1990-03-23

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday I rose in my position as the Whip of the government party with a special House responsibility for notifying my members of the time of votes. We had quite an extended discussion in the Chamber about the kind of notice members are required to have for those votes.
There is another issue I would like to raise this morning, along the same vein. For some considerable period of time, and operating with the general consent of the House, shortly after the bells began to ring a clock would appear on our television screens indicating the maximum amount of time that was available for members to arrive in the Chamber prior to the commencement of the vote. This is a very important principle.
All members will know that according to the Standing Orders of the House, it is possible for the Whip of the Official Opposition and the Whip of the government to walk down the aisle and indicate to the Chair that they are ready for the vote, at some point between the commencement of the bells and the maximum amount of time for the bells ring. In this way we can take the vote more quickly.
We did that for particular reasons on two or three occasions. Some members rose subsequently in the Chamber to indicate that they were not happy with us moving more quickly than the clock indicated. In other words, the clock was providing them with information that in their minds was not correct. We have had these arguments expressed in the House.
Later this day, according to the ruling made by the Speaker yesterday, it is very likely that we are going to have a vote. The Speaker has ruled that members have been given adequate notice of a confidence vote on a Friday, a very unusual circumstance. I cannot remember the last time it has happened in my parliamentary career, and I have been here about 11 years. Nevertheless, that is the situation we face today.
What members need to know when those bells begin to ring is whether or not the time remaining before the commencement of the vote will be displayed on the television screen. To overcome some of the problems caused to some of the members, and I may suggest it was a tiny minority which led to a kind of administrative decision to take the clock away, I think we can resolve this matter.
There are two people in this Chamber who have the responsibility to walk down the aisle and indicate to the Chair that we are ready for the vote. One is the Whip of the government party, or the Whip's designate, the other is the Whip of the Official Opposition, or that Whip's designate.
When bells begin to ring, if either one of us approach the Chair and indicate that we are not going to walk down that aisle until the maximum time has expired, then the clock could commence on the television screen and members, with a sense of soreness, would know exactly when the time had expired and when the vote was to occur. I think that operates in the best interests of the whole House.
If the clock does not appear, then members have to be alert to the fact the vote might occur at any moment and that they should move quickly. But if either Whip goes to the Table and says: "It is not my intention to walk down until the maximum time has come," then I suggest the clock could come back up on the screen and members would have the certitude of the time of the vote.
Surely, in a democracy, the most important responsibility we bear in the final analysis on behalf of our constituents is to be present in the Chamber to cast a vote on their behalf. It is the reason why notice provi-

March 23, 1990
Point of Order
sions exist. It is the reason why we have standing orders which give notice of certain kinds of intentions so that members can have a degree of certitude.
We think that the clock added to that certitude. Many members on this side of the House were very unhappy when the clock disappeared, others felt clotheslined.
To avoid some kind of administrative problem in the future, perhaps we should pass a motion in this Chamber, by unanimous consent, that might incorporate the notion that when bells begin to ring, if either the Whip of the Official Opposition or the government Whip approaches the Table and indicates that they intend to use the maximum amount of time, then the clock appear on our television screens.
I would like to hear from other members in the Chamber, independent members, or from the Whips' offices of the New Democratic Party or the Official Opposition. I think now is a good time to resolve that issue so members will have certitude about votes in the future. Nothing is more important for us than the maximum amount of certitude about when votes are required and in particular a non-confidence vote.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, this is all very interesting. I too liked the clock that was available for members of Parliament on the television screen for those of us who are in our offices, at committee meetings or elsewhere on Parliament Hill.
I do think that perhaps this issue should be discussed at the House leaders' meeting. Essentially, what the Chief Government Whip is proposing sounds eminently reasonable. But the floor of the House of Commons is a rather unusual place to have a House leaders' meeting.
Probably more fundamental than anything raised by the Chief Government Whip is the fact that the supply convention of this House is such that before granting supply to the government, this House has a right to air its grievances. This is a supply day today, as is Monday. Surely, our time should be spent airing the grievances of the people before the Government of Canada before deciding whether or not we shall grant this government supply. That would probably be a better use of our time at this point than the issue we are discussing right now.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that on an opposition day the Chief Government Whip has chosen to raise this particular motion. There has been ample opportunity all week to raise it privately with representatives of the other two parties.
I, for one, like the compromise that has been suggested. I would prefer if members of the Liberal party had not always caved in to work with the government to short circuit our delaying of the House, but so be it. That is their right.
I would suggest that we move on to Orders of the Day and that we leave matter this for the House leaders to work out.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I believe that this issue, according to our patterns of behaviour, is really a Whips' issue. It is the Whips who have the defined responsibility. There have been some consultations. I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House for the clock to appear when the bells begin today.
We have an important confidence vote on a Friday, a very unusual circumstance, and I would like you, Madam Speaker, to ask the House whether there is unanimous consent for the clock to appear on the television screen today when the bells begin to ring. I would give my assurance that I will not walk down the aisle until the maximum amount of time has elapsed.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, if I may respond on behalf of my colleagues, I am prepared to agree with that for today only and for discussions to continue in the normal way outside the House of Commons in order to resolve what does not seem to be a disagreement anyway.
Meanwhile, let us agree for today so that we can deal with the issue of supply which is fundamental to our parliamentary institution.
May I suggest, Madam Speaker, that we move to Orders of the Day.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I concur with the suggestion made by my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott- Russell that we agree for today only.

March 23, 1990

The easy solution would be for the government Whip to have his people in place at 2.45 when the bells start to ring.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Obviously, there is unanimous consent for this to be so for today. We will move to Orders of the Day.


VOTING PROCEDURE
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: I, too, rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, that is somewhat in the same subject area, but which is a very different point. That is the question concerning what I believe has become a habit in the last while of members explaining their votes or rising after votes to make comments.
It is my understanding that once the House has divided, that ends the question. I have just taken the liberty of going through the last three months' of Hansard to look randomly at votes. Very often, people say things such as, and I quote from page 7436 of Hansard'.


Mr. Volpe:: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I missed the vote. Had I been here, I would have voted nay.
At page 7659 of Hansard, there is another explanation:


Mr. Riis:: Madam Speaker, I was inadvertently delayed, but for the record I want to indicate that had I been here for the vote I certainly would have voted against government-
For that particular day, there is almost a page and a half of interventions recorded in Hansard making various explanations about the votes that happened on that day.
Here is another really interesting one. At page 8724 of Hansard, there is Division No. 195 which was eventually defeated. What I find interesting is that Miss Grey rose in her place and said:
Mr. Speaker, I would just like it to be on the record that I am in
the Chamber at present and am choosing to abstain on this motion.
Then it goes on with various comments from there. There are all sorts of comments. Mr. Benjamin said:
Mr. Speaker, I also rise on this point of order. There is no such
thing as an abstention in the House of Commons.
It continues on for a page and a half.
Point of Order
What is clearly happening is that our tradition of having the vote and that being the end of it is being eroded. Now, on a regular basis, we have members rising in the House to say: "Madam Speaker, I was late coming in. Had I been here I would have done this, I would have done that or I should have done this". It is prompting a whole round of points of order.
Our rules are very clear. If we look at at Citation 223 on page 75 of Beauchesne's fifth edition, we see that it states the following:
(1) A Member must be within the House and hear the question put in its entirety, in one of the official languages, or his-
-and one would "her"-
-vote cannot be recorded. It is not sufficient for him- -and I add "her"-
-to hear it while he is in a gallery or behind the curtains.
Beauchesne's is very clear. If a member wishes to vote on a item, he or she must be in their place in the House. To stand up later and say: "I'm sorry, I wasn't here," and then try to explain to their constituents that they would have done such and such, I believe is an abuse of the rules, an abuse of members' time, and an abuse of House time. It is something that is clearly unacceptable.
The book entitled Precis of Procedure is a helpful book. On page 53, under Recorded Divisions, it states:
Recorded divisions are conducted formally according to various
rules and practices. Standing Orders permit no further debate when
Members have been called in to a division, and specify that when the
Speaker is putting a question-
-and this is the important part-
- no Member may enter, leave or cross the House, or make any disturbance. Members must be in their seats to vote, and must remain seated until the result of the vote is announced. A Member may abstain from voting simply by remaining seated during a vote. Such abstention is not, however, recorded.
I just read an example a few moments ago of a member who abstained but then stood up and drew the attention of the House to the fact that she had abstained. It is that kind of thing that has been developing lately that I think is wrong. I think it needs to be corrected because the rules on voting are very clear-a member is to be in his or her seat to hear the motion put. They are to vote if

March 23, 1990
Point of Order
they choose. If they choose to abstain, then they are to remain seated.
What I think has been going on is something that needs to be arrested. I want to bring it to the attention of the Chair and ask that the Chair give it very serious consideration and bring back to this House the tradition and practices that we have followed in the past.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, again all of this is very interesting. I have had an opportunity to discuss the issue with my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands who is the opposition spokesman on the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I am pleased to announce to my colleague across the way that we are willing to provide unanimous consent to refer this issue to that committee if that is the wish of the government.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I note with interest that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader did not indicate very clearly that it was government members as well as opposition and independent members in this House who have taken the opportunity to advise the House of their intentions had they been in their seats at the appropriate time.
I would like to concur again-and this is getting dangerous on a Friday morning-with my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that a reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be made to examine this matter. It would be more than appropriate. We would give our consent as well.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, the sole point that I wanted to raise in response to the comments by the hon. member for Peace River is that there are occasions in the House where, by unanimous consent, a subsequent recorded vote is not taken in order to save everyone time and trouble in recording that vote. It is occasionally the case, and I have had the experience myself, where I wished to abstain on one of a series of votes but not on the others. In that event I suggest that the Chair ought to recognize that the procedure ought to accommodate the need for members not to delay the entire House by demanding full recorded votes but to
distinguish perhaps between motions on report stage where votes may want to differ.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, to respond to my friend for Ottawa South there are indeed certain circumstances where our rules provide for members to stand and declare a concern they may have with a particular vote, i.e. if they have a pecuniary interest, or if they were paired. Members have from time to time indicated: "Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was in my place. I would have voted but I was paired". It is part of the relationships that have developed over the years in the House.
When I rise on this point of order it is not simply to say it is the opposition members who are guilty of that. I think that we on this side have also done the same thing. That proves my case rather than refutes it because in fact what is happening is that we are keeping this practice going.
As it relates to the question of reference to a committee, I do not agree with that. I do not think we need to make a reference to the committee. Our rules are clear. Beauchesne's lays it out very nicely. We do not at this point need another reference to a committee. We simply need to go by the practices, traditions and longstanding habits we have in this House of Commons which I think on this particular subject have served us very well.
We do not need a royal commission. We do need a study. We just simply need to act on what we have to guide us in our present rules.


PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBER
Mr. Howard Crosby (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the TVeasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise what I think is a very serious and important point of order arising from the discussion that took place, in particular the remarks of the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan when he was making his presentation to the House. I do not want to prejudge this matter. Madam Speaker, you will have the opportunity to look at the official records of the House to determine exactly what was said.
My hearing indicated to me that what the member for Thunder Day-Atikokan said-and I think he was responding to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell in the exchange-went along these lines, Madam Speaker, and I want you to carefully note what I am saying. The member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, as I heard his remarks, accused the member for Glengarry-
March 23, 1990

Prescott-Russell of not co-operating in the delay of the House. I think he said: "Cave in to the government", in not co-operating in the measures to delay the House.
If I read the rules of the House and authorities such as Erskine May, I see it is a very serious matter to delay improperly the process and proceedings in this House of Commons.
It is also very clear under our rules that the Speaker of this Chamber has the authority to remedy any attempts by members of this House to obstruct and delay the proceedings of the House.
I hope, Madam Speaker, that you would call the attention of the Chair to those remarks which evidence what we all know has been going on in this House of Commons day after day, week after week-an intentional delay of the processes and procedures of this House in order to obstruct government business.
Normally, one could not make that charge because you would be imputing motives to the opposition members. You are saying that they are showing contempt for the rules, processes and procedures of this House. I am not making that charge myself. I am simply saying, examine the words spoken by the member for Thunder Bay-Ati-kokan, recorded in the official records of this House and determine whether that does not evidence an intention to improperly delay the processes and procedures of this House; and not only do they have this intention, as evidenced in these remarks, but they are even accusing other members of not co-operating in this improper, unfair action, an action that could never be said to be in the interest of Canada, and never could be said to be in the interest of parliamentary process or procedure.
We have rules in this House, rules that are fairly made, made with the consensus of all members of this House. If there is a deliberate attempt to defy and obstruct those rules by causing unnecessary delay, then I think the Chair should take some action.
In summary, what I am saying is examine the words, they are on the official record. I believe the Chair will find, by reason of the accusation to cave in to the government made by the member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan and not co-operate in delaying the work of this House, there is sufficient evidence upon which a conviction can be based.
Point of Order


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, this must be Friday. Things are getting a bit bizarre.
I would encourage you to examine the words I used. I would also encourage you to examine all of the events of the last three or four months as they relate to the operation of this House. You will find that in no way has the New Democratic caucus broken any rules of this Chamber. We have used the rules in order to point out our objections to a specific piece of government legislation, the goods and services tax. We have been thwarted in some ways in our attempts to frustrate the government by lack of assistance from the Official Opposition.
But, Madam Speaker, we have not broken any rules. At no time did the Chair find that we had broken any rules. I urge you to get on with the business of this House so that we can hear from the member of our caucus speaking on a very important issue which the government has decided is a matter of confidence. Obviously the government does not even want the Deputy Prime Minister, assuming he is going to speak for them, to get a chance to speak.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Halifax has raised one of the most serious issues which has been on the table since the commencement of this particular Parliament.
When we come to this Chamber as new members, we get our first copy of Beauchesne's and have a chance to look at our purpose in being here. The words that stuck in my mind right from the beginning were that this was the highest court in the land. It should be a place of dignity, decorum, and process, process which is fair to all members.
In the final analysis, while the people on the street might think that the Prime Minister is my boss or that the hon. member for Windsor West is the boss of the Liberals or the Leader of the New Democratic Party is the boss of the NDP, that is not true. All of us are subject to the same conditions in being here. Our bosses are the people of our riding. They send us here expecting us to conduct ourselves in a manner that will lead to thoughtful decision making and to legislation that operates in the best interests of Canadians.
You have to ask yourself, Madam Speaker, whether or not that has been happening in the last year and a half as often as it should and as well as it should. This week we saw pictures on television of members of Parliament with

March 23, 1990
Point of Order
blankets and pillows because a committee had to meet for 31 straight hours, the equivalent of 20 sitting days of normal meetings, simply to listen to a filibuster. Canadians had an opportunity to watch that on television and they saw the childish behaviour.
Another example perhaps underlines in clear-cut House of Commons terms that we have a problem, and it is a problem that perhaps in the final analysis only the Chair can resolve. One day this week, we were debating a very simple motion in our Standing Orders, that the debate shall not be further adjourned. That is a motion which sits there so that the House, in a specific instance on a specific day with a specific piece of legislation, can break the tyranny of the minority. The majority shall, in the final analysis, rule when and if it is necessary.
In previous Parliaments and in the history of this country that was necessary from time to time but infrequently. If we look at the precedents in the British Parliament or Parliaments around the world, this occurs when necessary but infrequently. In my time in this Chamber I can remember a filibuster around the Constitution which went on for several days. I can remember the ringing of the bells which blocked the House for several days and led to some different rulings from the Chair.


