1989-11-29

['Hear, hear!']
Mr. Speaker:: It is my unhappy duty to announce to the House that our friend and colleague the former member from London East, Jim Jepson, died in London an hour ago. There will be tributes on Monday. I know that hon. members would want to have the weekend to consider the announcement and make the appropriate remarks, as is the custom in this place.



Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House in a non-answer to a question I raised with the Minister of State for Forests about job losses because of the lack of signed forest agreements, the minister said he was not aware of any problems. The minister had only to consult his own department's information to see that 43 silvicultural workers in New Brunswick have lost their jobs because of the lack of a forest agreement.
In British Columbia, the staff of Forestry Canada are approaching members of our caucus expressing concern about their jobs because of the confusion caused by the government's lack of action. Worse is that the trained staff in Forestry Canada have the skills that are needed in a renewed forest agreement. We cannot lose them.
The minister is obviously not aware of the concern in the forest community about these unsigned agreements. He should sign them now.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on November 18, I visited the community of Mistissini, where I observed the deplorable condition of 141 homes built according to the standards of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when the former Liberal government was in power.
Today, these homes are very unsanitary and have been condemned by the Department of Health. Nevertheless, these government-built slums, with no electricity, water or plumbing, still house nine families because other accommodation is lacking.
On many occasions Chief Henry Mianscum has demanded that these outdated, unhealthy, dangerous shacks be replaced.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that our Government must correct the errors of this department; otherwise, that community would be entitled to CIDA programs in the same way as the Third World.


VETERANS
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, in 1990 the Army, Navy and Air Force veterans in Canada will commemorate their 150th anniversary. It is the oldest veterans' organization in the country. The group's earliest members fought in the war of 1812.
Throughout its long history, the members of ANAF served their country with distinction. In recognition of its proud tradition, the ANAF last year asked Canada Post to issue a commemorative stamp in 1990. Just last month, the veterans learned, to their shock, that Canada Post had refused the request for a commemorative stamp. This is an insult to our veterans who sacrificed so much for our country. Surely they deserve more than the cursory rejection they received from Canada Post in light

of the contribution they have made to ensure our freedom.
I urge the government to reconsider this offensive snub to Canada's oldest veterans organization. I strongly urge the government to issue a stamp commemorating the 150th anniversary of ANAF.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, as the process of reform continues in eastern Europe, parliamentarians must remain aware of difficulties in other areas of the world, particularly the continuing problem of family reunification for Ethiopian Jews. Although some 17,000 Ethiopian Jews were airlifted to Israel in 1984-85,12,000 to 15,000 are still separated from their families in Ethiopia.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which Ethiopia is a co-signatory, obliges nations to permit and assist in the reunification of families separated by migration. Given the Canadian people's generous assistance in aiding Ethiopia and the current downsizing of Soviet aid, Canada is in a strong position to exercise leadership on this vital human rights issue. Almost 1,500 Ethiopian Jewish children remain separated from their families, an injustice entering its fifth year.
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to place this issue high on the agenda in our relations with Ethiopia.


EXPULSION OF HAITIAN CITIZENS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, since nine Haitians who were to be deported yesterday did not go to Mirabel (Airport) and it is becoming increasingly obvious that the reign of terror continues in Haiti under President Avril, I ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Conservative government to go back on their decision
concerning the moratorium and to stop all planned expulsions immediately.
I make this request for all those poor people who fear persecution in Haiti, in particular, for Gertrude Nazaire and her daughter Minerve and for Lucienne Oscar, her husband and two children, who made representations at my riding office in Montreal.
I do not understand why the minister does not use her discretionary powers and take humanitarian action, as requested by the Montreal Rights and Freedoms League, among others.
What game is the Conservative Party playing with the Montreal Haitian community?
Last week, the Conservative ministers from Montreal undertook to ask their immigration colleague to change her position. However, the minister's secretary told the press that they made no such request. This hypocrisy is unacceptable. The inhuman deportations must stop right now.


BOWATER MERSEY PAPER COMPANY
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, this week marks the sixtieth anniversary of the Bowater Mersey Paper Company Ltd. Established by Isaac Walton Killam in 1929, Bowater Mersey has become the economic backbone of Queens County, Nova Scotia employing some 800 people directly and another 2,100 indirectly.
Under the leadership of general manager Harold Dobson and his predecessors, Bowater Mersey is a model of corporate commitment to the community and a company that values its employees and sees their interests as important as those of the company.
This year Bowater Mersey is completing a $150 million modernization that will not only improve the efficiency of the plant but enable it to meet the highest environmental standards, ensuring that Bowater Mersey will continue to be internationally competitive for years to come.
Congratulations to the Bowater Mersey Paper Company and all associated with it.


MONTREAL SOUTHWEST COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, last week, the Montreal southwest committee on economic recovery and employment released a major report on the economic and social development of our region.
The report's main recommendations are to create a community development corporation that would co-ordinate the activities of all parties and to invest $200 million, part of which would be new money, over a three-year period.
In Montreal, the southwest region has a very high unemployment and welfare rate. Forty per cent of the population lives below the poverty line.
The government has chosen to ignore the many instances of plants closing down.

The situation in Montreal southwest is serious. The committee's report is very well done. It should be acted upon immediately.

The government should now show that it means business and indicate right away that it intends to give these recommendations its unqualified support. People are tired of waiting.


RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, it is symbolic and sad that there are currently reports of sexual abuse of children from each end of our country. From Vancouver we heard that a judge has incredibly commented that a three year old girl shares responsibility in a sexual abuse case against a 33 year old man. In St. John's, Newfoundland it was just announced that Mount Cashel orphanage will be closed. We all know why.
I call on the Solicitor General and the Attorney General to do all in their power to protect children from sexual abuse through strong legislation and strong law enforcement. I call on all Canadians to protect children
in any way possible and report any sexual abuse to authorities.
Today's children and youth have many hurdles and challenges that we adults have placed in their way. They do not need this one and every effort must be made to eradicate sexual abuse of children from Canada.


POLLUTION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the federal government claims to support sustainable development. The Prime Minister signs declarations abroad to this end. The Minister of the Environment bravely promises action. But when it comes to the crunch, as with the closing of the B.C. fisheries because of pollution, we hear a different story.
The Minister of Fisheries says the government is not prepared to prosecute pulp and paper companies discharging toxins into coastal waters. He uses the pathetic excuse that the minute quantities of toxins contained in the effluents are difficult to measure, even though the accumulation in fish can be measured. His logic defies logic.
Should we expect more from this government which has an abysmal record in prosecuting polluters? It gives the Department of the Environment less than 1 per cent of the federal budget and does not ratify the law of the sea. Either this government does not mean what it says or it does not understand what sustainable development means.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, most Canadians were delighted last June when this House passed legislation providing that the pensions of widows and veterans would continue to be received until their death.
Prior to this bill, if a widow who had been receiving a pension as a result of her husband's death was to remarry, she would lose that pension. All parties supported this bill that was to provide up to a total of $28 million annually in pensions to approximately 4,500 widows and widowers. Unfortunately, to date, of those eligible only 700 have applied. The reality is that there has not been much of an effort to locate these people.

November 29, 1989
The Minister of Veterans Affairs says that they simply do not have the budget to extensively advertise this legislative change.
If this government has the funds to take out full-page ads in every major newspaper across the country promoting the Conservative position on the GST bill before it is even tabled in the House, then surely it can increase the Veterans Affairs budget to allow for a similar ad to be placed to reach these worth while Canadians.


SITUATION IN ROMANIA
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, today we heard the news that the well-known Romanian gymnast, Nadia Comaneci, had to flee her country because she prefers to live in freedom outside her native country instead of under the repressive regime of Nico-lae Ceausescu. I think it is sad that even those who are privileged under the system are no longer satisfied with their life in Romania.
Not long ago, I met a number of my constituents who reminded me of the suffering of the Romanian people: severe economic hardship as a result of misguided economic policies, a total lack of freedom and human rights, and repression of national and religious minorities. Canadians hope they will soon see the following changes in Romania: free elections, respect for human rights and a complete renewal of the government, leading to the return of genuine democracy.
I appreciate the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs issued a press release on November 24, condemning the treatment of Mr. Mazilu by the Romanian authorities, and that Canada's ambassador to the United Nations raised the same issue that day. I strongly urge the government to renew its efforts to help improve the situation in Romania.


FOOD ADDITIVES
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, young athletes would be horrified if their parents suggested that they take anabolic steroids. Yet
parents may be giving their children daily fixes of a far more harmful hormone. Vitamin D, routinely added to milk, baby food and breakfast cereal has been found to be one of the most potent steroid hormones available, and a very toxic food additive.
Scientists at Simon Fraser University say people should be avoiding it unless there is a clear medical reason for its use. Vitamin D has been found to increase aging in vital organs such as arteries, kidneys and bones leading to cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. The vitamin may also increase the body's retention of toxic metals such as lead, cadmium and aluminum, a suspected culprit in Alzheimer's disease.
Federal regulations require its addition to milk, margarine and infant formula and may be responsible for unintentional infant poisonings. The Minister of National Health and Welfare should undertake a detailed study of the health risks of vitamin D in the interests of Canadians who because of government regulation may be exposing themselves to excessive levels of consumption.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the World Health Organization has designated December 1 as World AIDS Day. The Ontario provincial government is commemorating the day by giving substantial financial support to four clinics for AIDS victims and to the University of Toronto for research. The federal government should commemorate AIDS Day by acting on the recommendations of the report on AIDS commissioned by the Minister of Health last June and released recently.
The report calls on the government to establish a new agency to oversee an increased fight against AIDS; to establish appropriate mechanisms for surveillance, prevention and control; as well, to address and eliminate high risk behaviour; and to help develop a vaccine for prevention as well as treatment modalities to control the disease and to ensure that the human rights of those affected are respected and their families and care givers receive adequate support.
November 29, 1989

I urge the government to accelerate the development of a national strategy on HIV infection and AIDS and make a commitment now to spend more time and money combating this most serious global disease.
* Jfe *


TRIBUTE TO MR. JAMES F. COOKE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise hon. members that Mr. James Cooke, Deputy Principal Clerk in the Journals Branch is retiring today after 35 years of combined service to the Government of Canada and to the House of Commons.
Mr. Cooke began his career at the House in 1963 in the Index and Reference Branch and from there moved on to the Journals Branch where he has served in the position of Deputy Principal Clerk since 1975.1 am sure the House will want to join with me in wishing him all the very best in his retirement and our very great thanks for his years of service to all of us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. John N. "Rimer (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In his absence I will put it to the Deputy Prime Minister. All the senior citizen groups in this country and an overwhelming number of the social service agencies, including the government's own National Advisory Council on Welfare, stated that the Conservative proposal to claw back seniors' pensions and family allowances is an attack on the universality of our social programs. It is also an attack so far as our pensioners are concerned on what they consider to be a right of citizenship in this country.
Yesterday, the Conservative members on the parliamentary committee set up to study that clawback rammed through a vote to hear only four witnesses on this tremendously important income tax change. The Minister of Finance will not even appear personally before the committee to give it an explanation. I cannot remember in my parliamentary career where an income
Oral Questions
tax change of this importance has been done by stifling the witnesses in this country who want to appear before the committee.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why the government is afraid to let senior citizens appear before the parliamentary committee to give their views on this grossly unfair change to the income tax, the clawback of senior citizens' pensions?
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that it was with great pleasure that I appeared in front of the committee and answered all the questions that were put to me during that period.
Mr. "Rimer (Vancouver Quadra): One hour.


Gilles Loiselle: The hon. member must be aware that this government has been faced over the last year with a major problem, which is largely of his making, and that no part of government spending can be left out.
As far as the Old Age Security benefits are concerned, I would like to state that during the pre-budget consultation representatives of various groups came to us, a member of One Voice for example, and said: " We agree with the economic council that people with over $50,000 of income should have their OAS taxed back". These benefits are, of course, important. Universality has been protected. Every Canadian entitled to it will receive his or her cheque. They were taxed before and they will continue to be so that the lower income people are well protected.


M. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance should have appeared personally before the committee. The Minister of State excused himself after one hour, in order to listen to the Prime Minister's speech on abortion. That is all very well. But he should appear again before the committee, this time with his Minister of Finance, and allow witnesses across the country to testify before the commitee. That is the problem.

I will again direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Just as with the goods and services tax, the Minister of Finance maintains that on this issue of the clawback of the senior citizens' pensions, he is right and everybody else in the country is wrong.

Oral Questions
I will say to the Deputy Prime Minister, a man who appreciates Parliament, I guess the Conservatives are coming to a point where democracy is becoming a bit of a nuisance to them and they want to cut off some of this debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Why will the government not at least put into the legislation a guarantee that the clawback on senior citizens' pensions will be indexed against inflation. Given the government's track record, given the personal record of the Minister of Finance, why should senior citizens, or anyone else, trust the minister? Why should anyone trust his word that he will review the situation in a few years. If the government is serious, put that indexation clause in the legislation.


Gilles Loiselle: I was in the position to indicate to the committee yesterday-and I would remind the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that it is for the committee to set its agenda, and not for me-that this government will stand on its record.
Look at the various programs we have set and reviewed every year in a positive manner. We have said repeatedly that for the old age security benefits, we would do the same every year.


SENIOR CITIZENS
Right Hon. John N. Dimer@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, my next question is directed to the Minister of State (Seniors). I wonder why the Minister is getting a cabinet minister's salary and has such a large staff, considering the circumstances. If the minister is supposed to represent Canada's seniors, why has she failed to defend their cause in Cabinet? Since all senior citizens' groups in this country are opposed to the pension clawback for seniors, why didn't the minister insist on letting these groups appear before the parliamentary committee? She is supposed to speak for our seniors but they have no voice before the comittee. I suggest that the minister immediately ask the Deputy
Prime Minister or the Prime Minister to intervene so that her Tory colleagues will let Canada's senior citizens' groups express their views before the committee.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that it is up to the committee to decide how it intends to proceed. However, I can give this House and Canada's seniors the assurance that I am the Minister who defends their interests in Cabinet. Whenever a government project, initiative or program is proposed, we make sure that the rights and benefits of Canada's seniors are protected. We have maintained the universality of our programs. We intend to improve our social programs, and what we are now asking 4 per cent of Canada's seniors to do is to help us reduce the deficit so that we will have the flexibility we need to improve our social programs.


RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who I believe is in the Chamber. It involves the remarks made by a county court judge in British Columbia that a three-year old girl, herself sexually assaulted, was sexually aggressive.
Has the minister used his specific power under Section 63 of the Judges Act to require the Judicial Council of Canada to commence an inquiry immediately into this horrific situation?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the case in question. I have to tell my hon. friend that the case is presently under appeal. Until the appeal period is over and all court actions are finished, I think it would be inappropriate to take any action or to comment on it in this place.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians stand appalled at this situation. If the minister has not and will not use his Section 63 authority, can he tell this House what is being done to ensure that attitudes such as this do not continue to be voiced in Canadian courts?
November 29, 1989


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, any comment that I might make in response to that could be taken as affecting the case in question. While I sympathize with the point of view of my hon. friend in a general way, I point out to her that it is a matter of public record that a complaint is being made to the Canadian Judicial Council. I am sure if that is the case and it follows through, the council will address itself to the complaint received.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who is no doubt aware of the existence of Conservative Party documents which outline a strategy of linking government contracts, grants or policies to corporate donations.
In at least the case of the Royal Bank in 1987, the targeted hit was made by the PC Canada Fund chairman, David Angus, a close friend of the Prime Minister. He succeeded in a $40,000 hit when an earlier bagman had failed.
Since political favours for cash leads to the corruption of democratic institutions, will the Deputy Prime Minister take steps to amend Canada's election laws to ensure that such activity is made illegal?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think that what is important is that issues of this matter be properly conducted in accordance with the Elections Act.
I think the hon. member is referring to an internal document or memo that has never really been put in place. It is the substance of a story that goes back to November 19 and November 20, 1986. It is interesting to note that Broadcast News Toronto indicated that it did not want any further use of the story because it was outdated and is really old news that is being rehashed.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Perhaps the Minister of Justice can clarify this for those corporations
Oral Questions
which may have felt that they were put under a similar kind of pressure to that of the Royal Bank.
Will the minister tell Canadians, Canadian businesses and members of this Chamber whether the soliciting of donations from donors by reminding them of government business they have received is illegal or is in his view just improper?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what is important is that under the Elections Act there is full public disclosure of contributions received, whether from individuals, corporations or unions. As long as this is conducted in compliance with the provisions of that act, that is the most important element. If the hon member has any evidence to the effect that there is a violation of that act, then he should take appropriate action.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is signals between government and big business. Canadians are skeptical about the benefits of the donation connection between big business and the Tories.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister really expect Canadians to believe that there is no connection between the $660 million aviation radar contract awarded to Hughes Aircraft Company and the wink-wink, nudge-nudge, you-know-what-I-mean promise of Hughes to locate in the ridings of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Science and Technology or-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Chair has been patient, but the hon. member is straying into an area where he ought not to be. The minister may want to respond. I certainly will not call upon him to do that if he does not want to.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about signals. If he has any evidence of signals, let him take the appropriate action.
If the hon. member wants to open up the bidding process, let him do that. There is an appropriate place for that to be done in committee or he can raise it specifically on the floor of the House of Commons.
My understanding is that the procedures were closely followed. If he has something against a contract being awarded to British Columbia, Alberta and western Canada, Ontario and other parts of the country, but specifically a good portion of it going to his home province and to the province of Alberta, let him say so

November 29, 1989
Oral Questions
and not hide behind that sort of silhouette of purity that he sometimes suggests but does not always purvey.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. Is it the practice of the government to provide to any political party and specifically to the PC Canada fund lists of government contracts awarded and, if so, will he make these lists available to all members of this House?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a story which was discredited three or four years ago. I am sure that even when he was not in the House he was probably aware of that. This is a stoiy that has been rehashed and the memo that the hon. member refers to has never been adopted.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I note the Deputy Prime Minister did not answer my question. I asked if he would make the lists available, not whether the story was discredited. I will go on with a supplementary question.
The government has established a commission to study the means by which political parties are funded. Will the Deputy Prime Minister instruct his bagmen to appear before this commission and reveal their practices and their lists?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that there was one positive element in that particular question, the fact that there is a commission that was established to study the elections procedure, the fund-raising activities. This issue has been debated in the House and outside the House. I hope if the hon. member wants to make reference to the commission about who should appear or who should not appear, he can make that representation directly to the commission.


JUSTICE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Last week the Deputy Prime Minister and the Solicitor General, both in response to questions in this House, refused to release the contents of the November 7 Peter White letter relative to the RCMP conduct of the Richard Grise affair. This morning those contents were
leaked by RCMP sources through the press. That leak process, after refusal to release it here, is contemptuous to the members of this House and demands to be called such.
Will the Prime Minister, now that the contents of the letter are on the street, immediately release the contents of the letter from his office and put an end to the speculation about the letter's purpose?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new in what I saw this morning, except that some information seems to have appeared in the press. The situation has not changed since last week, which means we still have a case before the courts in connection with the document that was discussed last week. I believe it was the RCMP's decision not to release it. It was not the government's. This document is part of an RCMP investigation on the situation. And since the case is already before the courts, I think it would be inappropriate for us to release it. If it ever is released, the RCMP will decide to do so, not the government.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. I have to remind him that RCMP sources are quoted in the article of this morning.
The public has real concern over possible politicization of the RCMP by this government and there are many public questions which are going unanswered. Now, as if to confirm the suspicion that there really does exist a political faction inside the RCMP, we have this perfectly timed leak this morning to take the pressure off the government.
When will the Solicitor General take action to locate this suspected political connection and stop the erosion of public confidence in the RCMP, and what will those steps be?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the best way to stop, as the hon. member said, the erosion of confidence in the RCMP would be to stop asking questions and levelling accusations or making allegations against the RCMP.
November 29, 1989

I will repeat, as I have said many times, that we must respect the work being done by the RCMP in the course of its investigation. I believe the RCMP Commissioner has already answered all these questions and will appear before the Justice Committee as soon as he is back from Interpol, within the next few days.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to return to the work of the legislative committee on the clawback bill. I must say I was surprised at the comments that I heard earlier from the government benches. Surely Canadians who are concerned about the cuts in VIA Rail should be happy to know that there is still a railroad running in Canada. It is called the legislative committee on Bill C-28.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister on this important issue of government policy is this: the government in Bill C-28 is doing one of two things, it is either ending universality or it is introducing a discriminatory tax based on age and family size. Now, which is it?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to give the hon. member information that I did not have when I last rose in this House. The committee apparently has asked the clerk to invite some of the groups which asked to be heard. Therefore, that should at least-


Some Hon. Members:: Only four.


Gilles Loiselle: Well, a little while ago it was none.
I would also like to remind the hon. member that this measure was introduced in the budget some months ago and has been debated and discussed on many occasions. It was also discussed in this House in the debate on the budget. It will be discussed again in committee and will come back to the House.
Therefore, I remind the hon. member that the threat to our social programs, and this one in particular which is extremely important to our seniors, does not come from any measure that we take on this side, but from the growing deficit and from the debt we inherited. We
Oral Questions
should be concerned that next year we will be paying interest in the range of $40 billion. This is something that has to be tackled and no program of this government can escape scrutiny. So this is my answer.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the minister sounds like he wants to invite more groups to the committee but the record will show that he did not answer the question.
[Translation\
Since the pension and family allowance clawback constitutes the most sweeping change in Canada's social policy in 20 years, is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to inform the House that the Minister of Finance will appear before the Committee to answer questions about this tax which discriminates against seniors and families?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, this is not a discriminatory tax. A number of seniors receive additional benefits, and in line with our general program review, these measures must apply to all programs.
I think we should also remember that, for instance, when the system is fully operational, only 50,000 people on high incomes will have to pay back all part of their benefits; 74,000 will pay a part: in all, 130,000 seniors out of three million will be partially affected by these measures.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
During last year's federal election, the Prime Minister met in Edmonton with the Lubicon Band Chief, Bernard Ominayak, ostensibly to get negotiations back on track after 50 years of on-again but mostly off-again attempts to reach a settlement.
In January, the government presented its formal offer, which even Premier Getty tells us is "deficient", declaring the Lubicons could take it or leave it, and any consideration of compensation would have to go to court.
With the Lubicon people shutting down Crown-owned oil and gas operations on their traditional lands and with

November 29, 1989
Oral Questions
federal officials meeting on this matter with Alberta officials in Calgary tomorrow and Friday, will the government direct its officials to make clear, and announce, the government's willingness now to resume negotiations with the Lubicon on all aspects of their claim, including a compensation package?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, ever since we made this offer last January, we have been prepared to go back to the table to discuss the fair and comprehensive offer that was made to the Lubicons. Unfortunately, the Lubicons have been refusing to come back to the table.


Ross Harvey: Will the minister not agree that what he calls a fair offer is a pastiche of things that the band might do. It in no way comes close to dealing with the question of compensation. In fact, government negotiators ruled out compensation in their September 8 letter: "On the question of compensation, we invite the band to pursue this claim in the Canadian courts". Will he agree that in fact he is willing to negotiate nothing? Agreeing to that, will he now announce that the government has changed its policy and will negotiate?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the government has not changed its policy but is prepared to negotiate, has been prepared to go back to the table and is still prepared to go back to the table. It has directed the negotiators to meet with the provincial-


An Hon. Member:: Listen to the Lubicon.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Perhaps I can be permitted to answer, since a valid question has been put.
We have directed our negotiators to speak with the provincial negotiators because the Lubicons have voiced concerns to the provincial negotiators about our offer, but not to us. We are analysing those concerns. We are prepared to go back to the table and discuss those concerns and address them in an offer that is comparable to any other claim settlement that has been made in Canada since.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
On November 21, Quebec farmers demonstrated on Parliament Hill, and after talking to farmers from Abitibi, I want our joint programs, marketing boards and quotas to be protected 100 per cent.
My question is as follows: Could the Minister confirm in the House today that Quebec farmers will not be ignored or abandoned by his department, more specifically in connection with GATT Article 11, and that the Quebec government will have its say in the talks?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to assure the hon. member that neither the farmers of Quebec nor the farmers of Canada will be forgotten by the government at any time, whether it is in the MTN negotiations or otherwise.
With respect to those negotiations, I made it clear to the Cairns Group when I was in Bangkok last week dealing with a comprehensive agriculture proposal what Canada's position is in the matter of supply-management boards. I noted there that the techniques for achieving trade liberalization have to take full account of the outcome on the rule side, and that on the rule side we will be looking for a new GATT Article 11 that will be more effective and clearer. The existing GATT rules under Article 11 permit import restrictions and support effective domestic production control programs. We have those in our supply management programs now. We want to see that continued.
I explained to them that we did not think the new GATT Article 11 would be subject to tariffication with reference to those new rules and how they worked. In other words, the Mazankowski-Blais position was put clearly to the Cairns Group and put clearly to the world on behalf of the Quebec farmers.
November 29, 1989


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Walter Carter, Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland, and the Hon. Pat Cowan, Minister of Employment and Labour for Newfoundland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last week in the native community of Kingfisher Lake, located in northwestern Ontario, a 16-year-old boy took his life. This is the fourth suicide in that community of 300 in the past two years.
There have been 40 suicides in six communities in the Shibogama Tribal Council area in the past two and a half years. The suicide rate in native communities located in northwestern Ontario is seven times the national average.
My question to the minister is this: Will the minister request immediately a judicial inquiry into the increasing suicides in northwestern Ontario with a view to finding solutions to this very disturbing crisis in the native communities?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. gentleman raising this very serious question. The whole issue of suicide, particularly suicide among Canada's native peoples, is of particular concern to me.
The department is commissioning studies to be done on issues related to suicide to get a better understanding of the reasons for it, particularly among young Canadians. Additionally, we have programs in place that are designed to help with native problems on reserves and to try to deal particularly with problems related to alcoholism and drug abuse.
The success in cutting the suicide rates in a number of instances has been quite good. For example, I had the privilege recently of visiting one reserve in western
Oral Questions
Canada, outside of Edmonton, where there was a significant improvement in terms of reduction of the suicide rate. We will continue to do everything we can to be helpful in terms of assisting in that.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. The minister did not listen to my question. Obviously he and the government are not listening. It has been two and a half years since we brought this particular situation to the attention of this government. There have been 40 suicides in these small areas of northwestern Ontario, with a population of only 1,800. It is time that we act and not just listen.
My supplementary question relates to the 21 aboriginal communities in my riding in which there are only three mental health workers. That is what I am talking about when I talk about the fact that there is nothing being done. There are only three mental health workers in a large geographic area to try to discuss those matters of interest to the people of those communities.
I would ask the minister if he would look into holding a full departmental review of social services available to Canada's aboriginal peoples and assure this House that such a review will include the full and meaningful participation of aboriginal peoples.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the provision of medical services to Canada's aboriginal peoples is constantly under review in our department. Discussions constantly take place with the native peoples themselves because we recognize the fact that to be successful, the provision of services has to be responsive to the needs and to the concerns of the people who are most affected.
Any input the hon. gentleman wants to make in terms of suggestions I would be glad to receive from him. But I can tell him that the department puts a high priority on the improvement of services in native communities, it puts a high priority on consultations with native groups and certainly we are taking whatever measures that we can to try to ensure that the problem of suicide among Canada's native peoples is dealt with. The rate is too high in Canada and it certainly is a concern to us. There has been success, as I indicated to him earlier, in some communities in dealing with that, and we want to do everything that we can to be helpful.

November 29, 1989
Oral Questions


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Brian White (Dauphin -Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Bill C-22, which was passed in the last Parliament, made changes to Canada's drug patent legislation. Most of the opposition to the bill was, and still is, focused on the bill's effect on industry research and on consumer prices.
Can the parliamentary secretary explain to the House what the impact of Bill C-22 has been to date on pharmaceutical research and development and on drug prices in Canada?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, you will follow this answer with great interest as will members of the House because in fact the cost of drugs has dropped some 1.7 per cent, saving our senior citizens some $60 million.
The second aspect is that research and development is up to $164.5 million which is a sales to R and D ratio of 6 point some as compared to 4 point some. The only regrettable thing is that the tactics of the opposition parties delayed this for many months and cost people hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, who will be aware that when this House moved to the concept of legislative committees, it did so in order to free up the standing committees to pursue general policy matters and not to provide a quick process for legislation.
What happened in the Bill C-28 committee yesterday is similar to what happened in the Bill C-13 committee on Nordion and the Bill C-15 committee on plant breeders' rights, the government using its majority to move things through very quickly without public hearings.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, who knows full well that this House only operates on co-operation. Will he now instruct the Conservative members
on the Bill C-28 committee to reopen the question of hearing more witnesses, to allow for at least 20 witnesses who have asked to appear to talk about the clawback provisions?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in past days, and I think from that party, there have been false accusations about me and other cabinet ministers interfering with the committee process. Far be it from me to ever undertake to that, Sir.
I would only tell the hon. member that he has been around here long enough to know how the committee process operates. The committee is in charge of its own destiny.
He suggested that the plant breeders' rights bill was rammed through. It seems to me that it has been before the House of Commons and committee more or less continuously since September. I do not know. If that is ramming something through, then he will have to give me a better example.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-28, we have heard only four witnesses. The government has tabled 125 amendments to an 85-page bill, providing just a few hours of consideration of the knowledge of Canadian people. I, personally, in the transport committee had to have the government whip's assistant removed from the committee as she was trying to instruct the members of the transport committee on the Conservative side how to vote, so do not tell me there is no interference.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister kindly suggest then to the government members that it is appropriate to hold full public hearings here in Ottawa so all those people who represent seniors groups, teachers-


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


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would think that is an appropriate issue to raise at the steering committee level. I invite the hon. member to do that.
Just to correct a previous answer, plant breeders' rights has been before the committee since June 27. I made a slight error, I said September. The member used that as an example of this government ramming through legislation. I ask him to reconsider that charge.
November 29, 1989


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I remind the minister that over 600 children are still out of school on the Six Nations Reserve.
Results of the independent air assessment done on the schools show airborne asbestos in four of the 10 schools. While this asbestos is said to be presently at safe levels, it was recommended that the air be monitored every three months.
Why should these parents be forced to send their children to schools that have asbestos particles in the air? Why should five, six and seven-year-old children be learning in fear? What kind of learning environment is the minister providing for these children?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, this issue has been ongoing for a while. Following certain questions in the House by my hon. colleague, there have been some meetings and discussions with the band council and chief of Six Nations on a number of occasions. A proposal was made by myself to the chief and council. That proposal was presented to council, accepted by council. We have acted upon that proposal since. I am informed that as of Wednesday, November 29, 47 out of 48 classrooms on the reserve are open, that 60 per cent of the students are attending, and that as of Monday there will be other classrooms prepared to receive the other children.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the minister gets his figures because we have been told in the riding by the parents themselves that clearly not even half of the students are back in school.
On a supplementary question, the parents of the Six Nations have repeatedly asked the minister to remove the asbestos. The minister has repeatedly said no, because he does not think it poses a health risk.
How can the minister make such a decision when there are no legal guidelines in Canada for acceptable levels in Canadian schools?
Oral Questions
Given that the levels found in several of these schools are higher than acceptable levels in the United States, and given that it is going to cost the minister as much money to monitor the air as it would to remove the asbestos, will the minister agree that this asbestos must be removed now?


