. So there was concern. Yet, Health and Welfare Canada has given the chemical a clean bill of health. So again there is a need for awareness on the part of the Canadian public.
The key difference between the U.S. and Canadian responses is how the governments interpret cancer risks from chemicals. Virtually all the information about the safety of chemicals comes from tests on rats and mice in the laboratory. In the case of daminozide and the chemical known as UDMH-the daminozide breaks down into a compound called UDMH when processed into apple sauce and apple juice-the laboratory studies
Private Members' Business
to date are somewhat ambiguous. After the first year of a two-year study UDMH caused cancer in animals only at the highest dose tested. Canadian officials have interpreted this information to mean that UDMH is only carcinogenic when consumed in very large quantities.
By contrast, U.S. officials believe that, despite the uncertainties, there is a good chance that UDMH increases the risk of cancer even when consumed in much smaller doses.
I think the message here is, at a given point in time a particular dose of consumption may not be harmful. When taken over a period of time, cumulatively, it could harm the citizen.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the levels of UDMH found in apple products present a lifetime cancer risk of about one in 22,000. Now, if you look at the risk of diseases in medical practice, certainly we worry even when the risk of illness is one in 22,000. We try to discover a cure. We try to discover a treatment. So if we do that in the day-to-day practice of medicine, then certainly we should also be concerned about risk of cancer even if the studies are not quite definitive yet.
Although this is a minute risk for each individual, when averaged over an entire population, however, it appears much more significant.
The Environmental Protection Agency's analysis is correct. UDMH could cause about 1,000 additional cancers in a nation the size of Canada. That is alarming. The key question is what to assume for the purposes of a regulatory policy. This is where Canada's approach is disturbing. The U.S. assumptions are the most protective of health, while Canada's are much less so. If Canada is wrong there will be continued exposure to a cancer-causing chemical and an increase in deaths due to cancer.
The University of Western Ontario Geneticist, Dr. Joseph Cummins worries that a pesticide like Alar might cause rare blood vessel cancers and thus there will be a measurable increase in that kind of cancer in the future.
Linda Pim, a Toronto environmental biologist, has similar concerns about the long-term impact of pesticides. Although individual chemicals might be safe on their own, they might be dangerous in combination with others. Again, this is one aspect of harm that research as proposed by this motion could show the Canadian public and our Canadian health officials. I would say that the

Private Members' Business
government does not seem to appreciate the seriousness of these concerns.
I thought I could discuss the dioxin and furans, the two toxic families of chemicals, but I will respect the time you have allotted me and conclude that the government should place much more emphasis on the health of Canadians. If it did, it would be more concerned about the potential ill effects of pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and dioxins and furans. There is a need for more testing to be done to determine what levels of the substances are harmful and a corresponding review of the regulations which control their use.
I support this motion. When we determine to do research, when we tiy to establish what potentially could harm the Canadian public, there can only be progress, and therefore, I support this motion. I would like to ensure the continuing safety of Canadians through research.


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing (Mr. Axworthy). The motion before the House today deals with a very complex technology, namely the analysis of non-harmful food ingredients such as additives and pesticides, a field that is highly specialized. The aspects of this motion which concern food additives could be used to illustrate the degree of complexity involved. Actually, it would be preferable to separate the cumulative effects from the combined effects of food additives, simply because these are two entirely different matters.
The comprehensive toxicological assessment that food additives undergo before their use in Canada is approved will provide most of the information on the so-called cumulative effects of these products in the human body.
Food additives are no different from other chemical products that enter the body and are used by the body, and more specifically, the myriad of chemical products contained in food which include proteins, carbohydrates and fat. Some are transformed by normal bio-chemical reactions as a result of the body's metabolism and can help the body produce energy, while others, because of
their physical and chemical properties, may never be absorbed and remain basically unchanged after entering the body.
Others may be absorbed and subsequently eliminated.
Actually, the human body is a wonderfully effective machine that is constantly ingesting food, water and air and uses what it needs while getting rid of the rest in one way or another.
We can say that relatively few elements have a chance to accumulate in the body. Usually they are either used or eliminated. If food additives were to accumulate and if such accumulation were to have a toxic impact, this would be detected by the toxicological analyses that are standard for all food additives before they are approved for use.
If these studies showed signs of accumulation, a thorough assessment of the significance of these findings would be done before the additive could be approved for use in food.
To examine the somewhat more complex issue of the combined effects of food additives, we have to consider the thousands of chemical products to which the body is exposed when it ingests food.
If we add one or two food additives to this whole mixture of chemical products that naturally occur in food, we must not conclude that these additives will necessarily set off a toxic reaction.
In fact, the odds are there would be a much higher risk that some of the thousands of other chemicals products would react together. That is what happens in cooking, Mr. Speaker, when we prepare food.
In fact, it is difficult to predict all the reactions that can be generated by food ingredients, including additives.
However, just as when other food elements or additives or pesticides are involved, this issue is dealt with by chemists, nutritionists or professional toxicologists with the Department of National Health and Welfare, during the strict pre-approval process.
As you know, research in this area would not be particularly useful. Most of the food we eat is cooked, which brings about hundreds and thousands of changes.
October 5, 1989