Don Boudria: Did you charge the Chair, too?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I suggest the member across the way- and if I could say it once again for the House-go back to the television tape on the night that the Chair was charged. He will not see me charging the Chair.


Don Boudria: Only your House leader did.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: There was an instinct to charge and it was very difficult to remain seated in the circumstances, but I want it clearly understood that anybody who stands in this Chamber from now on and says that I charged the Chair is lying to the House. Because this is about the fourth time I have said this, I suggest that they are lying to the House deliberately, because it did not happen and parliamentary immunity does not entitle members of this House to stand in this place and charge a member with behaviour without putting their own seats on the line. If you think I charged the Chair, charge me in here; do it formally. Let's go to committee, and if I am right and you are wrong, resign. That is what a charge is all about. At a
later time today I want to get back to that on a question of privilege. I have another one about a charge. I made a charge in this Chamber, and I think charges are very serious.
However let me deal with the point at issue before us now. In a democracy, the majority cannot be the captive of the tyranny of the minority, yet there must be a process that allows free and fair participation by minorities. It is a balancing act which is largely in the hands of the Speaker and the House, if necessary, in the final analysis.
During the division earlier this week when we were debating the motion that the House shall not further adjourn, members of the NDP were shouting "34". They were counting. What does 34 mean? It means that on 34 separate occasions in the life of this Parliament, which is a relatively short life span, this House has had to take time and money to overcome obstruction by a majority vote in this Chamber.
We met for two weeks in December 1988. We came back in April, 1989 and we have met on a regular timetable since, but we have not really had even one year of normal sittings. Normal sittings are about 175 days and, according to the NDP, we have had to use the time of this House, the $1 million a day that this House costs, on 34 occasions to overcome obstructionism.
That is childish. In the junior high schools or the elementary schools of this nation, in any fraternal organization, in any church group or anywhere else in society, that kind of obstructionism would not be tolerated.
Is this obstructionism on matters of great principle? Do you know what we were debating in this Chamber this week when we had to move that motion? Minor changes in crop insurance affecting the farmers of this country, and in particular western farmers. Members of the New Democratic Party by and large come from western Canada. They did not even vote against the legislation in the final analysis; they simply blocked. At $1 million a day they block, they block, they block.
This week they read in the rules of this House that they had to give 48 hours' notice for a vote today and they embargoed the Table from telling members of the
March 23, 1990

House. That is blockage. It was never intended. It was never contemplated.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: The Speaker ruled that we were right.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Speaker has ruled that procedurally in some kind of legal way correct, but it is a brand new sense of obstruction of causing a vote. We will watch, Madam Speaker. There are 40-some members of that party who are supposed to be here to vote this afternoon, and how many will there be?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, just for clarification, is the hon. member saying that the Chair yesterday was incorrect in its ruling?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am talking about the New Democratic Party being incorrect in asking and putting the Table under the gun, in using a notice provision in the rules and then asking the Table not to tell. That is being legally correct, but there is nothing in that initiative that speaks of any concern for the taxpayers of this country.
Madam Speaker, do you know how many dollars this vote this afternoon is going to cost? We have members flying in from thousands of miles away because it is a confidence vote. Canadians understand the cost of an airline ticket. They read the newspaper ads for the bargains on airline travel. They may live in Calgary and have relatives in Nova Scotia. They find the bargain $350 to $400 ticket, plan ahead and go.
But they embargoed that information, and our members are having to fly in to this city today for a vote this afternoon. They may have had to cancel engagements that other people were paying for. They are also having to travel without the bargain tickets, paying full fare because it came at the last minute. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars are the NDP costing the taxpayers of this nation today, when in fact this vote could have occurred on Monday? There will be another vote on Monday and we will contrast how many members of that party are here for the vote today and the vote on Monday.
If they were really interested in representing their constituents in this Chamber, the people who pay their salaries and send them to this place, wouldn't they like to have a vote on a day they could be here? I predict that
Point of Order
they will probably have twice as many people here on Monday as they have today in support of their own motion, and yet they will have caused $50,000, $75,000 or $100,000 worth of taxpayer's money to be spent on extra travel because they would not tell us on Wednesday night that they had given notice.
Members left and went to Vancouver, Yellowknife, Newfoundland, and Boston to do the work that the taxpayers are paying them to do. Today, they cannot do that work because they are on airplanes and the taxpayers are paying for it. Maybe some of them can leave in time to get back to their ridings to work on the weekend and maybe some of them cannot even make it so they are missing two days' work. That is a waste of taxpayer's money that they are causing through some of kind of childish view that this place should be obstructed, hour after hour, day after day, on things they do not even oppose.
This week this Chamber sat late on Wednesday night under the conditions of the motion that the debate should not be further adjourned to finish a crop insurance bill that they did not even have the guts to vote against. They rose in this House and took a lot of time this week, after 31 hours of obstruction in committee, lots of television pictures with pillows and blankets, and then into the House with another $1 million worth of obstruction today on that. They stood in this House and obstructed and obstructed and obstructed.
The toll of 34 occasions is not my number. I sat here and listened to the music. They are bragging that in less than one full year of sittings in this Parliament they have obstructed this Chamber on an absolute minimum of 34 days, which is an absolute minimum of $34 million.
We do not move the motion of time allocation or that the debate shall not be further adjourned on the day things commence. For each of those occasions which they count and said what we have had to do to overcome their obstruction, there is at least one day that precedes it and the doubling of 34 is 68. In reality in this Chamber alone, let alone committees, they have obstructed to the tune of a minimum of $68 million in less than one year.
They stand in this Chamber and they talk about program money for women, for native people and for many good causes. Something like $100,000 worth of travel money today will be going primarily to airlines and

March 23, 1990
Point of Order
to taxi companies that we would like to have for women's groups, for natives, and for the health care system. But no, the New Democratic Party in its childish behaviour has decided that it prefers the money goes to CP Air, Air Canada, Blue Line Tkxi, bus companies and car rental companies. That is what it would prefer, that we go to the taxpayers, take the money out of their pockets and give it to the travel companies.
Why? So we can stand in this Chamber this afternoon at three o'clock and count how many out of those 43 are here. No more than half, probably a quarter. Then we will do a count on Monday when there is already a scheduled vote. We could be voting on today's motion on Monday, saving taxpayers $75,000 or $100,000. Members would have been able to do two days of hard work instead of two days of travelling to the far comers of this country. That would have been sane, sensible and practical.
Surely it is time for members of the New Democratic Party to have a seminar. Maybe the seminar should begin with Beauchesne's. Maybe it is time for them to go back to the beginning and read the books that guide our behaviour in this Chamber, read the books that tell them what the place is for as the highest court in the land, that we are to move-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: A point of order, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.


Mr. Blaikie:: Madam Speaker, surely it is time that the hon. member came to his point of order. He has been all over the map, whining and snivelling about what might happen this afternoon. I wonder whether it is not time for either the member himself, or at your request, Madam Speaker, to come to his point of order and make it possible for you to make a judgment and make it possible for the House to get on with the business of the House, which is apparently what the member himself would like the House to do but which he is now preventing.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is being quite patient in listening to the points made by members of all sides. It would be quite helpful to the Chair if the hon. member for Calgary West would confine himself to the point of order he is trying to make and help the Chair in coming to a decision.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I would hate to be accused of filibustering the Chamber and wasting time, especially given the arguments I am making. I cannot help responding to my friend who interrupted me. The last time he did that was just three or four weeks ago. I brought to the Chamber's attention that one of the obstruction tactics employed by two members of his party was to vote twice. I put my seat on the line and I made the charge. He had not been present in the Chamber, but he stood up and said I was a liar; that was the impact of his words. He was not present, he did not see, but he said that I was a liar. Today he is trying to imply that I am a snivelling something or other.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Whining and snivelling.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: He speaks about himself, about the thoughts that must be in his heart and his mind and not in mine.


Mr. Kristiansen:: What is your point of order?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Does he have the courage to stand in this Chamber today and say: "I took your advice and I looked at the tape and you were right. My members voted twice"? Did he look at the tape? I suggest that he might. Did he look? Did he see? Is he willing to apologize to the House, or does he want to engage in character assassination?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I asked the hon. member and so did you to get to the point of order he is making today. He is trying to recall some previous debate that he and I had. I stand by everything I said in that previous debate, but that is not what we are debating here today. If the member has a point of order to make, let him make it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, my friend from Halifax raised the issue of obstruction in the Chamber. We have had a previous debate in another circumstance this week about the role of the Speaker in relationship to obstruction. The debate in a procedural sense is engaged. At what point does the Speaker act in the face of obstruction? At what point does the Speaker protect the democratic institution called the Parliament of Canada from the tyranny of the minority?
March 23, 1990

Surely any objective reader of parliamentary history, going back for decades and centuries, knows clearly that there is a role and a place for the Speaker of a Chamber to act, to seek the concurrence of the House that the actions are justified, that they are warranted in the individual case. He does that when the whole democratic process as expressed through its institutions is captive of a minority whose sole purpose, aim or objective is to be obstructive.
I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that some other colleagues would like to give you a few examples of that obstruction. There is such a large menu that this debate could probably go on forever. The piece of evidence I bring to your attention is the behaviour of members of the New Democratic Party on Wednesday of this week during the vote that was caused by the acceptance of the motion that the House shall be no longer adjourned. They were using "34" and bragging that they had obstructed this Chamber, in less than one normal year of sittings, on 34 separate days. That is not evidence that comes to the Chair from members on this side of the House or from the Official Opposition. That is evidence which members of the NDP provided to the Chair themselves this week during the course of a vote.
The issue is: Shall it continue? Is the norm going to be that the House has to address itself to obstructionism 34 times every year? Remember, the House will not address itself to obstruction on the first occasion or the second; quite often it is the third or the fourth. Those 34 occasions represent an absolute minimum of 68 days of House sitting time and realistically probably about 102 times, which represents half the budget of this place. That is well over $100 million of taxpayers' money that is being spent on nothing constructive, nothing positive and nothing useful for the nation; simply on obstruction.
I suggest, Madam Speaker, that we have to think it through. Perhaps the Speaker would like to deal with the parties informally to try to resolve it in that fashion. It cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. This place is too important. Democracy is too important. We must have a process which is fair and a process which ultimately acts in the best interests of the taxpayers of this country and of the voters of this country. That is the importance of this particular point of order.
Point of Order


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the so-called point of order. I have two points to make.
First, I want to remind the hon. gentleman to remind himself of who rang the bells in this place for 15 days, and an agreement was reached on exactly the same proposal at the beginning of the 15 days in order to end the bell ringing, so he is in no position to talk.
Second, the hon. gentleman is asking the Chair to intervene in the proceedings of the House when there has been no violation of the rules. The Chair will intervene when members of the House conduct themselves in violation of the rules. That has not occurred, and whenever it has the Chair intervenes. For the hon. gentleman to ask the Chair to intervene when no rules have been violated shows a great deal of ignorance and lack of respect for this House.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I want to take a couple of moments to speak to the question of obstruction. I think it goes to the fundamental roots of Parliament. If we look at what Parliament is all about, it was to give people an opportunity to debate the way in which taxes are spent and collected and the governing of our country.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Sixteen days of bell ringing gives lots of opportunity.


Albert Glen Cooper: There are two elements to that debate. There is a question of whether or not the minority has the right to be heard and whether or not the majority has the right to govern. It has been a fundamental principle that in the end the government must have the right to govern.
One thing I find very significant is that closure was not used often by the previous government. Why was it not? The reason was very simple. It was because we as an opposition believed that at the end of the day the government had the right to govern. We never had to and never did behave in such a way that the government of the day would have had to use closure 34 times.
It is fundamental that Parliament has to be able to function. The government has to be able to govern. Equally, the opposition has to be able to debate. We have seen example after example in this House where time after time, through the filibustering obstructive tactics of the NDP, members of all parties including the opposition and the government have had to sit in their places and not be able to debate. After three or four days

March 23, 1990
Supply
of listening to the tactics that these members from this particular party have used, we have ended up being in a position that we have had no choice but to move ahead with closure and, as a net result, members have not had an opportunity to debate the substantive issues.
This party is making it a habit of not debating issues but engaging in childish tactics. The best example of that is contained in an article in today's edition of The Ottawa Citizen that clearly outlines the particular concern with which the House has been living with for some months now. The headline is: "Mr. Barrett goes to Ottawa" and it states:
The NDP is full of moral outrage because Don Blenkarn, Chairman of the Finance Committee, had the gall this week to cut off its GST filibuster after a mere 31 hours.
So indignant are NDP members that they are not only gunning for Blenkarn but they have also asked the Commons Speaker to decide if their parliamentary privileges were breached.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, with all due respect, the member is engaging in political debate. He is not engaging in any kind of procedural debate whatsoever. He is not speaking to his point of order or anybody else's point of order. He is engaging in political debate. It is incumbent upon the Chair to say so and force the matter with respect to a point of order, not a matter of political debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. parliamentary secretary may want to confine himself to making whatever point of order he is trying to make.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I am speaking to Standing Order 10. It starts at Standing Order 9 and goes all the way through to Standing Order 14 where it talks about the question of order and decorum. What we have been living with is obstruction, and that is what I am speaking to.
Forgive me if my remarks are somewhat political. I know that the House of Commons should never be political. The reality is that we are living with a situation where members of that particular party has continued to tie up this House, to tie up the committees of this House, to prevent members from having an opportunity to debate the very serious and fundamental issues of the day.
What have they been doing? They have been doing things like voting on introduction of their own bills, not because anybody here is going to stop them but because they would rather waste time than debate the issues of the day. I think what happens is that when one runs out of substance in an argument one replaces it with rhetoric and filibuster and all sorts of delaying tactics, and that is what we have seen.
I think I have made my point. I have done my best to aid and assist the able argument of the Whip on the government side. I hope that those members in particular will consider very seriously how fundamental and important is Parliament and how we need to be able to proceed with the business of the day, and that means debate, not filibuster.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Stanley J. Hovdebo: That this House call upon the government to commit itself, on the week of the second annual Rural Revitalization Day and the anniversary of the birth of Agnes MacPhail, the first woman elected to this House and an untiring champion of the rights of rural Canadians, to provide for a vital economic, social and environmentally sustainable future for rural Canada and the millions of Canadians who live in our vast rural areas, by implementing a program to:
1)	stabilize family farm incomes and ease the crippling debt load which at present threatens the very survival of tens of thousands of family farms;
2)	assist fishing communities to survive the current crisis in the fishery and take steps to ensure the proper management of the fishery in the future;
3)	modify existing transportation and other infrastructure policies to assure all primary producers, co-operative and rural small businesses that they can be competitive in both the domestic and the international market-place;
4)	provide a full range of education, health and other social policies to enable young families, the elderly and others to live comfortably in rural and isolated parts of Canada; and
5)	provide a full range of services, including shelters, child care services and skills training to support the crucial role played by women in all rural communities.
March 23, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 35 the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Madam Speaker, on March 14, the Canadian government tabled in Geneva a proposal it intends to defend in the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations involving GATT article XI.
The proposal, which came after numerous consultations held across the country in recent months with various members of the agri-food sector, reflects this government's firm commitment to maintaining efficient supply management programs.
We will be able to safeguard our interests and work towards controlling imports of dairy products, including yogurt and ice cream, and chicken, all of which are vital to Quebec's agricultural industry.
This policy is aimed at clarifying and strengthening the provisions of GATT article XI in a balanced and realistic way.
Madam Speaker, this represents a major step forward and a substantial gain which may help boost development of our agricultural potential in this country.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I could not believe what I saw yesterday, an advertisement by the New Democratic Party inviting people to participate in a rally against the goods and services tax.
When we in the Liberal party called the NDP to participate in this rally we were bluntly told we were not welcome at this event. Yesterday the NDP member for Yorkton-Melville stood in this House complaining that Canadians want to be heard, that they were against the
goods and services tax, and he accused the government of being undemocratic.
The hon. member spoke without blushing. Democracy to my friends in the NDP is a word they use at their convenience. Here in the national capital region the NDP is using the name "Coalition Against the Goods and Services Tkx", an organization which we formed last fall. They used this name without our knowledge or permission. Well, that is misleading.
My friends in the NDP are obviously busy fighting for the spotlight. They are busy fighting for the spotlight rather than fighting for the real issues. What a pity.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Madam Speaker, March 21 was the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
This is the second year that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship has emphasized the occasion with a public awareness campaign.
Madam Speaker, we cannot hide the fact that despite the tolerance and openness of this country and its people, Canada is not immune to racism and racial discrimination, especially when we consider that the population of Canada will become increasingly diversified in the years to come.
It is therefore important to get to the roots of the problem so that our society will continue to prosper in peace and harmony.
We have good reason to believe that these awareness campaigns will be successful in the long run, considering the enthusiastic response from young people last year, which will probably be the case this year as well.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, as change sweeps eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, Canadians are witness to growing respect for basic human rights, including the open gate of emigration. Unfortunately, glasnost has also given rise to some

