1989-10-26

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ORDER IN COUNCIL


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these appointments are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House a report on the Joint Parliamentary
Delegation to Bangladesh and the Philippines, August 15 to August 27, 1989, in both official languages.



CANADIAN NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION REPORTS

Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as vice-chairman of the Canada NATO Parliamentary Association, I have the honour to present pursuant to Standing Order 34, the seventh, eight and ninth reports, in both official languages, of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the eighteenth report of the Striking Committee.



BILL C-l3-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-13, an act to authorize the divestiture of Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics International Limited.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



NUCLEAR POWER ACT


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-267, an act establishing a moratorium on the continued development of nuclear power in Canada for the purpose of establishing a public inquiry into nuclear power that is followed by a national referendum.

October 26, 1989
Routine Proceedings


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, before the government privatizes the entire nuclear industry we had better have a public inquiry. This bill has been introduced to call for a moratorium on any expansion in terms of nuclear power in Canada and to establish a full, open and comprehensive public inquiry into the use of nuclear power in all of its forms. Once that is done, presumably we could determine the appropriate course of action.
Basically it is calling for a public inquiry that I might say could be followed by a national referendum, although I think there are more appropriate ways to determine the future of nuclear power in Canada once all the information is provided to us.


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


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Canada Elealth Act (abortion).


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I move this bill, an act to amend the Canada Health Act, which would penalize provinces that pay for abortions when the mother's life is not in danger. The amount so paid would be deducted from the federal contributions to the provinces for health care.
I want to thank my colleague, the member for Mississauga East, for seconding this bill.


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


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Don Boudria: for leave to introduce a Bill intituled An Act to amend the Criminal Code (destruction of the foetus).


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move this bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code (destruction of the foetus). This bill would make it an offence, liable to life imprisonment, for anyone who wilfully causes the death of a foetus.
I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga East, for seconding this bill as well.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



POINT OF ORDER

['Agreed.']
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, last week in the House, as reported at page 4952 of Hansard, I raised a point of order on another private member's bill that would seek to have the same effect as I understand this private member's bill would. There has been no ruling yet on my point of order. I would ask, if it is in order, that this bill be included in my previous point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a request which under the circumstances seems reasonable to the Chair. I will take her comments into account and will

include them when I return to the House with respect to her earlier point of order on the same issue.
Following that ruling I will be able to deal further with the bill one way or the other, depending on the order.



Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following two motions to be put immediately and voted upon without debate. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business inquire into, consider and report to the House (by December 7,1989) on whether (and, if so, then by what procedural changes) there should be changes to the manner in which Private Members' items are selected to become items in the order of precedence, and
That, if the said committee is of the opinion that other aspects of the procedures or practices relating to the conduct of Private Members' Business (including procedures on private bills) should be reviewed or modified the committee include such observations or recommendations to the House in its report.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the Hon. Minister of Justice. Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That televised broadcasting be authorized of certain meetings of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, specifically during the consideration of Order in Council appointments of Patrick Watson and Gerard Veilleux to the Canadian Broadcasting Commission, and of Keith Spicer to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, and of Joan Pennefather as government film commissioner; and
That such broadcasting be on the basis of the principles and practices now governing broadcast of the proceedings of the House of Commons; and
Petitions
That such authority be in effect beginning the week of October 30,
1989.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the provisions of the motion of the Hon. Minister of Justice. Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a petition concerning Charles Ng, the U.S. citizen wanted to stand trial for 13 murders in the Untied States. An extradition is now under way.
I have the honour to present a petition which has been certified by the clerk pursuant to Standing Order 36.
This petition, which contains 1,339 signatures, calls on the Government of Canada to revise the extradition laws which would 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. This brings the total number of signatures on petitions entered into the House on this matter to 90,987.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of several dozen of my constituents in the community of Elliot Lake in northern Ontario. It calls upon the House of Commons and Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.
They point out that the manufacturers' sales tax has already been increased from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent and that the goods and services tax would have a very adverse affect on our economy, on the regions of the country, and on tourism. They point out as well that the government has already introduced more than two dozen tax increases since 1984.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present this petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, which petition has been certified correct as to form and content, on behalf of many Canadians, including constituents of Winnipeg North, who believe that this new proposed goods and services tax will be

October 26, 1989
Petitions
hidden from Canadians and will apply to virtually everything they buy and that the imposition of this new proposed goods and services tax will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and medium income Canadians.
Therefore the petitioners, believing that the House of Commons will grant them a remedy, do pray that such a remedy be granted and that Parliament reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three different petitions. The first petition is asking Parliament to ensure that any changes to the federal sales tax will not change the tax exempt status of education and related personal enrichment activities because educational activities have been traditionally exempt from taxation.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the second petition, which is from a number of people on the lower mainland of British Columbia, calls on Parliament to maintain the existing VIA network, upgrade VIA equipment, and guarantee VIA sufficient support to carry on its mandate to provide passenger service.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is calling upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax; to reform the tax system so that there is an effective minimum tax on the wealthy individuals and corporations; to ensure that if and when there is a broad public consensus on a sales tax measure this reform not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab; and to cause the government to cease with a proposal which will shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first one deals with the government's intentions to shut down passenger rail services in Canada.
The people who signed this petition humbly submit to this House that the Government of Canada has decided to eliminate many of VIA Rail's existing routes and thousands of jobs. They state that the people of Canada deserve a high quality passenger rail service, including modernized equipment throughout the network and a rapid rail system for the corridor; that the rail passenger mode is the safest and the most environmentally friendly mode of travel; that annual subsidies provided by the Government of Canada to VIA Rail are not disproportionate to subsidization required for highly infrastructural airports; that several rural communities rely exclusively on rail passenger services; and that the tourism industry in Canada also relies on rail passenger services.
The people who signed humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada not to cancel, in whole or in part, rail passenger services in Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a second petition, Mr. Speaker, one more in a series of petitions I have presented in the House, which is signed by constituents of Ottawa-Vanier and by visitors to the beautiful riding of Ottawa-Vanier, all of whom object to this federal sales tax on goods and services and who call upon Parliament to reject out of hand this new tax on goods and services because it will be inflationary, will harm the Canadian economy and cause serious and undue hardship for middle- and low-income families.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition duly certified under Standing Order 36 from people in my constituency who call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will effectively protect the life of the prebom child without distinction as to stage of development.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition from many Canadians in the greater Toronto region. The petition has been certified correct as to form and content.
October 26, 1989

It calls upon this House and all members of Parliament to urge the government to put aside its GST proposal. The GST in the estimation of all Canadians who signed this petition is a prescription for economic disaster.
Among those who have affixed their signatures are Canadians engaged in the tourist industry. These people predict a loss of some 30,000 jobs in the industry, 5,000 of them in Ontario alone. They along with other Canadians plead with this House to scrap the GST totally.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions duly authorized pursuant to Standing Order 36. One petition concerns objections to the general sales tax which is being put forward by the government. They point out that it is unfair and that it is taxing people on their ability to pay. They object to haircuts being taxed, as well as diapers and home heating fuels.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents, pursuant to Standing Order 36, people from Kamloops who are almost delirious in their opposition to the general sales tax.
They point out a whole variety of areas where they think the government is completely wrong-headed in its approach and are asking it to back off from this very punitive, cruel, horrible and discriminatory tax.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on a different issue, and pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition certified correct by the clerk of petitions to present.
It is from Quebec where a variety of communities have come together with a number of western Canadian communities in opposition to the government's decision to curtail VIA Rail service to so many Canadian communities. They point out why this is a particularly environmentally unsound decision.
With the Minister of the Environment being here, I hope that he is paying attention to all these different people speaking out against the transfer of so many people who presently ride the trains to automobiles, congested airports, and the like.
Petitions
I think they make a very convincing case for the Minister of the Environment.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which deals with a subject that is very important to my constituents. Your petitioners object to the proposed goods and services tax. They believe that in proposing this tax, the Government is making the wrong decision for Canadians. Your petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and responsibility to present a petition under Standing Order 36 which has been certified correct by the clerk.
The petitioners state that whereas the Government of Canada has called for the closure, sale or transfer of substantial parts of the VTA Rail system, therefore they ask the Parliament of Canada to maintain VIA Rail, Canada's present national network.
We ask Parliament to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, which has been certified correct as to form and content.
This petition is signed by Canadians from across the country who say that the Government of Canada has called for the closure, sale or transfer of substantial parts of the VIA Rail system and asks the Parliament of Canada to maintain VIA Rail, Canada's present national network.
They ask Parliament to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment. They ask Parliament for a passenger train act, giving VIA Rail a firm legislative mandate. Finally, they ask Parliament for a revised costing arrangement with the railway companies.


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition pursuant to Standing

October 26, 1989
Petitions
Order 36. It is signed by 3,740 constituents of the ridings of Durham, Oshawa and Ontario. The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation immediately that will protect the life of every human being in Canada, from conception to natural death.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Canadians who urge the government to abandon its proposal for a goods and services tax because it is unfair and because of its lack of regard for taxpayers' ability to pay.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of the Burnaby and Vancouver area, which points out that railway passenger service as carried on by VIA Rail is essential for many Canadians. It has been a part of Canada for more than 100 years, yet the Government of Canada has announced a cut of $400 million over five years in its operating grants to VIA. These cuts will result in a serious reduction in passenger railway service and threaten maintenance, safety and jobs.
Finally, the petitioners note that the reductions in budget and service could eliminate one-third of our national passenger railway system. They therefore call upon Parliament to maintain the existing VIA network, upgrade VIA equipment and guarantee VIA Rail sufficient support to carry out its important mandate to provide passenger service across Canada.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of I think every taxpayer in the town of Vonda, Saskatchewan, who call upon the government to reject the current proposals for a goods and services tax and to reform the taxation system so that the pressure of taxation is more evenly spread out and not only on ordinary Canadians.


Ms. Albina Guamieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that once again I am presenting a petition on behalf of Canadians who are both hurt and angry that this government persists in turning a deaf ear to their pleas to repeal the regressive GST.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition which has been certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 36. This petition is
from a number of people in Windsor, Ontario. In this petition the signatories humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of many Canadians who are asking Parliament to reject outright this goods and services tax, as they fear the imposition will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle-income families.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to file, one dealing with the goods and services tax and the other dealing with VIA Rail. The petitioners are basically asking the government to change its positions, to save VIA Rail and to abandon the GST, instead of doing what it is now doing, which is abandoning VIA Rail and trying to save the GST.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the citizens of Thunder Bay who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance to this House. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada not to cancel, in whole or in part, passenger rail service in Canada.
[ Translation]


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of constituents in Windsor West. They object to the goods and services tax and call upon Parliament to reject a tax that is so unjust and unfair.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on the subject of VIA Rail, a petition which has been certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions.
The petitioners, who come from Coquitlam and the vast majority who come from Revelstoke, British Columbia, which is along the to-be-abandoned Canadian VIA line, suggest to the government that the VIA Rail network be maintained, that the government act to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment, and, to give VIA
October 26, 1989

Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.
These residents are both angiy and anxious. I do not think they are delirious.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here duly authorized under Standing Order 36. The petitioners from Clinton, Waterloo, Stratford, and Kingston, Ontario, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to restore VIA Rail services, to provide the railroad with the necessary resources, to provide good service, and to maintain and improve the railroad.
Government Orders


An Hon. Member:: Nay.


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


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


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
++YEAS
Members
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the debate on second reading and reference to a legislative
committee of Bill C-36 and on any amendments proposed thereto
shall not be further adjourned.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.
Anderson
Attewell
Bertrand
Bjornson
Blenkarn
Bouchard (Roberval)
Bourgault
Brightwell
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Chadwick
Chartrand
Clifford
Collins
Corbeil
Couture
Crosby (Halifax West)
DeBlois Desjardins Do mm Duplessis Fee
Fontaine
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gustafson
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hogue
Horner
Johnson
Kemp ling
Kindy
Langlois
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacKay
Mayer
McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Moore
Oberle
Plourde
Pronovost
Reid
Richardson
St-Julien
Shields
Sparrow
Tardif
Thorkelson
TUrner (Halton-Peel)
Venne
Vien
Weiner
Wilbee
Assiniboia)
Winegard
Atkinson
Beatty
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Bosley
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Boyer
Cadieux
Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole
Cook
Cote
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Darling
de Cotret
Dick
Dorin
Edwards
Felt ham
Gibeau
Greene
Halliday
Hawkes
Holtmann
Horning
Jourdenais
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Koury
Larrivee
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Littlechild
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Martin (Lincoln)
Mazankowski
McDermid
Monteith
Nicholson
Plamondon
Porter
Redway
Reimer
Robitaille
Schneider
Soetens
Stevenson
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Van de Walle Vezina Vincent White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek- Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Worthy-111

October 26, 1989
Government Orders
.NAYS116	Allmand
Althouse	Angus
Arseneault	Assad
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)	Belair
Bellemare	Benjamin
Black	Boudria
Brewin	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Clancy	Comuzzi
Dingwall	Dionne
Ferguson	Fisher
Fontana	Foster
Fulton	Gauthier
Gray (Windsor West)	Harvard
Harvey (Edmonton East)	Heap
Hopkins	Hovdebo
Hunter	Karpoff
Kristiansen	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Lee	MacAulay
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Manley
McGuire	Milliken
Mitchell	Nault
Nunziata	Nystrom
Ouellet	Pagtakhan
Peterson	Pickard
Proud	Rideout
Robichaud	Robinson
Rocheleau	Rodriguez
Simmons	Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Speller	Stewart
Stupich	Taylor
Vanclief	Volpe
Wappel Young (Gloucester)-66	Wood


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
* *
*



[Stage Direction]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has two minutes remaining in the speech that he had prior, and that will be it.


Mr. Benjamin:: I would rather have another 20 minutes. However, I wish to make a few quick points in the time remaining. I hope I get some questions, particularly from the member for Regina-Wascana.
I want to point out something that has not been mentioned yet about interest free cash advances. The repayment record by the farmers of Canada is in the order of 99 per cent. It is probably the best record of repayment of any government program.
The other point I want to make is that the government is breaking the law. It has refused to allow the Canadian Wheat Board to issue interest free cash advances since August 1, the beginning of the crop year. This legislation was being implemented before it even saw the light of day in the House of Commons. If that is not law breaking, I do not know what is. If that is not the worst kind of totalitarian activity, I do not know what is. The Canadian Wheat Board has not been allowed, even though the law says it can and should make interest free cash advances since August 1. That is a violation not only of the law, but it is a violation of the farm industry in Canada.


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Schneider (p. 5069).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Regina-Lumsden has two minutes left in his debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification. Am I finishing my magnificent speech on second reading, or can I now speak on the closure motion?
Some farmers need cash now to meet their payments to the Farm Credit Corporation, to clean up their fuel bills from their harvest and for a host of other things. There are many places in this country where at the moment their produce either cannot be sold or there is so much of it, it should not be sold. Why victimize agricultural producers for something that is no fault of theirs, that was not of their doing or their creation?
As I pointed out before and repeat, we provide interest free loans, which will never be paid, to the corporate sector through deferred corporation taxes, about $40 billion worth. That is an interest free deferment of taxes which are deferred forever. But the government wants to deny farmers interest free cash advances, which they have always repaid in full. This flies in the face of what used to be a very good-they did not have very many- policy of the Conservative Party. In fact, the political parties in the prairie provinces were united on this issue back in the 1940s and 1950s. The stubborn Liberal
October 26, 1989

Government refused to do it, but Mr. Diefenbaker did. People of all political stripes and all the farm organizations applauded them then and have done so ever since.
Why you would want to pick on this small item in all of the government's operations at the expense of agriculture producers escapes me completely. I have yet to hear any good, sound reason from anybody in this House as to the necessity for doing this, or some reason for doing it, any kind of a reason. If somebody over there can come up with a reason why this needs to be done, I would like to hear it. In fact, will somebody over there get up and make a comment so that I can answer. I invite members opposite to ask me a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions or comments.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why not? We are still on second reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions and comments. We are now under a new set of rules. I will allow the hon. member another two or three minutes, if he would like.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Give me another 10 minutes. Can I have unanimous consent to continue my remarks?


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill. I am very disappointed that this government has again taken this jackboot approach to closure. It is a terrible day for the farmers of this country. This government has invoked closure more times than we have had legislation before this House. It is time that the government went back to the farming community, consulted with them and used the legislation that is now in place to make available to them the moneys that they so desperately need at this time of the year.
The original advance payment program, which this bill now wants to change, was designed with the basic goal of establishing an orderly market system for Canadian farm products, one which ensured that supply met demand and that prices remained relatively stable. This program was meeting that goal satisfactorily.
Government Orders
Farmers require a substantial input at the beginning of the season, and so at harvest time they are eager to pay off the debts arising from this input. However, if they dump their entire crop onto the market at this time, several negative things happen. A flooded market means low prices for producers, an over-stressed processing and transportation system and a produce shortage would accompany high prices for consumers in the spring. That is the result of the financial pressure on producers to sell their entire crop at harvest time.
Since the advance payments program has been implemented, Canada has enjoyed an orderly marketing system which is the envy of many countries. The basic factor in this success has been the interest free loans advanced to producers through their producer organizations and guaranteed by the federal government at harvest time.
With Bill C-36, the government is eliminating the interest free component of the loan program. In doing so, it will cripple the already vulnerable family farm in Canada. The Minister of Agriculture has tried to soften the blow by telling farmers that by losing the interest free loans they will be doing their share to overcome Canada's deficit. Well, when the banks foreclose on their farms and their families lose their livelihood, I am sure that the farmers will rest easy knowing that they are helping to cut the government's deficit.
The issue of cost effectiveness has been explored by my colleagues on this side of the House, but I believe that its importance cannot be over-emphasized. Just how much will the government save by making the farmers pay interest on their loans through this program? The minister says that the amendments to this program will save the government approximately $20 million in this fiscal year. Dozens of farm organizations from Atlantic potato producers to Ontario com producers to western grain producers have told this government that without the interest free component of the program, the program will be too expensive for many producers. These same organizations have told the government again and again that the advantages of this program far outweigh the costs.
The government will find out too late that there is a cost in destroying the interest free program, a cost collected not only in dollars, but in a much more

October 26, 1989
Government Orders
intangible and valuable coin, that of the survival of the family farm.
Passage of this legislation would mean higher costs for farmers at a time when our family farm is under siege already, as we can see daily in the reports of farm foreclosures and bankruptcies.
Farming organizations in western Canada estimate that eliminating the interest free component of the program will increase borrowing costs in the range of $1,500 to $2,000 per year per farm. Skyrocketing interest rates resulting from the government's irresponsible fiscal policies will play their part in crushing farmers under growing debt. Government savings simply do not translate into farmer savings.
In other words, without the interest free aspect, the advance payments program will be rendered virtually useless to farmers.
The Ontario Com Producers Association which, in the past years, has seen approximately 2,000 producers participate in the program has stated that eliminating the interest free provision will result in an ineffectual program with minimal participation.
What is this government's tme motive in proposing this measure? It is true that if producers are discouraged from participating and the program dies from neglect then the government will save money. Is this the tme plan? The destruction of the interest free advance payment program is only a step in the federal government's increasingly obvious assault on the family farm in Canada.
Cutbacks in transportation subsidies, budgets for dairy export programs and support for organizations such as the Canadian Dairy Commission, to name but a few, have resulted in farmers losing $400 million in support structures since the last election. This is not even counting the damage that Bill C-36 promises to do.
Industries such as wine and tobacco are floundering. Marketing boards have been drastically weakened. The effects of the free trade agreement hold little promise for the farmers of this country.
While the government pays lip service to the preservation of the family farm in Canada, it cripples its future by
destroying these mechanisms which have allowed it to survive thus far in a cut-throat global market-place.
We have seen countless times this government's disregard for ordinary Canadians, its abdication from the unemployment insurance program, its gutting of our national rail system, its multi-pronged attack on Atlantic Canada and, most recently, in its proposed goods and services tax. That this government pays heed only to big business is painfully obvious. We need not be surprised but certainly angered by its attack on the family farm.
The interest free cash advance program has not only bolstered the Canadian marketing system to the benefit of producers, but to the benefit of millions of consumers as well. These ordinary consumers will also suffer from the destruction of this program.
With interest growing on their debts from harvest time onward, farmers will naturally be under great pressure to sell all of their produce and begin paying off their massive debts immediately, especially considering the high interest rates. The result will be low prices and spiraling debts for producers, a swamped quota system which, until now, has been the envy of the world and subsequent higher prices for consumers due to produce shortages next spring. This, in turn, necessitates higher imports from the U.S. which are often of an aged and inferior quality. This will be the result of a badly controlled market which this government's policy will create.
The government has tried to foist its guilt off on this side of the House belating that by our determination to save the existing advance payment program through debate we are only delaying urgently needed payments to farmers. If so, how does the government explain the dozens of producer organizations that have joined us in insisting that this bill is badly flawed? How does this government explain the fact that the Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Com Producers Association, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and many other organizations have expressly requested that the government not implement this bill?
Such respected bodies such as the Advisory Committee to the Canadian Wheat Board unanimously resolved to recommend that the federal government operate the cash advance program as usual for the 1989-90 crop year
October 26, 1989

and only propose amendments after consultation with the producer organizations.
Of course, in the implementation of its agenda, the government has never shown much interest in seeking the input of those Canadians who will be most affected by the measures. From a finance committee that considered originally only going to two cities in Atlantic Canada and a Minister of Transport who refused to meet with municipal officials, this government obviously does not want to hear what Canadians have to say.
The Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues are turning a deaf ear to all of the producer organizations coast to coast that oppose this bill. This government's arrogance is stunning and will not be forgotten by farmers and other Canadians.
I find it appalling that the government will go forward at this time with this bill when farmers and producers so greatly need money at this time of year. They need their credit line and then be able to go to the banks when they have to borrow more money to keep their operations afloat.
This could not come at a worst time for Canadian farmers, when they are fighting all the effects and the impacts of the free trade agreement and the threat to their marketing policies. Again I would urge this government to go back to these organizations and negotiate a bill that will be much more beneficial. I ask it to keep this program intact, certainly for this year as has been recommended by all these producer organizations.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate.
I think the essence of what we are trying to do here is put in place the amendments to the Advance Payments for Crops Act and also the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
What I am hearing from producers is that over-all they feel the government is on the right track in trying to deal with the debt and deficit problems which, after all, is the fundamental problem affecting the country right now. The interest charges on that debt would curtail the activities of any government. I say that not in any partisan way because it would not matter which party was in charge here. The size of the national debt and the interest charges that have to be paid on it are, without a
Government Orders
doubt, a formidable obstacle and, in essence, shackle the abilities of government to be able to continue to deliver the programs we have now, let alone to improve upon them.
I think that producers across Canada understand the problem and the dilemma that faces the government. I think they understand also that the answer to the problem is not just to raise taxes, but that there also have to be some reductions in government spending.
In the recent budget, there were reductions. Every department of the government was asked to make some contribution to deal with the deficit problem. Of course, it is natural that each and every one of those proposals would be opposed by the opposition because that is their job, and by various groups affected in the country.
The fact is that most people across the country understand that these things have to be done. There is no great desire on the part of the government to inflict pain or hurt. The problem is that unless the deficit is addressed in some meaningful fashion at this time, we will soon reach the point where all of the revenue of government is taken up in interest charges, in servicing the debt of the past. Clearly, that cannot continue very long.
In regard to the amendments to these bills, the essence of them is this: That farmers will still be able-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Geoff Wilson: -to obtain financing to carry their crops from harvest time to delivery.


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


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who is speaking is clearly making an intelligent speech, but there is not a single minister of the Crown in this House to hear it. We are on a closure motion. This is a government bill. There should be a minister here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member knows that he should not indicate who is and who is not in the chamber. We have a lobby. We have television sets here in the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Where are they?

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: They are probably in the chamber some place, or else on the telephone. I do not wish to argue with the hon. member. He is right, but we still have that rule. We do not indicate whether there are or are not members in the House. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Minister of Agriculture and the minister of state responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, have tried on a number of occasions to see this legislation through. The farmers, the producers in this country want access to the cash advances. I think they are tired of seeing the stonewalling that is going on in this place. I think they are tired of hearing the arguments back and forth on both sides. I think at this point in time, they are less interested in whether minister x is in the front row or the fact that the entire opposition benches are empty. I mean everyone can play that game.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must say that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I wish hon. members would please take heed and let us not get into saying who is and who is not in this chamber. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, your point of course is well taken and I think illustrates the fact that I am sure the producers of this country would want members on all sides to get on with the business of Parliament to pass this legislation and to make the cash advances available to the farm community.
I wanted to take a couple of moments to outline a couple of the proposals that are in this bill. Of course, farmers will still be able to obtain financing to carry their crops from harvest time to delivery. They can still take advantage of marketing opportunities. The advances will be administered through producer organizations with which the federal government has agreements. The advance is extended to the farmer by the producer organization and is repaid by the farmer when the crop is delivered. The federal government will guarantee these advances against default so that the organizations and lenders involved take no risk.
What are the changes that are the subject of debate here? First, to provide better security, the act will guarantee payment of interest as well as the principal of the advance itself.
Second, under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, the interest rates will be designated by the minister rather than by regulation. This should assist in getting the advances into producers' hands more quickly.
Third, the advance limits would be designated by the minister up to a higher level than previously. Finally, interest rates will be based on rates negotiated by the Canadian Wheat Board or other producer organizations with the lending institutions. These rates will be significantly lower than would be the case if producers organizations sought credit independent of the federal guarantee.
In so far as orderly marketing is concerned, surely it is up to the producer to decide when to deliver within the schedules that are prescribed by the particular organization so that when the marketing agency-and I refer here to the Canadian Wheat Board as being of special interest to producers within my constituency-wants a particular grain or a crop delivered, they will open quota. It is of course up to the producer to decide to deliver. The fact that he is paying interest may indeed cause him to respond to the opening of quota and the request for delivery by the board. But that decision to ignore the request to the selling agency should be financed by the producer, not by the taxpayer. Of course, the price to the producer delivering is averaged throughout the year.
I want to spend some time on the background to this bill because I think it is being portrayed in some circles as some sort of heartless, vicious attack on the farm community. The fact is that nothing could be further from the truth. Unless serious steps are taken now to address the debt and deficit problem in this country, there simply will not be federal moneys available. Forget about interest free advances, there will not be any money available for fundamental farm programs, for the administration of the agriculture department, or indeed for the ordinary running of government departments, to say nothing about transfer payments to the provinces, or the support of our social safety net which we have come to appreciate and to enjoy. So there is a very fundamental issue at stake here.