Pierre H. Cadieux: As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, there were some discussions with the chief and council. A proposal was made and was accepted by the council and the chief.
We have acted upon the recommendations. We had three experts there with respect to the asbestos, and the asbestos that was removable has been removed. The other has been encapsulated and all the experts agree that it is safe.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. John Lamb of the Canadian Centre for Arms and Disarmament has said that the Prime Minister's trip to the Soviet Union, in terms of defence and disarmament, was: "a missed opportunity and a washout". He suggested that Canada should have put forward an initiative leading to a multilateral approach to disarmament in the Arctic.
I want to know why Canada, of all countries, missed the opportunity to put forward an initiative leading to a regime which would see demilitarization of the Arctic, a zone which is so important to all Canadians.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the reason Mr. Lamb might have made that statement is that he was not there. He does not know what happened during the visit by the Prime Minister to the Soviet Union.
But there were some people who were there who have been heard from. Mr. Gorbachev has been heard from. He said that he found the discussions to be particularly helpful. He thought it was an important step forward, that there was an agreement that the foreign minister of the Soviet Union and I would meet to discuss actions we might take in the Arctic.
The foreign minister of the Soviet Union has been heard from. Mr. Shevardnadze described the visit of the Prime Minister to the Soviet Union as being a very

November 29, 1989
Oral Questions
important step forward in the relations between Canada and the Soviet Union, and also important in terms of the possibility of making progress on our joint concerns and interests in the Arctic.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, there may have been progress, but in terms of demilitarization there is no response to the initiative offered by the President of the Soviet Union in his Murmansk speech some time ago. Canada should have gone prepared to advise other NATO countries such as Norway and Denmark which would be quite prepared to take part in a multilateral approach to demilitarization of the Arctic.
I want to ask again: Why is Canada not ready to offer an initiative which Canada of all countries is in the best position to take?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is dead wrong. The Murmansk proposal was made by Mr. Gorbachev in 1987.1 responded to it in the fall of 1987. We then wrote the Soviet Union asking for specific proposals that they might make. We received none.
When Mr. Gorbachev and the Prime Minister of Canada met in Moscow a week ago, the Prime Minister of Canada said: "We are interested in the Murmansk proposal. What specifically are you proposing? Is there anything you want us to follow up?" Mr. Gorbachev said then: "We think it would be very valuable for Mr. Shevardnadze and the Canadian foreign minister to meet to pursue issues that Canada might propose or that the Soviet Union might propose". That is substantial progress by any fair judgment.
Members of the Liberal party should recognize that this trip has allowed Canada to make very substantial steps forward including in terms of establishing progress and agreed regimes in the Arctic. Instead of seeking every occasion to make narrow, partisan attacks, they should recognize a national accomplishment.


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
We have a strike in progress by the government ships' crews, fishery patrol boats and the Coast Guard, and a threatened strike by the hospital services employees.
The two main issues are pay equity with regard to women in the hospital services and regional pay disparity in the other issues.
Will the government now give the House a commitment that it will live up to court decisions against it as far as pay equity is concerned, a commitment to regional pay equality, and a commitment that it will return to the bargaining table to negotiate the other outstanding issues?
We want an answer now on pay equity and regional disparities.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the TVeasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer first the question dealing with regional rates of pay. I can assure my hon. colleague that even before the ships' crews group began its strike, the government had put on the table a proposal to reach regional pay equality between the east coast and the west coast, so that is on the table.
I am happy to tell my colleague that in that case we resumed negotiations this morning by mutual consent and hopefully we can resolve the other issues that are outstanding.
In terms of the hospital services group, I would like first of all to correct my colleague's claim that this is a women's group. It is a group that is roughly 50-50, and there is no discrimination in that group on the basis of sex.
We had in that case a consent order issued by the Human Rights Tribunal on July 15, 1987, and all three phases of that consent order have been fulfilled.
The issue here is that even after meeting this question of pay equity in the group, the group is asking for an increase of 49.2 per cent. I must say that we take some exception to that. We feel that it is not quite in keeping with what other public servants in this country at all levels of government have been receiving in terms of compensation over the last few years, so there is a lot of discussion to be had on that one.
November 29, 1989


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, since we are not sitting tomorrow and Friday I would like to ask the government House leader the standard question about government business he intends to call over the coming week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, since the House, by order, will not be sitting tomorrow or Friday I will indicate the business for the week of December 4.
On Monday, December 4, we will call Bill C-34, the Canadian Centre for Management Development bill, for second reading. In the afternoon we would hope to be able to proceed through report stage of Bill C-13, known as the Nordion bill.
On Tuesday, December 5, we will call Bill C-13, the Nordion bill, for third reading. In the afternoon on Tuesday, December 5, we would call Bill C-15, the plant breeders' rights bill, at report stage.
Wednesday, December 6, will be the last allotted day for the supply period ending December 19 and there will be votes on that supply bill.
On Thursday, December 7, the intention is to continue with Bill C-15.
That is all for the present time.


POINTS OF ORDER
Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker,
I have been around the House for only a year now, but I understand when a minister of the Crown responds to a question by reading from a document that the minister tables the document.
I understand the Minister of State for International Trade read from a document today in answer to a question from one of my colleagues from the NDP. I am just wondering when he will be tabling that document.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, all ministers normally bring into the House briefing notes to which they refer-
Points of Order
from time to time in answering questions. I am sure that that was the case with the hon. minister in question.


Robert (Bob) Speller: The Minister of State for International Trade quoted from a document, and I ask that the minister table the document in the House.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful to note that the point being made by the hon. member is supported in fact at citation 327 on page 115 of Beauchesne's. Subsection 1 of that citation states:
A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table. This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which prevent counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested; and when the objection has been made in time, it has been generally acquiesced in.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would at times gladly have all of Beauchesne's applied in all instances. I think it would spruce up Question Period considerably if it were. My hon. friend used the words "despatch or state paper", and neither of those were used in this instance.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a different point of order. I think you would find agreement for the Minister of Justice and House leader to put a motion to the House of Commons.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to do this under motions, but I am prepared to do it now on behalf of the House.
Mr. Speaker, you will remember that on November 22, 1989, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, the member for Duvernay, raised a question of privilege.
As a result of the discussions which flowed from the question of privilege raised by the member for Duvernay there has been agreement among members that the following motion will be jointly moved and seconded by the members from Duvernay, York West, and Kootenay West-Revelstoke:
That this House, following the publication of the Montreal Yellow Pages (July '89 to July '90 edition) by Tele Direct Inc., a subsidiary of Bell Canada, wherein on page 453, an advertisement for College Platon contains the word "Mafia" in place of the appropriate term, "Italian", strongly condemns this act, which offends the integrity of the Canadian/Italian community and undermines the viability of our national multiculturalism policy; and the House urges Tele Direct Inc., to immediately recall the publication in question and directs the Speaker to communicate this resolution to the president of Tele Direct Inc.

November 29, 1989
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion of the hon. Minister of Justice.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise on a point of order an issue with the Chair very briefly.
Your Honour will know that a little earlier today fire bells rang in the Centre Block of the Parliament Buildings. I would like to alert the Chair, and perhaps hon. members, to the fact that I believe it is about time we started to take fire precautions a little bit more seriously. Fire doors in the Centre Block were actually jammed open with wooden wedges, and the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and I were busy removing them so as to close the fire doors.
In fact we are making considerable investment in terms of protecting this Chamber and this building by constructing these fire doors, under the authority of Your Honour I believe, and some of the work is actually still going on. I do feel that it should be incumbent on all of us and on the staff of the House of Commons to ensure that we take all appropriate precautions and never leave such fire doors open and, obviously and more important, quickly vacate the building using fire doors rather than elevators, which was in fact being done at the time when the fire bells were ringing. In fact there was actually a line-up of people standing at the doors of
elevators when no one should even have been using an elevator.
The point I am making is that perhaps better instructions should be going out to all people, including members of Parliament, in order to ensure that the safety of members and indeed of all individuals in this House is better protected in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened with care to the representation of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell.
I can assure hon. members that I take the intervention seriously. I will attend to any steps that have to be taken to rectify the situation that has been brought to our attention.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Brian White: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-15, an act respecting plant breeders' rights, with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: moved for leave to introduce Bill C-279, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act.
November 29, 1989

Routine Proceedings


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Elections Act to require the government to call a by-election within a stated time from the issue of the Speaker's warrant when a vacancy occurs in this chamber.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the by-election is held promptly-I believe 80 days is provided from the date of issue of the warrant-so that the government cannot sit around as it has done for the last six months and do nothing while the people of Chambly are deprived of representation in the House.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure that we do not wait six months from the time the warrant is addressed to the Chief Electoral Officer and the government gets around to announcing a date for an election. In fact it requires the election to be held within a specified time as well so that we do not have an election two or three years off as is permitted under the existing legislation.


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

Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from more than 800 fixed gear fishermen on the southwest coast of Newfoundland.
The prayer of their petition is that the Government of Canada takes the necessary steps to restrict auto trawl fishing vessels not based in 3PN and 4RD from entering into the 3PN and 4RD winter fishery until such time as the cod stock has recovered to the extent as to allow fixed gear fishermen a reasonable level of landings so as to provide a reasonable standard of living for their families.
The fixed gear fishermen have always been the backbone of the fishing industry in Newfoundland. Their livelihoods are being threatened by vessels not based in 3PN and 4RD. I have the pleasure to present this petition.
I ask the minister to respond to the prayer of the petition so ably put down by the fishermen in Cape Anguille, Codroy, Cape Ray, Red Rocks, Port aux Basques, Margaree, Fox Roost, Burnt Island, Isle aux Morts, Rose Blanche, Diamond Cove, Harbour Le Cou, Petites, and three other communities: St. Fintan's, McKay's and Jeffrey's, all of whom would like to have the prayer of their petition heard.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I have a separate petition on a totally different issue. Some 2,600 people from various parts of Newfoundland and elsewhere in Canada have forwarded this petition to me to be tabled in the House.
Their prayer is that Parliament be called upon to formulate and legislate a law to protect life from conception, a law which seeks to save the life of both mother and child.
I am sure those signatories will watch with interest the progress of the abortion bill through committee in the next few days. I table this petition as well.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present.
The first one that I would like to present contains the signatures of 145 people. It calls on the Governor General in Council to fully enforce the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the exercise of its constitutional power of disallowance with respect to Bill 178 of the province of Quebec.
These petitions have been signed by residents in my riding, along with people in other regions of the province of Nova Scotia, including such areas as New Glasgow, Pictou County, and the surrounding area.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, the next petition I have is on the issue of the Young Offenders Act. It contains 1,242 signatures calling on the Government of Canada to revise the laws dealing with young offenders, specifically relating to age, sentencing, housing and rehabilitation of these young criminals.

November 29, 1989
Routine Proceedings
This petition was organized by the Nova Scotia chapter of the group Citizens United for Safety and Justice which gathered signatures from people all across the province of Nova Scotia.
I thank this organization for its hard work and dedication.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, the third and final petition I have is getting near the end of the petitions that have come in from across Canada which now total over 97,714 signatures. Unlike my colleague on the opposite side of the House, I do not intend to read the names of all the cities, villages, hamlets, townships, counties and regions from which these 97,714 signatures have come.
However, I would like to point out that this petition contains an additional 100 signatures and calls on the Government of Canada to revise the extradition laws to allow the Minister of Justice to order the extradition of fugitives, either immediately or after they have been dealt with fully by the Canadian penal system.
As I said, these 100 signatures bring the total to 97,714. [Translation]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to table some 25 petitions signed by constituents in Ottawa-Vanier who want to let this Government know that they are firmly opposed to the Conservative Government's proposal to inflict a new goods and services tax on Canadian taxpayers. We know that this same Government has increased the present sales tax on manufactured products by some 50 per cent, from 9 per cent in 1984 to 13.5 per cent today, and that this tax proposed by the Conservative Government will be unfair to small and medium-sized businesses; that Canadians will be faced with a sales tax hidden in the selling price and that it will apply to nearly all the goods and services they buy; that the tax, applied across the board to goods and services, will cause serious hardship for families on low and moderate incomes; that it is a regressive tax and that it absolutely must be rejected by the Canadian Parliament.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to table in this House petitions against the GST, which means the goods and services tax should be renamed "the grief and suffering tax".
This petition is signed by 2,604 residents of the great riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. These citizens are opposed to the tax in general and in addition they are opposed to the fact that figure skating lessons and other such educational services will be taxed because of the lust for receiving funds from the constituents of Canada of the Minister of Finance.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present four certified petitions in this House on behalf of the constituents of Lambton- Middlesex from the towns of Strathroy, Oil City, Oil Springs, Petrolia, Wyoming Forest and Watford.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I have more petitions from the residents of Parkdale- High Park objecting to the government's proposed 9 per cent goods and services tax.
Their arguments are that this GST will be an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians and will hit them not only with higher taxes but with higher inflation, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment. They humbly pray and call upon this Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, the enclosed petition is deemed correct as to form and content.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table two groups of petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36. The first group is the balance of petitions which I have received with respect to the National Arts Centre orchestra.
I am pleased to note that that strike has now been settled. I hope that the board will agree to the conditions and the terms so that I will no longer have to table further petitions in the interest of the National Arts

Centre orchestra here in the capital city. It is with much pleasure that I deposit, in the name of 100 people, their concerns with respect to the National Arts Centre and its orchestra.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a series of petitions, signed in proper form, announcing once again the petitioners' serious concern that this government is not listening to Canadians with respect to the 9 per cent goods and services tax which will come on top of the provincial tax.
They call on the government to go back to the drawing board and restructure a tax that will be fair and equitable for all Canadians and will remove the regressivity one finds in this tax.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions on two subjects to present.
The first two are from my own constituency of Saskatoon-Humboldt and the third is from the consistency of the minister of defence.
They call upon the government to reject the current proposed goods and services tax, to reform the tax system so that it does not fall so heavily on ordinary Canadians, and to put through a tax system which is not regressive but is real tax reform.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition which is signed by a group of citizens from Toronto who call upon Parliament to maintain VIA Rail Canada's present national rhetoric, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment, and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate to passenger service.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have two groups of petitions to table today. The first one has been signed by 35 residents of the metropolitan Toronto area, from Markham, Stoufville, Richmond Hill, et cetera.
The petition is from people who support our rail passenger service called VIA Rail. They call upon
Routine Proceedings
Parliament to maintain VIA Rail, Canada's present national network, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have another group of petitions from citizens in my riding who vehemently object to the manufacturers' sales tax. They do not want a 9 per cent, 8 per cent, 7 per cent, 6 per cent, 5 per cent, or any per cent goods and services tax.
I have petitions signed by 25 visitors to Franchie's Confectionery, 25 visitors to Walsh Variety, 25 visitors to Accents and the Whitefish general store in Nolalu.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 36 regarding a petition against cuts to VIA Rail. It has been approved by the clerk of petitions.
The 27 petitioners call upon the government to maintain VIA Rail, Canada's present national network, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate on passenger service in Canada.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first one is with respect to VIA Rail. It is signed by a number of Canadians, 35 to be exact, who are concerned over the loss of VIA Rail in this country. They are concerned over the fact that VIA Rail cuts are going to cause problems and difficulties for Canadians. They ask the government to reconsider the cuts to VIA Rail.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with respect to agriculture in this country. I have a petition signed by a number of producers from Saskatchewan who are concerned over the removal of oats from the Canadian Wheat Board. They call on this government to reinstate oats under the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to give it and barley the same protection that wheat presently now enjoys.