However, cooked food is eaten every day, and food is cooked for health reasons, because this rids the food we will eat of micro-organisms that can cause problems in the area of public health.
If we were to have a research program on the combined effects of food additives, we would have to ask ourselves several questions, like: Were do we start? What combinations of additives must be considered? How should these combinations be studied? Perhaps some other benefits that the consumer might derive should be considered as well. And last but not least, what would such a study cost?
It must certainly not be concluded, Mr. Speaker, that such studies are not important in cases that can be easily identified and where the danger is known. However, there would be little interest in beginning an intensive research program to study all possible reactions.
Furthermore, it is not obvious that the reaction products would necessarily be toxic.
They might very well be quite harmless and be handled by the body almost like other food components such as proteins and complex carbohydrates that make up the food we eat every day and which the human body metabolizes without difficulty.
Mr. Speaker, food safety research is a very costly exercise requiring highly specialized scientific personnel and complex equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Before beginning such a research program, a thorough analysis of the need and cost-effectiveness must be done to ensure that scarce funds are well spent.
Research on the food supply is and must be based-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time is up.
The period for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, this government, through neglect of duty and abuse of staff, is building up a brand new refugee backlog crisis which may end in further injustice to refugees.
On May 9 of this year in Question Period I pointed out to the minister that her new system of refugee determination started on January 1, 1989 was breaking down. Of 2,806 cases opened in four months only 1,008 had received final decisions. The minister answered that the problem was just a matter of start-up troubles. She claimed she would, and I quote:
-continue to ensure that there are enough resources available so the system will work well-
It seems she did not provide the resources. According to the report of the Immigration and Refugee Board for September 11, 1989, of 7,203 cases opened, only 3,243 cases received final decisions-only 45 per cent. The rest, 3,691 cases, are deferred at one stage or another. The pipeline is filling up fast.
There was a time when 2,000 or 3,000 cases was a dreadful backlog. We now have about 100,000 cases in the old backlog, mostly built up since 1984. How many more thousands will this government add in a new backlog?
There is a very plain reason for much of this breakdown-understaffing of the clerical work. This was an important part of the origin of the old backlog, understaffing of the clerical work. It then took three to six months to type a transcript of a hearing under oath and send it to the old refugee status advisoiy committee. So the backlog was launched. As it snowballed, the racketeers found the delays very profitable for bringing in bogus refugees just to benefit by even a couple of years of work in Canada before they would be sent away.