March 23, 1990
hate groups and open demonstrations of anti-Semitism in the streets of Moscow.
While the freedom to exit is to be applauded, safe passage for all peoples wishing to reach a new domicile is also essential. Unfortunately for Soviet Jewish emigrants, the other side of the open gate may become as daunting as the closed gate used to be, for we are getting increased reports each day of extremist elements threatening to attack airlines carrying Soviet Jewish immigrants to Israel. Unfortunately, two days ago, Hungarian National Airlines was forced to withdraw its assistance in the transport of these emigrants because of these threats.
This must stop. Canada's strong objections must be heard. The challenge is ours and the time is now. I ask the Government of Canada to reaffirm on behalf of all Canadians the basic human right which Canadians have long cherished and enjoyed, the freedom to move safely from one country to another without fear of terrorism or hostile threats.


CRUISE MISSILE TESTING
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the many Canadians who find it increasingly offensive that the government continues to support the testing by the U.S. of air-launched cruise missiles over Canadian territory, particularly given the changes which have taken place in the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe.
Those of us who opposed the testing even before these changes took place find it increasingly strange that the government, given its previous rhetoric about the Soviet Union, refuses to recognize the changes that have taken place there and implement that change by calling an end to cruise missile testing in Canada and also calling an end to low-level flight testing and all the other ways in which Canada is being used as a free-fire zone for testing of U.S. weapons. The time has come for the government to change its policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member's time has now expired. The hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Madam Speaker, before this historic week draws to a close, I want to compliment Premier Frank McKenna and his government for the encouraging initiative introduced in the New Brunswick legislature on Wednesday concerning the Meech Lake Accord.
Mr. McKenna's text stated the issue extremely well, and I quote:
National reconciliation was the original goal of Meech Lake and it must be even more so today. Conflict and resentment are threatening our integrity as a nation. Reconciliation is never easy and almost always involves putting generosity before pride. That kind of generosity of spirit is what we are seeking today.
It has long been my view, shared I know by most hon. members, that whatever it takes by all concerned, a way must be found to complete and adopt the Meech Lake Accord in the critical days which remain to do so. What will it take? As the Prime Minister said so clearly last evening, it will take a national will by every province and by the federal government together representing all Canadians.

[ Translation]


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada addressed the nation in the following terms:
Generations of Canadians have accomplished things they would never have dreamt were possible: in an untamed environment, they built a civilization; in their isolation, they found a love for this country; in their communities they developed the spiritual and family values that enrich our nation. It is these simple and strong values that made Canada. Today I want to ask all Canadians to look into their hearts and discover that magnificent country we have built together.
We are all privileged, francophones and anglophones, old and new Canadians, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, all without exception, to have made our homes in such a magnificent country. The problem we are facing today is not merely a constitutional deadlock or a debate among politicians. We, as heirs to one of the most beautiful countries in the world, are struck by the example of those who built in North America the home of tolerance and generosity. I urge all Canadians to close ranks and build together, with pride and determination, this beautiful, vast country we want to leave to our children.
March 23, 1990


EAST TIMOR
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, since March 7, Mr. Bill Ripley of the Action for Social Change organization in Kingston, has been protesting Canada's complicity in Indonesian acts of genocide in East Timor by a hunger strike. The strike is now in its seventeenth day and will end only when the Canadian government meets his organization's demands.
Action for Social Change wants the Canadian government to condemn Indonesian crimes against humanity in East Timor and calls for that country's right of self-determination. Since 1975, over 200,000 lives have been lost through war and starvation in East Timor. As a member of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, Canada has failed to complain on behalf of the people in East Timor.
I call upon the government, today, to press the government of Indonesia to work toward an equitable resolution of this situation. The suffering of these people must be noted, condemned and ended immediately, and the Canadian government must show some leadership.


EL SALVADOR
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, tomorrow marks the tenth anniversary of the murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador. Canadians will be marking the day with memorial services across the country.
The martyrdom of Archbishop Romero has become a symbol for all who walk the courageous path toward peace and justice in Central America.
Romero understood that true peace in Central America could only come from the people. He advocated liberation theology and the empowerment of those who were disenfranchised. Archbishop Romero died trying to realize the goal of justice for all.
Since the murder of Romero, there have been minimal attempts to investigate or punish those responsible. Instead, there has been a recurring pattern of death and repression of church and humanitarian workers. The recent brutal slaying of six Jesuits at the University of
Central America prompted an initial investigation, but it has stalled and those implicated are being promoted or sent abroad.
As we mark the anniversary of this tragic event, we are encouraged by news that the FMLN and the ARENA government have agreed to renew negotiations. In memory of Oscar Romero and for the sake of all Salvadorans, we hope and pray that these talks will lead to peace in El Salvador.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House an ongoing Community Futures project in my riding. For the third time in a year, Cumberland Development Authority has played a key role in organizing a small business development day, involving all levels of government agencies such as, FBDB, ACOA, the Nova Scotia Department of Small Business, the development officials from Amherst, Springhill, Oxford, and Parrsbo-ro, the Nova Scotia Research Foundation, Canada Employment Centre, as well as banks, accountants, consultants, and business leaders.
The point of these seminars is to provide assistance and encouragement to those who want to start their own small business. They have proven very successful and all those involved should be congratulated for their contribution to this excellent project.


UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of this House and to Canadians that the University of Manitoba has announced its third annual conference on terrorism and security.
The title of the conference is Islamic Terrorism in the 1990s and the Threat to North America. Needless to say, it is deeply offensive to the more than 160,000 adherents of Islam in Canada. Surely, a serious academic look at terrorism would spend some time on definition. Other than the session entitled "The Revelation Between Internal Iranian Politics and External Revolution", there

March 23, 1990
Oral Questions
is no indication in this program of any in-depth look at terrorism causes.
To hold a conference focusing on Islam terrorism does not make any more sense than a conference on Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and terrorism. The conference and panel titles link Islam to terrorism so unabashedly that it could be considered to be bordering on hate-mongering.
I would call upon every decent Canadian to denounce any measure of this type of discrimination, and I hope that the University of Manitoba will reconsider this intended conference.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member's time has expired.

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie): Madam Speaker,
Ode to the determined terminator The chairman of the GST.
He fixed the filibuster brothers,
Those displayers of frantic antics and others. Subdued was Nickel Belt "Rod-Ruckus"
And his B.C. colleague, "Grin and Bear it". Though they may continue to buck us Our non-blinkin' Blenkie showed his spirit.
So on with the committee clause by clause Straight into the House for third reading For ours is a battle with a cause From the GST-we're not receding.


GLOBE 90
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, experts from across the world gathered this week in Vancouver for Globe 90. Canada's policies came under the spotlight and rated poorly on almost every count. The head of the United Nations Environment Program, Dr. Mostafa Tolba, slammed Canadian forestry policy for contributing to the greenhouse effect by cutting down four trees for every one that we plant.
Forty per cent of the marine pollution in Canada comes from pulp mills and despite being the largest
industry in Canada and providing the largest source of balance of trade, there is no inventory. There is not even a plan for protecting old growth forests and some provinces like Alberta are planning to cut over one third of the entire province.
Three out of four Canadians consider our forests to be a national treasure held in trust. Three out of four think forest management is poor and that the industry is a threat. Nine out of ten believe spraying is a hazard according to the Environics poll released at Globe 90.
The federal government provides less than 10 cents out of every tax dollar raised from the forest sector back to that sector; the same level as the Liberals under Pierre Trudeau.
Globe 90 and the head of UNEP have set the record straight. There is not sustainable development going on in Canada's forests. We are cutting four times as many trees as we plant. Forest companies and government should stop lying about the facts. That is the message of Globe 90.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Last night, the Prime Minister said, and I quote: "I have therefore decided to submit Premier McKenna's companion resolution to Parliament next week and then refer it immediately to a special committee of the House of Commons for public hearings".
Mr. Speaker, I don't think there has been any consultation with the opposition House leaders on the mandate of this special committee. I therefore want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister the following question: Will the government start these consultations as soon as possible so that we can have a very constructive analysis of the McKenna proposal? More specifically, will the Prime Minister ensure that this committee will be able to examine other proposals that are made for breaking the present constitutional deadlock?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, indeed I would think that it would be
March 23, 1990

the intention of the House leader to meet with the House leaders of the two opposition parties.
I understand that there is a meeting scheduled for this afternoon to talk about that very thing. I think that these kinds of things, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition would know, would be perhaps most appropriately discussed within the context of the House leaders meeting, but clearly within the spirit of the speech that was made by the Prime Minister last night to the people of Canada, and indeed to the opposition parties.
I might say that we appreciate very much the support and the pledged co-operation from the two opposition leaders, and we will bear that in mind as we sit down to work out the appropriate terms of reference, and other reference guidelines for the conduct of the committee.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to learn that the government House leader intends to have a meeting with the House leaders of the opposition parties this afternoon.
At the same time, I think Canadians have a right to know as soon as possible the process the Prime Minister has in mind in asking the House to study and vote on the McKenna proposal with, as I recall the Prime Minister saying, whatever suggestions may emerge from the committee hearings.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, in making this proposal is the government intending to start a new round of amendments to the Constitution of 1982, the existing Constitution? If so, is the government asking the provincial premiers to table the McKenna resolution in their legislatures for consideration at the same time?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought it rather strange that the Prime Minister or the House leader would have outlined or advanced proposed terms of reference or proposed criteria for the conduct of the committee without first discussing it with the opposition parties.
That is precisely what he intends to do today and I think that what the Prime Minister said yesterday was in
Oral Questions
keeping totally with the spirit with which the premier of the province of New Brunswick came forth with the parallel resolution, not to take away from the Meech Lake Accord but indeed to complement the Meech Lake Accord and to cover some of those issues which have become of concern to many Canadians and indeed to the Premier of the province of New Brunswick.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I appreciate the spirit in which the Deputy Prime Minister is approaching this matter but I think some public clarification would be useful in responding favourably to the view of the premier of New Brunswick that there are matters that need to be dealt with that were not covered in the constitutional amendment of 1987.
Does the Prime Minister and his government intend that they be dealt with through amending the existing Constitution and if not, exactly what does the government have in mind through carrying out the exercise that was proposed by the Prime Minister in his speech last night? Furthermore, is not what the Deputy Prime Minister has said so far on this a reason why it would be extremely useful if, as soon as possible, there was a meeting of the Prime Minister and all the premiers of the provinces to go into this matter further?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition would agree that what we had the day before yesterday was an initiative taken by Premier McKenna of New Brunswick to break the log-jam. What the Prime Minister provided in his speech yesterday is indeed a vehicle for everyone to come together. I would hope that Premier McKenna would want to be one of the first witnesses to appear before that committee so he can appropriately lay out before the members of the special committee his views and his objectives that he would hope to be achieved in the course of the strategy that he has outlined.
With respect to the other part of the question, I can only repeat what I have said before and what the Prime Minister has said before and what has been concurred in by the premier of New Brunswick. At an appropriate time it may very well be useful to convene a meeting of First Ministers. As Premier McKenna indicated in a

March 23, 1990
Oral Questions
television interview last night, he thought at the present time it would probably not be appropriate.
We now have the vehicle and mechanism for bringing together all the parties to discuss his particular proposal. Furthermore, as I said earlier, he does not intend that this be the be all and the end all but that there is flexibility in that and in so doing, I think bringing all the parties together before that committee can be a very useful exercise.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned earlier, we believe that the initiative taken by the Prime Minister yesterday and the action taken by Mr. McKenna were very important as part of an attempt to break the constitutional deadlock, and we support these initiatives. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is as follows: Could the Minister inform the House whether the mandate of the Special Committee on the Constitution will be limited to Mr. McKenna's proposals or will the committee be able to consider other, related proposals it believes are essential to the advancement of this issue?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the House yesterday, I think what is unique about the proposal that Mr. McKenna has advanced is that he is proposing the adoption of Meech Lake without any subtractions but he is providing for a mechanism to add to it. That is, to add things that many Canadians and other premiers have felt should be considered within the context of constitutional reform.
I think it is within that spirit that the hearings would proceed. I repeat again, we now have a vehicle to explore that in a very formal way. I would expect that Premier McKenna would be one of the first witnesses to appear before that committee to lay out clearly, for the benefit of members and the benefit of all Canadians, just what he has in mind.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister knows, Senate reform is a key constitutional issue, especially in western Canada and to a certain extent in Atlantic Canada. Will
the government be ready to make its views known on Senate reform and refer these to the committee in order to assist and advance agreement on this constitutional issue? This is very important to several provinces in the west and it might assist in bringing the whole thing together and getting agreement. Will the government do that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. Senate reform is indeed a very important issue in western Canada as it is Atlantic Canada, as it is in all parts of the country quite frankly. But it is of major importance to western Canadians.
As he knows, the object of the exercise of Meech Lake was to have it ratified and to deal with the issues of Senate reform as one of the very first priorities. I can assure the hon. member that the Government of Canada takes Senate reform as a very major priority. At an appropriate time the Government of Canada will outline its position with respect to Senate reform.