November 29, 1989
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to present petitions from various places in Canada.
The first petition is in respect of the cut-backs to the CBC. The petitioners, in particular from my riding and from various parts of the interior of the province of British Columbia, 150 to be exact, are somewhat concerned that the government understand that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation plays a vital role in allowing Canadians from all of the vast regions of our country to share experiences. It is crucial to the maintenance of a truly distinctive Canadian society.
They petition the government to restore sufficient funds to the CBC parliamentaiy allocation to allow the corporation to fulfil its historic mandate, and to maintain a distinctive and dynamic public broadcasting system in Canada.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, in addition, I have a petition signed by people from the province of British Columbia in respect of the old age security clawback. These petitioners request Parliament to reject the government's policy to initiate an inequitable and unjust clawback of Old Age Security benefits. They point out that this clawback is a direct threat to the principle of universality which is the core of Canada's social system.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of people from throughout Canada but mostly from Ontario, who petition Parliament to maintain VIA Rail, Canada's national rail network, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present petitions containing some 11,000 signatures. These people are mainly from Alberta, but also from B.C. and Saskatchewan as well.
These petitioners see a distinct danger in future wholesale changes to dress and tradition by allowing turbans and ceremonial daggers to become part of the RCMP uniform. They suspect that other religious or ethnic minorities will then argue for equal rights to incorporate minor or major aberrations resulting in the eventual loss of a distinctive, recognizable and proud tradition.
These petitioners, Your Honour, some 11,000 of them, are humbly praying and calling upon Parliament to preserve the distinctive heritage and tradition of the RCMP by retaining the uniformity of dress code which the RCMP so proudly holds up now.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today to present petitions from my riding of Northumberland which have been duly certified as required. They represent the concerns of many of my constituents with regard to the proposed goods and services tax.
I have spoken personally to many in my riding who represent amateur sports and recreation interests, music and dance, teachers' interests, professional groups' interests, small business groups, seniors and disadvantaged on low and fixed incomes, farmers and ordinary citizens. They ask and appeal that this government repeal any proposed goods and services tax.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to rise today to present two petitions on different subjects. The first points out that since 1984 the government has introduced at least 31 new taxes or tax increases. The latest proposal for a goods and services tax will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle-income Canadians and place an onerous burden on small businesses. The effects will be higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment for Canadians.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax. This petition is signed by over 200 residents, in addition to the petitions I have already tabled.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from a group of petitioners who point out that a pregnant woman has the right to determine the best medical treatment for herself or the
November 29, 1989

foetus she is carrying; that no woman should be penalized for making a decision which she believes furthers her physical and mental health, the health of her children and the health of her family as a whole.
The petitioners urge the government to ensure women equal access to reproductive health care under the Canada Health Act in a way that would be consistent with the equality provisions contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, they oppose any recriminalization of abortion.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I too, as well as my colleagues, stand pursuant to Standing Order 36, with several petitions concerning the goods and services tax. Many people from Essex and Kent counties have signed these petitions objecting to the inflationary costs and the difficulties that they will have when this tax is enforced.
They ask the government to withdraw the tax, and submit that the tax is not good for Canadians.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present petitions from my riding, Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, containing the names and addresses of over 2,200 concerned citizens who express their profound opposition to the proposed goods and services tax.
The citizens have signed the petitions in local business places, such as service stations, retail and manufacturing outlets in places like Mabou, Margaree, Middle River, Cheticamp, Louisdale and Guysborough. They call upon the government to withdraw this unfair tax which will cause serious and undue hardship to low and middle-income Canadians and will impose an onerous burden of administration on small businesses throughout my riding.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty in accordance with Standing Order 36 to present a petition from about 100 residents of many towns in Ontario who are concerned with the government's intention of reducing the VIA Rail service. They point out that it is essential to many small towns and to many elderly people and people of low income.
Routine Proceedings
Therefore, they ask this Parliament to reject any proposed reduction or elimination of VIA Rail services, to modernize the existing equipment so that VIA Rail can provide a world-class service to Canadians and to implement a high-speed passenger train service between Montreal and Windsor.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition, also from several hundred residents of Canada, mostly from Ontario, who are concerned about the goods and services tax. The petitioners point out how unfair it is, particularly to low-income people.
Therefore they call on Parliament to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax, to cancel the tax breaks for rich individuals and corporations, to apply the present tax on goods manufactured in Canada equally to imported manufactured goods, and to reduce the need for a sales tax by reducing the bank interest rate and by increasing employment in useful work.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from residents of Canada who are concerned about the low-level flight training in Goose Bay, Labrador. The petitioners point out that it is driving the aboriginal people out of their homes and driving the local hunting game out of their territories. They ask Parliament to join with the Assembly of First Nations in opposing low-level flight training anywhere in Canada, but especially near Indian reserves, and to oppose the establishment of NATO operations in Canada at places like Goose Bay, to redirect the funding for that to the improvement of the life of Canada's aboriginal people enabling them to regain control of their lands and also to promote sustainable development for all Canadians.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour and privilege to present to this House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, three very large petitions containing the names of over 16,779 concerned citizens from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to preserve the distinctive heritage and tradition of the RCMP by retaining the uniformity of the dress code with all the recognizable colour and trappings that have such great historical value to this country. The pride and

November 29, 1989
Supply
esprit de corps should not be jeopardized by any concessions to religious or ethnic minorities which result in changes to this truly great police force and its proud traditions and uniforms.
These petitions have all been duly certified according to content and form. The the total number of petitioners whose petitions I have presented in this House is well over 120,000 names.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 159 will be answered today.


Mr. Rodriguez: Since November 21,1988, has any Minister of the Crown travelled at public expense and, if so, were the costs assumed by government departments and, if so (a) for each Minister (b) for each member of any accompanying staff (i) on what dates did the travel occur (ii) what was the purpose of the trip (iii) what were the total costs associated with the trip (iv) what percentage of those costs represented the cost of air fare or the use of government aircraft?


Robert René de Cotret: 1. As the President of the Treasury Board stated in the House on October 24,1989, the present practice of reporting Ministerial travel expenses was established by a Cabinet decision in 1963 and has been followed by every successive government.
2.	The travel expenditures for each Minister is reported in Public Accounts for each fiscal year.
3.	Under new guidelines, announced by the President of the Treasury Board in the House of Commons on October 24, the Comptroller General of Canada will make available on a regular basis:
a)	Travel expenses of each Minister;
b)	The number of times that each Minister used the government aircraft;
c)	The date, the itinerary, and the names of all passengers on each trip in a government aircraft;
d)	The reason for the use of the government aircraft;
e)	The cost of the use of the government aircraft.
The Comptroller General has been directed by the President of the Treasury Board to establish this new reporting system as soon as possible.
4.	Regarding the use of government aircraft during the period from November 1988 to August 1989, 220 trips* were made totalling 1,413.2 hours of flight.
'Figures include Prime Minister, all Ministers, Governor General, and visiting Foreign Heads of State.


M. Cooper:: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its insensitivity to the tremendous difficulties being faced by Canada's farmers and other rural Canadians which are the direct result of the government's failure to respond adequately to the pressing and specific needs of Canadian farmers in financial, trade, marketing and other areas, which are creating a dangerous level of anger and frustration, as was seen in the recent massive demonstration by thousands of farmers on Parliament Hill; and further, that the government be condemned for not supporting producer-controlled marketing agencies and boards.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this motion before the House today because it was exactly a week ago yesterday that we saw the largest farm protest rally on Parliament Hill in a decade.
The motion tries to express the feelings of those thousands and thousands of farmers from Ontario and

Quebec who are extremely concerned with where the government is going with its trade policies, with its income support policies and with its farm programs.
We only have to look at the press clippings from last Wednesday, exactly a week ago, to see the incredible concern that is expressed. I look at a clipping from The Toronto Star which reads, "Quit harming agriculture Tories told". It shows a picture of effigies of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister which were subsequently burned on the lawns of Parliament. It points out the views of the president of the Quebec farmers, the UPA group, who stated that the government is bargaining away farm support schemes and subsidies in international trade.
The article goes on to state, "Farmers say the government is adopting an American view at General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade talks by calling for the removal of agricultural market controls." It goes on to state, "As a kite depicting an American eagle clutching a pig hovered over his head," the Deputy Prime Minister spoke.
That protest rally is just the tip of the iceberg. Farm groups across the country feel betrayed, especially in light of the policies which the government has adopted in the past year.
You will recall that during the free trade debate the Prime Minister was interviewed by The Wall Street Journal on April 3, 1987. Fie said, "U.S. trade remedy laws cannot apply to Canada, period".
He went on to say in that same interview, "You can't have a free trade arrangement and expect the traditional laws of countervail to apply".
Those words spoken by the Prime Minister were echoed as well by the Minister for International Trade in July of 1987 when he spoke at the St. John's Board of Trade meeting. He said, "Unless we get out from under the threat of countervail and other U.S. trade remedy laws and unless there is an effective dispute settlement resolution to bind the Americans to their commitments, a free trade agreement with the United States would not be a good deal for Canada".
That is the kind of commitment which farmers felt had been made on their behalf. Of course, no such commitment was made. We only have to look at the Canadian pork producers who have had imposed since early September a countervail of 3.6 cents a pound, or eight cents a kilo, on pork coming from Canada.
Supply
The distressing part is that it was not imposed because of some pre-existing law, it was imposed because the Americans changed the law after they signed the free trade deal, after they implemented the legislation for the free trade deal. They immediately passed an amendment to their countervail law which enabled them to launch a countervail duty case against pork, as had been done with hogs for the past year and a half.
Surely everybody, even the people on this side of the House, thought that when we signed the free trade deal, we were in a free trade area and that there was going to be some good will, an understanding that there would be less adversarial kind of activity. Yet Congress passed legislation to extend the countervail duty law.
I think people were concerned that the government did not appeal it. It did not go to the GATT when those amendments to the countervail duty law were passed over a year ago. So we have a situation now where beyond the countervail duty which applies to pork, which has been in place since about 1985, we have a new countervail on hogs. However, we expect that within the next year, in March sometime, there will be a review of the subsidy levels in Canada. The tripartite hog stabilization program has been singled out, and countervail duty on pork which is 3.6 cents a pound now may well become 11 cents or 12 cents a pound later. We had a situation where the pork processing plants in this country said, "Look, if we are going to have a retroactive countervail imposed on us of that magnitude, we are going to stop sending pork to the United States". The Canadian Pork Council had to take the initiative of imposing a $2 per hog levy for every hog marketed in this country, whether it is consumed in Canada, or whether it is consumed in Japan or other importing countries from Canada.
In effect, the only way that we are going to get access to the U.S. market that the Prime Minister promised he would deliver-for the 25 per cent or so of Canadian hogs that go to the United States-is to impose a levy of $2 on every hog sold in the country. That is what it costs under the FTA, or the CUSTA, which is the new name. I think the government was just so embarrassed by having something called an FTA, a free trade agreement, that it changed it to Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement. Obviously, if pork producers in this country have to buy access by paying $2 for every hog marketed, it does not sound very free to them. That is one of the tremendous concerns which has been expressed by the UPA, by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and by the representatives

Supply
from New Brunswick who were here a week ago yesterday.
Just as important was the concern expressed by the UPA and the OFA in regard to the situation of the dairy industry. A year ago last January the Minister of Agriculture said that there was no problem with the tariff being reduced under the free trade deal for processed agriculture products, such as yoghurt and ice-cream, because he was going to put them over on to the import control list. I think most farmers in the country believed that there was some security in what he was doing, but in fact there was none.
It is obvious now and it was pretty obvious at the time that there was no agreement with the Americans to accept that kind of an import control on yoghurt and ice cream. Immediately those import controls were imposed in late December of last year the United States Government demanded a GATT panel. That panel reviewed the situation and struck down the placing of import controls on yoghurt and ice-cream, as well as a half dozen other novelty dairy products.
This is perhaps the most damaging part of the whole free trade fiasco, as I would call it. The government has not accepted the decision by the GATT panel, but I am sure if the Deputy Prime Minister wanted to be totally honest he would admit that within a week the government will accept it but perhaps not implement it for a year. That decision states that import controls under Article 11 of the GATT can only be applied to raw, unprocessed agriculture commodities such as milk. That decision, to me, means that if the kind of import controls we are talking about can be placed on milk, they can be placed on 2 per cent milk, on chocolate milk and perhaps even buttermilk, something that can be drunk, but not on something like yoghurt, ice-cream, cheese, butter or skim milk powder which are processed products.
That is the kind of thing that drives the OFA, the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, the UPA-every supply management producer in this country-wild. Because if it applies only to yoghurt and ice-cream, then it applies to all these other commodities. In the dairy industry we
are talking about 60 per cent of our production, that is all the industrially produced processed milk.
Clearly, the government deceived Canadian farmers when it said that their supply management systems were protected. The minister says we want to negotiate a better description of Article 11, and I am sure that he does. I do not know of any Canadian who is interested in supply management in the agriculture industry who does not. But I think we should look back at those negotiations because it was not as if this decision by the GATT panel came out of the air in September. It was a deliberate decision by the United States. This comes back to the whole question of whether there is any goodwill in the free trade deal. I maintain there is not any. You have to look across the whole range of products, but as far as I can see there has been no great outpouring of such in agriculture or in other commodities for trade.
The Government of Canada through the Department of Agriculture negotiated all summer trying to get the Americans to accept a larger quota. I think our quota was set at something like 340 tonnes or so. The government offered to go to around to 1,000 or 1,500, but the Americans were not buying. Clearly, that is not going to be a decision that will be easily overturned.
I have a copy of a speech that was given just today by the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food who was speaking to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. He has just returned from meetings with the United States minister of agriculture, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary for Trade. In his speech to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in Toronto today he said that according to Ambassador Hills every internal domestic program has to be on the table. They object to any system that restricts a market, and at present they see U.S. farmers as having no opportunity to put their milk into Ontario.
He went on to say that the Americans are determined to aggressively access our market. The Milk Industry Foundation is particularly unabashed in stating that they want our market.
Clearly, from the negotiations that went on last summer, the United States is absolutely determined that it will have full access to the Canadian market. Clearly,
November 29, 1989

no provision was made for this in the free trade deal, and the results will be devastating for our supply management. What applies to the dairy industry could well apply to the poultry industry as well.
Those are two of the major concerns which the 10,000 or 12,000 farmers from across Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick were expressing to members of Parliament and to the government a week ago yesterday.
Another great concern is that we are part of two trading groups negotiating at the GATT. One is our Canada-U.S. CUSTA free trade group. Unfortunately, as I have already said, they do not agree with our position. They want to have full access. They want to get rid of our supply-management system. They have always been open about that, but it was up to our government in negotiating the CUSTA agreement to ensure that.
The second group of which we are a part is the Cairns group. Clearly from the statements made by the Australians and some others in the Cairns Group they likewise are opposed to our position. How strong can our position be? I will not say that there are no supporting countries, because I hope some of the Scandinavian and some of the European countries will support us in the GATT to strengthen our position with regard to Article 11, and hopefully to recover what has been lost in the GATT panel decision.
We have to be especially concerned when the two trading groups that we are going to the GATT with, the Americans and the Cairns Group, are opposed to our position. One sometimes wonders whether the position that the minister puts here in the House of Commons is exactly the position that he is putting in the Cairns Group, or that the Minister for International Trade or our negotiators are putting.
An article in the October 27 edition of The Globe and Mail quoted a federal agricultural trade official who stated, when talking about the GATT negotiations, that the division in the agricultural community over supply-management has caused Canadian negotiators to adopt a Jekyll and Hyde approach at the multilateral trade negotiations.
Supply
As the Australians say, we speak with a forked tongue on these issues. When officials in the Department of Agriculture are saying that, we tend to become nervous. We like what the minister is saying here, that he wants to maintain supply management, but we are concerned with the position he has been put in, not only by the free trade deal which did not secure the import control side, but because of the removal of the tariffs our whole food processing industry is putting great pressure on our supply management system as well.
Those are two very important issues that the thousands and thousands of farmers on the lawns of Parliament were concerned with.
The third issue which is very important is the fact that the government is making dramatic cut-backs in its farm support programs. The minister talks about the billions and billions of dollars, but what the farmers are concerned about is the $500 million that he cut back last spring. There is no western grain stabilization payment. There is no special grains program.
Clearly, the government did not make adequate provision in the free trade deal for marketing boards. They are in the greatest jeopardy they have ever felt. Pork producers are being saddled with a $2 fee just to buy access to the U.S. market. Our support programs are being unilaterally dismantled, while some time during the next five or six years we supposedly will be negotiating a subsidy code. Our Durum wheat producers are being threatened with a countervail.
Never in my memory has the viability of Canadian agriculture been so threatened as it has been this past year by the government's actions and lack of action.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our critic on agriculture for leading off this debate with some very insightful comments on Canadian farming.
I was wondering if I could ask him a question dealing with some particular problems in the west. As he knows full well, because of his research and his consultations throughout the Canadian agricultural community, there has been a tremendous amount of debt created by the current policies of this government.