I would like to make some reference to the magnitude of the debt at this point in time. The national debt and all of the accumulated deficits of the past amount to some $330 billion. We are told that that accumulated total of national debt will become $350 billion by spring. The interest payments that have to be made on that debt are in the neighbourhood of $35 billion to $39 billion a year. That is an enormous sum of money. It amounts to about $1,400 for every man, woman and child in this country. That amount has to be found to service the debt that was built up when the governments of the past failed to take in enough money, failed to tax Canadians sufficiently to pay for the programs that were delivered in the past.
That is the problem facing this government today, and, I might add, will have to be faced by whoever is in government. So again I stress that my remarks are intended to be as non-partisan as they can possibly be in this place. The figures do not change. The figures are there. The debt is there and it is inescapable. It will not go away. We cannot tear it up. We cannot renege on the treasury bills. We cannot renege on the Canada savings bonds. These are investments by Canadians in the main and they expect, of course, to receive interest on their investment.
We continue to try to find ways to deal with this problem. The size of the national debt has reached the point where the interest charges on it are feeding on themselves, like a snowball going down hill. Despite the best efforts of the past several years in terms of reducing government involvement, reducing the public service, in terms of eliminating non-essential programs, getting rid of a number of Crown corporations that were serving no useful public purpose, and in spite of some tax increases in the past, we still have this mounting debt.
It is clear that more has to be done. It is inescapable. It simply will not go away. We may be told that it is a heartless budget, and you cannot cut national defence, cut CBC, or reduce programs, but it has to be done some place. The only way that it is possible to deal with the debt and deficit problem is either to take in more money or to spend less.
There are two ways to take in more money. One is to increase taxes and another is to put more Canadians to work. Obviously government is moving in two thrusts.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The member for Winnipeg North on a point of order.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, permit me to ask a question on the motion of closure to the member?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am afraid not. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek- Assiniboia. There are no questions or comments.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It is permitted for him to allow a question by consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, by consent, after the hon. member finishes his speech, by consent.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Or the hon. member consents during the speech.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the attempts of the opposition members to try to interrupt the thrust of what I am saying and I understand why. It is pretty clear that they do not like to hear-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: I think the hon. member is trying to insinuate motives. That is fundamentally wrong and against a common rule of order. I was serious in wanting to ask a serious question. If the hon. member were to impose a false motive, that is dishonourable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Resuming debate.


Geoff Wilson: I certainly hope that these unwarranted interjections are not using up my time in debate because I think it is an important topic. I want to continue to deal with it more fully. We have as of government to be able to continue to deliver existing programs. If it is not seriously dealt with, it is going to curtail the ability of future governments to continue to provide even the most basic services to Canadians. It is a serious topic and, yes, I would be pleased to stay here all day and answer questions relative to this particular topic to the extent that the rules allow.
What I was saying before the interruption was that the choice is open to government in dealing with this problem either to increase revenue or to decrease expenditures. There is no other way, as I do not think there is any other magic potion or magic powder that we

October 26, 1989
Government Orders
can throw out in this Chamber to make this problem disappear. It is just not possible. We have to deal with reality.
I would rather we did not have a national debt. This year the Government of Canada, without taking into account interest on the past debt, will have a surplus on its operations of $9 billion. However, with $39 billion to pay in interest on the past debt, the deficit is going to wind up at $30 billion. But if we did not have the debt of the past, if we did not have to service it, we could effect a reduction in taxes of $9 billion to Canadians. We could afford all sorts of programs. But we cannot. We are handcuffed as a result of that past debt.
It is fine for those opposite to try to interrupt, and I do not blame them, because after all they are the ones who created the problem. I am not here to waste time going back over the situation. I think Canadians know that, and they made the Liberals pay the price in 1984, as a result of their profligacy. What we have to do now is address the problem.
We can take in more money. How do we do that? Do we raise taxes? Yes. That has been done. We also try to put more Canadians back to work, so instead of drawing on the public purse they are contributing to it.
I am happy to say that this government through its policies has enabled the small business entrepreneurial sector in this country to create 1,500,000 new jobs, net, over the past five years more than there were in the fall of 1984.
That still is not good enough. We also have to curtail government expenditures. There is no other way to do it. We take in more money through increased taxes, take in more money through having more people working and not drawing out of the public purse. We also have to curtail government expenditures. That is the reason for the provisions in the budget of this spring, which asked all sectors of the economy, all departments of government to make some contribution toward the cause of debt and deficit reduction. It seems quite straight forward to me. There is no magic to it.
I think what Canadians would be very interested in hearing from those in opposition, rather than this sort of scatter gun criticism, objecting to every proposal we have to try to deal with the problem are some sensible, workable alternatives. If you do not like what this government is doing in terms of reducing expenditure or increasing revenues, then for heaven's sake, let us hear
from you, not some sort of mindless interruption in the middle of someone's speech, but something concrete.
How is it going to be done? Is it going to be done through the medium of a wealth tax that the NDP proposes? Are we going to come back with the old estate tax so that after taxing people every year through their lives, you are going to hit them again when they die? The people of Saskatchewan had enough of that back in the 1970s.


Maurice Brydon Foster: You are going to hit them with the funerals.


Geoff Wilson: Here they go, Mr. Speaker. Another interjection from the opposition agriculture critic who sat back in his administration and laid a capital gains tax on the agricultural community. That capital gains tax which hung like a poisonous cloud over the farm community for 15 years until this government came along, lived up to its promises and eliminated that hated tax. It is a tax which western Canadians and, I think, Canadians generally are going to remember for a good long time.
What I would like to encourage the opposition members to do at this point in time is to help out the producers of this country by agreeing to the speedy passage of this legislation so that the producers can get the cash advances. They want to get those advances, Mr. Speaker. That is what they are telling me.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Who is holding it up? The government.


Geoff Wilson: The people who are holding it up, in response to the member from Mackenzie, are the opposition parties.
We have had five days of debate on this bill. The government has been forced to curtail debate because the opposition parties are not interested in helping the farmers of this country. If they were, they would assist our government not only in passing this legislation to enable the availability of the advances but would also assist the government in its measures to try to deal with
October 26, 1989

the national debt which they created, both parties over there, and the interest that has to be paid on it.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Over half of it was done in the last four years.


Geoff Wilson: I hear some more crying from the opposition benches, but the fact is that it is the New Democrats who back in December of 1979 crawled into bed with the Liberal opposition, defeated the Conservative government and thereby condemned Canadians to five more years of the grossest kind of mismanagement and overspending that this country has ever seen. The figures are there. The national debt burgeoned under those twin evils.


Ralph Ferguson: You doubled it over the last four years.


Geoff Wilson: They are yelling it doubled over the last four years. Of course it has because the effect of compound interest on the past debt in fact has doubled it. There is no question about it. But every nickel of the national debt involves overspending by past Liberal-NDP coalitions plus the unpaid interest on those figures. Those figures are there for all to see, and opposition members know very well that that is the case.
This government has been left with a legacy of overspending by previous governments. The reason that government today is hamstrung in its ability to deliver programs and continue to do the things that Canadians want is the very deficit and debt problem that was left to us from the past.
We now have to find in excess of $39 billion to service that past debt. Now the opposition people say: "No, renege on it. There is no problem. Do not pay on the bonds, do not pay on the treasury bills, continue to build up the national debt as we did in the past, and let us become a banana republic". Well that is not very responsible. It is simply not good enough.
This government is going to continue to support the farm community through responsible deficit reduction.
I would like to refer opposition members to Canadian Prairie Farming, 1960-2000, An Economic Analysis by the Economic Council of Canada. The figures are in there. If anyone thinks this government has not supported agriculture, I urge you to have a good look into this book here. All of it is justified and we are proud of doing it,
Government Orders
but do not ever say that this government has not supported Canadian agriculture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I just want to explain to the hon. member for Winnipeg North that I thought he wanted an explanation on how the debate was going to carry on. It is 20 minutes without any questions and comments.
I agree that if we have unanimous consent the hon. member could pose a question, but I would have to ask the House if there is unanimous consent to allow the hon. member a question?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Just consent of the member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the hon. member entertain a question?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to entertain a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must have unanimous consent of the House under the Standing Orders, in order to pose these questions and go beyond 20 minutes. It is beyond 20 minutes now. It is 20 minutes of debate, period.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor to ask a question, very fast. We only have 30 seconds left.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia not admit that had closure happened before his time to speak he would have had no opportunity to share his thoughts with us?
The same thing would happen now to other parliamentarians who would like to speak and share their concerns on this bill. Closure is always repugnant to a sense of fair play. It is the sword of Damocles to all parliamentarians, and it is a poison dart to democracy. Will he not admit that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has 15 seconds.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in many other Parliaments debate is somewhat limited. The practice in Britain is to have one or two speakers on a bill. I think it is quite possible to say everything that is necessary to be said about a bill on behalf of a political party, in a very

short period of time. If there was a will on the part of this House to pass this legislation for the benefit of Canadian fanners, it could be done in very short order.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, rural Canada is under siege. Services and institutions which have long been an integral part of the lives of rural Canadians are being dismantled and removed.
For generations the post office has been a focal point of our rural communities. Today Canada Post is slowly but relentlessly proceeding with its agenda to remove the post office from these communities. Rural postal outlets are being opened in areas where the citizens have indicated they do not want them and they have no need of them. Why?
The answer is that it is the first step in the process to close the main post offices. When the postmaster or postmistress leaves for whatever reason, the post office will also be gone. A bond which holds the community together will be gone.
There has been no consultation with the municipalities involved. Canada Post officials attend meetings, spout the party line, leave, and the RPO policy continues. The closures continue. Rural Canada suffers. Canada Post officials have lost their credibility. People no longer believe them.
The Chamber of Commerce, other organizations and concerned individuals in my riding will continue to resist this erosion of postal service. This government cannot be allowed to abdicate its responsibility for quality postal service in this country.


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of small business week, I wish to highlight the value we place on our small business community.
The future of small business in Canada has never looked brighter. With the increasingly international scope of economics and business, as well as the recent free trade agreement with our neighbour to the south, Canada can look with confidence toward the growth of a vigorous and competitive economy, the envy of every other nation.
Small business forms the backbone of the Canadian economy and is our firm guarantee of future prosperity. It is also a chief avenue of economic development for our multicultural communities. Almost one-third of Canadians have origins other than English or French. These citizens make up 50 per cent of those who own and/or operate their own businesses.
The entrepreneurial spirit is clearly alive and well in Canada. It is a solid foundation for our ethnocultural communities. Indeed, our social diversity in general constitutes a major asset in the building of our economy.
I would like to pay homage today to all those Canadians from our ethnocultural communities who have made such a vital contribution to the business life and over all economic growth of our country.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, when the Auditor General's Report was tabled, we found that Canadians did not have sufficient access to information. Since certain types of abuse might never be revealed by a government that prefers to act secretly, it is time we provided the Auditor General with the tools he needs to do his job. It is imperative that any one who witnesses abuse of public funds be able to inform the Auditor General without fear of reprisal.
October 26, 1989


BANKING
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, the laundering of money from drug trafficking is a serious problem in Canada. Until last January when Bill C-61 was enacted, Canadian law never specifically made money laundering a crime. Bill C-61 encourages Canadian banks to establish their own private guidelines on what constitutes suspicious bank deposits.
I would like to commend the Royal Bank of Canada for going one step further by imposing a de facto reporting requirement for all large transactions. Since January, anyone making a large cash deposit at the Royal must sign a declaration of source of funds. That person must provide personal identification such as a social insurance number, passport or driver's licence. The signed form gives the bank permission to disclose the transaction to the police.
So far this year, the Royal has examined close to 100 suspicious accounts, and has reported 76 to the RCMR On October 12, 1989, U.S. criminal charges were laid against a Royal Bank customer after police were tipped off by the bank about suspicious transactions. The Royal Bank should serve as an example for all Canadian banks to follow in the war against drugs.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, this government has allowed negotiations to break down between itself and the Public Service Alliance of Canada which represents Veterans Affairs and National Parole employees. These individuals have worked without a contract for almost three years. They are now being put in a position where they have to choose between their own needs and those of their clients.
We are talking about a group of people, most of whom are social workers, people who have dedicated their lives to helping others. This a moral dilemma for many of them. How do they reconcile their own needs for a reasonable salary with their desire to ensure that the
aging veteran has someone he or she can count on to be there if a crisis arises?
I know many of the employees of Veterans Affairs to be dedicated and hard working individuals who devote many hours to making the veterans lives easier. Most give more devotion and energy to their jobs than any employer could reasonably expect. Who will the veterans turn to if these employees are forced to go on strike?
I have seen their demands and they are not unreasonable, but after three years with no increase in pay, they are being backed into a comer. Our veterans served us well when we needed them. They need veterans affairs services and they need them now. Please ensure that these employees are treated fairly so that the veterans are not hurt by Treasury Board's lack of good faith.


CANADA CAREER WEEK
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, when he announced Canada Career Week, to be held from October 29 to November 4, the Minister of State (Youth) said: "Canada Career Week gives young people a chance to plan for their future, aware of the changes that are taking place on the labour market".
Under the theme "Careers in Focus", Canada Employment Centres across the country will organize activities in co-operation with schools and community organizations.
Mr. Speaker, Canada Career Week is an excellent way to make young people aware of labour market trends and the importance of planning their studies in terms of their career requirements.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring the concerns of the Canadian printing industry about tariff reductions under the free trade agreement to the attention of the House.
The printing industry is united in its opposition to the accelerated elimination of the tariff on printing products. The massive capacity of the U.S. industry relative to

the Canadian industry and market has resulted in significant U.S. competition.
The Americans have been able to compete very effectively. Indeed, the balance of trade is significantly in their favour. Statistics Canada reports that over $276.6 million in printing products were imported from the U.S. while Canada exported only $132.7 million to the States, resulting in a trade deficit of $143.9 million.
Under the free trade agreement, the tariffs on printed products are scheduled to be phased out over five years. Now the government is talking about accelerating this to January 1990. The printing industry believes the acceleration of tariff removal will be disruptive and have a negative impact.
I urge the government to listen to the Canadian Printing Industry Association, the employers, and the Graphic Communications International Union, the workers, and do everything in its power to ensure that the removal of these tariffs is not accelerated.


Mr. Michel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, movie buffs are meeting in Rouyn-Noranda on October 28 this year to celebrate the eighth edition of the International Film Festival in Abitibi-Temiscamingue.
Mr. Speaker, this important event has become a symbol of excellence in our region. Again, I want to congratulate the dynamic director of this festival, Mr. Jacques Matte, and his valiant team who for the eighth consecutive year will show us the best the film world has to offer.
The hospitality and warmth of the people of Abitibi- Temiscamingue have become a byword in this country and internationally, thanks to this annual festival which attracts an impressive number of actors and actresses, directors, distributors and media from all over the world. Welcome to Rouyn-Noranda! And three cheers for the 8th International Film Festival in Abitibi-Temiscamingue! Three cheers for Abitibi-Temiscamingue!


DISARMAMENT
Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, this is Arms Control and Disarmament Week worldwide and a timely occasion, I am sure all members will agree, for Canada to show initiative, vigour and foresight in arms control and disarmament.
Parliamentarians for Global Action have provided Canada with an opportunity to reverse its intransigence in the face of meaningful action in this area. Canada can and should join the over 39 countries that back the call for an amendment to the partial test ban treaty on nuclear weapons, an amendment that would turn the treaty into a comprehensive ban on nuclear tests.
If the world threat of nuclear weapons is to be overcome, progressive industrialized nations have to take up the challenge on behalf of humankind. Canada cannot let pass the occasion to show leadership, especially now that it has a seat on the Security Council.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, the same spirit which drove the people to settle areas of Canada like my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin flourishes today among the small business sector of our nation's economy. The hopes, the hardships, the risks and the rewards all characterize the spirit of the people who built this country and who continue to make it grow. In fact, in my riding, fully 85 per cent of the jobs depend on small business.
Small business is the life-blood of the Canadian economy, and as it grows, so Canada grows.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to defend my rights as a member of Parliament. As you know, I have brought the educational crisis which is taking place on the Six Nations Reserve to the attention of this House and the minister on a number of occasions. I have continually asked the minister to
October 26, 1989

meet Chief Montour to resolve the situation and to get the students back to school as soon as possible.
Finally, the minister, on the recommendation of the commissioner of the Indian Commission of Ontario, has agreed to meet Chief Montour tomorrow. I was asked by Chief Montour to attend the meeting as their member of Parliament, but much to my shock, I was informed by Chief Montour that the minister had informed him that he was not prepared to meet with them as long as their member of Parliament was there.
As a member of Parliament, I will not stand in the way of this meeting, but I believe that this is a direct attempt to circumvent the electoral process. This minister is challenging my rights as a member of Parliament to represent my constituents in the best way I can. What does he have to hide? I call on the minister to resolve this situation and to meet the chief in an open and honest manner. This is not the time to bring in more broken promises.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, last night this House held multiple votes on the report stage of the legislation to improve the management of the Unemployment Insurance Act, Bill C-21. We had a total of 23 standing votes. The record will show that only 26 socialists voted for their opposition to our government's Bill C-21 on unemployment.
The official public record will also show that by the time we reached the last vote last night, the socialists objection to the government bill had declined by 50 per cent and only 13 voted against the government. Ergo, our government support is growing in the ranks of our socialist friends. The official government record confirms that the New Democratic Party is not at all convinced of its position and NDP members are prepared to abstain or be absent from the House for a vote they screamed so loud to have.



James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21, the government's UIC bill, is now raising municipal property taxes all around Canada. By increasing UIC employers' contributions, a whopping 21 per cent as of January 1, local municipalities and school boards must raise property taxes to cover premium increases of up to $180 per employee.
In my riding of Surrey North, this means an additional $814,000. In the city of Vancouver, it is $2.3 million. In the city of Toronto, not counting its suburbs, it is $3.4 million.
UIC and job training are the responsibility of the federal government, not the local governments. What cash assistance is this government willing to provide local municipalities to pay the increases in UIC premiums? None! The government is forcing municipalities to raise property taxes and forcing more people out of then-homes.


SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, today is a memorable day indeed. The Minister of State (Science and Technology) has just announced the names of 14 centres of excellence selected under the network of centres of excellence program which has a budget of $240 million. The selection of these networks is a decisive stage in a series of efforts made by the Government of Canada to promote long-term basic and applied research in Canada.
The program is a challenge to researchers to abolish boundaries between disciplines, schools of thought and institutions, and work together on developing projects aimed at improving the competitive position of industry across this country.
These networks are an excellent way to promote excellence in the field of scientific research in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Canadian Government and on behalf of all my colleagues, I wish every success to the researchers who obtained these contributions through the centres of excellence networks.

October 26, 1989
Oral Questions


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I am responding today to a report prepared by the PC Quebec caucus complaining that too much federal research and development money is spent in the National Capital Region. In complaining, the report ignores the fact that most departmental research is carried out in the National Capital Region as well as the concentration of federal laboratories operated by the National Research Council.
The report implied that the level of R and D spending in the National Capital Region is excessive and that more should be spent in Quebec. The Minister of Communications is quoted as saying that there is a problem and agreeing that his province should get more.
Although it is natural in politics, members of the House should avoid the temptation to jump on the bandwagon of demanding more R and D money for their regions. R and D is too important and the money is too scarce for it to be thrown into the political pork-barrel.
All regions in Canada should be doing more R and D, but you do not increase the level of R and D in Canada by moving existing activities from one region to another. Investment in science must take into account the best interest of science. Regional considerations should only play a role when international experts have made location one of the technical determinants. Politicians should not pretend to be experts when they are not.
I call upon all members of this House and upon the government to denounce the pernicious and parochial attitude about science revealed in the Tory caucus report.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the government's continuing refusal to provide receipts on ministerial travel to the Auditor General.
Yesterday I brought to the attention of this House that Treasury Board guidelines had been doctored in September, 1989 removing a crucial sentence referring to the Auditor General. I have since found another instance of changing the rules where the words "for audit purposes", referring to travel receipts, have also been removed from the September, 1989 version of the guidelines.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Why did the government doctor those rules? Why does the government not want the Auditor General to see these files?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doctoring of the rules here. The guidelines were issued for the first time in November, 1988 and all guidelines of Treasury Board are reviewed periodically to make sure they are consistent. I have been told that these were changed as a matter of course in 1989 to reflect the situation that existed. It was only to reflect the decisions that had been taken years and years ago and by which governments had abided over the years.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister just told us that the rules were amended to save embarrassment for the government.

My supplementary is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
Yesterday, the Minister's answer to my question was that they would provide figures on the travel expenses of each minister on a regular basis. Mr. Speaker, this information is already available. We can find all that out simply by reading the Public Accounts. That is not what the Auditor General of Canada wants to know.
Is the Minister now prepared to give us some real answers? Is he prepared to hand over the receipts for travel expenses to the Auditor General, as the latter
requested? Yes or no?
Is he prepared to hand over to the Auditor General the letters from ministers requisitioning government aircrafts, as the Auditor General requested? Yes or no?
October 26, 1989


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat what I have already said to this House. I have asked the Comptroller General to ensure that they had a complete record of ministerial expenses and that that record be made available on a regular basis to anybody who wanted it.
Yesterday, I was also asked a very pertinent question about the use of government aircraft during election campaigns. I went into the record in somewhat more detail to be forthcoming and open with the Opposition.
During the election campaign, the government had used aircraft on five occasions in October and five occasions in November, 1988. Upon verification, out of those 10 trips, the Governor General used the aircraft seven times. Two of the trips were in November after the election. We only had one official trip during that period and that was for a Canada-U.S. anniversary of the Blue Water Bridge in Sarnia. That happened the day the election was called. That compares to the statistics that I have for the 1984 election. There were 38 trips. I would just like the Opposition to explain what they did on those trips.


Don Boudria: If the minister is so convinced that he is right, why does he not provide this House with the receipts. That is the question I want answered.
In his book, Where I Stand, the Prime Minister wrote about government spending at page 46, and I have a copy of that book here that was recently purchased for 99 cents at Coles. It says at page 46:
My starling point on the issue of government spending is freedom
of information. We cannot even begin to come to grips with this
problem unless and until the books of government are opened up so
that we can all see what is being done with the cash.
I would like to know why we cannot see the receipts. Why can we not see what is being done with the cash?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, yesterday and the day before I told the House that we would give the total travel expenses of each minister, that we would give the number of times that each minister used a government aircraft, the date, the itinerary, the names of all passengers on each trip on government aircraft, the reason for the use of government aircraft, the cost of the use of
Oral Questions
government aircraft, which is essentially what the Auditor General was asking for.
I can also say that when I look at some of the numbers that will be presented to this House, I find that when we talk about the use of government aircraft in the last year, we are 62 per cent below in the utilization of the fleet by the previous government in the last 12 months that it was in office. I think that is a very good record indeed.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It concerns this government's refusal to provide the Auditor General with all of the documents regarding the use of VIP aircraft.
On October 24, the President of the Treasury Board said, and I quote from page 5051 of Hansard:
We will provide on a regular basis the total travel expenses of each
minister, the number of times he takes an aircraft, where he is going,
who he is going with, his itinerary, the reason for the use of the
aircraft and the cost of the government aircraft.
The Auditor General is not asking if the aircraft was used. The Auditor General is asking why the aircraft was used.
If the minister is willing to provide the information for future trips, why is he refusing to provide the same information to the Auditor General on past trips? Why is he stonewalling? What has this government got to hide?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think we took good note of what the Auditor General had to say. We read the report carefully. I immediately talked to the Comptroller General of Canada and asked him to make sure that this information would be available on a regular basis for anyone who wanted to have access to it. That is the government's commitment to openness and accountability and the government's response to the Auditor General.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. The minister is simply trying to confuse the situation. It is fact that the Department of National Defence maintains certain log records which are now available to the public. However, the Auditor General wanted to see the letters of request which would indicate the purpose for which the VIP aircraft were used and whether or not the

Oral Questions
Treasury Board guidelines were followed and if appropriate charges were made to those ministers.
My question to the minister is simple. Will he or will he not give the Auditor General all of the documents requested but denied for the period commencing April 1, 1989, yes or no?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that a government has provided all this information as openly and accountably.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: In addition to the list that my hon. colleague just read out, I would also like to say, and I made a commitment before this House, that we will have a thorough review of the accounting practices in terms of the cost of the executive fleet and that report will be tabled in this House. I have asked for the report of the Comptroller General and I expect to have it in the following weeks. We will table it for everybody to see. I cannot understand why my hon. colleague is talking about stonewalling or hiding anything. We are open and accountable.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: If these expressions of support will end, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, the minister said that his 9 per cent GST on just about everything that moves could not be reduced. In Montreal last night, he refused to give Canadians assurance that it would not increase.
Can we assume from these remarkable statements that in fact the GST will rise if it is introduced at the same rate as the manufacturers' sales tax has increased since this government has been in office?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I was going to wish the hon. member all the best in his current endeavours but he seemed to turn that one off with the preamble to his question so I will restrain myself.
I have commented on a number of occasions in this House, as the hon. member is aware, on the very important balance that is in the package of measures that
form the GST system and the difficulty of changing just one of those. It is not possible. If people want lower rates, they have to accept a reduction in things like the credit to the middle income reduction or the payment to small business. Those are very important elements. I have just commented very specifically on the difficulty of making changes to those very important fairness elements in the package.
The hon. member has commented on the fact that I cannot make any guarantees for future governments. I am sure he understands that that is not possible to do. In this House I have said that barring unforeseen circumstances, we do not anticipate that rate changing.
However, those are things that any government has to maintain some flexibility on.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance talks about balance in the system. One of the problems is that most ordinary Canadians see the system that he is advocating as being severely imbalanced in favour of the rich as compared to the poor.
I would simply direct this question to the minister. In view of the record of this government which in its time in office has increased the manufacturers' sales tax from 9 per cent to 10 per cent to 11 per cent to 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent, would it not be fair for the taxpayers to assume that if this tax is introduced, on the basis of the government's record that eventually the taxpayers are going to be bled dry by increases in the GST just as they were by the manufacturers' sales tax?