October 5, 1989
Adjournment Debate
Now this government is doing the same understaffing that may launch a new round of racketeering. Appointments are now being made months ahead for hearings which were supposed to be done within a very few weeks. Morale is sinking low in the immigration refugee board support staff, as in the whole immigration department.
After working Saturdays, Sundays and nights overtime, week after week after week, clerks are transferring or quitting. This government, rather than developing a fair hiring policy to meet the need, is resorting to contracting out the clerical work in violation of the union contract. When the government pays a contractor, say Kelly Girl, $900 a week, but the actual girl doing the work gets only $250 a week, not only is the girl being cheated but the Canadian taxpayers are being cheated, and plainly, the work is not getting done right.
Why is this government sabotaging its own pet refugee determination program which it steamrollered through Parliament against massive public opposition?
Last December the minister threatened to apply the infamous safe third country clause of her new Immigration Act if the system began to break down. This is the clause they could use to send refugee claimants into orbit, bounced from country to country without ever getting a fair hearing on a claim. Is the reason the minister is allowing this new backlog to build up to create a so-called new crisis, to justify sending refugees into orbit?
The minister hinted on April 5, according to The Toronto Star:
-she might drop a clause in the new refugee laws that would permit Canada to send back refugee claimants who arrive from a safe third country such as the United States-
I hope she will drop that clause and not use it. The United States is not safe for refugees from fascist governments in Latin America or Africa. They deport most of them likely to prison, torture or death.
Therefore, I call on the minister to clean up her act, to hire appropriate clerical staff for the immigration and refugee board, and to enter a bill in Parliament to repeal the infamous safe third country clause of the Immigration Act.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to reply to the Hon. Member for
Trinity-Spadina because he raises this issue as someone who is passionately concerned about the plight of refugees and people who are caught up in the turmoil of bureaucratic procedures. I know that his commitment to the well-being of individuals is one that has caused him to raise this issue now and many times in the past and, no doubt, as long as he is a member of the House, he will continue to bring issues like this before us. It is a reflection of his commitment to seeing that there is justice for all who have anything to do with the Canadian government system.
I think it is fair to say it was that same feeling that motivated the government to bring about changes because of the unacceptable level in the backlog that was developing under the previous operation of the law and the procedures under that law.
The hon. member's concerns-I will not call it an indictment of the new system-that he is already raising about the new system are perhaps not premature but, to be accurate, this new system has been in place only since January 1, and I think there is good evidence as well that it is demonstrating that it can be both efficient and fair, and those two things have to operate simultaneously, I believe.
Claims to convention refugee status certainly are dealt with far more quickly than occurred under the previous process and that efficiency, in turn, is having, I think, at least two benefits. One is that genuine refugees are able to get on with their lives in Canada and, second the abuse by those who have had obviously unfounded claims is being deterred.
The hon. member mentions that 93 per cent of all claims are being referred to the immigration and refugee board and that is absolutely correct. But I think it is important to add that 93 per cent of decisions rendered by the board are to the effect that the claimant is a convention refugee. It was never anticipated that the "creditable basis" test would result in the refusal of a high percentage of claims. Its value has always been seen in its capacity to deter abuse by permitting speedy determination of those claims which lack an arguable base. A more than 30 per cent decrease in claims at ports of entry certainly demonstrates that the test has achieved its objective.
October 5, 1989


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have always felt that there was no point in rising if there is nobody to respond. I certainly would take the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs because his minister chairs the special cabinet committee and he might impose on his minister to pay some attention to the crisis that is developing on the east coast.
My question was to the minister on September 28 at which time the minister in his answer stated:
-on my first review of the report-
This is a reference to the Hache committee:
-it appears that in the present year there are no extraordinary circumstances of hardship which are unlike those of previous years with the exception of lower prices and the problems created by exchange rates.
I can only say that for this minister who has been the minister of fisheries now for a number of years cannot, with his experience, say that there are problems in the fishery this year and last year in the groundfishery is incredible. Municipal leaders said on July 11 that probably 12,000 people are affected directly by the groundfish quotas that were in place under this minister's management scheme. They are worried. They know the problems that will develop because there has been no work. This means that there will be larger welfare rolls because people do not have enough stamps to be able to collect unemployment insurance. There is a spin-off effect with lack of work. It means not enough taxes are collected.
The whole community is affected by the fact that this minister will not look at his management plan and say to the people in the southern end of Nova Scotia, "Yes, there is fish in the waters; yes, you should be able to go out and fish them." The municipal leaders are not the only ones. This week, I got a letter from the Yarmouth County Affirmative Action Committee dated September 15, before the minister's answer, which says that because of the problems the federal government has now instituted regulations which have placed thousands of western Nova Scotians on the unemployment lines. Thousands more cannot now qualify for unemployment insurance. Those are two groups that have directed their
Adjoumment Debate
concerns to this government and they have not been listened to.
In the middle of July, after public demonstrations by the plant workers and the fishermen, two provincial ministers came up and met with the minister. We have had nothing as a result of that meeting. They met again with the Hache committee and said that it was the worst of times and that the management plan was not working. Yet, I do not know what it will take for this minister to start believing people like the member for South Shore who has been saying that there has to be a solution. An awful lot of the fishermen have only had six to eight weeks of work, not even enough for unemployment stamps. Today's paper says "Siddon's comments on fishery called unbelievable by industry". This is in The Chronicle-Herald:
Glen Wadman,, vice president of the Independent Seafood Producers Association of Nova Scotia, said Wednesday the minister's suggestion that there is no crisis in the fishery is "staggering".
We represent 31 independent fish plants, many of whom have workers that have only worked seven to 10 weeks this year-
"Some of them are worried about having their telephones and electricity cut off. Some have had to take their cars back to the local dealers because they're trying to pay for their homes.
To hear the minister make those kinds of statements- well, it's unbelievable.
Others are saying "Let the minister cut his salary by 30 per cent like he cut the quotas of the inshore fishery by 30 per cent". A longliner says, "Soon, because of the policies, they will be tied up." A longliner should never be tied up because it has a fishery that is selective.
I want to say to this House and to the representative of the government who comes from the west one thing. As the Yarmouth County Affirmative Action Committee says, it is noted, and my hon. colleague over there comes from Alberta, "that the federal government did provide extensive assistance to western farmers when drought struck the prairie provinces. The federal government is directly responsible for providing funding for a state of the art fishing fleet". They feel that if one area of the country is going to be helped by this government, why can the other area not be helped as well.
We have waited since the spring to see if there would be an imaginary fund focused on several times by the government saying that there was going to be help for the east coast. Yet we have a minister who says there are