November 29, 1989
Supply
The Minister of Agriculture is very fond of coming to us and telling us how much more money he is spending each year in the west. He never tells us the number of farmers who are going broke and increasing debt load.
For example, there has been a 48 per cent increase in foreclosures in Manitoba in the last seven months. That comes before the tough season, the November to May season when farmers really get into a lot of difficulty. There are 108 foreclosures that have been initiated in the last few weeks in Manitoba alone. This sort of activity is what makes the Manitoba farmer so insecure under the present regime.
We have a minister responsible for the Wheat Board in our province and a Minister of Agriculture from the west. They seem to have walked away from the problems in our region and do not respond to the farmers when they are going through this debt crisis. It is anticipated that this is just the beginning and that Manitoba is headed for a very, very trying year.
I wonder if our critic could respond and comment as to whether or not there is any hope under the present policy. Is there any hope under the new policy given to us by the Minister of Agriculture a few weeks ago and can we expect the farmers to receive any more help? I am not very optimistic, and I was wondering if he is.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is impossible to say what the government is going to do. It is capable of doing anything, as I outlined in my earlier remarks. Clearly the direction seems to be, if you read the document "Freedom to Grow" or "Growing Together" or freedom to go, as some people call it, that the whole mood is toward reducing government expenditures.
If you look at the budget of the Minister of Finance last spring, the only comment with regard to the Farm Credit Corporation was to remove the commodity-based mortgage which did provide some concessional funding.
The agriculture committee of the House of Commons did a major report in the spring of 1988. It put forward a number of innovative and worth-while suggestions about directions we might take to improve the farm debt situation. In the Speech from the Throne, in the budget, in the Minister's statement, there was no mention or
specific proposal with regard to how the government might provide new and innovative arrangements.
Many other programs were cut, and there were about seven or eight in the budget. For example, the advance payment which we fought very hard to save provided farmers with very worth-while cash flow assistance, perhaps only for three or four months, or in some cases for six months or a year, but it provided interest-free cash advances which were very important. That is going to cause very great pressure this winter. I do not think the farm debt crisis is over. The report of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities states that the number of farms that have been taken over by municipalities or are being attached by municipalities is growing at an alarming rate.
Garth Stevenson, president of the Saskatchewan Pool, states that farmers are going to require assistance in the magnitude of $500 million before cropping time next spring. Clearly there is financial assistance needed. It is being cut back unilaterally, even though our American counterparts are continuing their new farm bill. All reports say that it is going to be as generous and supportive as the 1985 farm bill. Yet, we are cutting back many programs on a unilateral basis.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Algoma for bringing forth this motion. While I do not agree with it, it does provide an opportunity to outline some of the things this government has done for agriculture, the tremendous record of support that this government has had with respect to agriculture and also to outline some of the things that we propose to do in the future, a new vision and some new directions.
I am disappointed that the hon. member did not propose anything new. It is basically the same old litany of gloom and doom and a repetition of what we have heard before. He ignores in his comments the reality of trade laws, the reality of GATT rules, the reality of what the free trade agreement really is and that trade remedies apply equally to all participating countries.
We get the impression that the Liberals are still fighting the last election. They attempt to strike fear and anxiety into the hearts and minds of the producers. Every problem that arises with respect to agriculture is blamed on the free trade agreement. That reminds me of the
November 29, 1989

statement that was made by the former finance critic, the hon. member for Etobicoke North, I believe, when he said something to the effect that every sparrow that falls is going to be blamed on the Canada-U.S. trade agreement.
The hon. member also said that we are part of two negotiating groups, the Canada-U.S. negotiating group and the Cairns Group. I do not know where he got that nonsense. We are part of the Cairns Group and we certainly support many of the objectives of the Cairns Group because it does provide us with an opportunity to deal with the debilitating situation that has affected our export-oriented agriculture industry. But we have carved out our own position and that was clearly outlined in a comment made by the Australian trade minister, Mr. Duffy, when he told local journalists that Canada's insistence on maintaining protection for its dairy industry could be a problem in reaching a final consensus.
As we heard from the Minister for International Trade today, Canada has staked out a very clear position with respect to Article 11, with respect to supply-management systems and the fact that we intend to pursue this issue in an attempt to clarify and strengthen Article 11, something which the hon. members opposite forbid us to do. They have suggested not touching Article 11 because we are going to tamper with it. Now they are saying that we have to do something about it. That has always been our position, to clarify and strengthen, because we foresaw some of the difficulties that came down with respect to the ice cream and yoghurt decision.
The motion condemns the government for its insensitivity to the difficulties facing Canada's farmers. I will be the first one to acknowledge that there are problems in the agriculture industry. There always have been problems in the agriculture industry and there probably always will be in some area or another. I will acknowledge the difficulties that the grain and oilseed sector has gone through with depressed prices as a result of the trade war between the United States and the European community with its common agricultural policy, the United States with its Export Enhancement Program, and of course Canada was caught in the cross-fire. We saw incomes drop from an average of $2.4 billion in
Supply
market receipts in that period 1981-84 to a low of $475 million in 1987, which is a drop of about 75 per cent.
It was for that reason that the Prime Minister provided the leadership in bringing this issue before the GATT. We could not withstand this debilitating exercise that was destroying our farmers and also placing a very heavy burden on the federal treasury. It was because of the Prime Minister's leadership that we were able to raise the agriculture issue to the top of the agenda at the GATT proceedings. That is really, in the final analysis, the only long-term solution to this very serious problem.
We have to recognize that 50 per cent of our agriculture receipts come from the export market. We must restore order in the international market-place if our industry is going to survive. That is very fundamental and very basic, and hon. members opposite tend to forget that.
In this particular case, because of the debilitating impact that the trade war had upon the grains and oilseeds sector, we did respond. We responded in an unprecedented fashion. I will get into that a little later.
We also had a drought situation that was as serious or perhaps more serious, and statistics will bear me out on this, as it was during the dirty thirties in terms of precipitation and in terms of the extent of heat. Over the last four-year period, as recorded at our stations in Swift Current and in Lethbridge, precipitation was less and the intensity of the heat was greater. We have also had other disasters. In other areas we have had floods. In other areas we have had grasshoppers. You name it, and they have been afflicted with it. On each and every one of these occasions this government has responded.
With respect to the drought in 1988-1989, a $850 million program was initiated with some sharing from the provinces. Most of the cheques have been mailed out. Some are still in the process of being mailed out. There are still some appeals left to be settled. It is very difficult to design these programs to ensure that there is fairness and equity right across the board. I challenge hon. members opposite to consider that. We tried to devise a program in consultation with the agriculture community with representatives of the various farm organizations, and it is not as easy as one would like. There are always areas of unfairness and discrimination and inequities. That is why we want to try to bring about

November 29, 1989
Supply
substantive change to our crop insurance programs and our safety net programs so that we can better deal in a more fair and equitable manner with these.
In 1984 and 1985 there was $200 million provided for drought. In 1988, $100 million for drought.
The hon. member across the way mentioned the Special Canadian Grains Program, $2.1 billion was paid out in lieu of the trade war to try to meet that gap, that deficiency between what we considered to be a fair market value, as compared to what the producers received in the grains and oilseeds sector, $2.1 billion. In addition to that, some $300 million in losses were covered in the Canadian Wheat Board account.
Under the Western Grain Stabilization program, some $4 billion was paid out over 1985-1989, and the vast majority of that money was provided for by the federal government. There were record payments under the Agricultural Stabilization Program. With respect to crop insurance, about $200 million annually is paid by the federal government. The Crop Re-insurance program has cost the federal government something in the order of $700 million over the last three or four years.
In addition, there were special Farm Credit Corporation programs such as moratoriums, shared risk mortgages, and other initiatives and innovative programs to reduce interest rates. During this period of time in the last four or five years we have had some of the lowest rates we have had in five years.
We injected $600 million of new equity into the Farm Credit Program. In other words, we transferred debt into equity. We came forth with a rural transition program. We established Farm Debt Review Boards. I must say this has been a very successful initiative, because for something in the order of 77 to 80 per cent of the people who came before the Farm Debt Review Boards, while there have been difficulties in this particular area, there have been satisfactory arrangements made to provide ways and means where they may stay on the farm and maintain farming as a lifestyle. There have been over 10,000 applications under this program; some $360 million has been provided. Basically, through practical common sense, we have been able to bring the creditors
and the farmer together in such a way that they have been able to sort out their difficulties.
Farm credit arrears have been reduced by about 50 per cent. Fuel price relief was provided at $200 million per year. Under the Western Grain Transportation Act, freight rate relief was provided. We provided a stabilization program for red meats and additional livestock feed assistance for the Atlantic region was provided.
We provided help for the tobacco farmers. Some $62 million has been committed for that program. We provided help for the apple growers, a $6 million stabilization fund, and initiated a countervail against the cheap imports coming in from the United States. We provided help for the grape growers in terms of their adjustment, a $128 million program. We provided help for the sour cherry industry, again another countervail action by Canada.
We helped the onion sector, again another countervail action by Canada. We provided assistance to the potato industry, again another countervail action against cheap imports coming into the country. We provided help for the com producers, again through the actions of a countervail. We are providing help for the pork producers, both in terms of fighting a countervail action and in terms of providing food relief in the form of pork products to Poland.
There have been agri-food subagreements signed with literally every province. There may be one or two that are still in the final stages of negotiation, but basically there have been programs in place and programs renewed.
The federal-provincial soil conservation programs have been signed with most of the provinces. There may be one or two that are still remaining. When that is completed, that will constitute a $150 million joint shared program.
We provided assistance to the honey producers. We provided assistance to the white bean producers. We have helped the dairy producers in their price adjustments. We are defending their interests at the GATT. We established a long-term five-year dairy policy, something that the Liberals never thought of, never dreamed of. They left the dairy farmers hanging in thin air from

year to year. Again, we established a dairy task force to help deal with all the problems that exist with regard to trade negotiations and pricing, et cetera.
We defended the beef producers against subsidized imports from the European Community. Again, with respect to the poultry industry, we are establishing a task force so that they can take full advantage in exploiting the market opportunities and adjusting their production patterns to ensure that that industry can grow.
There have been industries that have gone through painful adjustments such as the tobacco industry, the grape industry, the honey industry and the Canola producing industry.
However, Mr. Speaker, this so-called insensitive government provided unprecedented support for agriculture since it has been in office. If you look at the Public Accounts of Canada you will find that very clear between the years 1984-85 and 1987-88. In the 1984-85 fiscal year, $3,224.8 million; 1985-86, $3,210.1 million; 1986-87, $4,501.9 million; 1987-88, $6,124.4 million; 1988-89, $4.6 billion, a total of $21,700 million, well in excess of $4 billion a year, compared to about $2 billion under the previous administration.
If we look at the grain and oilseeds industry, we find that in the period 1981-84 the federal government of the day provided about $350 million in support. In that period, 1984-85 to 1988-89, some $11.7 billion, almost $12 billion, has been provided, or an average of $2.3 billion per year, as compared to $350 million per year under the Liberals.
That is what this insensitive government has done. This insensitive government has provided major increases in net farm income. Under the Liberals, net farm income averaged $3.7 billion annually between the period 1981-84. Under our government, farm income reached $5.2 billion in 1988 on the basis of preliminary statistics. That average between 1985 and 1988 is $4.5 billion. That is a 25 per cent increase over the period 1981 and 1984 when the Liberals were in office.
Under the Liberals, the agriculture industry was stagnant. It was depressed. It was despondent. There was human misery. The industry was troubled, but no one listened, no one cared. Farm bankruptcies, to answer my hon. friend from Winnipeg, achieved an all-time high in 1984 of 551 bankruptcies.
Supply


David Walker: The year you took over.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, that is the mess we took over then, as we took over the mess of debt that we inherited from the Liberal party as well.
Farm bankruptcies have been reduced by some 50 per cent. Projected bankruptcies are at a level of 240 this year, still too high.
However, Mr. Speaker, the 551 bankruptcies were simply the tip of the iceberg because there were many other farmers who voluntarily left the farm or were foreclosed. It does not tell the whole story about the human misery that that government and party inflicted upon the farmers: 23 per cent and 24 per cent interest rates; 13 per cent and 14 per cent inflation; land values soared, and when they dropped there was a problem. Money was easy to get, and 97 per cent of the people who found themselves in financial difficulty traced their problems right back to that period.
It is the same thing that the Liberals did when the leader of their party said: "Why should I sell your wheat?". Well, we provided leadership to the Canadian Wheat Board. Wheat sales increased from 17 per cent to 22 per cent. It is slipping somewhat because of the drought situation, but nonetheless we demonstrated that we were interested in selling farmers' wheat.
In the livestock industry, receipts have been up by about 10 per cent. Exports are up from $620 million in 1981 to $1 billion in 1988. It is interesting to note that while these people across the way badmouth the Americans, 95 per cent of our exports of cattle go to the United States, and 93 per cent of our fresh and frozen beef and veal exports go to the United States of America. We have taken our agriculture trade balance from $2.8 billion in 1985 to $4 billion in 1988.
There are many more opportunities. The bilateral trade agreement provides many opportunities in Ontario, western Canada and in Quebec. I will quote a couple of headlines: "Fruitbelt Reaps FTA Profit". We know as well that in terms of the vegetable industry, there is an expectation that the demand for vegetables shipped to the United States will increase by some 80 per cent.
The Ontario wine producers: "Woo Upscale New York Citizens. Roll over Bordeaux and California, the Niagara region of Ontario is breaking into the New York wine

November 29, 1989
Supply
market". This clearly establishes that they can compete with the best in the world.
Here is another headline from the Calgary Herald. "Huge U.S. Market Offers Big Gains". In an article from the World of Beef in September, a Bank of Montreal senior economist says: "The FTA is the best assurance we can get against sideswiped protectionism". It goes on to say that the market-driven economies of most industrialized countries position Canada very well in terms of taking advantage of new trading opportunities. Food processing investment is up by 15 per cent over the previous year. With the GST, that situation will improve further still.
The hon. member for Algoma quoted the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Ontario. I was interested in noting as well, as reported in the Globe and Mail of November 27, 1989, this minister stated: "Canadian farmers are going to have to realize that farming is a business, so we are going to have to be flexible, we are going to have to adapt to the globalization, the liberalization of trade".
I think that is a very important observation because it is the reality of the situation. The world is changing out there. New trading patterns are developing and political revolutions are ongoing.
The European Community, for example, has increased its yield in grain and oilseeds by 100 per cent since the 1950s and the 1960s, at which time it was the largest importer of grain. Today it is the third largest exporter.
It is also interesting to note that Japan has become Canada's top grain buyer. The United States has become our most important customer for agricultural products including grain. In 1986 our exports of grain and oilseeds to the United States was $388 million versus $514 million. In terms of tonnes, 1,175,000 tonnes in 1986; 1,733,600 tonnes in 1988. There are markets of which we must take advantage.
This is why it is incumbent upon us to review our agricultural policies and programs. We have put our agricultural programs and policies to the supreme test with the turbulent years we have just gone through. It is important and it is wise to evaluate them.
We see the changing political landscape, particularly in the eastern European countries. We see changing trading patterns. We see changing demands and consumer habits. We see the enhancement of further technology. We a see new emphasis on food safety and on environmental considerations. It is only natural that we have to evaluate our programs.
We do so with the approach of offering hope and optimism for the future and eager to tackle the challenges of change. One thing is a constant about agriculture: change has been constant from day one. We have been successful as an agricultural community because we have been able to adapt to change.
If we are to maintain our leadership and our leading edge in the agriculture communities of the world, we must adapt to change. We must be more responsive to consumer needs. We must be more market oriented. We must take advantage of the changing trade environment. We must take advantage of the changing political scene. It is for these reasons that we must seek to devise the best programs and policies in consultation with the agriculture community, with consumers and with everyone in the food chain to engage in the most comprehensive review that has ever been embarked upon by this government.
This initiative speaks to the future, not to the past. It speaks to opportunity and success, not to failure. It is about building confidence. It is about providing the appropriate tools. It is about leadership. It is about vision and it is about new direction. It is about talking about our strengths. It is about taking stock of what we have and what we need. It is about building for the future and building an agricultural industry that is sound, that is viable, that is durable.
I invite all hon. members to assist in that challenge because to ciy gloom and doom without offering anything positive or constructive is not the way farmers will respond to the reality of the situation. Farmers will tackle the challenge and will turn that challenge into an opportunity. That is what we are talking about here. Let us not turn the clock back; let us turn it ahead. We give you the opportunity to participate in that process.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I have some comments I want to make at this point. First of all I would like to put into correct context a statement he attributed to a former Prime Minister.