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: The hon. member has raised two points that I would like to address. The first is that he says that this new GST system is weighted against those with lower incomes and favours those with upper incomes.
Let me remind the hon. member that when we came into office low income people were paying two or three percentage points more of their income in sales tax than people in upper income brackets. But, with the refundable sales tax credit and now the goods and services tax credit under the proposed system, those with low incomes will pay two percentage points less of their income in sales tax than those in upper incomes. Clearly we have shifted the whole balance of the sales tax system in favour of those in lower income brackets.
October 26, 1989

The hon. member has raised a second point relating to what could happen in the future. The only assurance that any taxpayer has that tax rates will not increase is if a government controls its spending. We have controlled program spending of the Government of Canada to 3.5 per cent over the last five years, on average. That is less than the rate of inflation.
In that same period of time the average of the provinces has been 6.4 per cent. One province, Ontario, has raised its program spending, on average, 9.5 per cent. That is the best assurance. If we continue that record of keeping program spending lower than the provinces, that is how Canadians can be assured that the tax burden will not be increased.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the average taxpayer is going to be interested in that carefully crafted answer which ignores the additional $2,000 a year in tax being paid by ordinary taxpayers.
The minister asks us to trust him. The Auditor General pointed out in his report that 1,500 tax collectors could not collect the manufacturers' sales tax from
75,000	accounts, with either adequacy or fairness, and that that has been a cost to the ordinary taxpayer.
How does the minister think it is possible that one million accounts are going to be served by only a two to threefold increase in the number of collectors without adding still a greater burden on the shoulders of the ordinary taxpayer?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me draw to the attention of the hon. member the difference between the existing federal sales tax and the goods and services tax. Under the existing tax for those 75,000 taxpayers there are 22,000 separate deals between Revenue Canada and the individual taxpayers. These have developed over the years.'They have resulted in the most complex form of sales tax system that anyone can imagine anywhere.
Surely the hon. member can understand why we want to move away from that system into a far more simple system, the goods and services tax, which will require far fewer people per taxpayer to administer and will allow us to ensure that there is not the same sort of tax avoidance that is there under the existing system, to which the Auditor General has referred. That, we have said, is one
Oral Questions
of the key reasons we must move from the existing system to a new system where there will not be that same form of tax avoidance.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On May 24, the minister of Industry, Science and Technology stated, and I quote: "We are going to promote research and development. We want to support the winners".
Could the Minister give us the assurance today that Canadian winners will remain in Canadian hands?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, in terms of Canadian companies, all of those takeovers to which my hon. friend refers are looked at by Investment Canada. They are looked at in terms of net benefit to Canada. That is the important thing-net benefit to Canada.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. That is exactly what you did with Lumonics, Lee Instruments, Xicom and all the other high tech companies we sold to foreign interests.

In the same speech the minister proudly announced: "I am confident we have the individual pieces it takes to establish an industrial research and development strength to take us into the next century."
And, at the same time this government, is negotiating the sale of Connaught to the Government of France. Why does this government consider the Government of France to be one of the key pieces that we need to make our economy great?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous government, this government does not negotiate the sale of anything. This is a private deal that is being worked upon.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

October 26, 1989
Oral Questions


William C. Winegard: When Connaught and Merieux have a deal that satisfies Investment Canada and the minister, I am sure the minister will rule on it.
If they want to talk about research and development, why do they not talk about the centres of excellence program announced just an hour ago? Why do they not talk about $240 million going into R and D in this country?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment.
As the minister knows, statements on unemployment, the numbers of jobs lost and jobs created are based on the Statistics Canada monthly labour force survey. According to the Auditor General the sample sizes of the labour force survey have been reduced due to recent budget cuts and consequently, he says, the accuracy of the survey is now doubtful. In 1986, 5,217 households were dropped from the survey.
Since these unemployment figures are widely used not only in economic planning but also for job creation programs and employment services, what does the government intend to do to restore the labour force survey as a credible source of information for Canadians?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the Auditor General's recommendation. As with all his other recommendations, we will be looking at them within the context of what we do within our department.
One of the things that has happened in terms of the labour force statistics is that sample sizes change over time, in part having to do with the increasingly sophisticated techniques that surveyors use. Having said that, I have discussed with my officials looking at the labour force statistics how they can be improved.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has said that due to budget cuts Statistics Canada is not able to give accurate information on unemployment to Canadians. As the minister knows, the labour force survey is also the main source of data for unemployment insurance and, depending on the unemployment rate in the different regions, eligibility and duration of benefits will vary considerably.
If these figures are not accurate, unemployed workers could be cheated of benefits, and this could be even worse under Bill C-21.
I want to ask the minister: When will the report on the new economic regions for unemployment insurance be made public, and what will the minister do to assure accurate figures for these regions?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure Hon. Members that we have done our job as a responsible government, because in the last twelve years, no review of the economic regions was ever done. When the committee is ready to submit its recommendation, I will be very pleased, as minister responsible, to announce it to the House of Commons.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The all-party Standing Committee on the Environment spent the last two days in Washington, D.C. encouraging Congress to do the right thing: to hold firm on cutting S02 emissions by at least 10 million tonnes by the year 2000 and to cap new emissions.
Canada has yet to legislate a national cap on acid rain. Will the minister assure this House that there will be a national legislated cap in place within the time frame we are urging on the United States, which will likely be Earth Day in April 1990?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, current control actions in the seven eastern most provinces of Canada have already resulted in a 40 per cent reduction in emissions. In 1994 we will have achieved a full 50 per cent target. This means that by then Canada will have reduced its emissions by 2.3 million tonnes. It is clear to this government that we cannot allow emissions to increase after that, so we need a cap.

This is an item on the agenda of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. We have a committee which is responsible for devising recommendations. We think the motto should be to secure a national cap in those seven provinces through negotiations at the CCME level and then to secure the cap through legislation. A possible motto could be, for example, what we did for the controls which presently exist, that is, to use the provincial legislation process.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. Time is of the essence here. The cap in the United States is under real threat from some very powerful forces. If Canada is to expect the U.S. to cap emissions to protect the environment from future acid rain sources, then the same principle must apply here and to date only Ontario has agreed to cap emissions.
Will the minister take steps between now and March of next year to see that legally enforceable limits or caps are in place for the other nine provinces and two territories, or is the U.S. legislation without a cap something the minister finds acceptable?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I just said what we are already doing to reach this goal. As far as the western provinces are concerned, we all know that happily there is no acid rain problem there. But, we think that we will also need targets and schedules there for the future.


CANADA POST
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In 1982, the Department of National Health and Welfare had to intervene to send perishable foodstuffs to northern Quebec. Today, Canada Post Corporation is about to increase its rates by 32 per cent, 45 per cent and even more as a result of a decision that the Treasury Board made in April 1989 to cut $1 million from its subsidy for the shipping of parcels in the North. My question is as follows.
Oral Questions
By November 13, 1989, could a moratorium be declared on rate increases set by Canada Post Corporation for essential products like dairy products, fruit, vegetables, bread, food and children's articles?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I want to reassure the Hon. Member for Abitibi. I know and realize the importance of his question and I want to assure him that this Government is also very concerned. All Ministers directly involved in finding a solution plan to meet and have been contacted. I know that my colleague who is responsible for Canada Post is also to call a meeting shortly to try to find an appropriate solution to the present situation.


PWA CORPORATION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Bureau of Competition Policy allowed PWA Corporation, the owners of Canadian Airlines International, to take over Wardair thereby giving two airline companies in Canada control of 98 per cent of the market. Now PWA is selling all the aircraft it took from Wardair, plus 11 of its own.
It is evident that PWA had no intention of carrying on any of the service of Wardair. All it wanted to do was get rid of a troublesome competitor.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what assurances the government required from PWA that it would at least provide service in a major portion of the market formerly provided by Wardair? Could the Deputy Minister tell us what benefit there is to the consumers of Canada from the cannibalization of what was once Wardair?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a number of points about the merger. He recognizes that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not present in the House. The minister will reply to him at the appropriate time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Ouellet:: How about the Minister of Transport?

October 26, 1989
Oral Questions


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: The Deputy Prime Minister is here.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would expect on a subject as important as this to Canadians and to the Canadian consumers that the government would be a little more forthcoming with an answer, particularly since it is obvious that not only could PWA not afford to buy Wardair, it could not afford to keep the airplanes it already had, because it is selling 11 of its own along with the 15 it got from Wardair.
Will the government, will the minister, will the Deputy Prime Minister, will somebody tell us what assurances they got from PWA as to the financial strength of PWA? What level of financial strength was required before they let this takeover go ahead?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member from The Sydneys that if PWA had not bought Wardair we would not have that service at all today.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: What's the difference?


Benoît Bouchard: The member should know that we would have had hundreds or thousands more lay-offs if PWA had not bought Wardair some time ago. The member knows very well that PWA is trying to rationalize its operations in a way that will enable it to provide service by Canadian Airlines on former Wardair routes. The member knows that very well.
I believe this was a good deal because it permitted hundreds and thousands of Canadians to keep their jobs, jobs they would otherwise have lost.


AIR CANADA
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Transport. As he will know, Air Canada has pulled out of Sept lies, Quebec; Sydney, Nova Scotia; Gander and Stephenville, Newfoundland, just to name a few.
In the case of Stephenville, Air Canada has refused to enter into a joint fare arrangement with First Air which would allow it to provide a replacement jet service to Stephenville. Air Canada has not only decided now where it will not fly, it is also dictating that nobody will
fly there and, in the process, making a sham of airline deregulation.
Why did the government not foresee this cowardly stranglehold application of deregulation, and does the minister condone this bullyism?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I want to say first that Air Canada is a private corporation which has the right to fly where it wants and where it can provide services. Stephenville has services which will be provided by another company. I believe that my friend knows that very well.
Dealing with the question of deregulation I would like to quote an outstanding Canadian. His name is Max Ward. He said recently: "The airline business has been strangled by politicians who between 1946 and 1984 did not understand the way that aviation has to run". I think the member has his answer about deregulation.


Roger Simmons: Air Canada is private, yes. That does not give it the option of dictating who will have service in this country.
This refusal effectively gives Air Canada and the other national airline the ability to carve up the territory, to decide who is going to have service and who is not going to have service right from Whitehorse to Stephenville.
I ask the minister: What steps does he intend to take to ensure that there will be unfettered competition in the airline industry rather than Air Canada's kneecapping approach to protecting its markets?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, rather than trying to scare the people of Newfoundland, particularly in Stephenville, about air transportation the member should say that Air Atlantic immediately covered the flights Air Canada withdrew and actually we have an increase in the number of departures each day.
It demonstrates that the private sector can sometimes provide more services in this country than could the air transportation companies we had before.


FISHERIES
David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
October 26, 1989

On October 2, the minister of fisheries told the House: "fishermen in Atlantic Canada are enjoying a year which is prosperous and adequate". On the other hand, just a couple of days ago the Minister for International Trade said: "This fishing industry is in trouble- that is the state of the fishing industry at this moment-your arse is in the pickle".
Will the Deputy Prime Minister take under advisement appointing someone as minister of fisheries who has some appreciation of the problems facing the fishing industry on both coasts of Canada?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I hate to be quoted incorrectly. By the way, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans just announced today an additional $28 million for increased aerial surveillance and enforcement measures in connection with the fishery, both in eastern Canada and western Canada. He is well aware of the needs of the fishery.
The Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been pointing out that it is not all gloom and doom, that the fishing industry today is contributing far more to the Gross National Product than it was a few years ago, and that there are healthy sectors of the fisheries. And of course, as we all know, there are sectors of the fishery that are in difficulty because of the resource.
I could read the whole quotation but I won't. I could give the illustrious story that I gave yesterday but I won't because it might take too long.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade should listen to the Minister for International Trade.
On October 16, the free trade panel ruled against B.C. salmon and herring regulations. Both the minister of fisheries and the Minister for International Trade promised consultation with the people who are under the gun. The only consultation to this point in time has been between the Canadian and the U.S. Governments. Only 20 days remain of the 61 we had. When will the promised consultation with the people in B.C. begin?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, since the panel report was received the government has, as it has been doing constantly during the resolution of this dispute, had consultations with the Government of British Columbia which does not wish the panel report implemented but which in its letter to me has acknowledged that never has
Oral Questions
it experienced such a process of consultation as it has experienced with us in this issue.
We have had consultations with the fishing industry of British Columbia. We have had consultations with the fishing union of British Columbia. We have had consultations-


James Ross Fulton: Not true.


An Hon. Member:: Not that we're aware of.


John Carnell Crosbie: They're never aware of very much, and they may not be aware of the fact that they have been consulted with.
We have had consultations with the governments of the Atlantic provinces as well which have an interest in this issue. So there has been a great deal of consultation.
I would ask the hon. gentleman to remember that this is a panel report delivered by a Canadian chairman with two Canadian members and two American members, so he should give it some weight.


REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
As is well known, reproductive technology does not include abortion.
What assurances can the minister give that the Royal Commission on Reproductive Technologies will deal expeditiously with the urgent issues before it, including surrogate parenthood, infertility and test tube conception, and not be diverted by the quite separate issue of abortion?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, this is another example of our Government's responsible attitude. We promised to appoint a commission on reproductive technology. The commission has a mandate that is very specific and that will be kept entirely separate from the abortion issue. Appointments were made above all on the basis of qualifications and knowledge and experience in the area of human rights, and we have a commission that will do its work under a

October 26, 1989
Oral Questions
specific mandate with qualified people and a specific goal which is entirely different from the abortion issue.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Minister's intentions are honourable, but it is absolutely crucial to exclude abortion from the debate. Will the Minister make it quite clear in the commission's mandate that abortion is not a part of that mandate?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I think the commission's mandate is quite clear, in that it asks the commission to examine the implications for health, research and the public interest and to recommend policies and advise on precautions that should be taken in the case of existing and future medical and scientific programs.
We are preparing for the present and working for the future, in order to avoid the kind of situations we see today.


FORESTRY
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Forestry).
Last July the minister admitted that the 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber had a devastating effect on the industry. The minister is quoted as saying that he would present the Americans with a proposition to test the grounds before he sent them a termination notice to cancel the Memorandum of Understanding.
Could the minister inform Canadians on the progress of his action?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I said earlier this year the softwood lumber tax was a minor factor in the non-congenial economic circumstances of the lumber sector, particularly in the hon. member's area of northern Ontario.
We have served notice on the United States that we wish to revisit the issue. At the same time we are holding discussions with the provinces, which is a necessary and
important ingredient in developing and assembling the necessary evidence with which to approach the Americans with the proposition to eliminate the MOU.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. Indeed, northern Ontario has suffered greatly with this tax. He has just indicated that the Americans are willing to listen.
What can we expect from the American Government on this?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I said that we have served notice on the Americans that we want to revisit the issue. I did not say that they have shown readiness to listen.
What I have said is that we are constructing the evidence that will provide us with the necessary authority and jurisdiction to negotiate out of the MOU.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Only last year the Prime Minister promised to improve not destroy medicare.
Last night the Canadian Medical Association appeared before the finance committee. The doctors questioned this government's commitment to medicare. They stated that the goods and services tax will dramatically increase the cost of running our hospitals and increase the operating costs for doctors and other health care professionals. They indicated that the goods and services tax will increase health care costs.
Will the Minister of Finance explain how adding to the cost of Canada's health care system through the GST constitutes an improvement to that system?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the full report of the Canadian Medical Association but the hon. member, I am sure, is aware that medical services, medical devices, and prescription drugs are all exempt under the goods and services tax.
I think that that demonstrates very clearly our commitment to the health system in this country, a commitment that we have maintained for many, many years.
October 26, 1989


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, that certainly is not what the doctors said last night. Surely they know more about the front line of health care than does the Minister of Finance.
Would somebody responding on behalf of the minister of health like to contradict the doctors on this point? Will they now admit that the goods and services tax will increase the cost of medicare, or are they disagreeing with the doctors, saying that the doctors do not know what they are talking about?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will answer in the same way, Mr. Speaker. I have not had an opportunity to read the specific statements of the medical association. Clearly, medicare is exempt.
The treatment of hospitals is such that they will not be required to pay any additional sales tax under the new system relative to what they are paying under the old system. In each of these ways we have responded in a way that demonstrates our commitment to the health care system in this country.


PROPOSED RESEARCH CENTRE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. At this time last year during the election campaign the Prime Minister was telling no less than the United Nations that Winnipeg was going to get a centre for the international promotion of sustainable development. We were excited about that because finally we were going to get something out of this government. But now we are not too sure.
The government and the Cabinet have suddenly become very silent about this centre. Rumours fly. I want to know from the minister right now are we going to get that centre? If so, when are we going to get it?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member to maintain his excitement at the same level as before. We are actively working with Manitoba and CIDA on the negotiation of an agreement to set up this magnificent centre. It is very important for us.
Point of Order
We are on the eve of striking a final agreement with the province and all interested parties. My officials are working very actively on it. Stay tuned. You will have more news in a few weeks.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, that is encouraging, but I can tell the hon. minister that it is always very difficult to get excited about anything regarding this government.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. Again, there are a number of rumours flying about this centre. What we have heard is that if we do get the centre it is going to be a mere shell, that it will be nothing but a token operation, that it will be nothing more than an administrative office, and that real jobs and real contracts will go elsewhere in the country.
My question is: can the minister assure us that the centre is coming to Winnipeg? Can he also assure us that this will be a centre with real contracts and real jobs, meaning something real for the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, in spite of all those rumours, probably created by the member himself, there will be a real centre with real content, real substance, a real mission, real people and real success.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of what I thought at the beginning was one instance in this question period, but as it turns out it was two. In doing so I refer to Beau-chesne's, citation 327(1), which 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 Thble.
I would note further in citation 327(5) it states:
To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate.
Citation 327(7) states:
When a letter, even though it may have been written originally as a private letter, becomes part of a record of a department, it becomes a public document, and if quoted by a Minister in debate, must be tabled on request.
During the course of his responses to questions from the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the hon. President of the Treasury Board consistently and

October 26, 1989
Privilege
persistently quoted from a document he was holding in his hand having to do, presumably, with plane trips taken by ministers. I would submit that that having been the case he is now duty bound to table that document.
As well, and for the same reason, when he was responding to a question from the hon. member from Nanaimo-Cowichan, the hon. Minister for International Trade cited and, indeed, quoted from a letter from the Government of British Columbia to his department. I submit that he, too, is now duty bound to table that letter.


Robert René de Cotret: I was quoting from this document, Mr. Speaker, and I would be happy to table it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How do you know it is the same document?


Robert René de Cotret: If the members want special copies I would be happy to provide them.


André Ouellet: lable all the receipt books at the same time.


PRIVILEGE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege.
I think it is a collective right of all members of Parliament to be treated on an equal basis. It is a question of equity that information available to a member of Parliament is shared by all members of Parliament.
My question of privilege arises from the press conference that was held today by the Minister of State for Science and Technology dealing with the network of Centres of Excellence. I was very happy to hear about the announcement. I am proud to say that the University of Ottawa in my riding will be more than happy to have seven of those centres operating.
I am very distressed by the fact that last night all Tory members were informed by electronic mail, that is, the House of Commons network of-


An Hon. Member:: How do you know?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I know because two Tory members told me.


An Hon. Member:: Do you believe them?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Whether I should believe them or not is not the question.
I also know further, Mr. Speaker, because the office of the member for Ottawa South called the minister's office and was informed that, indeed, all Tory members had been informed last night by electronic mail that this morning all ministers would receive copies of this brief and this announcement and at maybe one o'clock or later this afternoon the rest of us would hear about this announcement.
My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, involves a question of equity. I am not questioning the value of the announcement nor am I questioning its contents. I am just saying that if it is true that we are all equal in this place-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is not true.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I hear the Minister of Justice say, "It is not true". If it is not true then something should be done to rectify that kind of a situation.
I believe it is a custom, a practice, a long-standing habit of governments to want to share good information with all members. This is good information.
I ask why the government is so secretive, so paranoid about information that it fails to tell all members of Parliament including those of the Liberal caucus, and those of the New Democratic caucus, about this announcement.
My question of privilege is simple. I do not like being treated as a second-class citizen in this place. I do not think it is fair. I do not think it is right. I do not think it has to be the practice of this government, even though I am told that there are other events in past history where this very same government was very secretive and made announcements outside the House without informing us.
My point is that in this case the government did inform its members that there was a press conference at the Museum of Natural History, that they should be there if they wanted to hear about it. We were not invited, Mr. Speaker. I find that totally irresponsible and unacceptable.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone was notified last evening. What should have happened was that at 12.30 p.m. today all members of this House should have had the kit announcing the press conference at one o'clock this afternoon.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I take the minister's word. He said "should". That is conditional. I am just telling him that his office told us this morning that last night his own members were informed. I can understand that maybe he will want to go into his office and ask who is putting out this wrong information. I take the minister's word for it. It should have happened as he described. It did not happen. I regret that.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, if the documentation did not arrive on the desks of the opposition members this morning, I apologize. The plan was to have it on all members' desks before the press conference at one o'clock.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was advised by the House of Commons Comptroller, Mr. John Ferrier, that the figures listed in the schedule of MPs' expenses in the Public Accounts of Canada, Volume 2, Part 2, as they relate to me are completely incorrect. The House of Commons Comptroller has notified the President of the Treasury Board of this mistake, as I have, and apparently the correction has been made.
The correct figures for my indemnities, expense allowance, and travel allowance should have read as follows: $58,725, $19,525, and $30,275.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Government House Leader to give the
Business of the House
customary statement of business which the Government House Leader will be calling over the coming week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we are giving a great deal of consideration to forthcoming business. We want, as always, to be as equitable as possible to the spokespersons for the opposition. I anticipate that before the close of business today we will be able to give that statement.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Government House Leader. I hope that since last night he has had time to reflect on the series of long votes, the long proceedings that took place.


William James Kempling: Where were you?


André Ouellet: I was here and voted on every vote that took place last night.
I would like the Government House Leader to tell us if he has taken seriously the recommendations of the McGrath committee that recommended that we use electronic voting in the House of Commons, which was at the time a unanimous report of the House. Unfortunately, it was not followed through.
I hope the Government House Leader, upon reflection, will take this very important recommendation of a very important committee of the House of Commons seriously, and act upon it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my hon. friend. I reflected last night that what took place was an abuse of the privileges-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Cut it out. Closure is an abuse after one day's debate.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Just a minute. I thought you were in the same party. I could have sworn you were in the same party. I really could have.
I think it is an abuse to keep the House of Commons and the business of this country stalled for some 30 standing votes.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Get serious. You didn't call the House of Commons for three months, then you want to push something through.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: A colleague in your party has asked a question of me about electronic voting. Why do you not settle this in caucus next Wednesday?

October 26, 1989
Business of the House
If this is a representation from the official opposition, we will take it as such. I suggest though to my hon. friend that once the Liberal caucus has decided its position on the matter of electronic voting, and there does seem to be some dissension, we will be glad to consider it.