AGRICULTURE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Yesterday the U.S. Agricultural Secretary, Clayton Yeutter, announced an agreement to sell another 10 million tonnes of grain, oilseeds and meal annually to the U.S.S.R. Under the free trade agreement, the United States agreed that it would not invade our traditional markets. Here the U.S. is obviously moving into what has been our market, with the $900 million export enhancement program. 'Phis proves that we were sold down the river in this free trade deal as far as the farm grains area was concerned. What is Canada doing to protect and win back some of these traditional markets?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member raises that question. We had meetings with the Canadian Wheat Board a week or so ago. The Wheat Board indicated to us that while the export enhancement program has the effect of depressing prices, as do the subsidies that are paid by the European Community, which the hon. member knows are considerably higher than those being paid by the United States, this has not
March 23, 1990

affected Canadian market share. We are still maintaining our share and maintaining our traditional customers.
The hon. member asks what we are doing. We have certainly filed our notices through the appropriate diplomatic channels and I have spoken personally with Secretary Yeutter, reminding him of the commitment that has been made under the free trade agreement.
I should say as well that while we hear a lot about the amount of money that is being spent under the export enhancement program, in the range from $560 million to $900 million, in the period June 1989 to January 26, 1990 some $178 million Canadian was provided under the export enhancement program. So, I think it has to be put into perspective.
In the meantime, the Europeans are subsidizing exports of grain and oilseeds to the tune of $5 billion to $6 billion annually. What we have here is a situation of the United States responding to the actions of the European Community and Canada being caught in the cross-fire.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the minister's defence of the U.S. is very obvious, but we are being forced out of traditional markets. Our major sales last year were not to the U.S.S.R., not to China, not to the EEC but to Iran, which usually was about twelfth or thirteenth on our list of sales.
Export enhancement was used six times in January to boost our sales to the U.S.S.R. So it is affecting our markets. If the Americans are giving more money it is going to escalate the trade war. That is going to affect the whole grain structure to the extent that it eliminates the psychological feeling that grain is the basis for the western Canadian economy.
When is the government going to assure the farmers that it is backing them by giving them enough money to seed the crop this year since seeding time is coming very quickly?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not attempting to defend the
Oral Questions
United States. I am simply trying to respond to the hon. member's question in a factual way.
He says that we have lost traditional markets. He is right in some areas. In the case of the European Community, in 1979 and 1980 they were net importers of grains and oilseeds to the tune of about 12 million tonnes. Today,-


Stanley J. Hovdebo: They still buy our grain though.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would just listen, I would enlighten him a little bit. In this current year they are projected to be exporting some 25.8 million metric tons of grain. That is almost a 37 million tonne turnaround in a period of ten years.
At one time the European Community was one of our best customers. Not only have we lost them because of their huge subsidies and internal production, but they have become a major exporter of grain. They are today the world's second largest exporter of grain.
Those are the kinds of changes taking place and those are the kinds of changes of which the hon. member should take cognizance. Those are the kinds of issues we have to wrestle with as members of Parliament and as a government.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about maintaining our place in the market. The minister knows it is because of the Canadian Wheat Board that we are holding our place in the market. We support the Canadian Wheat Board and we have to do everything we can to strengthen its powers at every opportunity.
The minister also talks about the Export Enhancement Program depressing prices. Yesterday, in answer to my question, the minister said the deputy ministers are discussing the agriculture crisis in Canada.
Can the minister confirm that the deputy ministers are discussing a specific pay-out of at least $500 million as well as a restructuring of the farm debt? Will he confirm that he will be making an announcement on this when the ministers of agriculture of the provinces meet with him in British Columbia later this month?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon.

March 23, 1990
Oral Questions
member, the ministers of agriculture are not meeting in British Columbia later this month.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Despite the public relations exercise at Globe 90 in Vancouver, the government is not acting to protect the environment. It has now been ten days since the Federal Court quashed approval for the Oldman dam and ordered the Ministers of Transport and Fisheries to conduct an environmental assessment of this project.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why work on the Oldman dam continues and why the government is ignoring the Federal Court order?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court order is not being ignored. Obviously it is being reviewed intensively. It adds to previous decisions by the courts. It is of serious concern to the Government of Canada, as it is to the provincial governments. As soon as the review is complete and the law officers have made their recommendations, there will be a response.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty weak answer to such an important issue, which the minister knows very well requires substantial movement on the part of the government if the public is to believe the promises the government is making.
My supplementary question is again for the Deputy Prime Minister, who seems to know the file better. In view of the fact that yesterday the Friends of the Oldman River, exasperated by the inaction of this government, sought a court order to enforce the Federal Court ruling, will the Minister of Transport halt the work on the Oldman dam today or will he wait to be embarrassed in court next week when the citizens will once again seek to do the job this government has the power to do but refuses to do?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because of the seriousness and the implications of this decision by the court, and the seriousness of the impact of such decisions on any future development, that we want to have a very thorough
review. Such a review would obviously have to include the proponents of the project. This is not a federal project. It is a project for which, at least in the opinion of the court, there is some additional federal responsibility. We will exercise that responsibility as soon as we have reviewed the decision.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Energy. Last week the National Energy Board dropped its cost-benefit test on gas exports. Leading industry experts have indicated this week that that test should be kept because it protects the national interest.
What does the minister or the government intend to do about the board's decision to drop the test? Will the minister reassure Canadians that our natural gas will not be sold to foreigners at a loss to Canada?


Mr. Thacker:: You guys really hate the west.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that that will be the case, of course. The board is going to continue to examine export contracts, including contract flexibility, but would only intervene in exceptional circumstances.
Certainly the export of gas is very important to the economy of this country. It assures further exploration throughout the western provinces. It is a very important part of our economy. Why would we not export that gas?


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, that certainly does not answer my question. My supplementary question is for the same minister.
This week the National Energy Board said that it would re-examine the 10 deals which previously flunked the test. If approved, these deals could cost Canada anywhere from $130 million to $500 million, depending on the National Energy Board figures.
How can the government do nothing while the Americans buy our gas at fire sale prices?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we are seeing a very fine display today of why the Liberals cannot elect anybody in Alberta. They do not care about the west,
March 23, 1990

they do not understand the west, and the ignorance is being shown very broadly today in the House.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could stop the debate about the national energy program for a minute so that I could ask my question.
My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In a recent report on the U.S. invasion of Panama, the Central American Human Rights Commission discloses that the invasion was not the surgical strike that the U.S. would have us believe.
Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs aware of this report? Is he aware of the claims in that report that the U.S. army used highly sophisticated and, in some cases, newly developed weapons against unarmed civilians; that the actual number of civilian fatalities was at least 10 times greater than the U.S. figure of 220, that death tolls were obscured by the burning of bodies, the use of common graves without identification, and the U.S. military control of hospital administration offices; that human rights were abused by the occupying U.S. military; and that a well planned propaganda campaign has ensued since the invasion to cover up the brutality of U.S. actions?
These are very serious charges made by a reputable human rights commission. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs undertake to study these claims? If he finds that he is not in a position to deny these claims, would he review the government's support of the U.S. invasion of Panama?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been in the House for some time and usually observes very closely the courtesies of the House. I know he wanted to put his views on record with regard to this report. If he had wanted an answer from me he could have brought it to my attention earlier. In fact, we spoke just before the Question Period began and he did not raise it with me.
Naturally I will look at the report to which he refers and after I have had a chance to consider it I will
Oral Questions
respond. He knows that if I am given notice on matters I try regularly to provide a response to the House.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, this report has been circulated. It has been around for a few days. I assumed that if, with the meagre resources of an opposition critic, I had the opportunity to see the report, the Department of External Affairs might also have come across it. I know that the minister is a busy person and I take him at his word that he is not aware of the report. I have brought it to his attention.
I am asking him now whether he will have a look at that report. If he finds himself in a position where he is not able to deny these claims, or if he finds that there is some truth in them, will he review the Canadian government's support of that invasion and will he pursue these revelations through the Organization of American States, which also expressed concern about U.S. actions in Panama?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must enjoy a higher place on the CIA mailing lists than I do. I certainly will take a look at the report and take whatever action is appropriate.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. The former fisheries minister promised to make experimental fisheries permanent once fishermen had secured markets and stocks were determined to be adequate to support the fishery. This is the case now with the rock crab fishery in the maritimes. Markets were established and fish stocks were determined to be adequate.
Therefore, will the minister tell us when he will take action to make this fishery permanent?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do intend to look at all the issues affecting the Atlantic fishery. The issue of the permanence of this fishery is one in which a lot of people have a big stake. I intend to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that whatever is reasonable can be done.
I will not take any steps to jeopardize anything that is already in place there. Also, I will not do like certain members, and create false hope in Atlantic Canada.

March 23, 1990
Oral Questions


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. Would the minister commit some research money to the rock crab fishery to ensure that the stocks remain healthy and are not overfished to near extinction, like the snow crab fishery?


Bernard Valcourt: I am not offended at all, Mr. Speaker, by the idea that we should have research to ensure conservation of our stocks. As we are in the process of looking at the scientific effort in Atlantic Canada to conserve those stocks, we will surely give consideration to the suggestion of the member.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The 880 Tracker Squadron, which is responsible for doing the mid-range fisheries and sovereignty surveillance on the Atlantic coast ceases operations in eight days. Tomorrow the squadron hands in its colours and will be disbanded. This is a black day for Summerside and a black day for Prince Edward Island.
Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tell the House who will be doing the mid-range fisheries and sovereignty surveillance patrols on April 1?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague the Secretary of State of External Affairs indicated, had I been given notice of this question I could give an exact answer.
All I can say is that recently the government funded aerial research in Atlantic Canada by an additional $28 million. That is a serious effort, but I am unable today to give a specific answer to that specific question.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, the 880 Squadron, as I have just stated, is going out of business tomorrow. Their last flying day will actually be in eight days' time. One would think that a year after making the announcement the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would know who was going to be doing the fisheries and sovereignty patrols.
The minister has stated that the government is spending $28 million a year now. How much does he anticipate it is going to cost when it takes over total control?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I do undertake to provide the hon. member with a detailed account of everything that is done to ensure surveillance in Atlantic Canada.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. The aboriginal communication network was established not out of greed, but rather out of need. Trail radio system has been proven to save lives and it is thanks only to The Micmac News that Donald Marshall is a free man today.
The mainstream media are not serving the needs of aboriginal people. The Prime Minister said last night that Canada had not arrived at a just and equitable arrangement with its first people. Will the Secretary of State not now reinstate funding for the native communication programs in his department?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware how effective the communication societies have been and how important a role they have been playing in Canadian society.
I personally have been meeting with some of the communication societies. I had the opportunity to meet with Roy Gould of The Micmac News when I was recently in Nova Scotia. This afternoon I will be meeting with the executive and board members of the National Aboriginal Communication Society and I look forward to veiy fruitful meetings.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the meeting that is taking place this afternoon with the Secretary of State. I understand that he has already said to the native communication network that he is going to be looking to other departments for some assistance in funding this program. We know, with the cuts that are taking place, that is just not feasible.
They want from the Secretary of State a concrete answer as to what exactly he is going to do about their needs, not wishy-washy stories. They need the funding. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to meet those needs and I think that is the message that he has to convey to the committee this afternoon. I encourage him

to do so and ask him if that is what he is intending to do this afternoon.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, my departments have undergone expenditure reduction and we have handled that in a very fair and consistent manner. Indeed, if we examine the aboriginal program that the government has for this year, it encompasses some $4 billion. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs itself has seen its funding grow from the 1984-85 period from $1.4 billion to some $2.3 billion today.
When I was in Nova Scotia I reminded Roy Gould of The Micmac News that in Nova Scotia alone the funding went from some $26 million in 1984-85 to about $49 million last year. That is almost double.
We instituted a task force and that force is already in place. We are bringing together elements from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, from Industry, Science and Technology, from Health and Welfare, from every government department that has an interest in being helpful. We are examining the situation that each of the communication societies has been left in and seeing how we can help them to carry on.


TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory affairs) and concerns the textile industry which must cope with the challenge of adjustment as a result of the Free Trade Agreement, the multilateral GATT negotiations and the Uruguay Round, the Multifiber Agreement which ends next year and the tariff reduction proposed by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, whose report will be tabled today.
Could the minister give the House and workers in the textile industry the assurance that the government's decision on implementing these policies will have the consequence of continuing to attract investment in Canada and will not involve any loss of jobs?
Oral Questions


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, later today I will be tabling in the House the Canadian Import Trade Tribunal textile tariff report. This report was requested by the Minister of Finance to take a look at the textile industry and the tariffs we have in Canada which, I might say, are much higher than those of any other industrialized country in the world. The report will be making certain recommendations to the government which we will consider.
I can assure the workers in the industry and the industry itself that every consideration will be taken by the government to assure that we maintain a viable industry in Canada.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Science. Last Friday his parliamentary secretary told this House, and I quote: "The NRC has been Canada's foremost research institute and it continues to be the cornerstone of Canada's science and technology strategy."
We know that the National Research Council draft five-year plan provides for 500 NRC jobs to be cut. Is the minister trying to tell Canadians that 500 more lay-offs and the cancellation of programs and divisions at the National Research Council constitute the cornerstone of his science and technology strategy? Is this what the Prime Minister means when he says that R and D is the lifeblood of the nation?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, the National Research Council has considered and is still considering the many options available to it for its long-range plan.
My understanding is that consultations are still going on with all of its client groups, with its partners in many of its operations, and that they will be taking some decisions. They will actually be finalizing their long-term plan sometime in the next few months and we will take decisions at that time. I am not ready to take any decisions now as I do not have the plan.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the minister is right, consultations have been carried on. They have consulted with the Science Council, they have consulted with universities, they have consulted with industry, but the researchers at NRC and their represen-

March 23, 1990
Oral Questions
tatives have been told that their input would be redundant. This process is absolutely devastating morale at the National Research Council.
Will the minister today insist that the president of the NRC hold meaningful consultations with the scientists and researchers at the NRC? Will the Minister for Science for Canada himself take an active role in these consultations to ensure that the people are cared for?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the National Research Council itself is going to have to make some recommendations about the long-term future of NRC. At the appropriate time, I have no doubt that the management of NRC will be discussing their plans with the scientists of the council.
At the moment the charge to the National Research Council is to produce a long range plan which will ensure that NRC remains a viable, vigorous and relevant institution for this country over the next several years. That is the charge to them.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has ruled that telecommunications falls under federal jurisdiction.
Today in Le Devoir, it is reported that Quebec has claimed this area as its own.
Elas the government received a copy of the document entitled: "Proposals for sharing responsibility for telecommunications between the federal government and the provincial governments", filed last week by Quebec in Ottawa? If the government received the document, is it prepared to release it and let us know what its position is in this respect?