"Why should I sell your wheat?", is not the whole statement that was made. He said: "Why should I sell your wheat? You already have two government agencies selling your wheat for you. I couldn't sell it if I wanted to. I do not have the jurisdiction to do that."
The jurisdiction was with the Canadian Wheat Board and the other government marketing agencies.
I must also take the minister to task a bit because he indicated that farm income was up. Does that farm income include, for example, the off-farm income that is so essential to the effective operation of a farm today when the farmer himself and probably his wife have to go out and take a job?
I would also like to draw to his attention that it was in the last quarter of 1984 that grain prices dropped dramatically. Consequently it was under his administration. Certainly there should have been some compensation to producers when this happened.
I would also like to point out that there were droughts in 1985, 1987 and 1988 in many areas of Canada. As a result of those droughts as much as anything, a lot of farmers find themselves in difficult financial situations.
I had a phone call from one farmer from Saskatchewan just last week. The minister talks about the great policies of the government. I want to just to draw to the attention of the House one of those policies. Under this policy- and I believe it must have been a commodity based loan-a farmer had taken out a mortgage a few years ago. He has made 65 consecutive monthly payments on that mortgage and never missed one. Now his principal is actually more than it was at the start.
That is the kind of program we have had from this government and that is why that program was discontinued last summer.
A neighbour came to me in frustration last winter because it was suggested to him by the Farm Credit Corporation that he should take out a commodity based loan. By running all the figures through his computer, going back to 1972, using monthly records of prices of grain, corn, wheat and soybeans, and forecasting to the year 2008, he found it simply would not work. This is the type of program we have seen.
I am very disappointed. I have asked on a couple of occasions for a directive from the Farm Credit Corpora-
Supply
tion to the government in order that we could have a look at it. I was assured by the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation back in late September or early October that I would get it, but I have not received it.
When I look at page 5 of the corporate plan, I read: "The acquisition of properties is expected to increase over the next three years". It goes on: "The inventory of real properties will increase dramatically over the short term". Still further I read: "Collections, recovery actions, debt review actions, debt review process, property management and marketing will continue to exceed the available staff".
This is not quite the same glowing picture that we heard about just a few minutes ago. In fact there were more properties on hand at the time the annual report was tabled than there were actual loans made last year. If the 702 staff members of the Farm Credit Corporation each made two loans a year, it would have been the total that was actually made under the Farm Credit Corporation.
There are actually more properties on hand, and I am very disturbed that this sort of thing would happen. When we look at the Farm Credit Corporation Act, Section ll(l)(e) states that it is intended that concessions and moratoriums or rewriting of mortgages, compositions, schemes, and arrangements can be made under the objects and powers of the act. It states that the corporation may do these various things. Consequently, that is the responsibility of the government in power when we come through three years of drought and difficult times and particularly the low prices that occurred shortly after it came to office. I am sure it must have been the steady hand of the previous Minister of Agriculture, the tiller of the agricultural sector, that kept things up where they were. Immediately this government came to power, look what happened. Everything started to fall apart.
There are also some other things that I am very concerned about. We talk about the restructured cases that come through the Farm Debt Review Board's reports. I think there are some 2,000. How many of these cases have actually been restructured? What is the average land base by province left owned by the farmer in these cases? Are they actually viable units, or have farmers been stripped of their land base and of their assets? Can they make a living on these farms?

November 29, 1989
Supply
We estimate that perhaps as many as 15 per cent or 20 per cent of cases are not getting restructured type concessions. We believe that the land base being left to these people is very, very small. What we have is the Farm Credit Corporation recycling these concessions back into its own corporation.
Another thing that concerns me very deeply is the fact that about 17 per cent of the Farm Credit Corporation accounts in Ontario are in arrears. Of greater significance is the province of Saskatchewan where about 47 per cent of the cases are in serious arrears.
I would call on the government today to take positive steps, to look at the hardships being created across this nation, and to step in with even more funding at the present time to make the agricultural industry an economic industry with a standard of living commensurate with that of the rest of society, rather than having to face the hardships that are being forced on the people today.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made representations more than asked questions, but I will comment on the reference that he made to the Farm Credit Corporation properties on hand.
This is a direct result of the Farm Credit Corporation sitting down with the farmer and working out an arrangement where he could stay on the land and re-establish himself. He is taking issue with that, and I suppose by taking issue with it he is suggesting that we should unload this property at fire sale prices and kick the farmers off the land. Maybe that is the policy of the Liberal party. It is certainly not our policy.
We have tried with the help of the Farm Debt Review Board to work with farmers to provide extreme latitude and accommodation through the farm debt review process, properly funded. I think the losses that the Farm Credit Corporation has endured as a result of the high interest rate policy of the former government of which he was a member was something in the order of $1.3 billion. That is what happens when you let interest rates go to 23 and 24 per cent and let inflation go to 13 and 14 per cent.
What really strikes me rather funny is that they would want us to do the same thing again. We know that there are inflationary problems in this country. We are trying to deal with that as best we can, in a balanced way. When I hear the representations across the way, if we followed
their advice we would end up in the same situation as we did in the 1981-82 period when we saw those soaring interest rates.
The reason the Farm Credit Corporation has land and inventory is that it worked out lease arrangements and other arrangements with the producers who have found themselves in difficulty. There has been an attempt to keep them there, to accommodate them, and to work with them during this very difficult period.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister made quite a few comments with respect to how much his government has done for agriculture. Despite that, there is no doubt that there is a lot of concern in rural Canada over the future of agriculture.
I would like to ask the minister a question with respect to transportation. As the minister will know, there is about to be or will be soon some rationalization on rail lines. That is a nice word for saying abandonment.
Some studies have been done with respect to rail abandonments. Certainly in my own riding there is a rail line known as the Central Butte branch line subdivision which was studied by the senior grain transportation committee. The result of that study recommended not to have it abandoned nor to have it retained. The committee indicated that it was a marginal line and perhaps, if it had more goods carried on that line, it would become more viable.
As the minister will be aware there are some major irrigation projects taking place on the South Saskatchewan River near Riverhurst, which presumably is going to increase production in that area. There are some farmers, as the minister indicated, who are taking the initiative. They are attempting to take the opportunity to create some more wealth and jobs in that area. They want to create an alfalfa plant. They have looked at investors, conducted studies and produced reports. However one of their concerns is the future of the rail line in that area. If the rail line is gone then the alfalfa plant is going to be no good. Their concern is the future of that line.
These people have gone to a lot of work. There are two spokespersons for them: Gordon Kent who is an agricultural engineer and Art Heshey who is a consultant for Heshey Management. As spokespeople for the Riverhurst Water Users Association they are prepared to spend their own money to come to Ottawa to put their case before the minister. If the minister will find some time to meet with them, whether it be a half hour or an
November 29, 1989

hour sometime before Christmas or at any other time, they would certainly be glad to meet him.
These farmers in Saskatchewan are trying to take agriculture in a new direction. If the minister will have time to hear them, I would certainly assist his office in helping to arrange this appointment and this meeting. Perhaps the minister could find the time in the near future.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the issue of branch lines is one that has always been very sensitive and has involved a lot of emotion.
At the same time because of the way the freight rate structure is applied now, because of the fact that many of the branch lines are the most expensive lines to operate in terms of cost benefit, and because the costs of those lines under the new freight rate formula apply to the total system for which all farmers end up having to pay, we endeavour to try to find the most efficient transportation system available for that purpose.
As a result we have used off-line elevator systems where you build a new elevator facility and the grain is trucked. That has reduced the costs rather substantially. There are short line operations, one of which is operating in the province of Alberta and has reduced line operating costs.
I am not totally familiar with the subdivision the hon. member refers to. It is called the Central Butte subdivision. I certainly would be pleased to make representations to the Minister of Transport. As he knows, this falls within the domain of the Minister of Transport. I would be pleased to make representations to him and also attempt to see whether we could arrange a suitable time for his people to meet with him. I think if he were to meet with the Minister of Transport it would probably be very useful. I would try to arrange that.
If I cannot arrange it I would be pleased to meet with him. Perhaps his office wants to contact my office. Hopefully, we could arrange a suitable time and place for that to occur. It may not even be necessary for them to come to Ottawa. Perhaps I could meet them in western Canada, but the hon. member is certainly free to
Supply
contact my office. I would be glad to accommodate in any way I can.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, despite the programs and the statements made by the minister with respect to agriculture in this country, I think it is very fair to say that it is clearly in serious difficulty.
To see that one need only look at figures from Statistics Canada. The number of farms in Canada is now well below 300,000, down significantly from even 10 years ago. Average sales for a Canadian farm in 1986 were some $71,000 while expenses were some $60,000. Over the past three years that $11,000 gap has in fact narrowed.
It is not surprising that the number of days worked off the farm continues to increase all the time from 148 in 1960 to 173 in 1985. The fact that there are fewer farmers with less money to spend means more pressure is placed on businesses and services in rural communities, which in turn results in a rural infrastructure that indeed is very fragile.
What is this government doing to reverse this unfortunate trend? When it comes to rhetoric the government is very good. In fact, it should receive an A-plus. The tragic fact is that that is all there is: rhetoric.
While the Progressive Conservatives espouse viable family farms, in practice they are promoting huge, corporate and industrial farms.
This lack of concern for the family farm is clear when one looks at some of the policies and programs the government has implemented.
The removal of oats from the Canadian Wheat Board proved to western Canadians that although the government may claim to consult with interested groups, it simply does not. The government said that it did extensive consultation with Canadians before removing oats. When asked in the House the Minister of Agriculture had the nerve to state that he had consulted with such groups as the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission, various hog marketing boards, and various cattlemen's associations. These groups obviously had nothing to do with the production of oats. They did have one thing in

Supply
common; they happened to agree with the government's position on the oats issue.
What the minister failed to say was that the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool all opposed the government's removal of oats. As well a Decima poll, which is the same company that does polling for the Conservative party, concluded that two-thirds of farmers in western Canada wanted oats to remain under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and three-quarters of farmers felt that they simply had not been consulted by the PC government.
Another group that was consulted, a group that the minister and others of his government are not apt to mention when discussing issues such as this one, was the international grain companies: Cargill, Continental and Elders. While the government sought no advice from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the advisory committee or others directly involved with the farm issue and actually growing oats in this country, it saw fit to consult with international grain traders. These companies have about as much concern for the future of family farms as does Burger King for the continued success of McDonald's.
A second program is the cash advance program. The idea behind the cash advance program was to help the family farmer receive an interest-free advance on his crop before he had an opportunity to take it to market. The government not only added an interest component to this program but increased the maximum amount that could be borrowed to $250,000.
Speaking on behalf of grain farmers from western Canada, one must either have an extremely good crop or have an awfully large farm in order to be able to borrow the $250,000 allowed under this program. The only advantage under this new program is to the very large farming operations.
I would ask this government to provide a list of those groups that have traditionally participated in this program and that support this change. Perhaps it consulted its traditional list, which includes the Canola growers, the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission, the Hog Marketing Boards and the Cattlemen's Association.
Another program that has been put on the block is the At and East program. This is a program that impacts directly on the maritimes. At and East is a program that encourages grain and flour to be exported from the ports of Halifax and St. John. If that program is cut, it is certain that the grain facilities at St. John will close and very much jeopardize those grain facilities at Halifax. It will also put an increased pressure on Dover Flour Mills, the only flour mill in the maritimes.
The loss of the program which subsidizes grain and flour movement to those ports will be a major blow to both these communities. In Halifax, the city will lose annual income of some $16 million and several hundred employees will be laid off or have their hours drastically cut. These would include, train crews, longshoremen, stevedores and maintenance workers. It is something which Halifax can ill afford.
I am informed by Dover Mills that it will be completely and effectively moved from the private flour export market and will simply have to rely on government groups like CIDA for its export markets. Since the cost of transporting the flour will increase, and since these agencies are on a fixed budget, they will actually purchase less flour, which will hurt not only Dover Flour Mills but other mills throughout the country which produce this flour.
The port of St. John will lose some $8.5 million that presently flows into its economy and hundreds of workers will be affected. This is all because the government refused to listen to the Atlantic Transportation Committee which some four years ago proposed a new format for the At and East program that would save the government at least half the cost of that program.
This government, the government that consults with Canadians to promote a better Canadian society, refused to even consider the proposal put forth by the Atlantic Transportation Committee. Instead it simply cut the program.
It is the same government that refused to listen to the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board, to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture when considering whether or not to remove oats from the Canadian Wheat Board.
Instead it chose to consult with groups such as the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission. It is the same government that has cut this program. I wonder if it

consulted with the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission when it was deciding what to do with the At and East program, because it certainly paid no attention to the Atlantic Transportation Committee.
These are crucial times for agriculture in this country. The free trade agreement and the GATT talks now being carried on are both very critical to the future of agriculture. On these talks depend the future of orderly marketing and supply management. The very foundation of agriculture in this country depends on the outcome of these talks.
Of concern to myself and of concern to many Canadian producers are the mixed signals this government is sending with respect to this crucial area. The government indicated before the election that free trade would mean greater prosperity for all Canadians including farmers. That has turned out not to be the case; certainly not yet. The opposite appears to be the case, especially for small producers.
Before the election I recall a medium-sized hog producer telling me that he was going to vote for free trade because that was his guarantee into the U.S. market. He believed that by voting for the PCs they would create a level playing field allowing him to market more easily his hogs in the U.S. There may have been a level playing field created, but I have not seen it. If there is one it certainly is a level playing field that is decidedly tipped toward the United States and decidedly tipped toward the large hog producer.
The countervail duty that has been slapped on hogs has meant that the future of that particular hog producer in my riding is in real jeopardy. One thing that I have learned since being elected is that many of the problems facing Canadians in my riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre also face Canadians throughout this country.
I was recently in Prince Edward Island talking to farmers in that beautiful province. The most successful farmers are often the small mixed farmers who grow a combination of those famous P.E.I. potatoes, some hay and some grain and who raise some livestock.
While I was in P.E.I. I was told that a number of mixed farmers are simply going to stop producing hogs because it simply did not pay. The reality in P.E.I. or Saskatchewan is that the only way one can successfully raise hogs is to have a large operation because the margin of profit
Supply
per hog is so small it only pays when producing them in large numbers. This is not the promise the Tories made to those people before the last election.
What of supply management? We have a system in this country that allows for a viable industry in dairy products, eggs, chickens, turkeys and broiler hatching eggs. This system ensures that Canadians control the market in these areas and ensures that fair competition continues to exist. The GATT talks that are now taking place may well force some compromise, and some altering of position in the area of supply management may be required. Certainly industries such as the dairy industry have recognized this fact and have put forth proposals in order to help their industry survive in a global market.
I am certain that there is much concern among Canadian diary producers. Certainly they have put a lot of effort into developing and bringing forth proposals. Nonetheless when they look at how much the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board and the Atlantic Transportation Committee were ignored when they offered their expert advice in their particular area, what are the chances that the dairy commission is going to have any influence on the government's position on supply management? That is, of course, unless it happens to concur with its thinking.
There is certainly room to manoeuvre in these talks. Agricultural economists make it very clear that we do not have to turn to unbridled capitalism, that it is quite possible to have an effective and efficient trading of agricultural commodities while at the same time allowing individual governments to develop programs which will allow them to maintain viable, profitable and productive family farming units. The question is whether or not this government desires to reach that very worth-while objective.
The history of this government would indicate that concern over healthy, viable family farms and a viable rural economy is simply not part of this, its consideration. The government recently released its green paper on agriculture entitled Growing Together. It is a document that is filled with platitudes on the future of agriculture in this country. If there is one thing that Canadians have learned from the government over the past five years, it

November 29, 1989
Supply
is not to trust and not too put too much faith in PC promises.
I do not want to be mistaken with respect to this document. It is welcomed because it provides Canadians with a vehicle by which to discuss the future of agriculture in this country. A proper, full and effective dialogue would allow input from all sectors of the country that have an interest in agriculture, with the final result being new policy directions which represent the views, the desires and the needs of all Canadian producers, not just the large corporate conglomerates but all Canadians, from the potato farmer in Prince Edward Island to the apple grower in British Columbia.
I want to believe that the PCs are serious with this consultative process. I want to believe that they have the genuine interests of all Canadian producers at heart. I want to believe it but I am, unfortunately, simply skeptical. I am skeptical because when I look at the past record of this government, I see that that simply has not been the case.
Before I close, I want to focus on one more subject, policies for agriculture, we must remember that it is only part of the over-all world economy.
Today the rural infrastructure of this country is in tatters, whether it be in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan or British Columbia. The economic base of many communities is disappearing. Small businesses are closing their doors and services are simply being lost. The result is that seniors are leaving, not because they want to but rather because they are forced to. At the same time, young families are reluctant to move into these smaller centres, not only because of the scarce employment but also because of the fact that there is a lack of not only amenities but essential services as well.
Here again, the government must accept responsibility for the programs that exist in this area. There are many programs that are being cut and there are many problems that are being created.
The removal of VIA Rail takes away a necessary lifeline to many communities. What is even more disheartening is that this government is about to embark on a wholesale removal of track from large areas of this country. We all know that once the railway is gone, the death-knell is rung for many of these communities. While this may prove to be of benefit to Canadian
Pacific, it certainly will not be of benefit to large areas of rural Canada.
As well, this government has a blind determination to eliminate hundreds of postal offices in this country, thereby putting a greater strain on rural communities. These are not just closures of post offices that have 50 and 75 boxes, the government is closing post offices in large communities of 2,000 to 3,000 people. This means that people in those communities, which are of a relatively stable size, are not going to be able to receive the same mail service that millions of other Canadians simply take for granted.
In closing, I would like to say that a vital and a vibrant rural Canada provides this country with a dimension that we simply cannot afford to lose. It is possible to have healthy family farms operating in a strong rural environment. It is possible if this government has the commitment. We in the New Democratic Party are willing to work toward that end. But the question is, is the Conservative Party? Looking at its past record, I would say that it is not. Our challenge in this party is to try to teach an old dog a new trick, and that trick would be one of compassion, concern and commitment to viable family farms in this country.