André Ouellet: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want the minister to remember that this recommendation of the McGrath committee came after the absolutely unacceptable abuse of Parliament by the then opposition, the Conservative Party, which had the bells ringing for a period of two weeks.
In order to try to find a concrete solution to this possible repetition of abuse, a recommendation was made by representatives of the three parties in the House of Commons. The government, through the Prime Minister, was supposed to act upon it. He has never acted upon it. That is the situation.
I am asking the minister if he is going to review the situation and act upon this recommendation. This type of abuse, whether it comes from one party or another, could come in the future and could be bad for the reputation of the House of Commons. That is the purpose of my question.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I happen to agree 100 per cent with my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker. As far as I am concerned what happened last night was an abuse of the reputation of the House of Commons.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, as a member of one of the opposition parties last night that simply asked the members of the House to stand and be counted on a number of very important amendments to a significant piece of legislation in terms of its implications to the people of Canada, I do not consider it to be an abuse of the House. We were following the rules that have unfolded traditionally in our House of Commons.
I find it somewhat ironic that a government which in four short years has used closure more often than has ever been used in Canadian history before talks about abuse of the traditions and customs of the House of Commons.
I think it is important that we recognize that democracy sometimes is not as quick and as efficient as other forms of government, but it is the better and the best
form of government. If it takes a few hours to vote on a very important piece of legislation that is anything but an abuse of Parliament and its traditions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I find it regrettable that the minister has left the House. We only get one chance a week to ask questions about the orders of work in this place and he cannot stay for five minutes to listen to questions from this side. I find that totally unacceptable.
I want to ask the minister a question that relates to an order adopted by this House twice, first on April 4 and then June 27. It was ordered at that time that the opposition would have four opposition days, that is, days on which we can settle the agenda in the month of October. There are three working days left in this month. All we wanted to know, in the interest of getting some co-ordinated efforts to really oppose this lousy government, is what it is calling for tomorrow, one day. The other two, we will decide.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Some of the recent interjections are encouraging. Members are talented. Members are hard-working. Some sense of planning would aid all of us in our capacity to screen legislation well and to do what it is that the people sent us here to do and expect us to do.
It is the absence of ability to co-operate in the planning, that has led to the need for the government and for the members on this side of the House to do the planning. There are rules within our procedures that allow us to do the planning through time allocation or through the use of closure. That is what has been going on. It has thrown the system into a little bit of turmoil. The House leader did indicate that before the close of business today he would have something more to say. It might be an opportunity to ask questions at that point.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I am more or less new to this place. I do not know all the rules. I would like to say something in response to what the hon. government House leader said.
He said that by our coming here last night and voting on some 22 or 23 amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act that we were abusing the business of the House, abusing this place. I find that rather offensive because I, among others, came here thinking we were conducting some very serious business on behalf of this country. Those changes to the act certainly were sweep-

ing and significant and brought about a lot of concern in this country.
I, for one, thought that we were doing our business for our country exactly where we stood and what we was doing. Now the government House leader says that by following the rules and following our responsibilities that we are abusing the privileges of this place. I just find that incredibly offensive.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Schneider (p. 5069).
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand today and speak on this very important piece of legislation which affects the advance payments to farmers in the riding of Essex-Kent as well as the farmers across Canada.
Bill C-36 intends to cancel the interest free provisions of the advance payments for crops and the prairie grain advance programs. The intention of this legislation is not acceptable to the Canadian farmer.
The government introduced this bill on September 27, 1989. At that time harvest across Canada was well under way. In my riding much of the harvest is complete. Yet we are debating legislation that has kept money out of the pockets of farmers in this country.
It is unfortunate that the legislation was introduced when it was when we stop and think that the farmers early in the spring had done a great deal of planning for their production. Very quickly, the government has changed the rules in the middle of the season. When farmers commenced their current year production they
Government Orders
arranged their financing on the basis of the advance payments they were expecting.
However, this government has chosen to change course in the middle of that. Today, the government has forced closure on this bill, not allowing the opposition, not allowing the government, not allowing the farm community within the country to be heard fairly and justly. Many people on this side of the House have stated how bad it is that the government would come forward with closure as many times as it has.
I, too, am a new member of this House and I am very concerned that every time a piece of legislation comes forward we are not allowed to speak clearly, fairly and openly on it. We are forced to closure. We are forced to sit long hours hoping that we will have an opportunity to speak, not necessarily given that opportunity on a regular basis.
Two days ago we debated Bill C-20, a taxation bill which the government claims is necessary as a transition to tax reform. Why does the government emphasize the need for transition legislation one day but not the next? Where is the transition for farmers on advance payments? There is none. The government refuses to provide interest free advance payments for crops and has suspended the past practice without any legislation in place.
The government would have Canadians and our farmers believe that it is the fault of opposition parties for not having the new bill in place. The proposed legislation is bad, and we must tell the government that it is bad. We are attempting to do that at this point in time.
We on the opposition side of the House are not alone in our criticism. Prairie Pools Corporation opposes the bill. That organization has formally requested the government to withdraw the bill at this time. It has indicated that a thorough review of the legislation is necessary to assess the impacts on cash flow and agricultural marketing. The corporation further noted that the existing Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act has proven valuable for providing the needed cash flow to producers and encouraged orderly marketing and efficient grain handling.
The National Farmers Union opposes the bill. This organization has also condemned the proposed legislation, requesting the government withdraw Bill C-36 and reinstate the current interest free legislation. It has

Government Orders
criticized Bill C-36 as being regressive. We on this side of the House agree with that assessment.
The existing prairie grain advance payment program enabled producers to save on interest costs. It allowed producers to meet debt obligations, assisted creditors to have accounts paid on time to settle outstanding accounts, relieved pressure on the Canadian Wheat Board elevators and the quota system from becoming clogged and assisted the board in programming orderly marketing and sales.
The National Farmers Union views these positive features as an integral part of the farming industry. The removal of the benefits, if Bill C-36 is passed, will be devastating to the farm community.
The Ontario Com Producers Association has also requested the Minister of Agriculture to abandon Bill C-36 and that the current programs be continued. The association is opposed to the elimination of interest free provisions of the current legislation because the relative cost of APCA marketing programs has been minimal compared to the benefits generated in the agricultural sector.
The program has proven to be of major benefit in shifting corn sales from autumn until later in the marketing year, thereby reducing the extent of export sales in autumn and shortages induced by imports during later months. The net result has been financial benefits to producers, domestic users and commercial elevators.
The APCA program is not trade distorting. It does not stimulate production but rather encourages orderly marketing. The GATT Geneva Accord of early April obliges Canada to freeze existing support programs, not reduce them.
There is no offsetting reduction for the 1989-90 crop year in the U.S. loan program-the American equivalent for the APCA-for grains and oilseeds. Canadian grain and oilseed producers are already contributing their share to the national debt via the programs in excise sales tax, sales tax exemptions on diesel fuel and on gasoline.
All of these farming organizations are prepared to meet with the Minister of Agriculture to review proposals on advance payments. That point must be clearly
understood. The organizations are willing to have open discussions. We encourage this. But what they are saying is do not arbitrarily change the rules of the game half way through a season. The crops are not only planted for the most part they are harvested as well. Farmers depend upon these advance payment incentives.
According to this government's budget in the next two years farmers will see reductions such as crop insurance by $200 million; grain and flour transportation by $40 million; branch line rehabilitation by $32 million; grain and crops advance payments by $54 million; dairy export by $14 million; commodity based loans by $14.5 million; dairy commission by $14 million; and excise tax and fuel rebates by $100 million.
How much are we going to ask the farm community to sacrifice? Are we going to tax the withdrawal programs until the Canadian farmer cannot afford to be in business? Farmers are asking, "Where will it end?".
Other farming organizations, including the Ontario Soybean Growers Marketing Board, B.C. Vegetable Marketing Commission, and the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association, to name a few, have echoed their colleagues' concerns and requests to reinstate the current programs of advance payments.
Farmers, farming organizations, marketing boards, elevator operators, farm financiers-literally thousands upon thousands of Canadians-believe in the benefits of the advance payments program. Everyone involved in agriculture believes in these programs. The only people not in favour are the members opposite. Does that say something about the government? I think it does.
Farmers in my riding are upset. They are upset that this government does not care about them anymore. Farmers are being asked to make concession after concession on their incomes, concessions that will cost the farming community $400 million in the next two years. These restrictions must cease. These loss of dollars to the farm community cannot be carried through week after week, month after month. We must reverse these ill-conceived actions of the government. Farmers deserve better. Let us begin now to show them that we do care.
I implore the government to reverse these anti-farming initiatives and let the farming community survive.
October 26, 1989

This morning hon. colleagues on the other side of the House brought forth the fact that we are several billion dollars in debt. We have been hearing that echoed in the House time after time. The members of the government have continually stated that it was the fault of a previous Liberal government. Canadian people are not that naive. After five years in power, the government has increased the debt $150 billion, doubled the national debt, and at the same time continually blamed their predecessors for the problems.
It is time to face reality. It is time to stop blaming somebody who was in government five years ago. It is time to carry through initiatives that are required. It seems to me the government is heading in a very wrong direction. It is going after the farm community, the weaker people in our society, and that will devastate this country.
It is time this government changed its direction and came to the reality that Canadian people are important, not just the farm community, but all of those who are weaker in our society. I believe the government has overlooked this important fact.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to address this government's intention to withdraw the interest free provision for prairie grain advance payments and advance payments for crops.
At first glance, Canadians might wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, we are only talking about some $25 million to $27 million which farmers could surely sacrifice seeing how this government feels so strapped for cash, could they not?
I am glad I have this opportunity to speak in the House on the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act changes because it is through measures such as this that we can see how this government is mistreating Canada's farmers.
This piece of legislation raises so many issues that illustrate what this government is all about. It raises the issues of confusion, incompetence, and I might add, spinelessness. While I am glad I have been given the opportunity to defend Canadian farmers' interests, I am sorry the government would even put forth such a piece
Government Orders
of legislation in the first place, that we should have a debate on whether we provide farmers with a program that works, or do we take it away and slap Canadian farmers in the face?
Unfortunately, this government's agenda seems to require dismantling good programs. At the rate it is going, by the end of its term it will have done more damage to the effective institutions in this country than any other government in Canadian history, that is, unless it begins to listen to what Canadians are saying, to come up with creative and positive reforms, and to abandon their cut and slash attitude.
The changes to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, which are being proposed, provide one example of what I mean by the mindless cut and slash policy of this government. At stake is approximately $27 million for Canadian farmers, farmers who store their grain in the fall and collect an advance payment for it which they will sell in the spring or early summer when grain prices are higher and the fall grain glut is cleared.
The Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds claims he is not trying to prevent farmers from using this program. He is simply going to charge them interest on partial payment for grain stored six to eight months over the winter.
I have news for the minister. When the government eliminates the interest free provision in this act, it discourages farmers from using the program. In effect, the government is discouraging the storage of grain, impacting negatively on the elevator storage industry, on Canada's food security, as well as on Canadian farmers. Without the interest free provisions of the advance payment program, and with the increased administrative costs to the farmer under this legislation, the attractiveness of this program to the average farmer is lost. Then one day, who knows, this government might come along and tell farmers they are not using this program very much and cut it completely. It would not surprise me one bit, seeing as the effectiveness of the program would have been cut with Bill C-36.
What might happen with the prairie grain advance payments program, may be the same tactic the Minister of Transport is using with VIA Rail, wound and then move in for the kill; cut the effectiveness of the service now, and when it is down on its knees, stamp it out for good. One less bother for the government.

October 26, 1989
Government Orders
I would like to expand on why the program should continue to exist as it does now, because it seems to me that the government does not think these things out for itself. What is worse is the fact that when the opposition points out the flaws in the government's reasoning, the government gets too embarrassed to make the proper changes. Instead, it blames the entire mess on the opposition. It is the only way that the members opposite think they can save face after having bungled this legislation. By failing to listen to the reasons this opposition and 19 producer groups across Canada have been trying to communicate to the government, I am afraid they are only making matters worse.
Let us first look at what is at stake for the government. Cutting the interest free provisions for advance payments would mean roughly $25 to $27 million for the government treasury. While this $25 million makes this program beneficial and worth while for farmers, it is a drop in the bucket for the government when compared to the revenue generated from taxes on products generated on farms, almost $1 billion on alcohol beverages and $1.8 billion on tobacco, just to name two.
As my colleague from Lambton-Middlesex pointed out, the government collects about $3.5 billion in excise and sales taxes on tobacco and alcohol products. Yet, it complains that it cannot afford $25 million for a program that has been working very well in favour of orderly marketing in Canada for the last 30 years.
I wonder why this particular $25 million is so crucial all of a sudden, and why this government would rather face the wrath of Canadian farmers than put its own house in order. What can one expect from a confused government that digs itself into a bigger and bigger hole by raising interest rates, increasing its deficit, increasing taxes, all the while dragging the Canadian economy into the hole with it.
Maybe we are seeing a continuation of this government's policy of breaking down Canada's orderly marketing system in favour of free market enterprise to comply with secret agreements made in the free trade negotiations, just like in the softwood lumber dispute, when we gave up our bargaining chips before we got to the table.
As my hon. colleagues across the floor must know, this program does not even lead to trade distortions. It simply
encourages the orderly marketing of our grains, com, and other crops. I am afraid that I fail to see this government's justification for chipping away at the financial management tools that have been so valuable to the farmers in the past.
We on this side of the House understand the need to control the deficit. What we disagree with is the government's affinity for making cuts that affect the poor, the sick, the elderly, the unemployed, as well as small businessmen and farmers, while paving the road, I might add, for big business, multinational corporations and the wealthy. Members opposite should know that the mark of a country's government is how it treats its weakest members, not its strongest.
I would like to end by making a plea, as all members on this side have done, to the members opposite, to vote against this legislation because of its severe implications for orderly marketing in Canada. A vote against Bill C-36, is a vote for common sense, for Canadian farmers, and for the institutions that have allowed our agriculture community, indeed, all of us to prosper.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, we are facing a closure motion which I think was totally unnecessary and uncalled for in this particular instance. We have been debating Bill C-36, which is an act to take away the interest free cash advances that farmers in western Canada have had since 1957. The reasons the government is giving for that are totally bogus.
We listened to the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia tell us that the government is faced with a huge debt. That is something we all know. He attempted to blame it on the NDP. Apparently it was all our fault because we defeated the government of Joe Clark. We do feel some responsibility for that. I think we were very much vindicated in 1984 when we saw not Joe Clark but a different leader lead the Conservative Party to form a government.
Under that leadership the accumulative deficit and debt of this country more than doubled in the first four years. It took Liberals some 120 years to accumulate a bit over $150 billion, and according to the words of the member for Swift Current, we have now passed $320 billion, which is more than twice that debt, and heading
October 26, 1989

for $350 billion or $360 billion by spring when this fiscal year is finished.
So it was a good thing we defeated the Conservatives in 1979, or we would have had that kind of deficit as well as the last five years with which to deal. We would have been dealing with far more debt than we are now.
The member attempted to show that the taking away of a $27 million expenditure for interest free cash advances would somehow cure this huge debt that his government has placed on the shoulders of the Canadian people. Somehow $27 million is going to rectify that. How ludicrous. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that $27 million will not even pay the interest on that debt for six hours? The minor debate that has occurred on this bill has gone just over six hours, and the interest has been ticking away on the national debt accumulated by this Conservative government and the more than the $27 million that it is proposing to save with this proposal has already been spent, just as that few hours ticked away. It is a ludicrous kind of argument, but it gets even more stupid when one looks at the true economics of it.
With the availability of the interest free cash advances, farm producers right across the country have made good use of their ability to hold product from the market in order that the market not be flooded with product. Fruit and vegetable producers have used it to good advantage. The cash advance system has permitted them to keep the product in storage, so that the price rises. That is important, not only to farm incomes, but also to government deficits and government expenditures.
With the kind of "force the product on to the market" approach that the current government is taking with this particular proposal, it will be forced by other measures that this country adopted years ago to pay agricultural stabilization payments because when this action forces the price of farm produce down, other government funds are expended to bring farm incomes up.
I will demonstrate how important this is. Not only does it have that effect, but it reduces government income. With the advantage of higher prices, which farmers are able to take advantage of now that they are sprinkling their produce on to market when demand is there, farmers occasionally have to pay income tax, because their incomes are higher. With this stupid and short-
Govemment Orders
sighted action, the government is forgoing the collection of far more than the $27 million worth of income tax.
I said that I would give you some examples of how this works, Mr. Speaker. Let us look at figures from the Ontario Corn Producers Association which point out, according to their calculations, that in the crop year of 1986-87, the fact that interest free cash advances were available resulted in the average price of corn going up $4.54 per tonne. They report that this meant that over-all all of the producers benefited by approximately $2,044,800 as a result. What did it cost the government for the farmers to make that kind of saving from the market? That year it cost Agriculture Canada $1,175,000, so they got pretty close to two for one return on their investment.
The following year was even better. In the 1987-88 crop year, instead of dumping their product at the beginning of the crop period, the benefit to the producer from being able to market his product in an orderly fashion and sprinkling it on to the market for a 12-month period, resulted in the producers gaining a little better than $36 a tonne for a final price. That meant that all of the com producers in Ontario benefited by $16.8 million at a cost to the federal treasury of a mere $1.1 million, which was the cost of maintaining the interest free cash advance. There was a better than sixteen for one return on the government's expenditure. You can be very certain, Mr. Speaker, that on that extra $16 million that Ontario com producers received, a lot of income tax was paid and the government probably had returned many times over the small expenditure laid out for the interest free cash advances.
I have some similar figures here from soybean producers in Ontario, who report that in the crop year 1987-88, they estimate that there was an advantage to them of being able to utilize the cash advance system in that year of just over $60 per tonne, a total of $10.7 million for that crop year. It cost the federal government $773,000. That is a very good return for the Government of Canada for its small investment. The returns in income tax payments alone would have far exceeded the expenditures they made. The market stayed up to the point where stabilization payments coming out of another government envelope were not necessary.

October 26, 1989
Government Orders
It is a foolish set of economic arguments that the government is trying to foist on the farm community. Farmers are much too clever to buy that argument. There are some who are not so clever, and it is very unfortunate. I and perhaps some other members have received a letter from the Premier of Saskatchewan who is also the Minister of Agriculture for that province. He is writing, he says, "to express our concern", and I think it is the royal "our", "at the delay which Saskatchewan farmers are currently experiencing in being able to apply for cash advances on their crops, and to encourage you, as your party's agriculture critic, to work towards a speedy resolution to this problem. This delay is causing considerable hardship for many of this province's producers, who rely on the cash advance program to meet a number of their financial obligations."
Then he goes on and tells a mistruth. He says:
As you know, cash advances cannot be issued until such time as Bill
C-36, an act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, is passed by Parliament.
Such rubbish! The Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act have been in effect in this country for years and years. There is nothing stopping the government from putting that program into effect, except their own stubbornness and stupidity. All they have to do is give the directive. Parliament has spoken. We have presented them with the law. We have presented them with the power to do it. Why don't they do it?
Did Premier Grant Devine, in his divine wisdom, write to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him to please obey the law and make cash advances available? He does not seem to have. Did he write to the Prime Minister and tell him how concerned he was about forcing the farmers he speaks for to pay even more interest? You would think that he would have, but it does not seem that he did. That is strange, because this is the man who convinced the premiers at a premiers' conference last summer that they should be putting pressure on the federal government to do something about interest rates. Here was his great opportunity to ask the government, as politely as he could, to please obey the law and provide these funds at zero rate of interest to the farm community. Did the Premier of Saskatchewan say anything about that? No, he does not seem to have bothered to write them. He wrote me, a member of the third party in opposition,
asking me to quickly change the law so his producers could start paying more interest on an already very difficult burden of debt that those producers are paying now.
As the Premier of Saskatchewan and having divine wisdom, he should know all about the problems of carrying debt. He seemed to understand it a year ago when he carried the message on behalf of the premiers about high interest rates. As you will remember, Mr. Speaker, he came to Ottawa, gave the message, was so persuasive that as he was climbing the steps of the plane, the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada announced that interest rates had just gone up a half of 1 per cent.
This premier and this Minister of Agriculture is also the person that knows the effects of interest rates on his own fanners, because he is the man who got himself re-elected in 1986 on a program of low interest and no interest loans to his farmers. Then as soon as he was elected, he made those loans collect a rather high rate of interest, 50 per cent higher than he had indicated it would be during the election campaign.
Not only that but he is out there collecting those loans. He has declared a great many of them bad loans, and he has put collection agencies on over 4,500 farmers in the province of Saskatchewan. That is how concerned he is about the rise in interest rates. He is concerned because he has got himself in the position of being just like one of the banking institutions and just like this federal government that see things from the point of view of the banks, and the international grain companies, but do not see things from the point of view of the people they were elected to represent.
There are a couple of other things that the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia used as excuses for introducing this legislation. He tried to convince the House that with the added burden of paying interest on cash advances that farmers would be forced to deliver their grain earlier. Of course, it may have that effect. It certainly will in the open market crops. The Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec have told us that they see producers of turnips and some of the fruit and vegetable crops being forced to market their produce in about six or eight months instead of over a full 12-month period. That would have the effect of putting pressure on agricultural prices at the beginning of the year, and end up with consumers having to rely on
October 26, 1989

imported produce which is going to be much more expensive for the last part of the year.
This does nothing for producers or consumers, but it is helpful to the banking business, because when the banks lend money to the Wheat Board or some of the farm groups under this interest free program the rate is much lower because it is a government rate. Now, the credit rating will be slightly different and the costs will be up a wee bit, and they will receive a fraction or a full percentage point, perhaps in some of the smaller groups as much as 2 percentage points more, and their take will be increased. The international grain cartels will love it. The purchasers of fruits and vegetables will love it because it will force prices down at the beginning of the year. Consumers seldom get that price reflected in the stores. It provides an opportunity for greater profits for those handlers, but it means disaster for farmers.
It will have a tendency to push down net farm incomes. As I pointed out earlier in my speech, there will be some commodities where the downward effect will be so strong that in fact it will trigger payments under the Agricultural Stabilization Act and the government will be paying out money in spite of itself. For the simple maintenance of this program, at a cost of some five or six hours of interest that the government is paying anyway, it would be able to leave the farm community and the rural community in a position where their prices would be going up to the point where income tax revenues would be collected instead of subsidy payments going out to the farm community. That, in our mind, is good business.
This party of Conservatives is doing this because it does not agree with orderly marketing, cannot understand the value of that to the farming community, and have decided it has to kowtow to the banks and international grain cartel and some of the Americans who are saying that we have to do away with the Wheat Board and marketing boards. It has decided to kowtow to that, make a nod in that direction, and begin the process of undermining prices and the ability of farmers to get their cost of production out of the market.
In conclusion, I think that this legislation demonstrates that this government is once again refusing to be effective and efficient in its management of the economy and, in particular, in its management of affairs that affect rural Canada. In its presenting the closure motion, it has demonstrated an equal disregard for communication and for reality. Had it proceeded at a regular pace, I am sure
Government Orders
the bill would have been through by now. When it starts using closure, members are inclined to make a speech to complain about that. Had the government used common sense, this could have been before the committee where the farm organizations and the farm groups need to be heard, because the government has obviously decided it is not going to listen to us or believe us. The farm groups have to be heard. They know how this will affect them. I think we have to hear every farm group in those communities.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, once again members of Parliament have the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. Once again, we will endeavour to try to make this minister and the government understand how important the interest free provision is to Canadian farmers.
This program was put in place to encourage orderly marketing of product. It has been very successful in achieving this goal by shifting sales from the fall when the crops are harvested to later on in the marketing year. This allows farmers the leeway to either play the market, or have the ability to market their product at a time when it is more reasonable and more equitable to do so. This program was put in place to encourage the orderly marketing of produce.
Historically, crop prices are the lowest on average at harvest time. The depressed prices are usually as a direct consequence of the eagerness of farmers to sell their crops soon after they are removed from the field. This eagerness is precipitated by two main factors: first, the need to generate cash to pay shopping expenses, the year end tax bills, and related financial operations; and uncertainties as to whether subsequent price increases will be sufficient to cover interest and storage carrying costs.
The advanced payment program under the Advance Payments for Crops Act has been one of the most effective means of countering historic marketing patterns and encouraging a more orderly marketing, that is, a greater percentage of crops are sold during the late winter, spring and summer rather than in the fall when all the congestion is in the market-place. Producers in the program have indeed benefited most of all, especially tobacco farmers in my riding. Even non-participants have benefited to some extent by experiencing relatively higher harvest time prices because of the reduced sale of the crop at this time of season. In other words, the market has not been flooded as it used to be before this

October 26, 1989
Government Orders
program came into effect, which resulted in depressed prices.
Those involved in commercial grain storage also benefit from holding over crops until market prices improve. Since the advance payments program was initiated in 1983-84 we have seen a substantial change in the marketing patterns. This has been a progressive step forward. To start fooling with this success is foolhardy, unreasonable and unfeeling, to say the least.
By making this change the government estimates it will save $27 million a year, hardly a large sum and hardly worth destroying a working and valuable program for. The minister and this government refuse to even try to understand how this measure will negatively affect Canadian farmers. They regularly ignore our advice and suggestions. You would think they would listen to the producers, the farmers themselves, who are most adversely affected by this program but they refuse to listen.
The government continues to bring in programs such as this which adversely affect a number of sectors of our economy and a number of Canadians without properly informing Canadians. There is no consultation and I call upon the government to move more toward a consultative process. It helps in the whole process of parliamentary democracy.
I never cease to be amazed by this government's approach. Time and time again it tried to rush bills through Parliament without consultation or thinking about the ramifications of these changes.