October 5, 1989
Adjournment Debate
no worries on the east coast, there is nothing wrong on the east coast.
There are people who have not worked who normally have had full-time jobs. There are 12,000 people who have worked in Shelburne, Yarmouth and Digby County directly in the fisheries. Over 5,000 of them are full-time plant workers. Let the minister go and tell them that they should not be working.
The worst thing that this Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has done is that he has not believed in the fishermen. He has not believed in the members of his own party who have told him that the state of the fishery is critical and needs to be taken care of and that his management plan is not helping the inshore fishery. He has not listened to the two provincial ministers of the Buchanan government who came here in July and went before the Hache task force and said there was a problem. He has not listened to anyone.
I think it is time that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is the chairman of the special committee, to look at the state of the east coast fishery, and started working as the Prime Minister said he would do to look at the conditions on the east coast. They have not done that. They have sat all summer and allowed a growing problem to exist while they have not listened to the people, the fishermen, the people who know what the conditions of the fishery are on the east coast.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to add to the minister's response that was given to the hon. member for South West Nova. I think it is very unfair for the member to accuse the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of not listening to members of this House. Indeed he is and indeed he recognizes the problems that are facing the fisheries on the east coast, and on the west coast where we also have problems.
I do recognize, however, the passion and the feelings that my hon. friend for South West Nova has for her constituents. I understand those, coming from western Canada where we have had drought in the past. This is the first opportunity I have had since she came back to the House to publicly welcome her back after a little bit of a holiday-four years. I am glad to see her back. She is a feisty representative.
I will outline a little of what the minister is attempting to do, and I think my hon. friend will understand this also. She knows full well that a task force on the Scotia-Fundy groundfish was formed on July 18, 1989.
The terms of reference for the study were outlined to the chairman, Mr. Jean-Eudes Hache, in a letter from the minister and it includes the following issues: One, the adequacy of existing scientific advice on the Scotian Shelf, Georges Bank and Bay of Fundy groundfish fisheries; two, he wanted to know the basic management principles of the Scotia-Fundy groundfish fishery, including such things as the impact of present harvesting on the resource as well as the different fleet sectors; the effectiveness of conservation controls and an assessment of the capacity of existing fleets; three, the economic impact of alternative fishery management approaches on individuals and companies involved in the fishing industry and communities which are dependent upon the fishery.
The minister directed Mr. Hache to take into account all fleet gear sectors and to pay particular attention to the work and recommendation of the Scotia-Fundy capacity committee, an industry committee which deliberated for approximately one and one-half years on the question of vessel capacity in the Scotia-Fundy fishery. He was further instructed to keep an open mind on all of their options for management as well as to develop alternative approaches to fisheries development, including promotion of conservation-oriented technologies and the exploitation of underutilized species.
The task force began meeting with the industry and the general public on July 18, and completed its hearings on August 31. Some 30 meetings were held across the Scotia-Fundy region from Sydney to Campobello Island. All meetings were open to the public and the press were present at all meetings.
In total, some 61 written briefs were received by the task force as well as many oral presentations.
In addition, numerous suggestions, observations and recommendations were put forward during the open, free and often lively discussions that took place. Little consensus on potential solutions were apparent.
I notice you are giving me the sign to finish, Mr. Speaker. The minister is attempting, with a basis of good knowledge, good understanding and good input from the east coast fisheries, to come up with solutions that will be long lasting and effective. In the meantime, I would
October 5, 1989

support the member for special support in the interim to help the Nova Scotia and the east coast fishermen over this rough period. I think all members in this House of Commons would agree with me.
IMMIGRATION-INVESTOR PROGRAM-SPECIAL MINISTERIAL PERMITS/GOVERNMENT RESPONSE