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to take part in the debate this afternoon. I must say, however, that I am a little disappointed in the direction that the debate has taken because, quite frankly, the rhetoric flies in the face of the record.
The Minister of Agriculture has stated quite clearly in his earlier presentation the significance of the amount of funding that has been given by this government to agriculture and I am not going to take time at this point to review the significant increases in support to farmers put forward by this government in comparison with that put forward by previous administrations.
I think the government is very clear also in stating that the family farm is the essence of agriculture in Canada. Ninety-nine per cent of all the farms in this countiy are owned by farm families. Ninety-six per cent of the total production of agriculture in this countiy comes from family farms.
November 29, 1989

I think it is very significant that our support includes things like the dairy support policy, tripartite stabilization, all the various agricultural stabilization programs, drought support, crop insurance, and on we go through the great array of programs for Canadian agriculture, and each one of them put in place for the expressed reason of supporting family farms in Canada.
Looking at programs for the future, the document that the minister put forward just a week ago entitled Growing Together again is an indication of the significance of farm families to the future of this industry and the importance that the government places on those people. It clearly indicates the level of consultation that will go on in the future as we look for improvements in our agricultural policies.
I want to very briefly look at the direction of agricultural policy, particularly relating to trade. I think it is safe to say that this motion is brought forward today really to cover the disorganization which occurs in the opposition parties.
I would invite anyone to look closely at the presentations made by opposition speakers today, and look for positive alternatives that are being put forward in those presentations. I am sure that observers will find very few. It will be a continual carping and complaining about what is going on in the industry of agriculture today, but I can almost be assured that there will be very few positive alternatives put forward.
I think it is important to look at some of the accusations that are being made and see what the other side of the story is from what we may be hearing in the House today from various other people. The minister has stated that trade accounts for about 50 per cent of agricultural revenues. Clearly, this is very significant to our farmers and to the over-all economy of Canada.
We want to liberalize trade but we also want to protect important features in our agricultural system. One of those important features, of course, is supply management. Our critics will say that we have not supported supply management with enough vigour in recent discussions with the United States and particularly in international negotiations under GATT. I think the evidence flies in the face of the comments that are being made here today.
Supply
I would like to review a few of the statements put forward by spokespeople for the agricultural industry and in particular leaders of the various supply management sectors. I refer first of all to a press release put out by the dairy farmers of Canada in which there are statements by John Killoran, the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, who states, referring to the GATT panel ruling:
"The ruling clearly illustrates the inability of the current GATT
wording to safeguard effective supply management programs."
When the Minister of Agriculture formed the dairy task force, Mr. Killoran stated that they welcomed the opportunity to be involved in consultations with the Minister of Agriculture as well as officials of External Affairs regarding the strategy the Canadian Government should pursue in future negotiations.
Clearly the leaders of the supply management sector are involved in the discussions, they are meeting regularly with the Canadian negotiators and it is obvious from their press release that they are pleased with that involvement and that level of consultation.
In a report of October 27 in The Globe and Mail, Nelson Coyle, a spokesman for the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency, refers to their opportunities to talk with Michael Gifford and he states that he is pleased with the stance of Michael Gifford, the Canadian agricultural negotiator, when they did not endorse various parts of the U.S. trade initiatives and their position at GATT. Again, the area which Canada did not endorse was the area which restricted imports, and of course, that is so important to protecting our supply management systems here in Canada.
A third reference relates to an open letter by Mr. Bill Mitchell, assistant director for the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, who comments on the ice cream and yoghurt situation:
There is nothing fair about the U.S. move and the Canadian
government has taken a strong stand against it.
Those are entirely different comments from the ones we have heard from the opposition critics today. It is clear that the government is very much in support of organized marketing in this country where it has become so much a part of the Canadian industry.
Today in the House the Minister for International Trade commented on the position that was reached and

November 29, 1989
Supply
recently taken in Bangkok, again in favour of supply management in the particular sectors where it applies.
I would like to refer again to a spokesman from Australia, a person who is outside Canada, outside whatever internal arguments and discussions that may be going on here relating to various trade initiatives. The article said that the Canadian delegation found itself under some criticism when the Australian trade minister, Michael Duffy, told local journalists that Canada's insistence on maintaining protection for its dairy industry could be a problem in reaching a final consensus.
Those are hardly the words that we are hearing here today, but out of that meeting, there was an agreement. Canada did sustain its arguments and the Cairns Group goes on in their leadership in trying to bring a truce in the international trade wars. Canada has maintained its position in support of supply management.
This is the sort of leadership that this government has been maintaining over the last many months and years. It is the sort of leadership that we will continue to put forward in the future. I think the evidence that I have produced here today from independent people not involved in the political razzmatazz that goes on in this House clearly shows the support of this government.


Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Algoma, a motion that is very negative about agriculture in this country.
In his preamble, the hon. member mentioned the farmers, mostly from Quebec and Ontario, who visited Ottawa last week, but he failed to mention the reasons behind their visit. If he had bothered to listen, he would have realized that our farmers came to ask us to protect their vested interests. Although the situation is not ideal, they know perfectly well they are protected by all kinds of measures put in place by the government, and they came to see us to make sure these measures would not be jeopardized by the current negotiations.
I will try to give en overview of the situation, and I think we will see it is not as dramatic and certainly more positive than the motion presented by the hon. member for Algoma would have us believe.
It is true that Canadian agriculture and the agri-food business generally have reached a turning point in their history. We will probably have to make some bold and innovative changes to be able to respond to new needs in the industry in the 90's and the 21st century.
First of all, I think I should explain the context in which such changes are being initiated. During the past five years we went through a period that in some ways was worse than the Depression. As a result of high interest rates at the beginning of this decade and poorly designed financing programs, we had many major problems which only now are beginning to subside.
The economy does of course have an impact, but to answer the Opposition's motion condemning this government, I think we should look at things in their proper perspective. Today, we are still suffering the consequences of the lack of foresight and economic vision that was typical of the beginning of this decade.
Mr. Speaker, our colleagues opposite are trying to play their role as the Opposition in this House, but perhaps they should first examine their own consciences.
We have to go back to the 70's and the then spiralling price of land to get to the root of the financing problems that ensued. People who bought land when prices reached all-time highs put themselves in a very vulnerable situation.
We received a legacy of loans with low collaterals and hign interest rates and land values that were going down. Low prices for farm products, the result of a number of complex economic factors, have led to major arrears in debt payments by farmers, to foreclosures, bankruptcies and a crisis of confidence in the industry.
Obviously, the droughts we experienced and the merciless trade war between the Americans and the European Economic Community have added to the many difficulties we already had.
November 29, 1989

That being said, we are pleased to note that the number of bankruptcies has declined since 1985, from 353 to 220 in 1988. This trend has continued in the first eight months of 1989 in Canada with another 2 per cent average decrease compared to the same period in 1988. The worst is over and we are at last beginning to see signs of improvement.
Not only is farm debt going down, but so is the amount of overdue debt. Moreover, interest charges are expected to account for 13 per cent of total operating expenses in 1989, which is 19 per cent less than in 1981 and hardly more than they were in the 1970s. Although interest rates have increased over the last year, it must be borne in mind that they only add slightly less than 2 per cent to farmers' operating costs.
The average farm family income is now nearly at the same level as that of other Canadian families. Family farms are all in all in pretty good shape at the end of the 1980s. In 1987, the average Canadian farmer had an 80 per cent equity, worth a sizable $373,000, in his farm. Average income, including off-farm earnings, was around $36,000. Furthermore, new farmers are waiting to take over and young people are still going into farming.
Before overcoming these difficulties, we learned some important lessons. We must now act on the basis of past experience and we are already well on the way. We must adjust to change if we want to remain competitive in a constantly changing, increasingly global market. That is why our government has adopted long-term planning. We are now reviewing all of our agricultural policies and programs to make them more effective and to adapt them to the issues facing us.
Obviously, farm finances are a key element in building a more competitive agri-food industry and they are therefore an important part of the review. Nevertheless, farm finances must not be limited to credit issues alone. They also involve the management and financing of agricultural enterprises, which are part of the larger farm income protection system.
Given the wrong ideas concerning the vitality of this industry, it is not surprising that opinions are so divided on setting a long-term financial policy for this sector. For example, are subsidized interest rates the solution to most farmers' financial problems or on the contrary, as
Supply
some groups claim, are they not rather an incentive to excessive debt?
We know that extending credit in itself is not enough. As we look to the future, our goal must be to meet financial needs as we help farmers manage risks and avoid major financial problems.
Mr. Speaker, we do not claim to have solved all problems. The situation remains difficult in some sectors, particularly grains and oil seeds, as well as pork production. Some family farms still have trouble paying off their debt.
Nevertheless, the Government has made remarkable efforts in the past five years to rectify the situation. I can assure all hon. members of this House that this government will continue to give farmers all the help required for their farms to remain profitable and prosperous, even in the context of the objectives of responsible financial management it has set itself.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating to me that I must conclude. We must deal with all these issues and more to help farmers prepare properly for the 1990s. As you can see, the present government cannot be blamed for farmers' problems. On the contrary, we are convinced that considerable efforts have been made to correct the situation and mechanisms are in place so that we can adjust rapidly to the new challenges presented by the globalization of markets, which has already begun.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. If the House would allow the Chair to make a proposal for the remainder of the debate, the Chair intends to recognize the member for Okanagan-Shuswap for five minutes and then the Official Opposition would get to close the debate. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the latitude, given the limited time available for the remaining members to make some comments.
I would like to reflect upon the previous speaker's comments regarding the government initiatives in agriculture. We on this side tend to think of them as being a lack of initiatives.
Certainly this concept of trying to create a level playing field is just simply unworkable in the light of the reality of Canadian agriculture. The fact is that we suffer significant disadvantages in Canada as a result of our shorter growing season, our lower levels of production because of the economy of scale, our greater transporta-

November 29, 1989
Supply
tion costs, our higher construction costs and, of course, higher energy costs because of our competitors to the south. So it is impossible to create this level playing field as the members on the government side seem wont to do. In fact, we feel that maintaining a viable agricultural industry in Canada is going to require some considerable and continued government input.
As a matter of fact, I would remind the House that the Macdonald Commission, when it tabled its extensive report, recommended that agriculture be excluded from the free trade agreement that we have now signed and in which we are involved. Although the commission recommended against it, this government has gone into a free trade agreement in agricultural commodities and the U.S. has won major concessions such as the reduction of the powers of the Wheat Board, the removal of transportation subsidies, and the eventual phase-out of agricultural tariffs. If that is not a capitulation to U.S. demands, I do not know what is. As a result of this, the whole concept of supply management and marketing boards and the stability that those boards give the agricultural industry in Canada is in fact severely jeopardized.
As a matter of fact, Article 703 of the free trade agreement that we have now signed, talks about market access for agriculture and states that in order to facilitate trade in agricultural goods, the parties, meaning Canada and the United States, shall work together to improve access to each other's market through the elimination and reduction of import barriers. That means those kinds of price structuring systems such as the marketing boards and the supply management boards that have come to be the stability of the industry. When they are gone, it is going to be very, very difficult for agriculturalists right across Canada to compete.
When referring to the free trade agreement, the American Farm Bureau concluded that once tariffs were removed, American grains, bakery goods, poultry, eggs and milk products would gain greater access to the Canadian market and undermine the power of marketing boards. In Western Perspectives an article written in April of 1988, there was actually a comment by the minister, and the minister himself had identified significant losses in jobs in British Columbia agriculture as a
result of the implementation of that free trade agreement, as much as admitting that agriculture is going to take it on the chin as a result of the FTA.
The Okanagan and Shuswap area in British Columbia, with an agricultural industry that is concentrated in soft fruits, becomes virtually a region of sacrifice under this free trade agreement. It is going to be very, very difficult for those farmers to compete once those tariff structures come down.
I have talked with farmers in the Okanagan, grape growers who over the last year have tom out their vines. I have asked them what they are going to do with their land, what they are going to plant on that land. Their response is: "I am going to try to sell the land because no matter what I plant I am not going to be able to make it. It is as simple as that."
We are talking about the demise of an industry. It is beyond me to listen to the rhetoric that this government is giving from the other side of the House on how vibrant our agricultural industry is. Good heavens, if it was so vibrant, why did we have 7,000 farmers on the front lawn of the House of Commons here last week demanding some action by this minister because of the very, very deep concern that they have about the future of the agricultural industry in Canada?
I speak for the farmers throughout the Okanagan, throughout British Columbia, but more so for the farmers from the west coast to the east coast. We have a serious problem in terms of the future of our agricultural industry in Canada. We cannot compete on the concept of a level playing field simply because of the inequities in the geographic and climatic factors that face agriculture in this land. We have to recognize that and we have to protect it.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the hon. member for Algoma and the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, who today presented this motion of censure in the House, a motion that reads as follows:

That this House condemn the government for its insensitivity to the tremendous difficulties being faced by Canada's farmers and other rural Canadians-
Mr. Speaker, I believe Canadian agriculture is in a precarious state. On November 21, here on Parliament Hill, we saw one of the biggest demonstrations of discontent in the agricultural sector in the past ten years. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the only farmers' protest that may have been bigger than the one on November 21 was in 1973-74, when milk producers were demanding better ways of adjusting to the new supply management system, a system that today, those same farmers want to protect.
What is behind these demonstrations? Mr. Speaker, farmers are demonstrating because they are worried about the positions that are being taken, and the ones that are not being taken, by the present government at the GATT talks now being held. As you know, GATT Article 11 is threatened by positions being taken by many countries, including the Cairns Group and the United States. These countries want to weaken or repeal altogether the GATT measures that allow us here in Canada to have supply management systems.
Mr. Speaker, in recent months we saw that the United States had every intention of preventing us, and even appealed to GATT to prevent Canada from imposing quantitative restrictions on imports of ice cream and yogurt. Ironically, Mr. Speaker, the United States, thanks to a special GATT article, is exempt from the same measures it would impose on us. In other words, the United States wants to be able to export its yogurt and ice cream to Canada, while being able to invoke measures that would prevent exports of yogurt and ice cream from Canada to the United States. Of course, Canada does not, at this very moment, intend to export yogurt and ice cream to the United States, but the fact remains that there is a double standard here.
The consultation document provided by the Minister of Agriculture has also disturbed many farmers in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. This document challenges our transport system, marketing and many support programs in Canada's agricultural industry. In fact, we could even say that, to a certain extent, this report threatens the very existence of our supply management systems.
Supply
The case of crop advance payments is another example of the careless attitude of this Conservative government towards Canada's farming community. Crop insurance reductions are yet another example. And, finally so is farm credit. We all know that the Farm Credit Corporation's current interest rate stands at about 13 per cent, which is nearly 9 per cent over and above the inflation rate in this country. I think we can safely say it has to be the highest rate ever in the history of the FCC, if we take into account the real interest rate.