Mr. Rideout:: Closure all the time.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Closure all the time. I think there has been more closure within my first year here in Parliament than we have ever seen. That is not acceptable to people on this side of the House.
Although only 582 Canadian com farmers participated in the 1988-89 advance payments program, this low number was clearly a result of the small drought-reduced corn harvest this year. Many farmers throughout Ontario and indeed throughout Canada had a hard time last year during that period because of the drought program. Therefore, it is not surprising that the number
who actually participated in the program was low. In the three previous years when the crop size was more typical,
1,000	to 1,200 farmers participated. The number of tonnes involved was in the range of 400,000 to 500,000 tonnes or about 10 per cent to 15 per cent of the total marketed commercial Ontario corn crop. The government indicated that it could not agree with the suggestion of the Ontario corn producers that a participation rate of 10 per cent to 20 per cent means a relatively low benefit to the entire industry.
In the case of com, the 10 per cent to 15 per cent of the commercial crop involved in the program means that this quality of com is not sold into a glutted harvest-time market and is available for market needs later during the crop year. The benefit of this action extends to all producers and purchasers. In reality this is a benefit of the way that we have produced orderly marketing here in Canada. This is not the only orderly marketing area under attack by this government. We have seen that in the orderly marketing of our milk products and in many other orderly marketing areas of trade the government does not seem to be as committed as it says.
Let us look at the free trade deal. The government gave a commitment during the last election that under free trade the supply management or the orderly marketing of milk products would be protected. We have seen, as I and my colleagues have said time and time again, that there is no protection under the free trade agreement for orderly marketing of products. This is one more way to throw our marketing of agricultural products into a crisis. There is no way that Canadian farmers can orderly market not only grains but milk products under the free trade deal that we have in place now. Quite frankly, the Americans have not received the message. Americans have not acknowledged that we have orderly access into their market. What they have said is: "Yes, we signed the deal, but we fooled you. There is no way that we are going to allow your products into our market".
That throws into whack the whole question of marketing products in Canada. The recent GATT decisions have the same effect. GATT and other countries, led by the Americans, are attacking our supply of managed systems under Article II of GATT.
October 26, 1989

During the free trade debate the government said it would not be negotiated at GATT. We have seen that in fact it is. It said it would protect producers under the import control list. We found how effective that has been for our milk products for ice cream and yogurt. It has had absolutely no effect. In fact, the Americans are again attacking our marketing. This is just one more example of how our marketing systems are being attacked and being unduly represented by this government.
The Ontario corn producers also argue that it would be a flaw if most producers in most of the crops were enrolled in the program since this could mean a shortage of available crop at harvest time. Fortunately, with the program structured as it is at present, this has not occurred.
They also point out in their letter that while it is possible for organizations such as OCPA to borrow money using the APCA guarantee at about the prime rate of interest, the administration costs are significant, and it is not unreasonable to expect the full cost to the producer of prime plus 1 per cent or 2 per cent, depending on the amount of money borrowed. Administration costs include legal costs, inspection costs, lien registrations and office operations with the program.
In other words, it is going to be of no benefit to Canadian farmers. They are not going to get any advantage by going into this program. They have come to us and told us that. They want the people on this side of the House to stand up and let the government know that this program is no good. By not having the interest-free provision of the program, the government is in essence destroying it. It is making it totally useless for Canadian farmers.
The Ontario Corn Producers Association were particularly concerned with the suggestion that the presence of advanced payments represent an impediment to orderly marketing. Unfortunately, the implicit conclusion is that somehow the amendments inherent in Bill C-36 will reduce the incentive for storage which exists in the present program by encouraging sales, rather than storage. They strongly disagree that the advance payment programs have been disruptive to orderly marketing by discouraging timely sales.
Government Orders
They were also very disturbed that a desirability to encourage farmers to sell crops more quickly may be a reason for the amendments contained in Bill C-36. Like us, they strongly objected and disagreed with the suggestion that by opposing Bill C-36, farm organizations are depriving farmers of advanced payments for the 1989 crop.
In reality the present act authorizes such payments. OCPA filed an application for a 1989 program several months ago. Only reluctance by this minister to exercise authority spelled out in the existing legislation prevents funds from now being dispersed to crop producers across the country.
It was clearly lack of initiative by this minister to continue that program which is stopping funds from going to farmers now. Their final criticism is that Bill C-36 represents a reduction in federal support for Canadian farmers when no commitment has been made to reduce comparable assistance elsewhere, particularly in the United States. There is no such reduction in the U.S. farm bill loan provisions available to American farmers.
These are the arguments we have been putting forward to the government for many days now. Surely all farmers cannot be wrong. Before this government and this minister again reject the suggestion we have made to withdraw the bill and have some meaningful consultation with the producers who use this program, I have been asked by the farmers in Haldimand-Norfolk to ask this government to withdraw the bill, to sit down with farmers, have some meaningful consultation and get on with the program, instead of trying to bring in programs which are detrimental to their livelihoods.
Before making a rash decision to ram this bill through the House with its majority, I would suggest that it review the Auditor General's report which repeatedly takes the Department of Agriculture to task for the erosion of accountability and of parliamentary control. Just once maybe the government could be open-minded and realize that the farm organizations and members of Parliament are offering constructive suggestions to ensure that this program will continue to be a success.
As I mentioned in my previous speech, the minister has indicated that he wants to work closely with the provinces, farm organizations and others to plan and implement an improved policy network. Let us put action where his words are. Why does the minister not

October 26, 1989
Government Orders
prove to farmers that he cares about them, that he will consult with them and that he will put their ideas into legislation, not after the fact like this government has tended to do, but before it pushes through legislation without consultation.
I call on the minister to listen to their suggestions and concerns. They are defending their livelihoods. They are not sitting back and trying to bring in programs dealing with anybody else's livelihood, they are defending then-own livelihood. These people are good farmers and they deserve more than a bill that attacks their livelihood.
I urge the minister to stand up for farmers, stand up for agriculture, and withdraw this bill. I believe this bill will have a detrimental effect on farming.
I am concerned the way this minister has suggested that we on this side are delaying the bill somehow and that we are not giving farmers their livelihood.
They have many more members than us and if they wanted to bring in this bill they could have done so last week. Yet he goes across the country saying that we are the ones who are stopping their livelihood. Well, quite frankly, farmers in Canada are not fooled by that argument.
We have a case here today where the government brings in closure. This is the government's way of saying that we are delaying the bill. How many hours have we debated this major piece of legislation? We have spent four or five hours on a major piece of legislation that has wide-ranging effects on the farming communities of Canada. Surely we can debate this bill much longer than that.
I will close by saying that we, the farmers of Haldi-mand-Norfolk, reject this bill. They are not fooled by the government's argument that this bill will be anything but detrimental. On their behalf I call on this government to withdraw this bill. Do the honourable thing and withdraw the bill, consult with the farmers and try to bring in a more reasonable and fair approach to this issue.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to
stand here today to speak on this bill that we are attempting to get through.
We had to bring in closure. I think all members of this House realize that we had to do that because of the delaying tactics of the Liberals and NDP who say that they are so much in favour of supporting farmers.
There have been discussions between our House leader and the House leaders of the two other parties with regard to these amendments. Since this House came back in September we have been trying to get an agreement in the House of Commons. The member who spoke previously is probably a new member and does not understand all of the nuances that go on in this House, but one of them is the attempt at co-operation of opposition parties, whether they be Liberal or NDP.
We have been trying to get this through since we came back to the House of Commons. We have had nothing but roadblocks from these people who are delaying it. Then they complain because we bring in closure. We bring in closure because the farmers in my community, the farmers in western Canada, the farmers right across this fair country of ours are waiting for this bill to go through so that those who want it can access the advance payments, those who want to do it.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Apply the law.


Jack Wendele Shields: Well, well, well. My honourable friend from the NDP says: ''apply the law". Let me read to him some of the information. There is nothing in either the Advance Payments for Crops Act or the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act which requires guarantees of advance or advances to be made.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Nothing is stopping you.


Jack Wendele Shields: If he would take the time to read it and understand what he is talking about when he stands in the House, he would know that section 4 of the Advance Payments for Crops Act provides that the minister may guarantee advances made by a producer organization.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Go ahead.


Jack Wendele Shields: Section 3 of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act states that the board may make advances on the initial payment for threshed grain to a producer. The word "may" in legislation does not compel an action to be taken. By not taking any action, the government is

therefore not acting contrary to the law and the hon. member knows that very well.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: There is nothing stopping you from putting it in place.


Jack Wendele Shields: All he wants to do is yell and not listen to what people are saying in this house. Open your ears and read my lips. I will send this over to the hon. member and he can read it.


Mr. Boyer:: The hon. member listens with his mouth.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The law is there. Use it.


Jack Wendele Shields: Parliament passed a law that states he may. We are trying in this Parliament to amend the acts in such a way that it will allow a producer to receive not $30,000 in advance payments, not $60,000 in advance payment if there are two of them, not even $90,000. We are amending this law to allow a producer to receive $250,000 in advances.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: How many will use that?


Jack Wendele Shields: The hon. member asked how many people will use that. The provision is in place for that to happen.
The main thrust of the opposition is that we should not be charging an interest rate on any of the advance payments.
I would like to educate the hon. member. The producers in my riding have come to me and said it is time they started to pick up some of the slack they have been getting for nothing. They are prepared to pay a fair interest rate. What is a fair interest rate? It is prime or lower because it is going to be government guaranteed.
Honourable members over there stand up and tell us to cut spending. They stand up and say: "You have a debt out there that you have increased. You are not doing anything to control these things." They make all of these complaints, but when we attempt to bring things into line in a more equitable way, they stand up and scream because we use closure. We are imposing closure because those very people over there have done absolutely nothing to co-operate and assist.
I have producers in my riding who phone me to ask when this is going to be passed so they can get an advance payment. I tell them to phone the member for Oshawa. I tell them they might get something if they
Government Orders
phone both of those lame duck leaders of the two parties across the way, but I doubt it.
It is unfortunate that the tone of this House and the tone of co-operation has dropped so dramatically over the past three or four years. Sometimes I am ashamed to sit in my seat in this House and watch what goes on. I saw it last night when we in this House wasted time and money for three and a half hours.
The opposition talks about wasting money. We had people on overtime. The pages were here when they should have been home studying. We had all the staff of the House of Commons, the staff in Debates, and all of those areas working overtime because the people across the way wanted to prove a point. They wanted to make us all stand for every single vote.
What did it amount to? We voted from six o'clock until past nine-thirty, three and a half hours, while those members were sitting there trying to embarrass us or prove a point or gain something in principle rather than allow us to go back to our offices to do some work and allow people to go home and be with their families like they should have been. That is the kind of attitude that we are getting in this House and that is the kind of attitude we have been getting since we came back in September.
It is too bad. They are still fighting the last election. Again I point out that I have producers phoning me asking when they can get their advance payment. I am telling them that they can get an advance payment when these amendments go through. These amendments are necessary. These amendments are supported by the vast majority of producers who I have talked to in my riding. They are supporting these amendments because some of them want to access more advance payments and more funds.
Opposition members cannot speak out of both sides of their mouths. They continually do that, but they have got to be taken to task for this.
I am not going to waste the time of the House any longer. I have put on record why we are using closure. We have had absolutely no co-operation from those people over there. It is obvious that they are not going to give us any more co-operation at any other time. I would recommend to this government that if it has to use closure on every single piece of legislation, then that is exactly what it should do because we are not going to get co-operation from those people across the way. They say it is against the law. It is not. I read very clearly into the

Government Orders
record how it is not against the law. It reads very clearly. If hon. members over there want to get a copy of the act, they can read it and understand that it is not against the law.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I said obey the law.


Jack Wendele Shields: We are going to increase access to funds that farmers have not had access to before because they are government guaranteed. It does not matter if their land or their equipment is encumbered, the payment is strictly on the commodity, and it is strictly government guaranteed. Each producer is eligible, at the minister's discretion, for up to $250,000. Some of my colleagues across the way would like to suggest that no farmer will use that. I do not know what their producers are doing, but it certainly is not the impression that I get from my area.
I would like to put it on the record that the government House leader and the people involved in the agriculture committees from the Official Opposition began negotiations with our people from this side of the House, with the House leader of the NDP and people involved there. The first discussions took place in late June.
Major discussions started to take place when we came back to this House in September, and they have done nothing but stonewall. They have done nothing but express all the animosity that they felt because of the election, so we could not get this bill into the house. Then they cry about closure. That is the only way we are going to be able to proceed. We are going to do it because we are a government that is here to do what is right.
We are a government that cares about the producers in Canada. We are a government that has cared. All we have to do is look at the record. We care for the agricultural community in this country and we are going to continue to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you agree with me. At least you were smiling. I had better not accuse you of that, Mr. Speaker, you are supposed to be impartial.
The facts are clearly on the record. The producers whom I have talked to in the agricultural community in my riding and in ridings of Alberta have said that they are quite prepared to pay a reasonable interest rate on their advance payments because they recognize that the government cannot carry it any longer. They recognize that. When I tell them that they are going to get it for
prime and it is going to be government backed, or that there is even a possibility that they will get it below prime, I have found nothing but total support for this bill.
I would suggest my hon. friends across the way come to their senses and let us get this bill through like it should be so that we can help the producers in our country they way they should be helped.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad that the Hon. Member for Athabasca shortened his remarks somewhat. I think he was having a bad day. He certainly wasted our time. He succeeded in only distorting the record. I think I would use three words to sum up his remarks: babble, balderdash, and bunk.
The member said that he was putting forward certain alleged facts to clear the record or to establish the record. All he was able to do was to make it more murky and distort the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Athabasca, on a point of order.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to consider whether the accusation hurled across the Chamber from one member to another of distorting the record is parliamentary. I think you would find in Beauchesne's that it is not acceptable. I ask that member to be careful in the language that he is using. I understand that debates can become heated. I can understand that he might take a different view. But to deliberately accuse another member of distorting the record is tantamount to accusing another member of lying. That is clearly unparliamentary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will have a look at the "blues" and then I will come back. If I have to make a ruling, I will.
The hon. member for Winnipeg St. James has the floor.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that my good friend from Athabasca was so sensitive, so gentle, so fragile. I would not think for a moment-


Jack Wendele Shields: I am not fragile. It's common courtesy and decency.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, just so that the hon. member for Athabasca understands, I did not accuse him of deliberately distorting the record. The effect of his remarks is distortion. There may be a subtle difference. The fact of the matter is the man does not know what he

is talking about. As a result of not knowing what he talks about, he distorts the record. I did not accuse him of deliberately distorting the record, of deliberately fracturing the truth or deliberately bending the truth. But I do suggest that the effect of his remarks is distortion.
It really is an honour for me to take part in this debate. It is a privilege and a duty for me to go to bat for farmers across this country. I have spent more than 30 years in broadcasting. I have spent more than 30 years living in some of the major cities of this country. But my roots still run deep in prairie soil, and a part of me will always be found on a southern Manitoba farm.
The farmers, even though they comprise only about 4 per cent of the population in this country, are still the backbone of this country. They supply us with our food. Where would we be, including our good friends across the way, without Canadian farmers? Where would they be without the efforts of farmers? Perhaps they would have some rather empty stomachs.


Patrick Boyer: It is getting very profound.


John Harvard: It is getting very profound, something that we are not used to hearing from that side of the House.
I think that we have to recognize the efforts of Canadian farmers. We have to recognize the importance of Canadian farmers. We have to recognize what they do for this country. I think it behooves us to send out certain signals to them, positive signals, important signals.
What do we get from that side of the House? In the face of this kind of legislation that will decimate, that will gut a piece of legislation that was in place for 40 years, what do we get from the government members? Closure, closure. They tell Canadian farmers it is time to not listen anymore. They are not interested in your input. They are not really interested in hearing what you have to say. They are going to use closure, the old slit-the-throat, chop-off-the-head use of the guillotine. This is their way. The hon. member for Athabasca was saying, "Well, we had to do it; we just had to do it.'' In the face
Government Orders
of what? I guess he was alleging some kind of obstruction from this side of the House.
Why is it that this government has such a propensity for closure? Just yesterday, I was talking in the face of another kind of closure euphemistically called time allocation. Yesterday I mentioned the record with respect to closure. This government has a fetish about closure. It used it five times in the trade debate going back to last December.


Patrick Boyer: Time allocation is something a broadcaster can understand.


John Harvard: That is right. We do things within the limits of 15 seconds, 30 seconds, one minute, but broadcasting is not the font of democracy, is it? The font of democracy is here and we have a different approach to freedom of speech in this Chamber. I do not think that we can put it in the same context as broadcasting by confining it to 15 second blurbs.
They say they had to do it, that they had to use closure. Well, I submit that they did not. If they would have just got their act together, if they had just done a better job, they wouldn't need it. Why do we not review the facts? Why do we not review the record? The record is that they put this very valuable program into limbo back last spring when the hon. Minister of Finance brought down the budget. That was the start of this mess.
What happened after that? Despite the fact that the program was put into limbo, despite the fact that there was this threat put over farmers' heads, despite the fact that the farmers were now left in this state of uncertainty, what did government members do? They sat on then-hands and they did nothing. We went through the latter part of the spring, all through the summer and beginning of the fall and they did nothing. Then they brought in a bill, and lo and behold, it was a mess. It was flawed. It was so bad-and this must have been embarrassing, it really must have been humiliating, if they ever do feel humiliation-they had to withdraw it. Right?


An Hon. Member:: Right.


John Harvard: My hon. friend confirms. They had to withdraw the bill. That is the kind of sloppiness that you people carry off. You withdrew the bill and then you brought in this one, Bill C-36. Then you accuse us of

October 26, 1989
Government Orders
some kind of obstruction. You urge us to get it done. We have to get it done now for the sake of the fanners.
Where were you in May and June? Where were you in July and August, September and October? What were you doing? You certainly were not minding the store. You were not minding your business.
On top of that most farm organizations in this country have stated that it is bad legislation. It is the wrong way to go. Is the government listening? Not on your life. It does not listen. It is going ahead and telling us we have to do it now and please, please stand aside. This is a performance that ought not be repeated.
This program has been in effect for over 40 years. It was brought in by a Conservative government, if my grasp of history is proper. I think the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker would be quite disturbed if he knew what is going on today. He represented a prairie province, a prairie constituency and prairie people. I am not too sure if he would be very excited about this kind of legislation to change legislation that worked well.
I do not know of too many farm organizations that were saying "Gut this program. We certainly do not want cash advances on an interest-free basis, no way". I did not hear prairie farmers or any farmers across the country saying that, not on your life. It was not costing a lot of money, only $26 million or $27 million. In the context of other expenditures, that is not a lot of money.
I think that farmers are a little bewildered by it all because, in effect, the government is saying that it has to reach into their pockets for $27 million. All in the name of deficit reduction to get spending down, the government is going to ask them to make this sacrifice. It is important. The government is asking farmers to make this sacrifice. It just wants another $27 million. Maybe in another world, in other circumstances, farmers would understand.
Farmers are a little bewildered because they know what is going on and they know something about the record. Since this government came to power five years ago, where has spending gone?
When the government came to power in 1984, it was taking in $70 billion in revenues. Now it is taking in $112 billion. Extra revenues amount to $42 billion. That is a pretty good take, a sizeable chunk of money, $42 billion.
The farmers are saying 'You want a little more out of me. You want to just take that extra bit out of me, $27 million". No wonder the farmer is a little bewildered. There is more.
Farmers are asked to make this sacrifice but what is the government doing at the same time? The debt goes up. It never stops going up. If we use the five-year record of the government, when it came to power, the debt was $170 billion. Now it is $350 billion, $360 billion. Little wonder farmers in this country are bewildered when this government comes after them again.
There is another dimension to this burden, shared not by farmers alone but by all Canadians, an increase in taxation. We have said many times in the House how good this government has been at increasing taxes. Perhaps it is another fetish. Thirty-one times this government has raised taxes and there is yet to come the grand-daddy of all, the so-called goods and services tax, the grief and suffering tax, which is going to take another $10 billion out of the pockets of Canadians.
My good friend from Brandon-Souris, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, has taken his place in the House. He represents what I would call a good slice of God's country. Given the fact that the hon. parliamentary secretary is close to the soil and close to farmers in southwestern Manitoba, I would have thought that if there ever was one on the other side of the House who could talk some sense into this government, to bring to the cabinet a sense of reality, it would be that honourable gentleman. I am sure he has tried but he has failed, and that is too bad.


Patrick Boyer: He's the one they've been listening to.


John Harvard: You may have been listening to him but you have not been listening very well. I think that perhaps you should check your ears.
Another thing that we have to consider in the context of the heavy burden that I just recited is that farmers are also concerned about not only themselves but their entire community, rural Canada, the way this government is closing down rural Canada. There is a litany of complaints about the way the government is treating rural Canada, the way the government is shutting down rural post offices, gutting VIA Rail, closing down mili-
October 26, 1989

tary bases and, of course, doing most of it without any kind of consultation.
What has gone wrong with the process? Is there something demeaning about consulting with Canadians? Is it beneath this government to talk to the farmers? Have things got that bad in Canada?
No wonder the farmers are bewildered. They wonder whether they have any friends in the nation's capital. Look what has happened in the wake of the free trade agreement with respect to certain producers, to supply management, to orderly marketing.
I think it was just a few years ago that we thought that these were solid, secure institutions, that no one would dare dismantle them. I guess maybe we were thinking wrongly. Perhaps we should have been a bit more wary, particularly of this government.
Look what has happened just recently with Durum wheat producers. I thought that we in this country championed success, I thought we applauded success. I thought we always said to the men and women of this country, "Go out and work hard and do well. We want you to succeed, and if you succeed you will be rewarded". I am quite sure the Durum wheat producers in this country followed that dictum, and they have been doing quite well, in fact so well that we now hear complaints from our good friends to the south: "You can't do that, you're succeeding too well. If you don't stop selling so much, if you don't stop being so competitive, well, we may just threaten you with a countervail".
That is pretty disturbing because we know what has happened in other agriculture spheres. Just ask milk producers, egg producers and pork producers. The list goes on and on. Even one of the gentleman closely attached to the free trade negotiations, Mr. Clayton Yeutter, expressed sympathy for the Durum wheat producers in North Dakota, a state of the union just across the border from my province. He said, and it is on record in a letter to the Durum wheat producers of North Dakota, that the Americans might even consider pushing a countervail so that they can put a stop to this rather unseemly competition from north of the border.
What do we hear from the government? Not a heck of a lot. I think we could hear a lot more. We want to hear a lot more.
Government Orders
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that you have put up your famous finger, which signals one minute to go. I would urge my good friends who are chuckling on the other side-maybe they have heard something important this afternoon. Right?


Some Hon. Members:: Right.


John Harvard: It is a little late in the debate, but I do sense that government members' ears are opening, that in the last 20 minutes, there has been a little penetration, perhaps just a little. Right?


An Hon. Member:: Right.


John Harvard: Given this penetration, just let me say this. I would urge them to reconsider the bill, withdraw it, consult with farmers and get it right for a change. Get it right for farmers and get it right for the country.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why in the last month I have had such a tendency to pick up the remarks of the person who spoke before me. It must be a hold-over from being on a committee or something.
Picking up from my colleague who spoke last, I do not believe that this government is capable of getting anything right. The hon. member also indicated that perhaps there was some measure of understanding breaking through. I despair that that will never happen either. I despair for at least two reasons, the first being that until last May, I was a little more closely connected to the agriculture community than I am now. I sold the quarter section of land I owned at that time, but I would like to establish that I do have connections to the soil having grown up in rural Saskatchewan. In fact, it is almost impossible to be from Saskatchewan and not have some kind of a rural connection. Certainly many of my relatives are still farmers there. I appreciate what they do and I am a part of what they do.
I despair for the second reason in that for the second time in two days, I find myself having to stand against closure. If the message on this bill is not filtering through to the government, I rather suspect that the message is filtering through to the Canadian public that what we have here is a government elected a year ago which really cares not. I guess it is a misnomer to call it a government. It is not governing. The people opposite are ruling. I rather suspect that Good King John would be

October 26, 1989
Government Orders
very proud of the way these people are railroading their way through this Parliament.


An Hon. Member:: King John D.