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that any document which will or has been received will be given careful study.
I cannot confirm that the document in question has been received at this time.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the government responded "will have received", "did receive" or "is receiving".
Irrespective of the language, present, past, future, I sincerely hope that the government will undertake to honour its commitment which it demonstrated when it deposited a bill in this House.
I would like the assurance of this government that it is prepared to respect the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the AGT case of last August and reaffirm its acceptance of telecommunication as a national, federal jurisdiction which is in the interests of the business and the people of this land from coast to coast.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, my answer to the hon. member was that this government favours a single, federal system for regulating telecommunications.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you recall that back in 1984 the Conservative party promised to have as a priority the simplification of the income tax forms. I have here a copy of the 1984 throne speech, the first throne speech of the government across the way. It says: "The taxation system will remain simpler and fairer."
I would like to ask the minister to explain a study that was commissioned by the Department of National Revenue last year on the income tax form which found that of the taxpayers surveyed, some 46 per cent had to pay for help to fill out the income tax form last year, which was the first year of tax reform, compared to 30 per cent the year before, which was before tax reform.
Why this increase from 30 per cent to 45 per cent when the government promised to make the income tax form simpler? Why has it gone back on its word?

March 23, 1990


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, there are numerous studies on any subject, including the one to which the hon. member refers.
The only study that counts is the actual counting of the income tax returns that come into Revenue Canada. Over 18 million such returns came in last year and our observations of those returns showed that approximately the same amount of people last year used outside tax consultants and assistance as had in previous years.
We have worked very diligently with the Plain Language Centre and other outside organizations to simplify not only the language but the context of the forms. In fact, Lyman Maclnnis, senior partner with the Toronto based accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche recently said: "Given the complexity of the act, Revenue Canada has done a hell of a great job with the forms this year".


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to a study commissioned by Revenue Canada which said that the number of people who needed help went up from 30 per cent to 46 per cent after tax reform. Maybe the problem is one that was identified in the PC task force report on April 8, 1984. It states at page 5: "One of the problems in national revenue is that there has been a tradition of weak and junior ministers of national revenue", a tradition that continues today.
Another study done by the University of Montreal showed that the average taxpayer who requires outside help spends $349 a year for that help or a total of $5.5 billion in 1986 before tax reform. I assume it is much higher after tax reform.
In light of those facts, why has the Conservative government gone back on a promise it made in 1984 and 1985 to simplify the tax form and save the taxpayers of this country a great deal of money? Why has it not fulfilled that promise?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I note that the New Democratic Party has junior opposition critics of finance and revenue. That tradition has not changed in that party for many years.


Charles Joseph Clark: But it has in ours.
Routine Proceedings


An hon. member:: They can't count.


Otto John Jelinek: Second, I can only repeat that when the member talks about outside assistance to taxpayers, the figure based on the 18 million people who filed income tax returns shows that last year there was roughly the same number of Canadians using outside assistance as in previous years.
We have kept our promises from 1984 by working toward simplification of the tax system, including the forms. However, I admit that the status quo of making the language simpler and less complex for Canadians is still not accepted by the majority of Canadians as totally simple. That is why I have moved toward electronic filing, a pilot project which is taking place in Winnipeg this filing season. That will be expanded to include all of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta next year. By the middle of this decade, that is to say within the next four or five years, all Canadians will have the option to file electronically which will eliminate paper work, eliminate errors, speed up the process and make it cheaper, simpler and more efficient for all Canadians.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, a document respecting proposed constitutional amendments now before the Legislature of the Province of New Brunswick.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I rise today to table on behalf of the Minister of Finance, pursuant to subsection 21(2) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the tribunal's report on the textile tariff reference, in both official languages.

March 23, 1990
Routine Proceedings
I wish to thank the tribunal for its extensive research in studying the issues and for the openness of its inquiry process. The government will be responding to the report after carefully reviewing and assessing the tribunal's research and recommendations.


PETITIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 16 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, on Monday, March
26, 1990, the House meet at one o'clock p.m. and proceed to the
Business of Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the hon. minister have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I think there will be recognition by members of this House that as a result of deliberations from ten o'clock to eleven o'clock this morning and the point at which we are in the Routine Proceedings it would be possible, by relatively elementary use of the rules, in fact to deny any opportunity for any debate whatsoever by the New Democratic Party on its motion. This would be a use of the rules of the House in an inappropriate fashion, and we do not intend to do that.
I raise the point to make one simple point. The rules and procedures are there to facilitate the operations of the House. From time to time they are used to make a point, and that is part of the procedure, but to use the rules to deny anybody in the House the right to do what they were elected to do, namely for opposition parties to
debate on opposition days and for governments to bring their legislative programs to a vote in an appropriate fashion and time, I think is misuse of the rules.
I hope we can deal with items in the future by our past practices of discussing them and making arrangements to make life comfortable for all and to fulfil our responsibilities to the people of Canada, rather than the kind of guerrilla warfare which I maintain merely wastes taxpayers' money and is not fulfilling our duty.
I say to the New Democratic Party, not in anger or anything, that we do not intend to destroy their day. The power would be here. It would accomplish nothing except another tit for tat operation which only leads to frustration and the government not doing the duty it has to the people of Canada who elected it.


AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, at the last meeting of House leaders unanimous consent was given for the following motion:
That Standing Order 129 be deleted and the following substituted
therefor
"129.(1) At the beginning of a session, the Clerk of the House shall publish in The Canada Gazette the Standing Order respecting notices of intended applications for private bills and the Standing Orders respecting the time limit for receiving petitions for private bills. Thereafter, the Clerk of the House shall publish weekly in The Canada Gazette a notice referring to the previous publication of the aforementioned Standing Orders.
(2) By the first day of every session, the Clerk of the House shall announce by notice affixed in the lobbies of the House the time limit for receiving petitions for private bills."


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I only want to state that there was such consultation a few days ago. Indeed we are prepared to give unanimous consent on our side of the House.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I am advised that there have been appropriate consultations. Of course we will give our unanimous consent, but I would just like to suggest that in the same manner in which we were consulted on the motion by the government House leader in the last 45 minutes dealing with Monday, I was not advised that the parliamentary assistant to the government House leader was to move the motion at this time, so I did not have a chance to consult directly with those in the know. I appreciate the government Whip coming over, but if we could follow
March 23, 1990

that kind of procedure it would prevent accidents from occurring.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Dan Heap (IHnity- Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I have petitions with about 480 names from many different parts of Canada urging the government to bring an end to the low-level flight training for NATO operations at Goose Bay and to redirect the funding used in that toward enabling Canada's aboriginal peoples to regain control of their lands and their livelihood and for promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present 19 petitions containing about 662 names of residents of the Okanagan-Shuswap area.
I might add that this is my next instalment of petitions concerning opposition to the goods and services tax, for a total of about 330 petitions and 15,400 names which actually represent over 28 per cent of the registered voters in the riding of Okanagan-Shuswap.
These signatures come from areas such as Blind Bay, Vernon, Lumby, Cherryville, Armstrong, Enderby, Sica-mous, Salmon Arm, Sorrento, Anglemont, Celista, Ca-
Routine Proceedings
noe, Malakwa, Mabel Lake, Mara and Grindrod. I might add that I even have a few from Regina and Saskatoon.
The petitioners who have signed these petitions against the GST ask the government to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax. They ask that there be reform of the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations and to ensure that if and when there is a broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax this reform not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab.
Last, they ask the government to cease with the proposal which will shift the tax burden to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: This is not quite the time for debate.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand to present petitions of many people from the city of Nepean who continue to be opposed to the goods and services tax. I have presented many signatures to the House of Commons in this regard.
They ask that the Government of Canada please consider rescinding this very regressive bill.


Lawrence MacAulay: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present this petition from the residents of Cardigan, Prince Edward Island who oppose the goods and services tax and feel that it would create higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.
They call upon this Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to table a petition from Chibougamau, Quebec, concerning the recommendations of the Task Force on Ihx Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
Chibougamau is without question an isolated area, and that is why your petitioners consider the Brunelle recom-

March 23, 1990
Routine Proceedings
mendation to be discriminatory, unfair and inefficient as it concerns the Northern Tax Benefit system. It does not encourage settlement in the North and offers no incentive to develop northern resources.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 214 and 224.


Mr. Milliken: Is (a) the Hon. George Hees (b) Mr. Allan Gotlieb in the employ of or under contract with the government and, if so, what are (i) the terms of employment (ii) the rates of pay (iii) the anticipated duration of the contract or employment?


Hon. Leonard Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: a)	The Hon. George Hees
He was appointed by Order in Council as Ambassador-at-large and Prime Minister's Personal Representative;
(i)	his conditions of employment are those prescribed for senior officials appointed on a full-time basis by Order in Council;
(ii)	his salary is in the range $101,400-$123,400;
(iii)	his employment is indeterminate.
b)	Mr. Allan Gotlieb
He is currently part-time Chairman of the Canada Council, appointed by Order in Council;


Mr. Boudria: Do Regional Advisory Councils currently provide advice to the Federal Business Development Bank and, if so (a) what number (b) in each case (i) what is the region they represent (ii) what are the names of their members (iii) what is the date of appointment of each (iv) what are the qualifications each member brings to his or her council?


Hon. Thomas Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Insofar as the Federal Business Development Bank is concerned, the response is as follows:
Regional Advisory Councils currently provide advice to the Federal Business Development Bank (FBDB). Section 14(2) of the FBDB Act provides that:
"Each Council shall from time to time review the results of the activities of the Corporation in the Region for which the Council is established and, through its Chairman, may advise and make recommendations to the Board regarding the activities of the Corporation in that Region."
The mandate of the Councils does not provide for a direct role or responsibility in the lending or investment activities of the Bank.
(a)	Six
(b)	(i), (ii) and (iii)
Provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edwards Island
Frank Abram Moores Frank William Nichols Anna Albert Guimond Michael N. Burge Donna Marie Thompson W.R. MacKinnon Lloyd A. Diamond
Province of Quebec
Vacant.
Appointments presently under consideration.
June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 October 10, 1987
(i)	as part-time Chairman, Mr. Gotlieb is entitled to a per diem fixed by Orders in Council and reimbursement of expenses as provided under the Canada Council Act;
(ii)	Mr. Gotlieb receives a per diem in the range $450-$600;
(iii)	Mr. Gotlieb's appointment was effective February 1, 1989, and is for a term of five years.
Province of Ontario
Daniela Anna Clara John A. Elliott Yavar Ali Khan Bob Bohdan Leschyshen Aline Levesque Glenn Grice Alex Christie Barbara Molot Sugarntan
June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987
March 23, 1990

Province of Manitoba and Saskatchewan

Garth Walls James F. Fairman Penny Paget Wilfried K. Eckl John Gregory O'Hanlon Gerald L. Dorge Ralph C. Yapp Donna-Marie Gurr
June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987
Province of Alberta and the Northwest Territories
Gabrielle Decorby C.W. Newton
James Fredrick Kalmacoff Richard C. Fraser Rita Pasiciel E.M. (Al) Davison William R. Bauman Richard Hobbs
June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987
Province of British Columbia and the Yukon


Mr. Caccia: With regard to all grants made by the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, the Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency and the Western Economic Diversification Fund (a) does the government review them to assess their environmental sustainability and, if so, who conducts the review and, if not, what criteria are used to determine which grants are reviewed and which are exempted (b) for each year since 1984 (i) have grants been refused for environmental reasons and, if so, what number (ii) what were the dollar values of such proposals as compared to the value of proposals which were approved?
Return tabled.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Robert B. Leeson Patrick James Lett Dirk A. Yzenbrandt Victor E. Kurceba Olga Ilich Milton H. Cook Fred C. Garnett James Frederick Butchart
June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
NOTE: (i) These regions were designated, pursuant Section 14(1) of the FBDB Act by the Governor in Council in June 1976.
(b) (iv) The Members of each Council are active business persons, professionls or other representatives of diverse communities. Each of the Members contributes to the activities of the Council based on his/her unique experience as an active member in the community-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 220 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House that Question No. 220 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hovdebo:
That this House call upon the government to commit itself, on the week of the second annual Rural Revitalization Day and the anniversary of the birth of Agnes MacPhail, the first woman elected to this House and an untiring champion of the rights of rural Canadians, to provide for a vital economic, social and environmentally sustainable future for rural Canada and the millions of Canadians who live in our vast rural areas, by implementing a program to:
1)	stabilize family farm incomes and ease the crippling debt load which at present threatens the very survival of tens of thousands of family farms;
2)	assist fishing communities to survive the current crisis in the fishery and take steps to ensure the proper management of the fishery in the future;
3)	modify existing transportation and other infrastructure policies to assure all primary producers, co-operative and rural small businesses that they can be competitive in both the domestic and the international market-place;
[Stage Direction]
March 23, 1990
Supply
4)	provide a full range of education, health and other social policies to enable young families, the elderly and others to live comfortably in rural and isolated parts of Canada; and
5)	provide a full range of services, including shelters, child care services and skills training to support the crucial role played by women in all rural communities.
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, Wednesday, March 21, marked the second annual Rural Revitalization Day.
Rural Revitalization Day is the day proclaimed and set aside by Rural Dignity of Canada and observed by Canadians who understand the proud rural roots of this great country. It is a day to honour Canadian rural communities and to draw public attention to the extremely serious problems currently faced by too many rural communities.
As can be seen clearly, the purpose of this motion today is not to condemn the government. Rather, it calls for continued efforts on the part of government to develop policy and modify existing policy with the aim of strengthening the economic and social base on which communities can grow.
What is rural Canada? More than 90 per cent of Canada is rural. There are 9,000 small communities, cities, towns and villages, as well as several hundred thousand farmers, fishers and other rural dwellers in various occupations.
The industries of rural Canada are farming, fishing, forestry, mining, tourism, transportation and dozens of other locally suitable occupations which supply services to other rural Canadians.
Almost every raw product that cities demand and need come from rural communities. Be it cereals, oil, power, lumber, gravel or even drinking water, they all come from outside city limits. The people who produce, mine or just care for these products are residents of rural Canada.
Almost all of Canada's natural resources and a good part of our human resources are found in that vast area we call rural Canada. Despite having all these rich resources, rural Canadians face a bleak and unpromising future. Farming and fisheries particularly are going through a catastrophic economic time so severe that the future of thousands of Canadians and thousands of farm and fishing families are in immediate and at serious risk.
If urgent government action is not taken, these people will be forced out of business. They will follow their sisters and brothers, sons and daughters to the cities. Their rural communities will wither and die, which deaths will be to the detriment of not only rural Canada but all the rest of Canada as well.
Saskatchewan has been losing 20 residents per day throughout the winter. That is one every hour or so. That means that since the last federal election two towns the size of Humboldt which is my constituency have disappeared from Saskatchewan, or five towns the size of Rosthem, also in my constituency, have disappeared from rural Saskatchewan.
It has been obvious for some time that social, economic and technological changes are aspects of rural life that are resulting in major dislocation and stress in families and individuals in rural Canada. The main concern of farms on the prairies these days, and to a lesser extent across Canada, is the farm debt which is debilitating and causing a considerable amount of concern. Also, the amount of return the farmers are getting from crops and livestock that they raise is so little that they are unable to finance those debts and maintain a fair level of living.
In Saskatchewan alone, out of 61,000 or so farmers,
20,000	are in some kind of financial distress. They are either being foreclosed on or finding themselves in difficulty as far as continuing farming is concerned. All farmers in Saskatchewan, except those who are able to finance themselves, are having difficulty borrowing funds to plant this year's crop. This lack of operating funds is forcing more people off the farms. The impact of having to change one's vocation is much greater than someone who is just changing a job.
The farmer who loses his or her land is forced out of farming. The stress is much greater than would ordinarily be the case in losing a job. It means losing a way of life. It means losing a heritage which may have been built over many generations. In many cases the grandfathers or great-grandfathers homesteaded those farms. They are losing the land that their great-grandfather built, cleared and made into a farm. They are losing the farm. They feel that they are betraying that heritage, the trust of their ancestors, and their children who might follow them on that particular land.