Gaby Larrivée: It peaked at over 20 per cent in the past!


Don Boudria: I see some members across the aisle who do not agree with me. I would urge them to take a closer look at the file and, like me, they will realize I am telling the truth.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a table released by Statistics Canada which indicates, among other things, that in 1977 the prime rate and the Consumer Price Index were 8.5 and 7.9 per cent respectively, which means that the actual loan rate was then less than 1 per cent.
Referring to 1982- I see that a member opposite is talking about 1982 when the prime rate stood at 15 per cent and the CPI at 10.8 per cent. The real rate of interest therefore was 5 per cent. Now, in the fall of 1989, the CPI is under 5 per cent and, as I pointed out earlier, the prime rate is 13.5 per cent. We can see that the real interest rate right now is very high, I would even say it is undoubtedly the highest we have had in the past 10 years, notwithstanding the fact that we are neither in an economic recession nor in particularly trying times in terms of the over-all economy. I strongly urge, therefore, the Tory Members opposite to pressure the Minister of Finance into greatly reducing this interest rate.
How time flies, Mr. Speaker! There are a great many other issues I wish I could bring to the attention of my hon. colleagues. To conclude, I should like to emphasize the fact that the Tory government, in its last budget, inflicted some severe cuts on the Canadian farm industry. Here are a few examples of these cuts: advance payments for grain and crops: $54 million; dairy product export program: $12 million; Canadian Dairy Commission: $10 million; crop insurance: $200 million; grain and flour movement: $60 million; railway track rehabilitation: $48 million; farm product loan program: $15 million. Alltogether, Mr. Speaker, $399 million were cut from the farm budget during 1989. It goes without saying that

November 29, 1989
Supply
the farmers who came to demonstrate in front of Parliament these past few days had every reason to do so. They gave us a warning. The farmers promised in front of the media and the Canadian people that if things did not change, they intended to return and that they would be 30,000, 40,000, or even 50,000 to demonstrate on Parliament Hill, and not only 7,000, 8,000 or 10,000. I know that Canadian farmers are quite able to do so. But this is not the issue. The real issue is: Should farmers have to use such methods to get their fair share of the pie? The answer is no.
The Tory Government opposite should know by now that the Canadian people want our farm industry to get assistance. We want to maintain our farm industry alive and healthy. A country which loses its farm industry will eventually lose control over its economy.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, these are serious times for rural Canada and our farmers. The insensitivity of this government to the plight of the agricultural industry is unforgivable.
To listen to this government and the part-time Minister of Agriculture here tonight, you would think that nothing was done for agriculture before this government came along. You would think that there had never been co-operation between the provinces and the federal government, or our trading partners for that matter. You would think the current programs that have built an agricultural industry that is envied the world over just happened by chance, not as an answer to problems in the agricultural sector.
The programs developed in the past by a Liberal government and, yes, by the minister's predecessor, may not have been perfect. But in a country in a northern hemisphere producing 60 per cent of its food further north than in any other nation in the world, we became the envy of other nations. We have become one of the most efficient, productive, quality-conscious agriculture producers anywhere in the world. Leaders from all across the world have indicated this to us.
Now we have a Green Paper Growing Together. The government is saying that former policies are wrong, that the Hon. John Wise was wrong and that farm income support programs must be changed, supply management reformed and farmers, in four words in that document, "are on their own". Quite frankly we have heard throughout the agricultural community, and everyone knows, that the former Minister of Agriculture, John Wise, resigned because he knew about the policies this government was going to bring in and that they would adversely affect the farmers for whom he worked so hard.
The part-time Minister of Agriculture, without ever consulting the agricultural sector, has come out with his salvation for agriculture. The report is full of rhetorical phrases like "global trade liberalization, self-reliance and self-sufficiency". Farmers who have had time to study the document have called it patronizing and insulting. They are telling farmers that from now on they are on their own. Comforting, do you not think?
The minister is now saying that he is the Messiah, that his predecessors, farm organizations and farmers do not understand the needs of agriculture, only he does.
As loudly demonstrated last week by thousands of farmers on Parliament Hill, the agricultural sector is asking why this government is throwing Canadian agriculture to the wolves. They asked: "Why are you abandoning us?"
The minister has admitted in Growing Together his willingness to abandon product lines or a sector of agriculture no longer in demand in the market. What does this mean? What happens if the market for a certain product declines this year and a decision from on high is made not to encourage or support this sector?
As most people realize, you just do not turn the agricultural sector and production on and off like a tap. Once you lose production it takes time to re-establish production. It takes time to re-establish these production lines and, if you need it in the future, you lose your historical market figures and your future markets. More important, you are now dependent on someone else to produce that product. This becomes a serious problem if you depend on another country for your food production. Is this where we are heading? I say to you, this is where
November 29, 1989

we are heading under this government and its policies on agriculture and trade.
More emphasis is to be put on marketing, yet Cana-grex was established precisely for this purpose. This government killed this agricultural export program. Frankly, this government and this minister simply reject any suggestions from anyone simply as a matter of course. They do not listen to or care about what Canadian farmers are saying. Instead, it pushes ahead blindly, cutting up programs that have made our industry strong and made our industry the envy of the world over.
Let us look briefly at what the government has done and what it is planning to do to our agricultural industry. The record has been a long line of broken promises. Before the election the agriculture and trade ministers indicated that the free trade agreement would not adversely affect agriculture, that by putting ice cream and yoghurt on the import control list there would not be any repercussions, the industry would be protected.
Now we see the reality. Now we are being harassed by the United States over these commodities. A GATT panel has ruled that the restrictions limiting the quantity of ice cream and yoghurt allowed into Canada do not conform with Canada's GATT obligations. Quite frankly, this minister should have known that. He should not have gone across this country and told Canadian farmers that their industry would be protected.
The tobacco industry, an industry of prime importance in my riding, has also been destroyed by this government. During the election campaign the Minister of Agriculture said that Ottawa wanted to send a strong message to the tobacco industry that it will support tobacco producers in their time of adjustment. Well, shortly after the election was over this government cut back on programs to support tobacco farmers moving into other sectors. Quite a promise. The government cut them back by $6 million.
The government continued its attack on the agricultural community through this budget. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture estimated that the budget will cost Canadian farmers $120 million more in fuel and gasoline taxes this fiscal year. Some farm organizations estimate the budget will cost an individual farmer up to $2,000. Even the government's own officials have said that each farmer will be paying between $700 and $1,000
Supply
more. No other sector was so hard hit in this budget, no other sector was asked to give up so much.
Cutting the interest free payments in the Advance Payments for Crops Act will cost farmers an extra $27 million. In relative terms of the whole over-all budget this is not a great amount, a small amount for the value it was worth to Canadian farmers to allow a Canadian commodity group to market their products in such a way as to get a fair return for their work.
The government will also be cutting back $200 million in the crop insurance program, saying it is rebalancing the cost. Producers suggested a one-third tripartite funding proposal which was rejected. Without an equitable funding mechanism such as this, crop insurance premium costs will remain too expensive for many growers, especially in the poorer provinces, meaning a continuation of low participation percentages among producers of many farm commodities. Without a high participation percentage the economic and political need for ad hoc disaster relief programs will continue just as it has in the past.
The dairy industry was attacked once more. The budget eliminated $7 million from the special dairy export program and $7 million is to be cut for the Canadian Dairy Commission.
Agriculture is also unfairly treated by the GST. The Minister of Finance's technical paper on the new federal sales tax says sales of farmland will generally be subject to the normal GST rules. Sales or leases of farmland will be taxable. In other words, if one farmer sells a quarter section to another, it will be subject to the 9 per cent tax. Apparently, even land leased by a son from his father will be taxed. That is criminal.
I will conclude by saying that this government's programs with regard to agriculture, its promises during the election campaign to protect agriculture from the free trade agreement and from American harassment, and its budget cuts have all been devastating to our agricultural sector and our rural communities throughout Canada.
This side of the House will not stand for this. Let me make myself clear that in the next election the Canadian people will tell this government that they reject its agricultural policies and that there will not be one single

November 29, 1989
Supply
Conservative member from rural Canada on that side of the House.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We agreed earlier that the last half hour would be given to the Official Opposition. I realize the parliamentary secretary was not here at the time, so I might suggest, with the co-operation of the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre, that he leave a few minutes before six o'clock to the hon. parliamentary secretary. Would that be agreeable?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre on debate.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this opportunity in addressing the House to again raise questions about the future of agriculture and the future of farming in western Canada.
First of all, I would like to thank my own party, and particularly the speaker before me, for helping Parliament realize the importance of this issue. As many of the members here today on the last day of this short week have listened, they have come to understand that the reality is that Canadians are gradually beginning to realize just how fragile the agriculture economy is.
I would like to use this occasion to put what is going on in western Canada in some political and historical context. One of the reasons why western Canada has been known as the country of political protest is that one political party after another has failed to respond to the needs of western Canadian farmers. The rise of the CCF and the rise of the Social Credit Party can both be attributed in part to the failure of the central government to respond to the needs of western Canadians.
Perhaps one of the most dramatic changes in western Canadian history was the rise of the Conservatives under John Diefenbaker. He symbolized the need of western Canadians to have a greater say in the government. That
tradition has been going on since the late 1950s and in fact helped propel the current government into power.
What you see taking place in western Canada right now, gradually, but nevertheless in a very real form, is the rise of the Reform Party. Just as before, people have to consider what the state is right now of the western Canadian farmer that contributes to the rise of yet another party in western Canada. The reality is the failure of the central government, the failure of Ottawa, to respond to the needs of the western farmer.
This is a particularly bitter experience for western Canadian farmers because they thought they finally had a group of people who understood their needs. Instead, what they have right now is a minister who earlier this afternoon stood up and defended the fact that they had not been able to do anything for the farmer, saying: "What else can you expect? It is so expensive. There are too many international rules. There is a regime out there that we are not able to compete with". He is not able to say anything positive. He is only able to say: "We have done everything we can".
Well, that is not acceptable for the western Canadian farmer because we are putting at risk people who have staked their whole lives, their careers, their families, their communities on the success of their annual operations. We cannot stand by and simply say: "Well, we tried hard, but there is nothing we can do about it".
Our party, to its credit, has continually asked the House to increase activities on behalf of the Canadian farmer, particularly the western Canadian farmer. We have made proposals on financing farms, we have made proposals on GATT, we have made proposals under the free trade agreement. We have been the party of ideas. We have been the party that-


Murray Cardiff: Oh come on.


David Walker: You do not want to recognize it, because you had to listen to your minister and you are embarrassed. I do not blame you. Nevertheless, the reality is the Canadian farmer is not being served by this government.
In rural Canada right now there is an added complexity on which this government is very silent, and that is the future of the very communities that are there to serve the farmer. Communities as big as Winnipeg or as tiny as Carmen or some other small communities in the Interlake area of Manitoba are all at risk, in part because of the failure of the family farm to be maintained and to be
November 29, 1989

assisted by the federal government whether in marketing, finance, research or whatever.
This reality causes a tremendous anxiety among young people. At one time we used to boast that our biggest export was grain. Right now, as members on this side realize, the biggest export out of western Canada is young people. In fact, the Saskatchewan government has a clock ticking which shows how many people leave every hour. You can imagine what it does to a province to talk not about how it is contributing to the Gross National Product every hour but how it is losing people by the hour.
Similarly in Winnipeg our population has changed very significantly in the last 15 years because people do not see a future there, in part because of the decline of the agricultural sector.
Several people have come forward and asked the government to respond to what they call this frontier cancer; several associations and several small towns. It is interesting to note that even though the Minister of Agriculture stands up and talks about his own department, he never really addresses the question of what they are doing in the job creation branch of the Department of Employment.
What are they doing in the department of the Secretary of State to help small associations? What are they doing across the board to make sure that people realize that there is a life for them in small towns in Canada; that there is a communication system for them; that the road system, through federal-provincial agreements, will be maintained; that their education system will be maintained; that there is distance education for example? All these things are lacking in the approach of the federal government.
I suppose that one could argue that the Minister of Agriculture does not have the strength, as Deputy Prime Minister, to convince his colleagues, but I think there are other ministers who from time to time come out of the west who visit these communities and they should be able to reflect the interests of westerners in the national process.
I think that perhaps Parliament should take the opportunity to take a non-partisan approach to the problems of western farmers, that we should not be satisfied with Opposition Day debates, with unresponsive legislation, with a committee system that does not respond to their needs and international negotiating
Supply
teams that do not quite understand what is going on in western Canada.
I think this is an opportunity for us to come together in an all-party sense, to join in and support resolutions such as this which, for once, says: "All right, we are making mistakes, we aren't doing enough, we've got to show some symbolic support".
Too often the western Canadian farmer picks up a newspaper and finds out the opposition is howling and the government is unresponsive. They become so cynical about this process that they turn around and go for yet another political party because they think that Parliament, as it is now structured, cannot respond. Why do you think that the concept of an elected Senate is so popular in the west? They want an elected Senate because they do not feel that the House of Commons can respond to them.
We are a land of producers, not just of people, and the Canadian system punishes producers because they do not have the support in the House of Commons. It is time that those people in the more populous areas turn to the west and understand, as consumers, that it is to the interest of everyone in this country to ensure the success of the western Canadian farmer. We cannot turn around and say that that is enough.
In keeping with the good will of the House I will do as you asked and stop early to allow the opposition to say a few words. I am sure we will hear everything they have to say in the next 30 seconds.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the House would agree to give two or three minutes to the hon. member.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, to the last speaker, we are the government, that is the opposition.
I am prompted to rise by the remarks of the hon. member from Haldimand-Norfolk. Every time he rises in this House he condemns our federal Minister of Agriculture, a man who has devoted most of his time to that portfolio. If he had been in the House earlier today and listened to what that hon. gentleman had said-


Robert (Bob) Speller: I was in the House.

Supply


Murray Cardiff: You should have listened when you were sitting there. Then you would know what this party and this government has done for agriculture in this country. Take heart and listen to it because it is something that is very, very good for all of us.
You talk about our Green Paper. What are we doing? Almost every day there are articles in the newspapers. Here is one which states: "Fed report welcome". You condemn that action as well.
There is another which states: "Canadian chicken and egg spokesmen are upbeat about Agriculture Minister Don Mazankowski's report on the future of agriculture".
"I find the paper to be extremely encouraging," said Ontario Chicken Board general manager Bill Doyle.
"You can agree with the basic thrust," said Canadian Egg Marketing Agency general manager Gerry Gartner.
I have all kinds of other ones in here.


David Walker: Come on.


Murray Cardiff: Okay, listen. I listened to you, you can listen to me.


David Walker: I made sense.


Murray Cardiff: This is from The Ottawa Citizen:
Canadian producers would be wise to fret less about GATT and
heed the wise advice of Agriculture Minister Don Mazankowski.
Marketing boards should worry less about their own quotas and
costs, he said, and more about their customers.
Another article in the paper quotes Roger Cram, general manager of the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency in Ottawa. He said: "We reiterate our support for Mr. Mazankowski's initiative and will actively co-operate in any discussion that will lead-"


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
With good will we offered the parliamentary secretary an opportunity to speak, and I think it would be fair for him to make his comments. However, if we need press clippings we can send for them in the mail. If he has one very final and quick remark we would be happy to hear from him.


Murray Cardiff: In any event, we have talked about consultation. This minister has provided consultation with commodity groups and the provincial ministers of agriculture from across this country.
There is a policy conference to be held December 11 and 12, and the hon. member is invited to take part. Rather than sit back and complain and criticize, why not take part and grow together? The minister has offered an invitation to the people of this country to take part in forming the direction and policies of agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, I see that it is six o'clock. Thank you very much.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 p.m., it is my duty to advise the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), the proceedings on this opposition motion have expired.

Pursuant to Order made Tuesday, November 7, 1989, this House stands adjourned until Monday, December 4, at 11 o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.02 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 4,1989