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of discussing and debating during this late show. A question that I posed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration on June 19, 1989, which dealt with the fact that the government had used 100 ministerial permits to extend free entry into this country for people willing to invest under the investor program that was introduced and announced by the government back in 1988.
The problem with that particular action, and who knows if it was repeated in the period between June and the time currently, was twofold. First, the program was amended and announced in 1988. There were expectations created and, therefore, a demand was created, but we have in this House no legislative and formal authority under that new program in legislation. Therefore, that introduces the possibilities, without formal authority in legislation, without proper criteria, for all sorts of abuse with respect to that new program that was articulated back in 1988.
The second problem, of course, is something that has plagued this government's entrepreneurial program which it has doubled since coming into office in 1984. I am not suggesting that there is anything particularly wrong with entrepreneurial immigration as long as there is a fair balance with respect to the other sources of immigration. The big problem is that once individuals get into this country on a supposed plan to invest, create or start a new business or plant, there is very, very little follow-up by this government to see if that plant, business or operation has indeed opened.
There have been many media reports in the last number of months to indicate that people get into this country with a visa on the pretext that they are going to create jobs and set up businesses when in fact those businesses are nowhere to be seen. There must be a way of ensuring that if people are going to build a better mousetrap factory in Edmonton, Alberta, they have to
Adjournment Debate
build that factory, because that is precisely the reason why their visas were extended to them.
The other situation that was very problematic with ministerial permits was the abuse of the principle of a ministerial permit. Traditionally, ministerial permits have been extended to people in very dire need for humanitarian and compassionate grounds. There was no compassionate or humanitarian grounds in terms of dealing with people wishing to invest their dollars and cents. Therefore, there was a double standard at play. People who wanted to invest capital in this country were quickly given ministerial permits. Yet, day after day, in this House and outside this House, we see cases of needy people, facing life or death situations, certainly humanitarian cases, not being able to find the time of day from this minister and this government.
Giving those other individuals special ministerial permits was, in fact, undermining the very concept, principle and tradition of the use of those ministerial permits. It is for that reason and the others that I raised the question in the House of Commons with the minister. We did not get a satisfactory response then and I am looking forward to a response from the parliamentary secretary to try to enlighten this House and those members who are currently in this place to try to arrive at a situation where-


An Hon. Member:: Name them.


Sergio Marchi: Some members are asking me to name them. I have too much respect for the members in the House to begin to name them on national television. We wish to clarify two points in very quick order. The first point is that if the program does not have the legislative authority, why are we proceeding in such an ad hoc fashion.
The second point is that the ministerial permits are traditionally there to help those on compassionate and humanitarian grounds.
Are we prepared to enact the necessary legislation so that this program may be scrutinized by Parliament, given the proper authority, and set up the proper regulations and implement the appropriate criteria under which all investor category entrepreneurs can be, in fact, analysed and processed?

October 5, 1989
Adjournment Debate
I look forward to my hon. friend giving us the information on these very important matters.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy hearing my friend from York West during Question Period. He knows the meaning of opposition and he handles it very well. I welcome the opportunity to expand upon the reply given by the Minister of Employment and Immigration to the Hon. Member for York West on June 19.
Minister's permits may be issued for a number of reasons, and I think we all know that. In the case of immigrant investors, there are situations where the family with small children would want to arrive early in time for the school year, or to make additional investments in Canada that will contribute to creating jobs for Canadians.
Minister's permits may also be used for other types of situations outside the parameters of the business immigration program, such as humanitarian and compassionate grounds or in the national interest. I think this was outlined by my hon. friend. But I will give an example. A dependant of a person immigrating to Canada may have been found to be medically inadmissible and it has been established that public safety and financial and provincial
jurisdictional factors are satisfactory. It is important to note that minister's permits are being used as a temporary measure for those who genuinely need them, pending passage of regulations or the approval of request for special authority of the Governor in Council.
I would also point out that the minister's permits issued to immigrant investors in 1988 represent .026 per cent of all minister's permits issued in 1988. I want to repeat that, .026 per cent of all minister's permits were issued under the immigrant investor program. That is very, very small indeed.
We are not extending special privileges to the chosen wealthy few, as my hon. friend has suggested. We are simply being fair and equitable to investors as we are to other categories of immigrants.
Finally, I would like to point out that the necessary amendments, as requested by my hon. friend, to the immigration regulations were prepublished on September 9, 1989, and should come into force in the very near future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 6,1989