Farmers' sons or daughters do not just decide to start fanning at the age of 18 years. They do not just suddenly say: "I am going to take up agriculture and become a farmer". Most people who go into farming have lived on the farm and grew into farming. It is part of their life from their first days after birth. Losing it is like losing that life.
Fishing families have had much the same heritage. Taking them out of the vocation has the same devastating impact as it does on farmers. The stress and loss of confidence to which this leads causes a considerable amount of dislocation and things happen which would not ordinarily happen in those structures.
In my home province we are seeing a tremendous increase in family break-ups in the rural areas. We are seeing a tremendous amount of illness among farmers and farmers' wives, and young farms in many cases. We are also seeing physical illness, psychological illness and nervous breakdowns. The suicide rate has substantially increased, to the point where some psychologists are suggesting that in rural areas more than 50 per cent of the suicides are caused by the economic disintegration of the family farm.
Alcoholism has increased considerably. As in much of the rest of Canada and the rest of society, in bad times women and children suffer the most. When farming, fishing and forestry can no longer provide the requirements of a good life for the family, women and children are hurt the most.
The motion I have put before the House at this time recognizes the crucial role played by women in rural communities. On the farm they are often required to cany three jobs. Not only do they play a substantial role in the operation of the farm; they also raise the family, take care of the house and make sure the meals are cooked. Today, a large percentage of farm women, nearing 50 per cent, work off the farm to bring in some needed cash so the farm can survive. The motion pays special attention to the role of women and the need for support of women in these circumstances.
The impact in rural areas is one of depopulation, not only in farming communities but in fishing communities and in a large part of the rest of rural Canada.
Most city folk consider living in rural Canada sort of idyllic, but it is only idyllic as long as the necessary
Supply
services to raise a family are in place. They will tell me how lucky I am to live on a farm where it is quiet and serene. It is, and I appreciate it. It is getting more and more difficult to raise a family in those circumstances because the services that are necessary to raise a family, such as education, health services and recreation, are becoming less and less available in rural communities. Rural hospitals, post offices, schools and other service centres are being shut down without any regard for the needs of the people who remain in those communities.
It is time to recognize the immense benefits we derive from these rural and their resources and return to rural Canadians a fair share of the benefits they supply to Canada.
When an industry in a particular area becomes less viable the families start to move out. This depopulation leads to removal of services because the community cannot afford to pay them, or as happened in many cases lately because the government is trying to save some money and is no longer willing to provide those services. When the service people move out they reduce the population further so that more services are jeopardized, which leads to further depopulation. It is like a snowball rolling downhill which picks up snow and becomes larger as it moves down the hill. Or, it is like dominoes set up in a row; when you knock down one eventually all of them fall. We all know the solution if you want to simplify it enough: it is economic stability.
In the case of farming the debt would have to be dealt with as well and first. Most farmers have learned to deal with the variables of raising a crop, fluctuating prices and intransigent weather. On a day to day basis the threat of losing the farm eats into the hope and eventually causes such tremendous stress that psychologically it is difficult for those people to continue. On the farms we must first deal with the debt and, second, we must deal with stable economic income.
Fishing communities are in much the same situation. They face the same kind of extinction in many cases. Again there is a need for the community to survive during a crisis. In the case of fisheries, it is necessary that the available fish provide income to communities and to develop the fisheries to the point where they can expect to continue in those areas. I could go on to talk about forestry and other industries relative to rural Canada

March 23, 1990
Supply
which are being affected these days in much the same
way.
In closing, I want to take a moment to pay special tribute to Rural Dignity of Canada. Rural Dignity is a network of Canadians working together to develop public awareness of the problems facing rural communities. Rural Dignity is more than that, however. It is a committed group of people who work to find realistic solutions to the problems faced by rural communities throughout Canada. Rural Dignity is to be commended for efforts to strengthen the economic and social base of rural Canada.
I want to quote two excerpts from press releases and news items which have come out of write-ups of the Rural Dignity:
Towns and villages are ecosystems as fragile as any marshland or northern shore. The social and economic well-being of our small communities, their relation to one another and with the entire country rests on a delicate web of interdependent threads: post offices, trains, local fish plants and grain elevators, family farms.
That is the kind of concern that Rural Dignity has been showing for what is happening to rural Canada.
It is my fervent hope that all members of this House, on both sides of the Chamber, will reflect on the difficulties experienced today by thousands of farming and fishing families, dwellers of rural Canada.
This motion was intended to be, and is, a very positive motion. It does not condemn the government. It does not look into the past to say anything about who should accept the blame. It talks only about sustaining rural Canada. It does not blame anyone. This motion points out the need of action if rural Canada is going to survive. It attempts to tell all of us how important and valuable rural Canada is, and how it is important, not only to those rural Canadians, but to the rest of the nation. This motion, as far as possible, is intended to be a vehicle. It is an attempt to draw attention to the way of life that is important to Canada and the basis for the heritage of many people in the country.
This motion points out the devastation of rural Canada does not have to happen and that we should make a commitment now to provide the economic, social and environmental atmosphere to have a sustainable rural Canada. Consequently, I hope that all members here today can find it in their hearts to say, yes, even if we cannot do it today or tomorrow, we will make a commitment to make sure that rural Canada can survive in the next few years. We need rural Canada as much or more than we need the strengthened economy of the cities.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak about a subject that is very near and dear to my heart. I want to associate myself with many of the comments that the hon. member outlined when talking about the amenities of rural life and the very special life-style that it provides to so many people, particularly those who are involved in farming, fishing, mining, forestry and the tourism industry.
His motion does zero in on a number of items such as stabilizing the family farm income and the debt situation. I would want to seize the opportunity to place on the record some of the initiatives that our government has taken in that regard.
The hon. member talked about the fishing communities and the fact that we all recognize that there are some difficulties in the fishing industry and in the Atlantic region particularly. We are addressing those problems, first, with a commitment of $130 million that was provided as an interim measure of support. As well, as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fisheries have indicated in the House, we are working on a package which, hopefully, can be announced fairly soon to help resolve some of the difficulties that result when the stocks of fish are declined to the extent that it does affect the rural communities in a very devastating way.
He talked as well about transportation, the need to have an adequate transportation infrastructure, and to ensure that that transportation system is efficient, effective, and does provide the necessary links for commodities and people to travel. In the course of my experience as a cabinet minister, particularly as Minister of Transport, we embarked upon a program of regulatory reform which freed up the system enormously. I must say that I get a tremendous amount of satisfaction when I land in Halifax, for example, and I see all the commuter aircraft parked at the Halifax air terminal. They provide service to many of the smaller communities that never had service before.
March 23, 1990

The same applies in Edmonton and Calgary and perhaps even more so in Vancouver where the smaller communities are linking up with the major carriers, providing regular service and greater frequency of service. Maybe they are not flying jets, but what they are indeed flying are products built here in Canada, such as the de Havilland Dash-7 and Dash-8. That really demonstrates how one can integrate the policies of transportation with economic polity not only to improve the transportation system for all Canadians but indeed to create jobs in those very important industries.
Rural life is very special. I certainly associate myself with the words of the hon. member. There is a sense of hardiness and a sense of community. There is a sense of community discipline and a pioneering spirit that is evident in smaller communities. There is a sense of self-reliance. There is a sense of co-operation and support in smaller communities. One of the great gifts of a small community is that if you are ever in trouble as a citizen there, you are never alone. Your neighbours and friends are the first ones there to help you. As a result of that attitude, there has been a tradition developed in these communities. It is as alive today as it was when the rural areas were first settled. There is that clear gift of helping each other and co-operating. I am sure the hon. member would agree that it was in that spirit that many of the co-operative movements sprang up in western Canada, movements which are still in effect today.
I know that there are many problems in the rural communities. But even today what is most satisfying is to go to a community and see the citizens roll up their sleeves to build a community hall, a curling rink, an arena or a cultural facility. I am sure the hon. member, as I do, has opportunities of opening these facilities. With a certain amount of government assistance provided at both the federal and provincial levels, we provide that kind of additional stimulus to ensure that spirit of co-operation and reaching out to help each other is nurtured.
Clearly, from my perspective, rural life and agriculture are really synonymous. As agriculture changes, so does the environment within our rural communities. It is true that the agriculture industry, particularly in western Canada, has gone through turbulent times in the past few years. Many people overlook this but we had a drought situation that was worse than what was experi-
Supply
enced in the Dirty Thirties. The fact that farming and farmers have survived is a tribute to their resilience and a tribute to the fact that governments have in fact responded to this particular challenge.
We have trade wars resulting in low commodity prices. We have had other weather related disasters. In some areas, we have had excessive rain and flood situations. We have had grasshoppers. We have had the problem of increasing input costs. We have had the problem of changes in the market-place.
In Question Period earlier today, I outlined the fact that today the European Economic Community is no longer one of our major customers. It is one of our major competitors. As a matter of fact, it is the second largest exporter of grains and oilseeds in the world. That has an impact on us within our own agricultural industry and it also has an impact upon the rural communities relying upon it for their sustenance.
There have been changes in consumer demands. People are eating different things and placing priorities on different articles of produce. That has to be taken into consideration. Above all, there have been changes in technology.
All these elements have made it necessary for agriculture to adjust and to change and that has had an impact upon our rural communities as well. There is, particularly, the devastating reduction in incomes as a result of drought and other weather related disasters. Bear in mind that we had programs such as stabilization and crop insurance in place hopefully to respond to these. But, the experience of the past number of years demonstrates to us that these programs have not been adequate or sufficient. The result of this has had a major impact upon market receipts, particularly in western Canada.
I would like to read into the record the market receipts over a five-year period. These are market receipts in western Canada because that is what the hon. member was referring to primarily. In 1984, the market receipts were $6.5 billion; in 1987, the market receipts dropped to $4.6 billion, a drop of almost $1.9 billion in the marketplace; in 1988, they strengthened to $5.1 billion; in 1989, they strengthened more to $5.6 billion; and in 1990, the year about which everybody is very concerned, market receipts have gone down slightly but not nearly as

March 23, 1990
Supply
dramatically as they did between 1984 and 1987. At $5.3 billion, obviously there have been other factors that have been taken into consideration. What I am saying here is that with that decline in revenue from the market-place, clearly farmers would not have been able to survive without massive government support. I would like to put that into perspective.
In the period of 1981-84, the average realized net income in the agricultural community in Canada averaged $3.1 billion. In the period 1985-89, it averaged $4 billion, an increase of about 30 per cent. Direct assistance provided by the federal government in 1981-84 averaged about $600 million. Direct government assistance provided by the federal government in the period 1985-89 amounted to $2.5 billion on average. That is over a fourfold increase. It does not matter how you slice it, there has been massive government support.
In terms of federal support for all of agriculture, in the period 1981-84 it averaged at $2.3 billion and between 1985-89 it averaged $4.6 billion per year. That is a twofold increase. I think that is very important to keep in mind because we certainly have to give credit where credit is due.
What is more important, and I want to point this out, is that there has been a dramatic increase in support at the federal level over what the provinces have been providing. In terms of the total government support package, federal government support rose from 60 per cent in the early 1980s to over 75 per cent in the latter part of the decade. In the prairies, it has risen. For example, in the period 1981-84, Manitoba provided about 20 per cent of the assistance support and the federal government provided 80 per cent. In Saskatchewan, in that same period of 1981-84, the federal government provided about 85 per cent of the support and the province, 15 per cent. In Alberta, in that same period of 1981-84, the federal share was 45 per cent and the provincial share was 55 per cent.
To illustrate what I am saying, in the next five-year period, 1985-89, in Manitoba the federal share went up to 90 per cent and the provincial share dropped to 10 per cent. In Saskatchewan, in that same period, the federal share was at 87 per cent and the provincial share was at 13 per cent. And in Alberta, the federal share went up to about 65 per cent and the provincial share was at 35 per
cent. I think that clearly demonstrates the fact that the federal government has been there, as we have said we would be there, and we are there today.
A few other things have happened and I would like to put them on the record because it ties in to the first element of the hon. member's motion. That is the whole issue of providing income stability and dealing with the debt load. Let us just review the record.
I should say that federal assistance to the grains and oilseeds industry from 1981-84 amounted to $350 million annually. That is an average. From 1985-90, it amounted to $2.5 billion per year, a sevenfold increase to the grains and oilseeds sector.
Here are some of the other things that we did during the period of 1985-90. We placed a moratorium on foreclosures while addressing the serious financial difficulties being experienced by the farm community. That was from December 1984 to May 1987.
We brought in an $80 million, 4 per cent interest rate reduction program, reducing all Farm Credit Corporation loans at 16.75 per cent down to 12.75 per cent. It was at 16.75 per cent because, remember, we were coming out of that period of high interest that the Liberals were responsible for. It drove interest rates up to 24 per cent. That is what happened.
We introduced the shared FCC risk mortgage. We established the Farm Debt Review Board program. Some
9,000	applications have been handled by this program. There were 6,500 arrangements identified, meaning that 77 per cent of those using the board have reached an agreement. We committed $360 million to the Farm Debt Review Board to cover concessions, interest rate write-downs and write-downs on the value of the land. We have injected some $600 million into the Farm Credit Corporation, to cover loan losses. There is about $1.4 billion that needs to be written down.
As a result of the government assistance, a new band-aid, and considerable effort by the FCC, arrears have declined from almost 15,000 loans in fiscal year 1987 to 9,000 loans in February 1990. Of the 5,700 Farm Debt Review Board cases referred to by the FCC, 5,200 have been resolved. We established a $30 million Canadian rural transition program. We announced commodity-based loans. We passed a new farm improvement loan act. We brought in the two Special Canadian Grains Programs. We covered $300 million worth of losses in the
March 23, 1990