Ron Fisher: No, not King John D. King John D. would not be all that pleased about it either. King John would be very pleased with the way these people are ruling. Those of an earlier era who fought so hard to bring in the Magna Carta would be as despairing as I am at the way these people are railroading their way through Parliament.
The agricultural community from one end of this land to the other has nothing very good to say about this piece of legislation. Why on earth would they rush to make use of this when they can go to their banks and get interest rates that are as favourable on loans as this government is giving? Why, when previously they were able to get interest-free loans on the commodities which the agricultural community worked so hard to produce would they be pleased that this legislation is being introduced?
I guess there are other questions which have to be asked in relation to this legislation. One of them certainly is why would the government introduce it. I suspect, in considering the way this government has operated since it was elected in 1984, one of the main reasons that it is being introduced is that what happened previously had the effect, if not directly and formally, of being almost a marketing board. It had a levelling effect on the ability of the producers to be able to realize to the fullest extent possible within certain limitations the fullest value for what they produced.
It meant that they were not forced, in order to have available funds at the end of the growing season when the crops become available, to sell those commodities immediately. They were not forced to glut the market with the things that they produced. Glutting the market would have the effect of lowering prices which may at first blush have been an advantage for the consumers but later on in the year, after the commodities had been used up, after the supply was gone and the prices went up, we would consume in many instances imported products and the prices would have been higher than they ever were. The consumer certainly would not benefit from that.
I suspect that certainly part of the rationale was to get away from something that had the effect of levelling those things out. When prices are relatively level, it does away with speculation. I suspect that there are a good many friends of the government who were only too pleased to be able to get involved in speculation on the commodities which our agricultural producers spend so much time producing. We say the producers ought to be able to benefit to the fullest extent. The interest free cash advance allowed that to happen.
What will happen now will do away with the orderly marketing part of the agricultural community which has been in place for so many years. The same effect will be felt no matter which commodities we are talking about. The relatively orderly marketing, transportation and in-elevator storage of western grains is being severely affected by this foolish action of the government.
Rail line abandonment, of course, is another issue. I suppose there will be some piece of legislation here shortly concerning railways for which we will see a closure motion as well. Nevertheless, over the years with rail line abandonment and the subsequent abandonment of rural elevators, the elevator storage of commodities in western Canada has been severely limited. With the ability farmers had from the advance payment to sell their commodities over a period of time throughout the year, the elevator system, depleted though it was, was not congested.
Likewise, the same could be said of rail transportation of grain throughout the country as well. It had that levelling effect on rail transportation as well as the storage of grain off farm. That is in jeopardy if this legislation goes through.
We can talk about vegetables. One of my colleagues referred to what happens with vegetables. Again, once the harvesting season occurs, there is a flooding of vegetables onto the market with the subsequent lowering of prices which does not occur if there is some kind of advance so that the farmer can get some kind of a stabilization of his income throughout the year to be able to pay off some of his debts in a more orderly way.
If it comes to a point where the farmer is forced to sell his vegetables at a lower price than ought to be realized and the stabilization program kicks in, in all probability, not only will the cost to the government through the stabilization plan be more than the support for the interest rate, it will also put into place the possibility of
October 26, 1989

the Americans bringing in a countervailing action because of this stabilization program itself. That is another one of the dangers that is most likely to occur as a result of bringing in this kind of legislation.
There have been some references to the fact that the Opposition is holding up this legislation. This is not so. There is nothing now to prevent the government from giving advance payments to the agricultural community under the present legislation. The government has simply decided not to make cash advances under the present legislation. I do not know whether it is trying to punish the Opposition or whether it is trying to punish the farmer, but whatever the case may be, it certainly is not the Opposition's fault that the farmers have been unable to get cash advances.
I see that my time has pretty well run out. I thank you very much for the opportunity to have spoken on this issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon if he wants to speak for three minutes. Otherwise I can call it five o'clock.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday September 25, consideration of the motion of Ms. Langan:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of negotiating with the provinces to provide a comprehensive Bill of Rights for children which would standardize laws throughout the country, and that this Bill of Rights include a child protection commission and an emergency hotline which children could contact in times of crisis.
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on a motion focusing on the needs of children and on effective ways to better ensure that Canadian children live in a happy, safe and secure environment. Clearly all of us care about our children
Private Members' Business
and see the future in terms of the life circumstances of these children.
Today I would like to focus on one of the key problems facing society, one which is having grave, long-lasting effects on our children, and that is the problem of family violence. To call the violence that is occurring within many Canadian families a phenomenon is perhaps not quite appropriate. For children, women and men trapped in the vicious cycle of family violence, it is a hard and frightening day-to-day reality. For those of us who remember our childhood fondly and continue to be enriched by our family lives, it is hard to imagine the family as anything other than a source of our greatest comfort, happiness and love.
In the past decade, a number of studies have been commissioned by governments or professional organizations that have provided new information and startling statistics about the incidents of family violence that challenge our most basic assumptions about what is really going on inside many Canadian families. These statistics in particular have grabbed headlines and national attention.
In 1980, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women reported that one in 10 women were beaten on a regular basis by their husbands or partners. In 1987, a follow-up report said an estimated one million Canadian women were being battered by the men with whom they live.
Professor Robin Badgley told us one in two young women experience some kind of sexual abuse during their childhood as do one in three young men. In fact, Badgley told us that 42 per cent of our population were victims of unwanted sexual acts at some point in their lives.
Only a few years ago the Fraser report on the incidence of prostitution shocked us further with the statistics on juvenile prostitution. The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics reported that in 1986, 191 homicides, or 40 per cent of all homicides that year, involved people who were either related by blood or marriage or lived in a common law situation. It is hard to believe, I am sure. In response, governments and communities across the

October 26, 1989
Private Members' Business
country have developed a wide range of programs and services in support of families dealing with violence.
Most notably, over the last decade a significant number of crisis centres have opened, most recently as a result of the federal government's Project Haven. Likewise, progress has been made in areas of police intervention and their policy of laying assault charges against those who abuse their spouses. As well, a number of media campaigns and public service announcements have served to increase our awareness of the problem.
This government introduced and passed new legislation a couple of years ago which makes it easier for children to testify in sexual abuse cases. Mr. Rix Rogers, well known for his work on behalf of the voluntary sector, was appointed as a special adviser to the Minister of National Health and Welfare on child sexual abuse. And, as we have already heard, Mr. Rogers is expected to present his report to the minister.
For many years, the federal government has shared with the provinces the cost of crisis intervention programs and through the Canada Assistance Plan, the provision of shelters in communities across the land. We have also done our part to co-ordinate and collect information for services providers and researchers through the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence. In addition, the federal government has funded a large number of projects and studies and has been at the table for nearly every discussion of substance on family violence that has taken place in the past decade.
Internationally, as well, Canada is well known for the priority it gives to the prevention of family violence. For example, in the mid-1980s Canada put family violence on the agenda of a European meeting of ministers responsible for social affairs. The Canadian government has also made a major statement to the United Nations inter-regional consultation on social welfare which asserted that family violence should be a concern in all societies, regardless of culture, age, or economic status. As we all know, Canada is also very much involved in the United Nations activity on the Convention of the Rights of the Child, which is expected to be adopted later this year.
Though we have plenty to be proud of, we would all be kidding ourselves to think we are even close to finding solutions which get to the root of the problem. There are a few things of which we can be sure. We know the cost to our society is great in personal and global societal terms. We know many of our costly social programs are rooted in violence which begins at home. We also know that family violence tends to be passed on from generation to generation. The little girl abused by her father all too often becomes a battered wife or turns to prostitution. The young man who watched his father dominate his mother with violence learns to repeat that pattern with his own family.
Our penitentiaries, our hospitals, our schools, our transition houses, our streets, are full of people who have learned first hand the lesson taught by violence. Other lessons about civility, personal and social responsibility, and trust come much harder. We know too that it is usually when we combine our resources that we collectively move closer to finding real solutions to family violence.
In its report "Battered but not Beaten", the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women gave all the service providers active in the violence area a pat on the back for the work they have done to date. The report's author said, however, that despite all our good intentions and good work we had a fundamental problem, our efforts failed the "reality test". The author says we just did not always meet the test of the battered individual's reality. We do not always understand, nor are we always equipped to address the real human needs, either before or after the violence occurs. It is at the individual "people" level where the hurt lingers and where the answers must be found.
It is also at the individual "people" level that families come into play. While families are the source of hurt for some, they can become the source of comfort for others. We all certainly have to recognize the essentialness of the family.
But where do we go from there? We certainly cannot stand by and watch the violence continue. In the ideal world I think we all want to move closer to the positive vision of the family. We all want to see a safe place to call our own. We all want to have children and spouses nearby to enjoy time together. We all want to be secure
October 26, 1989

in our relations, to be free of fear, to have a sense of well-being that comes with security of hearth and home, to be cared about.
The federal government alone cannot deliver that perfect vision of the future to individual Canadians. The causes and effects of family violence are much too complex for us to presume so much. Only through a partnership with the provincial governments, the voluntary sector, service providers and, most importantly, communities across the country, can we have a good chance of restoring some balance and some security to those who have lived with violence.
The federal government has already called on this partnership, on this co-operative effort, most recently, of course, in the form of National Health and Welfare's announcement yesterday to pledge financial support of up to $1.3 million for the "Kids Help Line".
As you may know, the Kids Help Line was launched by the Canadian Children's Foundation in May, 1989. It offers immediate, free and anonymous help to Canada's seven million children. Counselling, information and, if appropriate, referral services are provided to children and youth experiencing a variety of problems including child abuse and/or neglect, loneliness, alcohol or substance abuse.
Federal moneys will be available over the next 12-month period. Six hundred and fifty thousand of the $1.3 million will be provided immediately and the remainder will be made available on the basis of a dollar-for-dollar matching with financial support from other sources, most importantly, the corporate sector.
We have made a lot of progress, but there is clearly much more work to be done. This government takes this issue and this challenge very seriously and will continue to strive to foster a society that is caring and secure.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak as strongly and as passionately as I can in support of this motion.
In legislation in various jurisdictions across this country that relates to the family there is a phrase that recurs over and over again. That phrase is, "The best interests of the child are paramount". We see that phrase in federal and provincial legislation. We hear lip service paid to it on almost a daily basis by lawyers, social
Private Members' Business
workers and judges, by people in this country generally. The problem is that that is all it is, it is lip service.
In Canada in 1989 the status of the child, of far too many children, is one of poverty, of fear, of abuse. One million children or more in this country live in poverty. One million children or more in this country have to depend for their sustenance upon food banks. Children in every province and territory of this country are subject to horrendous forms of abuse that would give nightmares, and do give nightmares, to any one of us sitting in this House.
The problem is that we all, as a group, agree that this situation must stop, that children need to be protected, that if we have no other task to accomplish, not as politicians or legislators, but as human beings, the protection of our children has to be the foremost action to be taken in our lives.
The kinds of things to which children have a right crop up in legislation right across the country. As well, one of the areas of reference for a motion such as this is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. That particular document talks about a child's right to care, a child's right to a home, to adequate health care, to protection from abuse, to protection from exploitation and to protection from war. Obviously, there are things that we can do about this in the short term and things that we can do about it in the long term. But the blot on the escutcheon of every one of us as Canadians, is that we do very little about it at all.
Every day in this country social workers, school nurses, teachers, lawyers, all sorts of different levels of professionals who work in the area of children's rights, see time and again how the system prevents us from adequately protecting children.
Just recently we have heard terrible stories of sexual abuse. It is not limited to one province, it is not limited to one neighbourhood. It goes on everywhere. It is not limited to a particular social or economic class. It is not limited to a particular geographic area. And what do we do in response? We sit back and say, "This is terrible, something must be done".
In supporting this motion we see the opportunity to actually do something. This is not something that depends on partisan politics. I do not think there is a soul in this House that would not rise to fight for the rights of defenceless children. But the time has come for action. As my colleague across the way said, it can only be done in co-operation with the provinces. But, the political will, I suggest, must come from the federal government

October 26, 1989
Private Members' Business
to make the move to the various provinces. The support that is necessary to get programs and legislation such as this, in its various forms, where it is necessary in the different jurisdictions off the ground, has to have a prime mover and that prime mover should be the federal government.
Every day when we hear about the various problems besetting children across this country there seems to be one or more that will take the limelight for a short period of time. Not to denigrate the need for action and positive support- in the area of child sexual abuse, or in the area of physical abuse against children generally, I think that we have to look at this in a more cosmic manner, if you will. We have to look at the very basics that are necessary for children-not even necessary, but that are the rights of children. We have to look at the need for shelter, proper nutrition, proper schooling and proper health care.
I mentioned earlier the various workers who toil on a daily basis against overwhelming odds to assist children. One particular experience that I had as a practising lawyer comes to mind. It was the case of two children who were apprehended because they were, indeed, children in need of protection. They were in the custody of a parent who had a severe alcohol problem and who was absolutely incapable of caring for them. The two children were apprehended by the relevant authority. They were approximately three years apart in age. One child was placed in a foster home, the other child was placed in a group home. The foster home and the group home were 40 miles apart, there was no opportunity for these two children to see each other and to maintain almost the only form of emotional contact and emotional relationship that had sustained them in their short lives.
The younger child became very withdrawn. Again, the social workers were worried, the judge was concerned, the lawyers were concerned. Everybody was worried but there was no facility available to keep these two siblings in the same place. Finally, after a tremendous effort by all concerned, after three months a foster home that would take both children was found. I can only speculate
as to the damage that had been done in this length of time to two already damaged children.
In a sense it was nobody's fault in the specific. It was not the judge's fault, the lawyers' or the social workers' fault. It was the lack of a political will to provide the atmosphere for children in need of protection, to ensure that in attempting to protect them we do not worsen their situation. It is not cheap and it is not easy, but it is the major duty of all of us to provide it.
A further thing that took place, indeed with these same children, was the realization by all the professionals involved in this particularly tragic case of the relationship between the older child and his parent. It had become a reversal of the parent-child relationship. This child was taking the responsibility and ran away on various occasions from the group home because he felt he had the responsibility to care for his alcoholic parent. This child was 11 years old.
Because of the lack of support services for this family from the beginning of its troubles, because of the lack of emotional support, the lack of counselling, and just the general lack of a plan to deal with children who are suffering in our society, this child became delinquent and eventually ended up in the young offenders system in our courts.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for Mission-Coquitlam for bringing forward this motion. I would like to utter un cri de coeur to all of us here in this House that when it comes to the issue of children and their needs and their rights that we put aside our partisan considerations and work as a single unit to bring about the legislative and social support systems that are needed to ensure that children can take their full place and receive their rightful heritage in our country.


Dawn Black: I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion presented by my colleague for Mission-Coquitlam. I am pleased to be able to support this motion.
This comes at a very critical time for it is long past the time that we took the issue of children's welfare seriously. Society has developed many altruistic and benign phrases with regards to children. We have all used expressions such as, "children are our greatest resource"
October 26, 1989

or "children are our future". These words are correct because children are our future, they are our greatest resource, and they are presently the ones who we as a society have failed most harshly.
The United Nations General Assembly has been grappling with the issue of children's rights for the past three decades. Ten years ago it established the International Year of the Child. Now, after years of consultation and negotiation, the General Assembly is going to, hopefully, adopt a convention on the rights of the child.
It is imperative that we address this situation nationally and internationally for the problems affecting children are critical. Throughout the world children bear the brunt of society's callousness, whether it is through war, poverty or the lack of status within their own country. We know that there have been over 200 wars since the end of World War II. With the advent of technology we have all been able to see images of never-ending armed conflict in our world.
We have seen a young girl run from the horror of a napalm attack. We have all seen toddlers picking their way through the rubble of Beruit. In a really haunting photo we have seen an infant held in his father's arms dead after a poison gas attack. War has made them orphans. It has turned them into refugees. Indeed, over half of the world's 12 to 14 million refugees are children. We know the many problems that refugees face; overcrowded camps, long waiting lists for entry into safe countries. However the situation is much worse for children who are refugees. Should they be fortunate enough to escape to an area of greater peace, the future for them is still very bleak.
The United Nations estimates that almost 100 million children today are homeless. Their only means of survival is on the street. This means that they have no personal security and no adequate source of nutrition. Many of them are unable to receive even a basic level of education. It is estimated that one-seventh of all school age boys in the world are unable to attend school, and the situation is much worse for school age girls, Mr. Speaker. One-quarter of these girls are not in school. Many of them are not in school because they are forced into the workforce. Child labour is a booming activity around our
Private Members' Business
world. Over 80 million children between the ages of 10 and 14 are working, and this figure increases once we add in those children under the age of 10.
If the statistics about war and homelessness and poverty are not bad enough, we should take a moment to look at the bottom line of our treatment of children. Forty thousand children die each and every day from starvation, from polluted water and from disease in our world. Each one of these 40,000 deaths could be prevented by one single vaccination. Could anything be so simple? Can anything be as cruel to deny this?
We can prevent these unnecessary deaths. To give everyone in the world; women, men and children, adequate health, food, shelter and education would cost only $17 billion. For anyone who thinks that this is an outrageous figure, Mr. Speaker, let me put it in relative terms. Every two weeks the world spends that much money on weapons alone.
I know that everyone in this House is disturbed by such negligence towards innocent children, but this problem is not a problem restricted to only the poorest of nations or to those countries that are plagued by civil war. The problems are also reaching crisis proportions here in Canada. Today, here in Canada, one in five children live in poverty. For many of us that is a very frightening statistic, but for over one million children in Canada that is the debilitating reality.
To be a child bom into a poor family in Canada today is to have a death rate that is 50 per cent to 100 per cent higher than that of children bom into affluent families. If these children are fortunate enough to survive they will experience more health problems. The disadvantages continue as they grow older as poor children are twice as likely to drop out of school.
This problem is approaching epidemic proportions, but why? Because we are forcing more and more of our children into poverty. The Canadian Council on Social Development has recently issued the Canadian Fact Book on Poverty. It notes that in 1975 someone who was receiving minimum wage and supporting a spouse and a child earned an income equivalent to 81 per cent of the poverty line. By 1986 the same worker earned only 46 per cent of the poverty line. Now, with both spouses working for minimum wage, they would still reach only 92 percent of the poverty line.

October 26, 1989
Private Members' Business
Our present system entrenches these individuals into a life of poverty, and it is the children who are the most harmed. In Canada 61.8 per cent of children of single mothers live in poverty. In Sweden the figure is only 9.8 per cent. We do have options that are available to us. Unfortunately, our government refuses to act.
First of all, present rates of social assistance fail to provide any real semblance of fair support. The Social Planning and Research Council has noted that in my own home province of British Columbia assistance rates are far from realistic. On B.C. welfare rates a parent is only able to feed a child properly, using the Canada Food Guide, for two and a half weeks out of every month. What are these children expected to eat for the following 12 days? Malnourished and hungry children are unable to function properly in school. Some schools now offer a lunch program to battle the growing problem of hungry children.
I recently visited a school in Vancouver, one of only five schools in the whole city of Vancouver, that offers a hot lunch program to children. It is a great deal of work for the parents in that community, for the teachers and the support staff, but it is wonderful to watch these little children carrying their trays up to receive a nutritious meal at lunch time.
What are we doing to help all the other children in Canada who fall between the cracks of our social assistance programs? Unfortunately, if the government continues with its present agenda, the situation will only worsen.
This government has not raised the federal minimum wage since 1986. At $4 an hour it still remains the lowest minimum wage in all of Canada. We have not developed any cohesive and responsible system of job creation. Three-fifths of the jobs created in the last four years have been low-wage jobs. The government is reinforcing the chains of poverty on children.
If the federal government is truly committed to protecting children it will act. The government has a choice. It can continue to address the needs of big business or it can look at the faces of the children who are lined up at food banks, crowded into unsanitary, unsafe housing, and say, "Enough is enough".
I support this bill, and I congratulate my colleague for Mission-Coquitlam for bringing it forward.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to start the debate on Motion No. 254, in the name of the Hon. Member for Mission-Coquitlam (Ms. Langan), with a quote from the Grand dictionnaire des citations frangaises by Collange which reads as follows: "Children can teach us to take advantage of every moment instead of complaining about the weather".
I thought this was very apt, Mr. Speaker. As the father of two children, I agree that having children is truly an enjoyable experience. You know, sometimes when you come home and you see toys all over the place, you sigh: They haven't put them away yet. And you complain.
However, Mr. Speaker, when you think about it, you are glad those toys are there, because it means the house is alive, and you realize it is nice to have a family.
To get back to motion No. 254 in the name of the hon. member whom I got to know a little better when she travelled with us across the country when the committee was considering Bill C-21 on unemployment insurance reform-she is a very dedicated person and I understand why she is anxious to have a special bill of rights that will protect children.
We are talking about missing children, children who have been abused, about violence against children and also about sexual abuse.
Mr. Speaker, in this connection I would like to mention that the Ministry of the Solicitor General has played an important national role in responding to the missing children issues.
Before providing the details on current ministry involvement in missing children, it may be useful to recall the history of the federal government's involvements in the issue.
In 1985 the government was faced with growing public concern about child abductions by strangers.
Public concerns were based on a small number of well publicized cases of the abduction and murder of children. These public concerns were intensified by alarmist and inaccurate media reports.
October 26, 1989

At the time, reliable national statistics were not available in Canada to put these concerns in perspective, by providing accurate information on the actual extent of the problem in Canada. In response to this situation, the then Solicitor General of Canada, announced a missing children initiative in December, 1985. As key elements of this initiative, the minister announced plans for a national forum on missing children, the creation of a missing children registry within the RCMP and initiated a research program on missing children.
The overall objective of these initiatives was to increase our knowledge of the problem and of the needs of missing children, and to use that knowledege as the basis for a concerted national effort to improve efforts to prevent children going missing, and secondly to improve the overall responses of police, government departments, social agencies, and voluntary groups in locating and helping missing children.
As you know, the police are normally the lead community agency in responding to a missing child incident. This is true whether the child has run away from his or her home, been abducted by a parent or abducted by a stranger.
The creation of the RCMP Missing Children Registry, in July, 1986, has been the single most important contribution of the Ministry of the Solicitor General to the missing children issue.
The centre has a direct link to the missing persons file of the Canadian Police Information Centre. Whenever a missing child is reported to a police agency in any part of Canada, this report is immediately entered in the C.P.I.C. missing persons file.
Thanks to direct access to the missing children files, the registry staff is able to assist the efforts of police agencies, provincial government departments, social agencies and organizations such as Child Find to locate and return missing children.
The registry's statistics demonstrate both the magnitude of the missing children problem in Canada, and the importance of the role of the registry and the police in responding.
Thus registry statistics for 1987 show that over 57,000 missing children incidents were reported to Canadian
Private Members' Business
police, and that in 56,000 of the incidents, the children were located during that same period. At any given time, there are approximately 1,500 children currently missing and reported to Canadian police. This is not a negligible figure, 1,500 children missing at any given time.
The registry staff play an important role in international liaison. For example, registry staff assist United States jurisdictions searching for missing children in Canada. They also help Canadian agencies contact the appropriate jurisdictions in the United States in searching for missing children believed to be in the U.S. To ensure effective international co-ordination of efforts to locate and return missing children, the registry maintains contact with the U.S. state and federal clearing houses for missing children, as well as with Interpol, External Affairs, Canada Customs, and voluntary agencies.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the RCMP-and Canadian police agencies from coast to coast-deserve high praise for the manner in which they have responded to the needs of missing children. You can imagine how hard it must be on a family!
In addition to the creation of the RCMP Missing Children's Registry, the Ministry of the Solicitor General has undertaken a program of research on assessing children in four major police agencies-Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton and Surrey, B.C. The purpose of the study was to understand the nature of the problem including the relationship with other social ills including family violence, child abuse and delinquency.
The findings of the research reinforce the statistics from the missing children's registry. The majority of the missing children incidents reported to the police involve children running from their home or from an institution. Many of these children run away more than once during the same year. After runaways, abductions by parents constitute the second largest category of missing children incidents reported to the police. Abductions by strangers constitue a smaller but nevertheless important number of cases. Such abductions are most serious and difficult to live with for the families.
These findings, as well as the experience of the missing children's registry, underline the fact that all missing children should be considered at risk. Whether the child is fleeing an unhealthy family environment or has been abducted by a parent in the context of a custody dispute-and certainly when abducted by a stranger-

Private Members' Business
the child's intellectual, emotional and moral development and physical safety is threatened.
Mr. Speaker, our Department will also continue to cooperate with other federal departments, provincial governments and voluntary agencies in the search for effective preventive and support networks for missing children, and indeed for all children and young people who need help.
Mr. Speaker, in our colleague's Motion 254, she wants a children's emergency hotline established. You know that there is a voluntary organization, the Canadian Children's Foundation, which has already set this up. Since May this year, it has operated the first emergency telephone line for Canadian children. It is called Kid's Help Phone and provides some seven million children with immediate, free, anonymous assistance, in both languages.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the positive results achieved, with some 654 phone calls a day or 45,000 cases in the last few months, our Government will spend $1.3 million in a 12-month period to support the work that has been done by this agency and to ensure that there will always be a telephone line to help children going through difficult times, whether due to sexual abuse or something else.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the comments of the previous speaker, I have to concur that, yes, there have been some initiatives made by the federal Department of National Health and Welfare with regard to children. However, in reading the motion as put forward by my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam, it states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of negotiating with the provinces to provide a comprehensive Bill of Rights for children which would standardize the laws throughout the country-
What could be so wrong with that particular submission? It goes on to state that that bill of rights ought to include a child protection commission, and an emergency hotline. I cannot understand how any member on any side of this particular Chamber could object to the substance or, more particularly, to the intent of the motion as put forward by my colleague.
It is very clear that what is being suggested in this motion is something that all parliamentarians, regardless of political persuasion, ought to support. Yes, there may be some fine tuning from time to time that members opposite would wish to include, add or amend, but the intent is very clear.
The third part of the motion it talks about an emergency hotline. We are all aware that very recently the Canadian Children's Foundation, a national non-profit fund raising organization put together what is known as the Kids Hotline. Yes, the government has participated to a certain extent, but the government also now knows that this national organization is in need of federal funding. It would not an ongoing expense of the Government of Canada, but a one-time grant to be given to that organization so that it may carry on its activities.
What the hon. member is suggesting in her motion is before the Canadian people at the present time. I assume all of us who are sincere when we say we wish to do things for and on behalf of children must conclude this motion is acceptable in terms of form, acceptable in terms of its intent, and acceptable in terms of its substance.
A U.S. child psychologist said, and I quote: "The concept of childhood is threatened with extinction in the society we have created. Today's child has become the unwilling, unintended victim of overwhelming stress, the stress born by rapid bewildering social change and constantly rising expectations."
In our rapid, fast-moving society, we have made great strides when it comes to technology and dealing with changing labour market demands. As with most strides or progress made in one field, another field usually gets left behind. Unfortunately, the children of the world and, yes, the children of our country, have been subject to this oversight.
One could argue with very little difficulty that the children have been robbed of their childhood. Children need time to grow, to learn, to laugh and, yes, to feel free. Society today, however, has laboured our children with social problems that serve only to stunt their growth and their development. To name a few there is child abuse, sexual abuse, child suicide, runaways, kidnapping, neglect, child pornography, child prostitution, emotional
October 26, 1989

and psychological developments, drug and alcohol abuse, child crimes and teenage pregnancy.
As all hon. members would attest, the children of the 1980s and 1990s are not the same as the children of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Today, a child is told not to talk to strangers, not to take candy from strangers, not to be left alone with a teacher or, indeed, anyone else. It could be argued-and I argue it-that we have a generation of children growing up and learning not to trust. This is very sad. It is very sad for parents, very sad for institutions which must deal with children and, yes, very sad for the children themselves.
It is our fault as Canadians, because their trust has been violated. One prime obvious sad travesty is a situation which we have all evidenced on national television, that being the situation in the province of Newfoundland.
We thought it was only adults who experienced stress and anxiety. Children have been diagnosed with free-floating anxiety. In adolescence, free-floating anxiety can take the form of depression and contribute to suicide. In Toronto, as in many large cities, the increase in stress reactions among young people have been so great that special children and adolescent services have been set up to care for these youngsters.
A clinical psychologist, Diane Syer, who is at the crisis intervention unit at the Toronto East General Hospital, said, "This trend can be blamed on the fragmentation of the family and the erosion of social institutions such as religion, the mobility of people in our society and a pervasive sense that the future will be grim."
All children have special needs, intellectual, social and emotional. These needs are not necessarily the same as adults. Children do not learn and think in the same way as adults. For these reasons alone we need a comprehensive bill of rights for children.
When all else has been told, the best years of your life are when you are young. For many children there is truth in this statement, but for many others that is not the truth. We need a bill of rights for children to protect children by law and to bring back the real meaning of childhood.
The institutions of the 1940s and 1950s, indeed the 1960s and part of the 1970s, in many instances no longer serve our children the way they ought to. There is a role, a fiduciary obligation if you will or a moral obligation on the state, namely the national government, to provide
Private Members' Business
leadership in an important area affecting children across this land.
I am fully aware, as is I believe my colleague who moved this motion, of the jurisdictional difficulties. Are we as parliamentarians prepared to say that because of the constitutional dilemma that this may present we will not act in the paramount interest of children? Is that what we as a Parliament in 1989-90 wish to say to those children across this land? Surely, if one examines the intent of the motion, the words used are: "the advisability of negotiating with the provinces".
Surely the minister responsible, either the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Solicitor General or indeed the Minister of Justice, would want to put a position paper before the provinces in this country to have them respond, not in a partisan way, but in a very caring, sensitive way, to a Canadian bill of rights for children.
If that were done, if that leadership were exercised by the Government of Canada, I am reasonably confident that the spirit in which it would be made would be one of non-partisanship, one to address children of all ages, of all regions, of all faiths, of all ethnic backgrounds. I am sure you would find in the provinces a sense and a warming to the concept of a bill of rights and thereafter a consensus for its establishment into law under federal statute affecting each and every province.
On that note, keeping in mind that my time is limited, let me congratulate once again my colleague for the introduction of this Private Members' Motion, and to say to all members on both sides that the intent, the form and the substance is something which all members should rise in their place and fully support as it speaks to the best interest of tomorrow's leaders, namely, the young children of Canada.


Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, there are many children in Bourassa, which is why I am delighted with this opportunity to speak to the subject of child welfare once again. I want to thank the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam and the hon. member who spoke earlier for presenting and addressing a motion on the important subject of children's rights and how they should be protected. I think the Hon. member

October 26, 1989
Private Members' Business
will agree that what I have to say may be a satisfactory response to her concerns.
According to the motion tabled in the House:
- the government should consider the advisability of negotiating with the provinces to provide a comprehensive Bill of Rights for children which would standardize laws throughout the country, and this Bill of Rights include a child protection commission,-
Mr. Speaker, this motion faces some very real obstacles in the division of legislative powers provided by our Constitution in this country. We believe, however, that there is a more realistic approach to achieving the objectives expressed in the motion, without changing the division of powers or perhaps disrupting child protection services already in place.
In fact, the solution I intend to propose would make it possible for all parties to go beyond the objectives stated implicitly by the hon. member in her motion.
Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the interests of Canadian children are served as well as possible, the Government of Canada should consider, in close consultation with the provinces and territories, ratifying a draft international agreement designed specifically to protect the rights of the child, not only in Canada but throughout the world. I am, of course, referring to the draft United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which will probably be approved by the UN General Assembly later this year.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child proposed by the United Nations would establish a modern, international standard for the protection of the child's social, economic, political, religious, cultural and civic rights. We are talking about a convention that provides for the widest possible range of rights. Its 54 articles, which are still at the draft stage and concern the rights of the child, guarantee the protection of children without families, children exposed to violence and neglect, children who are the victims of exploitation, whatever form it may take, and handicapped children and their right to be treated without discrimination. By providing for such a wide range of rights for the child, the draft United Nations Convention is a fully satisfactory response to that part of the motion before the House which mentions the need for a comprehensive Bill of Rights for children.
Mr. Speaker, the Convention on the Rights of the Child proposed by the United Nations also provides for a number of mechanisms to monitor compliance. First of all, each country that ratifies the convention shall submit to the United Nations, within two years following ratification, a progress report detailing the nature and scope of the measures taken to implement the provisions of the convention. Furthermore, the draft convention provides for a committee on the rights of the child, an international panel of experts that will be responsible for evaluating the living conditions of children in the countries that ratify the convention. The committee will have the right to publish the results of its inquiries and to recommend certain measures for the protection of children.
If Canada decides to ratify the convention, the Government of Canada would be subject to the same scrutiny as the other signatories.
Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the draft UN convention that provide for monitoring the rights of the child will achieve the same objectives or objectives similar to those of the child protection commission proposed by the hon. member.
The UN Convention of the Rights of the Child is receiving more and more support throughout the world. Supporters of the convention have agreed on 1989 as their target year for ratification of the convention by the UN General Assembly. The House will recall that 1989 marks the 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Child as well as the 30th anniversary of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child at the United Nations.
This declaration contains recommendations for the rights of the child but does not have force of law. Unlike the proposed convention, the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child is not an international legislative instrument that is final and binding.
Mr. Speaker, except for unforeseen circumstances, it is expected that the UN General Assembly will approve the international convention in 1989, so that the Government of Canada will be able to ratify it.
Hon. members will be interested to know that Canada is internationally recognized as having played a leading role in drafting the proposed convention. All or part of versions prepared by Canada were used as the basis for articles on child sexual abuse, health, standard of living,
October 26, 1989

education goals, recreation, economic exploitation, criminal procedure and care mechanisms.
This is just one more reason why the Government of Canada, with the assistance of the provinces and the territories, should consider ratifying the convention.
Mr. Speaker, ratifying the international convention would involve making our laws conform to the convention, both federally and provincially. Since we would be obliged to align our legislation with the provisions of the proposed convention, the ultimate goal of the ratification process would be to provide for some standardization in the provisions of child protection and child welfare legislation across Canada.
To that extent, Mr. Speaker, ratification of the convention would be a response to that part of the motion tabled by the hon. member which asks that child protection laws be standardized across Canada.
Harmonizing federal and provincial legislation with the standards set forth in the proposed UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been in the works for quite sometime. It is therefore not unlikely that the convention's provisions will be approved by all Canadian jurisdictions.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed convention stresses the right of the child to receive the best possible health care and requires countries to ensure that no child is deprived of access to such care. That is also, Mr. Speaker, the objective pursued by the Government of Canada.
Under the Canada Assistance Plan, the Government of Canada shares with the provinces the cost of helping families who are, or are likely to be, in need and who have children. Family allowances and The Child Tax Credit are among the many other measures designed to afford economic protection to Canadian children.
By definition, children depend on their families, on care-givers or on other adults to whose care they have been entrusted, all of whom must consider the best interests of the child and act accordingly. When that is not the case or worse, when the child is abused or neglected, the child is in danger and something must be done.
Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to fight problems like violence against children. We have to make the best interests of the child our priority.
Government Orders
Particular emphasis is placed on the fight against child abuse in the Canadian children's program which is co-ordinated by the Family Violence Prevention Division of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The Division is responsible for $20 million in funding for innovative projects that will help prevent child sexual abuse.
The Family Violence Prevention Division was created in 1986 as a visible agency for co-ordinating federal initiatives in the fight against family violence. It includes the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence, a source of information and public awareness tool, thanks to its publications and audio-visual material.
Mr. Speaker, although the merits of the motion before the House are quite obvious, we feel there is a better way to protect the rights of all children.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We started Private Members' Hour at 4:58 p.m. Therefore, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Schneider (p.5069).
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise this afternoon in this Chamber and speak on behalf of every farmer in this country who will be hard done by as a result of the actions of the government in reducing their interest in the rebate of $27 million on their advance payments quota.

October 26, 1989
Government Orders
Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I would like to discuss the comments of my friend for Mackenzie who spoke earlier in the day. I was very interested in his comments, especially those that originally went over some of our heads, when he was talking about his province of Saskatchewan and he mentioned "divine " wisdom and all of those events that happened in the province of Saskatchewan that are led by the "divine" intervention, I would imagine, of the premier of that province.
Also, I cannot help but remark on the comments made by the member for Athabasca who was trying to justify this government's moves in respect to the closure motion. He said that we were the members in this House who were causing the farmers to be denied the benefits to which they were entitled. I feel offended by those comments, inasmuch as I never heard anything that was further removed from the truth.
Since I have been a member of this House, I have seen many instances where the government has done things that it wanted to do without coming to this House for approval. It spent funds without coming to this House for approval. It spent approximately $10 million on advertising the goods and services tax in newspapers right across this country, and it did not come to this House for approval. Yet, the member for Athabasca rises and states that we are denying the farmers in this country the wherewithal to meet their interest commitments. That is not quite correct. I want to draw his attention to that matter.
This government, by its actions, has proven that it does almost anything it wants to do, almost to the point that it has forgotten what the parliamentary system is all about. From our experience, it looks as if it is operating an executive form of government, much the same as our friends in the United States. It seems to be able to do whatever it wants and then come to Parliament for approval after the fact.
The government seems to forget that in the parliamentary system, matters of great concern to this country come before this House, this Chamber for full debate, and once they are debated to their fullest extent, there is a vote. That is the parliamentary system under which this country has operated since 1867, and I suspect will
continue to operate, regardless of what the government is doing with respect to the executive type of administration that it seems to be leading this country into.
As I discuss this executive form of government and its actions, I want to comment on the closure motion. I think this is the ninth time in the short history of this government that it has invoked the time element on the debate of a bill. It is important for us to understand what is happening, particularly when it affects the agricultural community of our country.
Limiting debate is repugnant. It shows an irreverence for this House and a disrespect for its procedures and those things that we, as parliamentarians, have come to hold very dear to our hearts. We hope that by expressing our concerns members opposite would reconsider their future actions and decide that closing debate on vital issues that affect every person is not the proper way to run a country. We have to form a consensus of opinion that meets the needs of the people in this country for the purposes of unity and harmony, and that is what I think we are all trying to achieve.
It does not surprise us that they would move in that direction, inasmuch as this government with this bill on agriculture and its effect on the farmers in our community has shown a complete disrespect for all small town Canada, and rural Canada. This morning we attended a transportation hearing. We were talking about VIA Rail and Rural Dignify made a presentation. When you consider all of the facets that happen in rural Canada today such as the disbanding of rural post offices, the disbanding of passenger rail service in our country, all the other elements that do not affect the cities of Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, you can see why they would form this allegiance to the big centres of the country and have a complete disregard for our small communities where most of the farmers in our country reside.
When you speak of agriculture in our country your mind wanders immediately. I am from Ontario. When you travel down highway 401 from Toronto to Windsor you can see all those magnificent fields laden with com, black earth and the vegetables that they grow. These lands provide Canadians with fruits and vegetables. These farmers are being hurt by what this government is trying to do with this bill.
October 26, 1989

Government Orders
As your mind wanders and travels to the west, to the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and those magnificent fields of grain, soybeans, and other crops grown there, you think of the crops that are so vital to our communities and to our country. As you think of the grain in the west, you think of the very complex growing system and manufacturing system that we require to grow that grain and get it to those very vital export markets on which we rely to balance our payments.
It is a complex system, and I want to address that in a few moments to show why the farmers in this country need that $27 million in order to make sure that the process is kept in place. When you think of this magnificent industry growing in the western provinces and the subsidies that are required to assist it, and the $27 million is part of that, when you think of the system that is required to take this grain from its source of supply on the farms of this country and trucked to smaller elevators and from the smaller elevators put in the rail cars and shipped, you think immediately of the complex nature of the transportation system that is required.
When you think of transportation and the movement of grain, you automatically think of the Western Grain Transportation Act, and let me just comment on that for a moment. When we talk about agriculture and grain, we cannot help but mention and address the issue of the Western Grain Transportation Act and the inequities that arise out of that particular piece of legislation.
On the one hand, we are talking about $27 million in interest payments, but when you discuss the Western Grain Transportation Act you are not talking of a subsidy on transportation of $550 million or $600 million. I think the numbers that we looked at at the end of last year were well over $1.1 billion in subsidies for the movement of grain in this country from the western provinces to Prince Rupert and Vancouver in British Columbia, or the alternate route in my riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon.
When you consider the enormous subsidy in this western grain transportation program and compare it to the $27 million, it pales by comparison. That Western Grain Transportation Act has to be changed for the benefit of the agricultural producers and for the farmers of this country who are growing our grain, but that is an argument for another day.
We rise in this House on this side to provide support and interest in the hope that we can convince this government to retain the steady and even flow of products into our system.
The system that I talked about is the operative word. In the growing of grain, we are not simply talking as if it was many years past of going out into fields and planting seed, hoping and praying for some sunshine and some rain so that the grain would grow and then harvesting the grain and shipping it to ports. The system today is so complex, so highly technical, it is a process that defies the imagination from the planting of the seed to its eventual use somewhere in another country in this world. Some of it will stay in Canada, but most of it will be exported to other countries, Third World countries, to feed people in China, to feed people in the Ukraine, to feed people in Poland, and to feed people in Russia.
What we have is a very complex manufacturing process in growing our grain and getting it to the eventual user in our country. That complex process requires everyone contributing his part to make sure that the process continues on its way to its eventual use.
And a good part of this government's obligation is to make sure that from the time the seed is planted to the time it is harvested and to the time it is merchandised, that the farmer, the owner, the person who is responsible for the fundamental issue in this, is recompensed for his problems. Making a car is simple; you make the car, you take it out and sell it. But grain takes from the middle of April when the crop year begins to September and that process has to be financed. All we are talking about here today is that period of time where we have the grain starting to grow to the time of its eventual processing and distribution to those people I mentioned before.
It is a complex system, and farmers are automated to the best of their ability now. Prior to April they plough the fields, till the soil and plant the seed. At all times they hope that there will be just enough rain and just enough sunshine so that they can get a crop, contrary to what we experienced last year. They tend to their crops through this period of time, and there is constant work that is involved, and then it comes time for harvest.

October 26, 1989
Government Orders
The harvesting on the prairies is done with these magnificent machines that do it in such short order today. If everything is good, they get a reasonable crop. In some years, they get a magnificent crop. In other years they get a very poor crop. On the average, crops have been good.
After harvest they can store it in their own storage areas within their farm yards, or they can load it on trucks and take it down to the terminals that store it for them. Their responsibility almost ends there, but they do not get paid for it then.
They can either handle that grain on their own, or they can give it to a pool and the pool will handle it for them. This is a process that I am talking about where they need this interest, this assistance on advance payments in order to help them continue to produce what they do and to make profit.
The system gets complex. They store it in the prairie grain elevators. Now it has to be moved from the storage facilities and the grain facilities that they have in western Canada. The Wheat Board then decides where the market is going to be. They will ship it to Prince Rupert or Vancouver, or they may decide to sell the grain to their European markets and ship it to Thunder Bay. It is easy to say that they ship it to Thunder Bay, but the process in itself is complicated.
I get back to this intricate system that we need to produce our grain harvest. It goes from the elevator, to be loaded on to a special type of railway car, and it is moved either up the mountains to Prince Rupert and Vancouver or it is moved downhill to the ports at Thunder Bay. From the yard where the cars are marshalled in these areas they are brought into the terminals and the grain elevators. I can speak with some authority about Thunder Bay. If the grain is moved into those marshalling yards, the grain is then sorted, put in different elevator bins, and cleaned. Value is added at that point, and then it is stored in another elevator.
The grain has been handled now about six times. You would think at that point we would be getting toward the end of the process, but the transportation is only the beginning. From that point in Thunder Bay we have to get the grain to a down river port.
Now comes the water transportation system in our country, the St. Lawrence Seaway. The ships are owned
by a variety of companies in this country, mostly Canadian: CSL and Patterson. They come in and load so many tonnes from the elevators on to these ships which go to Sault Ste. Marie, Toronto, through the Welland Canal, and on to what we call the down river ports in Quebec which take on this grain.
The grain is taken off the ships, put into another elevator, stored again, waiting for the offshore purchasers to take it back to their countries. So the grain, again, is sitting there and must be shipped once more on large ships which come here from Europe.
I can see my time is drawing to a close. It is important that we realize the intricacies of the growing and transporting of grain in this country, and that during the whole process, which takes several months from the time it is grown to the time it is completed, the farmer is waiting to be paid.
All this bill is trying to do is take away the money he would normally receive, this $27 million, which could finance the grain in this country waiting for shipment or sale to other parts of the country. I suggest to you this government should withdraw this bill and give the agricultural producers, the farmers of this country, an opportunity and a chance.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on this bill. It is an important bill as far as many parts of the country are concerned. We have had a tendency to speak about western Canadian grain generally.
I want to point out that it has a much, much greater impact across the country than that. In the last little while in Prince Edward Island, the grain growers, vegetable growers, marketing boards, and tobacco growers were users of these particular advance payments.
In Ontario there were nine organizations that used this type of advance payment: Blue Water Storage, Cedar Springs Cherry Growers, the Ontario Soybean Growers, the Ontario Flue-cured Tobacco Growers, the Ontario Corn Producers Association, the Ontario Potato Growers Marketing Board, Timiskaming Grain Growers, Georgian Triangle Apples Limited, and the St. Lawrence Valley Fruit Growers Association. These were groups of producers which used this particular advance payment structure.
October 26, 1989

The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Beekeepers Association and the Saskatchewan Vegetable Growers also used advance payments; in Manitoba, the Honey Marketing Board and the Canola Growers; in British Columbia, the B.C. Tree Fruits Limited, B.C. Coast Vegetables, the Okanagan Fruit Producers and Shippers Association, the Island Vegetable Co-op Association, and the Interior Vegetable Agency; in Alberta, the Alberta Fresh Vegetable Marketing Board, the Potato Commission, the Alberta Honey Producers, the Wheat Pool, and the seed producers. These are some of the organizations which made use of this particular bill.
There is also the bill which deals with wheat board grains, now only barley and wheat. In the past it was barley, wheat and oats.
It is not a limited group that we are talking about here. It is farmers right across the country. What we are seeing here to some extent is the final stage of the abandoning of our old friend from Prince Albert, John Diefenbaker. As a member who represented the same constituency as Mr. Diefenbaker, I recognize the contribution that he made to agriculture and to Canada.
I recognize also, sometimes to my chagrin, the contribution that he made to the Conservative Party in this country. For years he kept that party going in the west. When they found themselves in the wilderness he was always there. Besides that, he made a contribution to this Parliament. He was one of the strongest opponents of closure. In fact, he won his first national election as Prime Minister using closure of the TransCanada PipeLines bill as the basis for his cross country campaign.
What we are seeing here is the Conservative party abandoning John Diefenbaker, what he stood for, what this Parliament stood for when he was in it, and what he stood for as far as the Conservative party was concerned. He kept the party alive and he had a real concern for farmers. In 1957 he was the person who brought into this House the Advance Payments for Prairie Grains Act. Now we have the Conservative party denying in every phase of its operations the important contribution that John Diefenbaker made to this House, to Canada, and in this particular bill to the farmers of Canada.
Government Orders
In 1977 the second bill was put into place because it was recognized that there was a need for it. The two bills have somewhat the same reason for being, but slightly different.
The Western Prairie Grains Advance Payments Act was for the marketing of wheat, barley and oats. It was put in place because there were problems with delivery. There were quota problems. You might have the grain in your bin, but there was no room in the elevator; there were no boxcars available to take it to market. It gave the prairie farmer the opportunity to keep that grain but still get enough money to pay his bills.
Therefore, it helped the farmer because he did not have to pay interest on the bills that he owed to the fertilizer supplier and the gas supplier in the community. But it helped those communities, too, because they were dependent upon farmers, for money from farmers. It got that money to those communities when they needed it.
One would think that this government is almost deliberately moving to eliminate what is rural Canada. For instance, the last speaker mentioned post offices and the elimination of transportation. If you look back at the introduction of this particular bill by the Minister of Agriculture and look at what he said, not even very indirectly, it suggests that the time has come to abandon the farmers, that they have to look at competing in a situation where they are finding themselves less and less able to compete.
What this government is going to do is pull the plug and say: "You're on your own. You pay for your insurance. If you can't pay for it, it's too bad." That kind of approach is harming the confidence of the farmers in the west and all across Canada. How much money is really involved? It is $27 million. Your friend, Mr. Speaker, Peter Pocklington, took more out of Alberta in one loan than that total amount.
Yesterday, the Auditor General tabled in this House a report that suggested there was one little loophole in the collecting of the federal sales tax that costs this government $350 million a year. This $27 million is 7.5 per cent of that loss which the government allows to slip away without any effort to collect. We are not talking about a huge amount of money. As I suggested earlier, we have two bills being amended here: The Prairie Grain Ad-

October 26, 1989
Government Orders
vance Payments Act and the Advance Payments for Crops Act.
The Advance Payments Act is for those crops which are sold on the open market. There is no pooling attempt. The price is what the farmer or the producer or the retailer can get when he sells it. The tendency for prices to go down when there is a lot of them on the market is recognized by everyone. If you dump all of the crops on to the market at the beginning of the year because farmers are short of money and need that money, the prices go down.
I grew up on the prairies when there was no Canadian Wheat Board. My father used to do his best to hang on to his wheat or his grain in the fall because it might be 75 cents or $1 a bushel in the fall, but if he could hold it until spring it would be $2 a bushel and twice as much could be made on it. The Wheat Board eliminated that for the grain growers on the prairies, but we still have a lot of farmers growing products under that basis. The Advance Payments Act allowed the evening out of that, because if all the com from Ontario arrives on the market at the same time in the fall, the price would go down and that is what the farmer would get.
If farmers receive some advance payment, the price of the corn stays up because there is not too much of it out there. As it goes on to the market gradually over the season it keeps its price. Those people buying corn know that if the price is too low they are not going to get any corn because the advance payment is there to provide the farmer with the cash when he needs it.
Com Growers of Ontario tells us that none of them or very few of them-only those who need the money for other reasons-will actually use the advance payments process if they have to pay interest on it. If you are betting that the price of corn will go up and have to pay 12 or 15 per cent interest on the money that you borrow, you are betting that the price will go up more than the 15 per cent that you will have to pay on that corn. Very few farmers are willing to take that chance.
In order to pay their bills and to assist their communities in surviving, they are going to put their grain on the market as quickly as they can, force the price down and take what they can get, with the net result that in the long ran they will be making less money. As my colleague, the member for Mackenzie pointed out, it is quite possible that the government will have to support
them under the other programs which the government has in place.
We have been told by the member for Athabasca that this bill is not being passed because of the New Democrats and the Liberals. He should recognize, as I think most of the people of the country do, that there is a bill in place. The legislation is in place. If there is the political will, as he suggests there is, all the government has to do is use the legislation and it can have that money to the farmers next week. There are some farmers who need it. There are not many who want it under the circumstances which are being suggested by the government. There are very few who need the $250,000.
The statistics show that very few of the farmers took the maximum that was available to them under the present act. The present act allowed them $30,000 if they were single farmers, $60,000 if there were two people involved, and $90,000 as a maximum in a corporation or a triple partnership.


Jack Wendele Shields: Now they will get $250,000 if they need it.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: So if they need $250,000 and they have to pay interest on it why would they do it, particularly if they are doing it because the prices-


An Hon. Member:: Because they are getting it cheaper than they can get it anywhere else.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: That is exactly the reason. The member for Athabasca is reinforcing my argument. If you have to pay interest on it and you are taking that loan out because you are waiting for the price to go up, you are betting. You pay 15 per cent for that loan and the price only goes up 10 per cent, what have you gained?