Canadian Wheat Board pool accounts. We covered $750 million in losses in the Western Grains Stabilization Act.
We contribute about $200 million annually for crop insurance and that is going to go up to $300 million. We paid out some $4 billion under the WGSA between 1985 and 1989, and I think that ratio was about $10 or $11 federal money for every $1 put in by the producer. We incurred a deficit in the federal crop insurance fund of some $500 million over the last four years as a result of payouts of $2.4 billion. We have improved the crop insurance program to include the multi-year disaster benefit relief program of which over $100 million has been paid out this year. We provided fuel price rebate relief of $200 million per year. We provided a total of $1.17 billion in emergency drought assistance between 1984 and 1988 and we brought in stabilization programs for the red meat industry, expending some $650 million to date. From 1984-85 to the present, we expended some $483 million for horticulture and eastern grain products through stabilization programs.
That in itself is quite a litany of achievements and I could go on. After 1984-85, we presented the five-year dairy program and provided $1.2 billion. We provided tobacco growers with $62 million, and grape growers with $128 million in transition assistance. What is encouraging is that both the grape and the wine industries are moving along very nicely, thank you very much, both in Ontario and in British Columbia. The fact of the matter is they recognize that adjustments had to be made. The federal government was there, and the provincial governments as well, to help in that adjustment process.
So, total government initiatives during the period 1984-90 have well exceeded some $22 billion. I could go on and talk about the improvements in the crop insurance program and the plant breeders' rights.
Today, I am announcing that the farmers living in the designated areas of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are eligible for a one-year tax deferral on income derived from the drought-induced sale of breeding livestock in 1989. This is something that has been done before with regard to the serious drought problems in that particular region. There are other areas and we will be writing to the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Ontario which has some pockets of drought. Wherever there are pockets of drought based on forage yields of less of 50 per cent of the normal yield, this will trigger
Supply
that same initiative. But that again outlines the sensitivity that we show toward agriculture and how we put our money where our mouth is.
I said as well that there are changes in the marketplace. The European Economic Community is engaged in a massive subsidy program. It is enormous. As I said earlier, in the case of Canada we have a situation where it has switched from being a net importer of about 12 million tonnes of grain per year to being the world's second largest exporter of grains and oilseeds, roughly 25 million to 26 million tonnes projected for this year. It got there by huge subsidies.
I noted the OECD has estimated that total support for agriculture in OECD countries was over $250 billion U.S. in 1989. Of that, some $100 billion U.S. was provided for by the European Economic Community; $67 billion U.S. by the United States; and $60 billion by Japan. The bulk of it is being provided by those countries. We have talked about the levels of export subsidy support through the EEP. It is roughly in the range of $17 per tonne at the present time and the European Economic Community is at $80 per tonne.
Let us just look at what they are spending in terms of their export programs, intervention costs and production refunds. In 1986-and this is in Canadian dollars-the European Economic Community spent $4.5 billion in direct assistance which is geared essentially toward getting its market share. In 1987, it was $6.3 billion; in 1988, it was $6.4 billion; and, in 1989, it was $5.2 billion. Those are enormous amounts of money.
The United States, in terms of the export enhancement program, in 1986-87 spent $842 million; in 1987-88, $1,446 billion; in 1988-89, $545 million; and from June 1989 to January 26, 1990, $178 million U.S. One can see there why the Americans are responding to the Europeans because of the huge subsidies that are engaged in. That is a fact of life. We have to recognize that.
We have to find new customers for the grain that we marketed to the European Economic Community and the displacements which have resulted from their very generous export program. That is why we are committed through the MTN to the progressive reduction in tradedistorting subsidies. We are committed to achieving greater market access and to reducing the level of export subsidies. We are committed to reducing the level of internal support and to developing a more harmonized application of the rules as they apply to health and sanitary measures.

March 23, 1990
Supply
The bottom line is that we want a rule book that applies equally to all. We want a rule book with no waivers and no variable import levies. We want a clear set of rules and that is why we are attempting to change Article 11 and bring it up to date to where it should be.
Changes in technology have also contributed very much to the impact upon rural life. Twenty years ago in western Canada, we had 5,000 elevators in operation. Today we have a little over 1,000. We have 1,600 to be exact.
The number of delivery points has gone down. In 1969 and 1970, we had roughly 1,800 delivery points. We are down to 1,000. Those changes have taken place. Those changes have impact upon rural communities. It is the changes in technology, in consumer attitudes, and in world trading patterns, and it is the impact that all of these things have upon the rural life-style and rural living. This government recognizes that. This government has responded to it in the past. This government will respond to that challenge with the farmers in the future.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for participating in this very important debate and for giving us an opportunity to hear the contribution the federal government has made to farm life, particularly in western Canada. I would like to use a little broader approach than the one he has used to outline why the Canadian western economy is in such great trouble.
He took pain to point out that the contribution of the government of Manitoba-and far be it from me to fight for the government of Manitoba these days-has dropped down to 10 per cent, while the federal government's contribution has increased to 90 per cent.
In his answer, could the minister put that into the context of the cancellation of ERDA agreements, the decline in the amount of moneys available to the Western Development Fund, and the fact that, as the federal government has pulled out of other funding mechanisms, it has been necessary for the provincial
governments across western Canada, in fact, to protect their budgets from declining revenues and declining transfer payments.
Although I am not inclined to share many of the priorities of the provincial government in Manitoba, I think it is only fair for the record to indicate that it has had an increasingly difficult time for them, because the federal government has decided to change their funding strategy.
Second, would the minister perhaps address a question that the premier of Saskatchewan considers to be paramount in saving rural life in western Canada. That is approaching banks for relief on questions of interest rates? Could he indicate the extent to which the government is willing to get involved in seeing that the banks do everything they can to alleviate the pressures of western Canadian farmers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, there are about four questions there. I hope I can cover them all. They are very important questions and I appreciate them very much.
On the issue of the ERDAs, we have not cancelled ERDAs. ERDAs will be negotiated. They may have a somewhat different criteria, but the fact of the matter is that the hon. member talked about reducing regional development spending in western Canada and I would not want to leave the House with the impression that he has just suggested.
Quite frankly, compared to the period between 1980 and 1984, as compared to the current five-year period, western Canada's share of the national regional development funding pie has risen from 21 per cent to 32 per cent. I ask him to check that record. It is in the budget papers of April. I forget the page number, but I can give it to him if he would be interested.
The amount of money that has been provided for western Canada in the regional development fund has increased from a level of $500 million in the period 1980-84, when there was literally nothing going out to
March 23, 1990

the four western provinces. The fund for the current five-year period is $1.8 billion.


David Walker: Are all those agreements signed?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, they are not all signed. That is wrong.
Then there is the western diversification initiative which the Liberals try to take issue with. I can say that some $715 million has been expended, covering 1,500 and some-odd different projects.


David Walker: Expended or allocated?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Allocated. Talk to the people who get the consideration of the western diversification. The proof of the pudding lies right there. They are jealous because they did not do anything. They had a $4 billion vanishing fund that never saw the light of day. They spent $60 million out of it. It never occurred. The fact of the matter is that this is a very, very important initiative.
Right in his own area, and this again speaks to diversification and to the free trade agreement, Versatile Manufacturing was a basket case. The government worked out a recovery package with Ford-New Holland. At that time there were 300 people employed by Versatile. Today, there are over 1,100 employed by Versatile, thanks to free trade. If you heard what they are saying now about the GST, you would know that the combination of the GST and the free trade agreement will tilt more of the manufacturing into Winnipeg. That is the kind of regional development and the kind of broadening of the scope of the economic fortunes of western Canada at which we need to be working. That is what we are doing.
With regard to the question of the banks, I can tell the hon. member that I did attend a meeting with the premier to talk to representatives of the banks about the farm debt and the farm credit situation. It was a very good and a very constructive meeting. I think there are some things that can and will be done.
For our part, as it relates to the Farm Credit Corporation, we are looking at a number of options that we might be able to engage in with respect to extension of leases and with respect to modifying the farm debt review board process. This would provide greater latitude and greater
Supply
flexibility to farmers who are really trying to maintain a good credit rating and who have some obvious chance of success and viability. We are going to be adjusting that so that they can be accommodated in a more compassionate and beneficial fashion.
I appreciate the hon. member's question. I can assure him that we are looking at these things.
I should also say that the banks are only one component. They charge interest for the services they provide. We know interest rates are somewhat high. That is an input cost component. We also have to recognize that there are other cost components such as fuel, fertilizer and chemicals. We are also looking in those areas to see what we can do to bring down the prices.
There, again, the GST will bring down the cost of inputs by $240 million to $250 million across the country.


David Walker: Don't push your luck, you were doing fine.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He should not laugh at that, because $250 million to fanners is a lot of money.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for attending this important debate today. His concern for rural Canada is certainly noted by this side of the House.
He cited a lot of statistics and figures about the effort the government has made over the last couple of years concerning its support for agriculture and the rural economy. The people on the farms and in the small communities are looking for only one statistic-a statistic that shows they have a healthy economy in agriculture and in rural communities.
The minister is aware, since he alluded to it in his speech, that the health of the agricultural economy has a significant impact on the health of our rural community. If there is no money in agriculture, there is certainly no money in the rural community. If there is no money in agriculture, there are fewer farmers on the land. That means there are fewer people in the small town churches, in the school system, and fewer people who support the curling rinks and the community arenas. Obviously, there are fewer people who support the rural businesses that are the mainstay of keeping other people inside that small community.

March 23, 1990
Supply
If we have a strong rural community, a quality of life that is acceptable to the seniors and the young people in those smaller communities, then we need a strong commitment to increasing the value of agriculture.
In light of all of that, my question to the minister relates to the premier of the province of Saskatchewan, who earlier this week in a throne speech suggested that he had received a specific commitment from the federal Minister of Agriculture about the agricultural financial crisis. The premier of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and members of Parliament in this House from Saskatchewan have asked for a $500 million payment at the very least to help secure the health of the farm economy this year.
I am wondering what commitment the Minister of Agriculture made to the province of Saskatchewan which the premier of Saskatchewan spelled out. When will he deliver on that commitment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I want to repeat again that the commitment of this government as provided in terms of extending money and resources to the farmers of Canada is unprecedented in the history of this country. There is no question about that.
There are still problems. That suggests that money alone will not solve all the problems. I am glad the hon. member agrees with that because there are certain things that happen beyond our control such as changes in market trends, such as the actions of other countries and their various priorities. There are changes with regard to consumer attitudes and tastes, changes with respect to greater emphasis on environmental matters and in particular changes with respect to technology.
The hon. member would agree with me that change in agriculture is a constant. It has always been with us and our ability to adapt to change is perhaps one of the reasons why we have been successful over the years.
I repeat again to the hon. member, recognizing that the period we have gone through in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba from a precipitation and heat point of view-in other words, summed up as a drought-is far worse than it was in the dirty thirties. We all know what the dirty thirties did to that region of the country. We have gone through some difficult times, but
we have been able to survive, thanks to the resilience and ingenuity of the farmers and thanks to the support of both the federal and provincial levels of government. I do not think you can deny that.
I also say that the changes that have occurred in the rural community are in large part technological change. We are producing more with fewer farmers. We are producing more grain and we have fewer elevators. We are producing more grain and we have fewer delivery points. As I said, 20 years ago there were 5,000 elevators in western Canada. Today, there are roughly 1,500 to 1,600.


An hon. member:: That's nothing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member says that is nothing. I think it is something. Twenty years ago we had 1,800 delivery points. Today, we have just a little over
1,000.	Is he telling me that that does not have an impact upon rural life? You bet it does. You can't blame that on the Tories. You blame that on the ingenuity of the grain handling companies, the farmer-owned co-operatives because they know that they have to be competitive to survive.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, I am certainly pleased to have the opportunity today to stand and speak for a few moments on the motion before the House which in part is calling upon the government to provide for a vital economic, social and environmentally sustainable future for rural Canada.
As has been discussed by previous speakers this afternoon, rural Canada is certainly a very important sector of our society. I think that we need to do more to explain to Canadians the importance of rural Canada in the society in which we live. It is a society that is changing for many reasons. I will touch on those reasons.
I would like to point this out to members of the House today and ask them to reflect on it for a moment. There are four creators of wealth in the world. One is forestry. One is fishing. One is mining. One is farming. There is nothing on the face of the earth that we use or see or need that does not come from one of those sectors. All of those are part of rural Canada. All of those make up
March 23, 1990

rural Canada. Some of them are a more populated sector of the rural area than others.
I also want to state that I have always and will always firmly believe that as goes agriculture, so goes the economy of any country. If we look around the world it does not matter how a country is trying to survive, if it does not have a strong, viable, economically strengthened agricultural industry, then the economy and the future of that country is certainly in question. I can give examples of that but I think as we stop and think about it they will come to the minds of all of us.
I said a few minutes ago that the rural community is changing. We all know that we are losing small towns in the prairies for different reasons. The industry is changing. We all know that in the more heavily populated parts of the country, urbanites are moving into rural areas in order to live the way of life that is there. As this takes place, I hope the government keeps in mind that we must still maintain what rural Canada is all about. In order to do that we must maintain the management tools. We must maintain and assist the abilities of the people in those communities-the farm people, the primary producers and the processors-in order to keep that economy going.
We also must keep in mind that we have a debt not only to ourselves but to our children, our grandchildren and those who will come afterwards. That debt is to rural stewardship, to the stewardship of the resources that we have. We spent a lot of time about 18 or 24 months ago on one of the greatest debates that this country ever had. I refer to the free trade debate. We spent a lot of time talking about oil and gas and water. We also spent time talking about agriculture. But I do not think we took the right tack. I do not think we recognized the importance of agriculture to this country.
We are all concerned about food safety and food quality. I call upon the government to recognize to a greater extent than it is at the present time that, yes, there may be a few added costs to producing food in Canada, but I think that Canadians are prepared to pay that cost, if necessary, if it is explained to them. We have the safest food in the world right now. I believe that if it is explained to Canadians, they do not want to get things cheaper in the short run and then realize that it may cost in the long run. They are prepared to pay in order to
Supply
produce that food at home so that we can have it produced under our own guidelines and under our own regulations so that we can continue to have that safe food supply.
Another aspect I want to touch upon is one that is in the motion today. The motion states in part:
5) provide a full range of services, including shelters, child care services and skills training to support the crucial role played by women in all rural communities.
A few years ago I served as a member of the Ontario Thsk Force on Health and Safety in Agriculture which went across the province of Ontario for a great number of hearings. It was probably brought out to me at that time more than ever the importance of women in agriculture and the role they play. We know that there are fewer and fewer farmers in Canada. We also know that a higher percentage of those farms are spearheaded by women. A higher percentage are owned, operated and controlled by women.
We also know that the role that ladies play in the operation of those farms is very, very crucial. Because of the economic times, on many farms in Canada farm women may very well have an off-farm job. As well as having the off-farm job, they have the household to maintain, the family to look after, and in many cases they also play a major role in the management and bookkeeping of that farm.
I can name many farms where, when it is payroll day or bookkeeping day, the farm women may very well be up at 4.30 or 5 in the morning in order to get the payroll ready for the staff if there is a number of them, or they work late at night in order to do it. We have to recognize that.
I call upon the government not to withdraw from any more programs. There have been a lot of programs withdrawn in the last two or three years by this government. The Nielsen report of a number of years ago pointed out several things in the agricultural field that should be addressed. I am certainly disheartened by the way the government has addressed the changes that have been made to the farm improvement loans which now makes them virtually non-existent. The fuel tax rebate has been taken away for the most part. The assistance programs for fruit and vegetables storage construction, which the federal government shared in, has expired.