An Hon. Member:: Nothing.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Nothing at all. My friend from Athabasca suggested that this bill was here in June. It was here in June. It was so bad that nobody wanted it. The government brought it in on June 25, the last day that we sat in this House and wanted it all passed in one day.
Those of us who saw the bill thought that it was so ridiculous that we laughed. The government saw it was ridiculous too and removed it. The bill came back in the
October 26, 1989

fall only slightly changed. It came back the second time in September as a different bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A point of order. The hon. member for Athabasca.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend said that the farmers need the advance payments. They are going to get them. That is why we put closure through.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The hon. member has the floor in debate.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The bill was brought before us in September, but it was so bad and had so many flaws in it that the government withdrew it. That was Bill C-32. It withdrew that in the House on October 3.
A few days ago, we reached the eighth hour of debate. This bill upon which the government has brought closure has had maybe eight hours and 10 minutes of debate. The government says that is enough debate. We have had a little more than two days of debate, and it is quite out of line with the tradition of this House to bring in closure at that point. It implies the government is afraid that if the farmers know too much about the bill that they will not accept it and the government might lose some of the support of the farmers.
Traditionally the Conservatives have had a lot of support in the rural areas, but they are losing it because they are bringing in ill conceived and underdeveloped legislation such as this.
The reason the government gave us for bringing this bill in and putting interest on the advances to farmers had nothing to do with the value to the farmers, it was more to do with deficit reduction.
Who caused the inflation in this country that led to this problem? It certainly was not the farmers. The farmers got a billion dollars of help in the last couple of years. Some will say that they are getting too much. But that has been returned to the country many times over by the farmers, even in these last two years, because the total production of the farm community has been increasing, even as they have been making less money. What is a fair share for the farmers to pay? What we are asking the farmers to do is add to a debt that they already have.
Government Orders
The farmers are already in trouble with debt. The last thing farmers need is more debt. This is what the farmers are being asked to do in this particular case. They are being asked to take an advance, an interest bearing debt, to increase the debt. The irony is that the farmers who are going to possibly borrow the $250,000 are the ones who are so deperately badly off now that nobody will give them money in any other way. That is the only reason why the $250,000 is there, Mr. Speaker.
As I said before, every group of farmers across the country has used, in some way, this advance payment structure. We should be doing what we can to keep that kind of structure in place so that the farmers can make the market work better and work for them. If you force them to take less for their product, many more farmers will have to leave the industry. We should be trying to keep them there, not eliminating them. We have no intention of supporting this bill under its present structure.


Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I too appreciate the opportunity to address this bill. We have heard today how this amending legislation does not change the spirit and intent of the two acts, and I want to add to that.
First, as before, the Advance Payments for Crops Act will help producers store crops after harvest and spread deliveries over the entire marketing season to take advantage of stronger prices.
Second, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act will ease pressure on the quota delivery system and reduce congestion at local elevators.
Third, the loan guarantee components of these acts are to remain intact.
The federal government will continue to guarantee the principal amount advanced to the farmers under the various programs. While we are amending the advance payments act in order to remove the interest-free provisions, it has also provided us with an opportunity to enhance these acts.
As I understand it, consultations were held with the producers and their organizations throughout the summer. These consultations have now resulted in improvements contained in the bill before this House.

October 26, 1989
Government Orders
In order to make advances available under both acts, as soon as possible after this bill is given Royal Assent, regulations will no longer be used to establish maximum interest rates covered under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. In the future the maximum interest rates to be guaranteed under the program will be determined by the Minister of Agriculture, prime or less than prime.
Under the current Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, regulation sets the maximum rate of interest which the government will guarantee in the event a producer defaults on a loan. No such amendment is required to the Advance Payments for Crops Act since such provisions were added to the legislation in 1985. To ensure that advance payments under both acts are available as soon as possible after Bill C-36 has received Royal Assent, it is proposed that the minister also set the interest rates which are to be covered by the Canadian Wheat Board.
If we continue to rely on regulations, this would mean an undue delay on advance payments to western wheat and barley producers, many of whom are in my constituency of Wetaskiwin. These producers would be forced to wait for new regulations before they could take advantage of the program.
Since a similar change to the Advance Payments for Crops Act has proven successful, we should proceed as quickly as possible with this amendment to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. Producers participating in this program, especially those of my constituency, should not face delays in receiving their advances. By removing the need for regulations, the government is ensuring that those western grain producers who have come to rely on advance payment programs can do so again and as soon as possible. I believe this can only be an enhanced benefit for my area.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to participate in this debate and I will say right at the outset without a minister of the Crown in this House, my words are falling on deaf ears. It is ministers of the Crown who have an obligation to be here. There is not a single one for the second time today. Their duty is to be in this place-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is the second time I have had to mention to the member that he should not mention who is or who is not in the Chamber. I do not wish to discuss that any more. I would hope the
hon. member would take heed and follow the decorum of this House.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I hope ministers of the Crown would follow the decorum of this House and observe the convention that one at least out of 38 ministers be in this Chamber when a government bill is under discussion. They are the ones who have invoked closure today. They are the ones who control the agenda of this House. They are the ones who decide which bills are going to be discussed here and they have an obligation to be here and to be answerable to this House.
We have a responsible government. This is not a presidential system where members can do what they want. These ministers are responsible to this House of Commons. They are members of this House and they have an obligation, at least one of them, to be here at all times.
I realize His Honour does not like my reference to this, but I think it is an important principle of parliamentary democracy. I stress it for that reason.
I want to say also-


Jack Wendele Shields: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I invite my hon. friend to walk into the lobby where the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds is sitting, having something to eat while watching the monitors and listening to everything that is being said. The hon. member's people are sitting on the other side of the House watching the monitors to see what is going on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member realizes what is happening here. As far as members being in the House and out of the House, there are installed televisions in the lobbies which members can see. As an extra hour of debate goes through the dinner hour, I am sure that the hon. member will be heard in the lobby. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has the floor.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, if I wanted to speak to the Minister in the lobby, I would go to the lobby and speak to the minister. I am here addressing this bill in a speech in the Parliament of Canada and I have a right to make my speech here, and the minister has an obligation to be here to listen to this speech.
In any event, I will proceed with what I was going to say. I want to also refer to the fact that I am sorry that the Minister of Justice is unable to be here tonight. I know that he cannot be. I am not suggesting that he is away for anything other than his responsibilities in office. I am sorry he cannot be here because I am going to quote from some of his speeches. I think he would enjoy

hearing himself quoted. I am sorry that he and the Deputy Prime Minister, who I am also going to quote from extensively, are unable to be present to hear those things. I realize they are busy. They have their hands on the levers of power. They are busy working away for the people of Canada doing their best. But I am going to read from their speeches, and I know that hon. members opposite are going to enjoy hearing the words of wisdom from these men of the present government, words from the past.
Let us look at the record of the proceedings on this bill because here we have closure moved on this bill. Yesterday we had closure in a different form on another bill. Now we have it again today on this bill. Let us look at the debating record on this particular item. The bill was introduced for first reading on June 16, and we all know what happened to that one. The bill was so badly botched up because the government did not do proper planning and proper organization that it had to withdraw that one. So the government got our unanimous agreement to withdraw a dreadful bill and substitute another one which is almost as bad.
The bill was debated in this House in the afternoon only of Tuesday, October 3, for 1 hour and 53 minutes. It was debated again on Wednesday, October 4 for the afternoon, because we only sit in the afternoons on Wednesdays, for 2 hours and 6 minutes. It was debated on Thursday, October 5, for 3 hours and 24 minutes. Then it was debated again on Friday, October 20 for 1 hour and 47 minutes, for a total of 9 hours and 10 minutes. That is the total amount of debate on the bill until today.
We have closure because 9 hours and 10 minutes is too much time on one bill, according to this government. Closure is moved because it does not want to hear the bad news any more. The government wants to shut us up. It wants to close Parliament down and get us out of here.


Rob Nicholson: We want to get the farmers paid.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You do not want to get the farmers paid.
The hon. member knows the farmers could be paid under the existing legislation.
Government Orders Mr. Kempling: You're a windbag.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They would be paid a lot more than they are going to get paid under this legislation. But this government is so tight-fisted it will not pay the farmers under the existing legislation. It is trying to blackmail the farmers of Canada by saying: "Pass this bill or you do not get paid at all".


Rob Nicholson: Rubbish.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Let us look at the record of closure that has gone on in this House in the past. This is the eighth time closure has been used in this Parliament by this government, more than any other government ever in Canadian history, more than any other Parliament in Canadian history.


William James Kempling: Who put closure on the Constitution.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member for Burlington better watch his blood pressure.
Let us look at the House of Commons Debates. On October 23, 1980, what was being discussed? The Constitution. We all know that that debate raged for months and months and months. We had a closure motion moved by the then Government House Leader, the Hon. Yvon Pinard.


William James Kempling: Where is he now?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He has been elevated to the bench, I should inform the hon. member for Burlington. On October 23 at page 4027 of Hansard the now Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. member for Vegreville, had these words to say. I hope the hon. member for Burlington will listen to these words. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I participate in this debate with a degree of sadness and regret having regard to the fact that we have just had thrust upon this House one of the most repugnant and most destructive devices ever perpetrated on the democratic process.
What was he talking about?


William James Kempling: Talking about the Constitution.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Closure. He was talking about closure. If the hon. member would take the time to read the speech, he would know this is all about closure. If the hon. member does not believe me, listen to this. He went on:

October 26, 1989
Government Orders
The government's action is the result of a move that is ruthless,
arrogant, and, I believe, cowardly. Parliament is now succumbing, as
the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) has said, to the tyranny of
the majority.
That is the way he was talking about closure then. Ele sits here deadly silent now. He does not dare discuss this issue now because he knows what he said then was right. He does not want the words quoted.
Let us go to a subsequent speech. October 26, 1983, what happened on that day? The House was discussing Bill C-155, an act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain. It was the Crow rate debate. Let us look at the record of what happened on that debate. Let me read from the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre on that occasion. He was the Minister of Transport and he was not proposing the Draconian closure rule that we are debating today, he was discussing a time allocation order, the one we had yesterday, which is another form of closure.
He said this bill was introduced in Parliament on second reading and over 97 speakers had an opportunity to express their point of view. Then there were three solid months of committee hearings at which time over 200 representations were heard. That is why he was introducing closure. This debate had dragged on and on and on, and they were on the report stage at this point as I recall.
Let me look at the record. The House of Commons spent nine days at second reading stage of that bill. Then the matter was studied in committee for three months. There were 15 days spent at report stage and they finally brought a time allocation order and did third reading in two days.


William James Kempling: So What?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: We have only had four days debate on this bill, not nine days, and here we have closure being clopped on at second reading already. It is a shocking example. The hon. member for Burlington should be ashamed to be supporting a government that is so arrogant and so willing to trample on the rights of Parliament.
Here is what the hon. member for Vegreville had to say on that occasion in 1983. He stated: "I really regret
what the minister has done today". I assume these were not crocodile tears. He continues:
The position of this party has been one of constructive criticism,
months and months of it, but that did not matter:
We have offered alternatives, tried to improve the Bill and seek out reasonable solutions. But the minister is so skittish about his own bill that he has to move closure. He will not allow the alternatives to be debated.
Nine days of debate at second reading, three months in committee with over 200 witnesses, 15 days in the report stage in the House and here is the Deputy Prime Minister saying the minister would not allow the alternatives to be debated. What would he say today if he were here discussing this bill in this debate. He would say we have not had an opportunity to discuss this thing. He would say our rights are being trampled on, if he followed his example. But oh, no, there is more. On page 28353 of Hansard he states:
Here we have an opportunity to debate some of the positive alternatives advanced by our Party, and that is being denied.
What about us? What about the denial of our rights as members of Parliament to discuss this bill after 4 days, not 24, which is what the hon. member for Vegreville had in 1983. He continues:
Rather than working toward a solution, the Government decided to use force.
What is the government doing here? Raw force, Mr. Speaker, for the eighth time in this Parliament. He goes on:
Members opposite suggest they are acting in the best interest of the country because they are being stubborn.
That is the kind of language he was using. On the same page. He states:
-we in our Party have tried to work toward a positive and satisfactory solution. We have opposed and we have proposed. We have offered alternatives. We have listened to the evidence before the committee- But we are very saddened by the fact-
It almost makes one weep, Mr. Speaker.
-that we have not been able to debate the alternative proposals we believe would go a long way toward improving this Bill.
To debate the alternative proposals, my foot. He had 24 days to debate the alternative proposals; 97 members spoke on second reading alone, and here is the Deputy Prime Minister shedding these crocodile tears, spouting this stuff and nonsense about not having an opportunity to debate. Why is he not up here saying we have not had a fair opportunity today if he believed that then? We have had only four days at second reading on this bill and
October 26, 1989

one of them was a half day. We have had nine hours of debate on this bill and here closure is being moved again.


William James Kempling: That is all it needs.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I say it is an absolute disgrace.
I have more because we have the Minister of Justice to deal with now. I am sure if he is watching this on television he must be getting very nervous because in a debate in 1984 on a time allocation motion on a Borrowing Authority Bill, the Minister of Justice decided to get into the act and he made a remark about closure. It is a very short remark but I think it is very instructive. At page 2518 of Hansard March 28, 1984 he stated:
But closure is the problem of the Liberal Party.
That is what the Minister of Justice said. The man who has introduced closure more than any other House Leader ever in Canada had the nerve to say in 1984 that closure was the problem of the Liberal Party.
If it was the problem of the Liberal Party, it is the problem of the Tory party today because they have shamefully abused the trust that was placed in them by the Canadian people last November by applying closure at every stage of every bill in this House. It is an indictment I would be ashamed of were I sitting on the other side of the House.
Let us look at the record on that bill when the Minister of Justice had the unmitigated gall to make that statement. Bill C-21 had been debated-let us listen to the dates, the hon. member for Burlington might find this interesting-on March 7, March 8, March 13, March 14, March 15, March 20, March 21, March 27, March 28. Those are the dates it was debated on second reading. It was at that point they brought in this time allocation order to get the bill through.
Have we had debate of that magnitude on this bill? No.


Rob Nicholson: You have had plenty of debate. Why don't you want to help the farmers of the country.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: No. Have we had it on any of the bills on which closure has been moved in this House? No. We have not. Closure has been rammed down our throats at
Government Orders
every turn by this government and it is a shocking indictment.
Here is another quote by the Minister of Justice, as he now is. He said on page 2519 of XHansardo of the same date:
"It is very unfortunate that the Liberal Party is cutting off debate on this Bill and, naturally, our Party will be voting against the motion to cut debate.
Here we have this absolute two-faced nonsense from this minister who, after all those days of debate, eight days of debate, now says that after four days we have had too much. Three and a half, as a matter of fact. It is quite unsatisfactory.
Let me turn to the bill. This bill, as the honourable member for Halifax says, is pernicious. When the government could be paying this money out to the farmers today, it is sitting back waiting for this bill to pass and saying the reason the farmers do not have it is because of us. It has worked itself into a comer.


Rob Nicholson: You are against the farmers.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member for Niagara Falls is here and he seems to think the farmers are not with us. Again, if I was the Deputy Prime Minister, I would be quaking in my boots with the letters we are getting on these things.
Let me read this letter into the record. It comes from the President of the Manitoba Canola Growers Association. The Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds is very fond of telling us how he has these people in his pocket, that they support this legislation, that they think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Let us hear what they think about this.
Let me read this letter dated October 20 from the President of the Manitoba Granola Growers Association and see what they think about this legislation. The letter is addressed to my colleague, the agriculture critic, the hon. member for Algoma. It states:
We would like to encourage your continued support for reinstatement of the interest-free provision for the cash advance programs. Without the reinstatement of said provision, the program holds little benefit for Canadian farmers.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure my hon. friend would like to keep the record

Government Orders
straight. Granola you buy in grocery stores, granola bars and so on. I think he is referring to canola growers.


William James Kempling: He has no idea.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. Of course I meant canola. I thank the hon. member for Athabasca for his very helpful intervention. I am delighted to receive help from the other side. Let me continue reading the letter:
With respect to oilseeds, the interest-free cash advance has contributed to orderly delivery, by removing the pressure on producers to sell at harvest, a time when prices tend to trend down.
Further, one of our Board members happens to be the person responsible for administering the Canola Cash Advance Program offered under the Prairie Canola Growers Council. His calculations show that with the fee which must be charged to cover the costs of administering the program the true cost of the advance would be prime plus at least one or two percent. Because the administration fee is a fixed amount no matter the size of the loan, the shorter the period for which the loan is held and the smaller the amount borrowed, the higher the actual interest rate becomes, making it more economical for farmers under those circumstances to borrow directly from a lending institution. As a result, the cash advance loses all usefulness.
In other words, this man is saying this bill is absolutely useless for these growers.
I will continue reading the letter:
While our organization's interest is solely canola, none of our members grow only canola. Consequently, I feel it reasonable to also make a comment on the advance program for grains marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board. I think it only fair, that as long as Canadian farmers must operate under a system which requires them to hold grain in on-farm storage, that we should be reimbursed for that storage. The cash advance program as it has been in the past at least provided some consideration in that direction.
Would you please let our office know when Bill C-36 goes to committee as we are interested in submitting a brief.
They are opposed to this bill, they have sense. The letter is signed by Mr. Max Polon, President of the Manitoba Canola Growers Association. These people realize what a disaster this bill is for the farming community in Canada.
I have more. An article appeared in The Kingston Whig-Standard just today. One of my constituents, who happens to be the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Mrs. Brigid Pyke, had this to say, according to the article:
Farmers will soon learn whether the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement has killed the small family farm in Canada, says Brigid Pyke, President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Mrs. Pyke says that weak bargaining by Canada during the free trade negotiations allowed the U.S. control of farm products coming into its country, but no such power for Canada.
I could go on to read the rest of the article, but the message is clear. This government and its supporters who are bellowing away from their seats clearly have it in their minds that they are doing the farmers a favour by this bill, but every farm organization in Canada says this is not the kind of favour they need. With friends like them, they say to us, who needs enemies.
This is taking money away from farmers. Government members admit it. They stand up and say, "We are awfully sorry to be taking this money away,"-and they shed crocodile tears at the prospect-but they say, "We have to do it to balance the budget." Having run up the national debt to double what it was when the Conservatives took office, they now feel that it has become an urgent priority. I can understand why they think so. If I had botched the economy as badly as the Minister of Finance has botched it I would be running around talking about the deficit all the time too, and that is what he does. He has managed to work the hon. member for Burlington into a lather about it, obviously, because he sits there and makes comments from his seat. I invite him to participate in this debate. I do not think he has made a speech on this bill yet. I would be glad to hear from him.
As I said at the outset, and I will terminate my comments in a very short time, I have to say how sorry I am to have to participate in this debate because not being a farmer and not knowing a great deal about farming, I will admit to some ignorance on that subject. But I know when people are being taken, I know when people are being had, and that is what is being done by this government, by this bill, and I am not going to sit idly by when closure is invoked and stay silent while the farmers get shafted by this government.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening on this particular debate, and I am sure that my colleagues across are all looking forward to my contribution, as you are Mr. Speaker.
October 26, 1989

I see, of course, that some Conservative members perhaps thought, mistakenly of course, that this debate would finish early, that they could go home early tonight and that the Opposition would allow the government to run roughshod over the rights of Canadian farmers. Well, not so, not so. We in the Opposition stand up for the Canadian farmers. We want to help them, and we are against the government across the way and what it is trying to do.
I have here a newsletter of the Ontario Corn Producers' Association, an organization from my province of Ontario. There are a large number of com producers, as most hon. members will know, in the great riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, as there are in the riding of Stormont-Dundas, so ably represented by my colleague sitting near me here.
I want to read what the com producers were saying in the September newsletter. They spoke first of the Ontario Minister of Agriculture. Ontario got a brand new Minister of Agriculture, a Liberal Minister of Agriculture, and here is what was said about this Liberal Minister of Agriculture:
OCPA welcomes David Ramsay to the position of Minister of Agriculture and Food in Ontario. Mr. Ramsay won a lot of friends with his openness and honesty in answering questions following his luncheon speech at our semi-annual convention on September 6 at the Waterloo Inn -
We also express our thanks to Jack Riddell for his 4-year span as ag. minister in the province. While Jack was well-known for his "devil's advocate" approach in examining requests and advice provided by producer organizations, we always found him to be a good listener, generally receptive to well-researched proposals, and totally dedicated to the well-being of rural Ontario.
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, being the non-partisan person you are, that those farmers have nothing but praise for the two Liberal ministers of agriculture in Ontario, Mr. Riddell, the predecessor, and Mr. Ramsay, the new minister. Those are the comments that these people had to make.
Let me read a little bit further where these people speak about advance payments. They say the following:
There is little to add to our comments of previous newsletters, and to the announcement that appears in this magazine, other than the statement made recently by a special assistant to the Agriculture Minister Don Mazankowski that no program will be offered until the Act is amended (to eliminate the interest-free provision) and new regulations are completed. At present, it remains OCPA policy to
Government Orders
oppose the changes (at least until such time as comparable changes are made in the U.S. Farm Bill), as we believe that any benefit conferred via an interest-bearing program will be eliminated via the myriad of administrative procedures (and costs borne by producers) which this program entails. It's an unfortunate situation because there are signs, according to some analysts, that storage after harvest could be beneficial during the coming crop marketing year.
They are talking about the two provincial Liberal ministers of agriculture, and they say what a fine job they are doing. They only mention in one paragraph the federal government and condemn the fact that the program that they announced in Bill C-36 is lousy. That is the difference. It is time that the members across the way started listening to that. This is not the Liberal policy book. This is the Ontario Corn Producers' newsletter from which I have been reading.
The member across the way is from Ontario and perhaps there is not much com grown in his constituency, but whether there is or is not, the consumers of Ontario are nevertheless, in the long ran, paying directly or indirectly. Of course, damage to the farmers of Ontario and to Canadian farmers generally is damage to the Canadian consumer because in the long run, the loss of a good agricultural economy is not just a loss to the farmers but to society as a whole.
I have here a letter that was written to the Minister of Agriculture dated June 5, 1989. Perhaps some of my colleagues referred to this earlier tonight, but it bears repeating. It states:
The Ontario Com Producers' Association and the Ontario Soybean Growers Marketing Board are opposed to the announcement contained in the April budget that calls for the elimination of the interest free provision of the Advance Payments for Crops Act.
They are opposed to it. We are hearing from the Minister of Agriculture and from his Associate Minister through planted questions that come from the back row of the Conservative side that somehow people are in favour of this bill. Of course we are in favour of advance payments, but we are not in favour of a bill that will remove the interest-free provisions. That is what we are against. Planting questions through back-benchers will not solve this. What will solve this is a realization by the government that this measure it is trying to impose upon the House tonight using all kinds of methods to stifle debate will not work.

October 26, 1989
Government Orders
Oh, yes, sooner or later when we run out of speakers, the government will get its bill, but it will not get the support and approval of Canadians. It will not get the support and approval of farmers across Canada. Yes, a few trained seals in the back row will applaud when the Minister of Agriculture stands to vote, and the Minister of Agriculture will pretend that that is synonymous with the approval of the Canadian people, but he is wrong. He is wrong if that is what he thinks.
I say to those government members across the way that there is still time for them to go out to the lobby to shake up the Minister of Agriculture, to tell him to withdraw the bill, to start over, to do it properly, and to listen to the great recommendations made by my honourable and very distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, who at one time was also a Minister of Agriculture and a great one at that, and to listen to the recommendations of my colleague from Algoma, who similarly has a lot of experience in representing farmers as the opposition agriculture critic for many years.


Patrick Boyer: Do the corn producers refer to him too in their newsletter?


Don Boudria: The member across the way asked if the corn producers, in their newsletter, referred to one opposition member versus another. The important thing is that the corn producers refer to the minister and to his policies and they say that the minister's policies are lousy. That is what is important for my colleague across the way to remember. What is so unfortunate is that the members across the way, in spite of the fact that we have repeated it over and over again, fail to understand.
I know you understand, Mr. Speaker, because you are a non-partisan person, and you understand that fully. But the members across the way are not nearly as objective as you and I. They do not understand nearly as well. Perhaps by stating and restating it, we will convince them of the fact that this bill as presently drafted is not in the best interests of Canadian farmers.

Mr. Speaker, in my riding there are a number of corn growers, a number of farmers, as you know, and I have mentioned this many times in the House of Commons. Our farmers are sick and tired of hearing about cuts, cuts
and more cuts every time the budget comes around, cuts that always have a disastrous impact on the agricultural sector, cuts that are always imposed by a Minister of Finance who seems totally impervious to the fact that Canadian agriculture is suffering, a Minister who seems totally indifferent to the fact that our Canadian farmers will find it increasingly hard to cope as a result of so-called free trade. Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the Minister of Finance and all his fellow members opposite better start listening to the Official Opposition and to Canadian farmers. They know what they need. They know that during the past few years, the present Government has imposed cutbacks that are entirely unreasonable, considering the problems I mentioned earlier.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a last appeal to hon. members opposite, and ask them once again to forget the Minister of Finance, to forget the fact that in 15 or 20 minutes they will be thanked for voting the right way. I ask them to consider something far more important, their own constituents, and above all, I ask them to consider Canada's producers and farmers this evening. It is high time we started thinking about our farmers and forgot the bankers.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Regina-Wascana.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
October 26, 1989

Government Orders
And more than five members having risen:


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there might be a predisposition to apply the previous vote to the current vote.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to consider the suggestion of the government Whip.
I think, if you were to ask the House for unanimous consent, we could dispense with the taking of the vote and apply the result of the previous one.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my hon. colleagues we would support that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the representative of the government House leader to tell us what the business of the House will be for tomorrow and hopefully beyond that.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader anticipated being here for a 1 a.m. vote and bringing the information on the business of the House with him on that occasion.
The surprise ending of the debate and the quickness of the vote make it clear that he is not here with us and that that information is with him. We will share it will all members of the House as quickly as possible upon his arrival. The House will start at ten o'clock.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the difficult position the government Whip finds himself in, I do not think it says much for the government's respect for Parliament not to be able at this time to say what business the government intends to call.
I would suggest that if government members would like to stay here until one o'clock, we could easily arrange it. I hope the government will realize that it is not only showing disrespect for this House but for the parliamentary process not to be able to say what the business is. I hope the Canadian people will realize how incapable the government is of managing the business of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 7.57 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 27,1989