March 23, 1990
Supply
The At and East program for assistance in freight rates for grains has been taken away.
As we have been discussing lately, there is disappointment in much of the farm community concerning the contribution that the federal government is going to be making to the crop insurance program to the extent of 25 per cent rather than to the 33 and one-third per cent as was requested.
I would like to touch for a few moments again on the role of the government in our request for it to pay attention, give assistance and provide the management tools to the whole rural community. As I say, the rural community is changing. The percentage of family farms or farm families that are there now compared to 10,15 or 20 years ago is different. The urbanites are moving into the country. The agricultural people are realizing that they have to change some of the ways in which they do some things. They need support for that. They need the assistance of governments in order to explain their way of life, explain to urban people what they are and that they have come into a new community. There may be noises, sounds and odours that they are not used to, but they need to be there.
Madam Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity this afternoon to make a few comments on this motion. Again, I plead with the government to recognize these requirements of the rural community and not do anything more to take away from the rural community.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are five minutes of questions and comments. The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.
Rural Dignity is a very important player in the whole picture of the rural crisis that is occurring right now. I am just wondering if the hon. member is aware of the activities of Rural Dignity in his riding and throughout other parts of the rural community. In particular, is he aware of the work that it is doing on behalf of rural residents who are fighting to maintain their post offices in rural communities right across the country.


Lyle Vanclief: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member, I will have to say that, to my knowledge, in my area of Ontario there is not an active Rural Dignity group. However, I am somewhat familiar with the work that it is doing and attempting to do, which is excellent work. But in my particular riding there is not such a group.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, I would just like to pose the second part of my question again which concerns rural post offices. I am wondering if the member could tell me what is happening in his area with rural post offices, the closure of post offices, and what the rural residents in communities in his area might be doing about it.


Lyle Vanclief: Madam Speaker, we have had one or two rural post offices in our riding "consolidated", which was the word that was used. I do not think my rural area is any different from any other, in that the people are not at all pleased with what is taking place. I am pleased to say, in the last few years they have had some success in keeping some post offices open, when there were attempts to have them closed.
Quite honestly, within four weeks of being elected to the House, I was approached by Canada Post, which informed me that the post office in my own village was being closed. However, in working with Canada Post, we were successful in getting it to move it to another facility in the very same village.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to a motion that calls upon the Conservative Government, in the week of the second annual Rural Revitalization Day, to take steps to provide for a vital economic and social future for rural Canada.
Madam Speaker, we must not forget that since the Conservatives came to power, this government made savage cuts in VIA Rail and caved in to GATT decisions when it should have protected Canadian farmers, especially Canada's dairy producers. Farmers in general are suffering as a result of the negligence of the government across the way, and when we look at our rural communities, a number of institutions such as post offices are disappearing.
March 23, 1990

In 1986, there were 5,221 rural post offices in Canada. Today, 400 of these post offices have disappeared, and according to the Canada Post corporate plan, they will all be gone ten years from now.

Madam Speaker, 10,000 people work in rural post offices in Canada, and 83 per cent of them are women. Once this project of shutting down rural post offices is complete, the government will have been responsible for the largest firing of women in the history of Canada-8,300 of them will have lost their jobs. That is the sad reality.
Last night, I attended a meeting in my constituency in the small village of Dalkeith. Dalkeith is a community in Glengarry county and, Madam Speaker, as you probably guessed from the name, it is a very Scottish name, indeed. In that village, Canada Post is now proposing to shut down the post office and replace it with a franchise.
Canada Post has what it calls a natural opportunity. It defines a "natural opportunity" as being that occasion in which a postmaster or postmistress resigns or dies. Therefore Canada Post then has the privilege of shutting down rural post offices.
Canada Post cheats every now and then. What it did in this case is it went to see the postmistress and offered her early retirement. In other words, the person was not even scheduled to retire. The person was not scheduled to have a "natural opportunity". When Canada Post does not have a natural opportunity, it simply creates one.
What did it do? It asked the postmistress to take an early retirement for a certain undisclosed sum of money. I am not blaming the postmistress. After all, if one has worked for a long time and one is given a financial opportunity to retire early, perhaps she is correct in taking that opportunity.
However, Canada Post did this without attempting to secure alternative space for the post office, or even alternative space for its privatized so-called retail postal outlet. Now we have a situation whereby we are losing the service in that village. We do not know whether anything at all will replace it.
There has been a post office in Dalkeith for 123 years. It serves 81 residences in the village and 283 residences
Supply
on rural routes for a grand total of 364. Assuming that there are three people per household, it means that this post office serves 1,000 people.
Last night at the public meeting 289 people signed a petition that was presented to me. That was 289 people who signed a petition right in that room. I know it was not signed in advance because I brought the form with me. They all signed the petition in that room. In other words, one-third of the whole population-man, woman and child in that community-was in the recreation centre last night in order to voice their concern about that rural institution we call the post office.
People do not drive for miles or take whole evenings of their time-one-third of the population does not mobilize itself-for no reason. It does so because it feels in its heart that retaining that post office is something important to the rural way of life.
I say to the minister responsible for the post office, who interestingly enough is the same minister responsible for building strip joints, that the people of Canada want to keep our postal institutions in this country. That has never been demonstrated any better than by what the people of Dalkeith did last night. I hope that the minister responsible for the post office listens to what the people of that community say.

Madam Speaker, in the last Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), we saw that the consumer watchdog for Canada Post had disappeared.
The Postal Services Review Committee was eliminated by the Minister of Finance in the Budget speech. Interestingly, the minister responsible for Canada Post said in 1988 that:
- considering that Canada Post had become a viable operation and that its revenues came from postal service users, customers therefore had a say in a national and local issues.
This means that in 1988, the government's position was that consumers had the right to be heard to be protected if Canada Post made decisions that went against their interests.
We now see a situation where the Minister of Finance has eliminated this consumer spokesperson, this watchdog, as I said earlier. We could say the watchdog was muzzled by the Minister of Finance when he slashed the

Supply
Budget, a Budget that would otherwise have provided funding for the Postal Services Review Board.
So we have the following situation: Canada Post has a monopoly on postal services, a monopoly it needs, I must admit. It has a monopoly, and of course the Gouvem-ment is taking a hands-off position on Canada Post, ostensibly because it is a Corwn corporation and the government has no right to intervene. So we have a regulated monopoly that is accountable to no one. Perhaps we should say we have a deregulated monopoly, because there seem to be no regulations to prevent Canada Post from doing what it did, for instance, in the case of the Dalkeith Post Office or in other cases.
My point is, Madam Speaker, that in order to maintain the quality of life in rural areas, the government must reinstate this Postal Services Review Committee or Board.

Canada Post spends $17 million annually on advertising to tell us that it delivers the mail. Most of us, I would suspect, already knew that Canada Post delivered the mail. Most of my constituents know that already. Perhaps there are occasions on which it does not deliver the mail and it tries to tell us that it does, using these advertising methods.
However, the Postal Services Review Committee which was there to watch over Canada Post on behalf of consumers was eliminated because it cost the taxpayers of Canada $3.6 million to operate. If the government across the way really cared about the people of rural Canada or about the people of Dalkeith or of any other similar small community which sees itself in a dispute with Canada Post of the type that I previously described, then why did it not cancel the useless $17 million advertizing budget of Canada Post instead of cancelling the $3.6 million to keep the post office watch dog that was there for consumers?
I am pleased to have had this opportunity to speak on this debate today and to offer my support to my constituents living in rural areas, in the hope that the Government of Canada will finally recognize that rural Canadians deserve better than what they have received since 1984.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and I have shared some opportunities to talk about the post office in the last six months, having sat on the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations. We are very much aware of the devastation caused to rural communities when a post office pulls out.
I want to ask the member who has just spoken so well about the need for government co-operation in maintaining post offices in rural Canada if he is aware of Rural Dignity's comments about post offices, that the post office is the heart of a community. Can he tell us whether he believes that the Government of Canada has a responsibility to maintain a federal presence and a post office in those rural communities?


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am grateful to my colleague for his pertinent question.
Rural Dignity has done great work in being an advocate for rural Canadians and for speaking to the importance of retaining the rural post office. As my colleague from The Battlefords-Meadowlake will know, in many rural communities the only federal government presence there is Canada Post. The only time you see a flag of our country, the kind which is right beside Madam Speaker's chair, is on the post office. The only place in many communities where you see the word "Canada" is on the post office. Now we are shutting down the rural post office, eliminating that federal presence and eliminating that important community point of rendezvous. To make matters even worse, Canada Post has now developed a new corporate logo wherein it calls itself "Mail-Poste". It has removed the word "Canada" from Canada Post.
At this juncture in which it is so important for us to use all instruments of national unity that we can muster, I feel it is absolutely unacceptable for Canada Post to be behaving in that manner.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to speak today in support of this motion from my colleague. At the outset I would like to focus my comments on the preamble of his motion because March 21 was the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of Agnes MacPhail, the first woman
March 23, 1990

elected to this House and an untiring champion of the rights of rural Canadians.
To begin my remarks I would like to quote from Hansard of February 28, 1928. Although that was 1928, it says a lot about what is occurring here now in 1990. During the debate on the budget of that year Agnes MacPhail stated:
We have, for a young and rich country, a depleted and impoverished agricultural industry. In this young country agriculture has not held its own people, nor its power of place and influence. I regret it, but it is true.
It is still true. Many of the things that Agnes MacPhail struggled for in her years in Parliament we are still struggling for now. Agnes MacPhail was in this place for almost 20 years from 1921 to 1940 and then continued in the Ontario legislature.
To win her first nomination in 1921, she had to defeat 10 men and then overcome the shock in the community that a woman had won. She then won the first of five federal elections with a campaign that cost $600, all in $1 contributions. There were no special favours from Agnes. At 31 she entered a House that was hardly ready for her. She was patronized by the Mackenzie King government which offered her a suite of offices when other MPs had only one room. Agnes took one room. It was then room 605 which became Agnes' office for her career, and it is now redesignated as room 629-C. This week my leader unveiled a plaque to be placed on the door of that room to commemorate Agnes' time there.
Agnes also met outright hostility in this House but learned to deal with it. To the heckler who taunted: "Doesn't the hon. member wish she were a man?" she replied: "No. Doesn't the hon. member wish he were?"
These quotes are very in keeping with some of the debate that goes on in this Chamber even now, Madam Speaker, and as you are well aware, women do have an uphill struggle even now in this Chamber.
My remarks on this motion speak to the legacy that Agnes MacPhail has left for us as women to carry on. In the most recent budget, there have been radical cuts to women's programs. I was the volunteer chair of a women's centre in my community when the parliamentary committee travelled to Vancouver to talk about women's programs a number of years ago.
Supply
At that time the women's centres from all the rural communities came to Vancouver to plead their case as to why women's programs should not be cut, particularly for the rural areas. In this last budget they have been cut and the devastation that will wreak in rural communities is enormous. These women's programs are essential, especially in the north and in the rural areas. They are often the only resource for women who are battered by their husbands and are a release or safety net for women to go to. Yet, in the latest budget, the federal government has seen fit to cut them.
Another issue that Agnes MacPhail championed during her time here in the House was the commitment to social programs, particularly a commitment to child care. As a champion of rural issues, she knew the role that women played in their rural communities and the importance of child care in supporting that task.
Women had a very hard choice then. They either had to leave their children to go to work, or they had to take their children with them to go to work. Even now in Canada, in 1990, such is the case particularly for rural women. There is no national child care scheme. It was promised in 1984 and in 1988 it was promised, and here once again we have no commitment to a national child care scheme. This hurts rural women particularly. Their options are limited. Even in urban areas the people who are paying the price are the children of Canada. Agnes MacPhail knew that.
The comments of many members in this House speak of the destruction of rural Canada. This government is overseeing that destruction. Our party caucus has met with the mayors of the Canso communities, the rural fishing communities of Atlantic Canada, and the same sort of thing is happening on the west coast from where I come. This destruction of those rural communities and the fishing villages is because there is no commitment to understanding that communities want to control their own destiny and want to keep the jobs in their own communities. The government should be giving support in its programs for that kind of initiative.
There has also been much talk about the destruction of rural Canada through Canada Post regulations and lack of commitment. I know in part of my riding on the Gulf Islands the post office had been a community resource, and now that that has been taken away. This is something that is happening increasingly in Canada with this whole centralization of jobs and the increasing

March 23, 1990
Supply
dependency on the market as the determining factor. This is something that is very negative and is well addressed within the motion.
This government should be supporting programs to provide a full range of education, health and other social policies for young families to stay in their communities. We in this House know the kind of social problems that result from the urbanization of the population with people having no resource but to move into the cities, the abandonment of those small towns and the consequent destruction of the social life.
Agnes MacPhail in her time in this House was a champion of rural Canada because she was from rural Canada but also because she had that wonderful sense of community and of knowing that if we do not feel connected to where we come from then we have lost a great deal.
There are a number of other things that we can talk about on the anniversary of Agnes MacPhail's birth, 100 years tomorrow. She was also a champion of prison reform being a founding member of the Elizabeth Fry Society, and as a consequence she was the first woman to go into the Kingston Penitentiary. In another quote from that time she said she was told there were no ladies allowed in Kingston Penitentiary. She assured the people that she was no lady, she as a member of the Parliament. That is something that we as members of Parliament who are women have to realize too. Sometimes you have to become a member of Parliament to make sure that the dignity of women is assured, but you are a member of Parliament first and a woman second. I hope that that dynamic changes as more and more women become members of Parliament.
Agnes MacPhail was a champion, realizing that as the first woman member of Parliament she became an automatic voice for the women of Canada. The women members in this House should remember that they are the voice for the women of Canada; they provide a role model for the women of Canada.
Agnes MacPhail also worked for prison reform and equal pay for work of equal value. That is something that she championed, along with her colleague, Andrew Brewin. I have the privilege of having as my neighbouring constituency member of Parliament the son of Andrew Brewin. It is a nice little coincidence that the member for Victoria is now the critic for our party for the Solicitor General and is also still working on prison reform in the Kingston Penitentiary. The history of parliamentary action in our party is something of which we are very proud.
What we in British Columbia are facing with the destruction of rural communities coincides with Agnes MacPhail's concern for women in fishing communities and women in rural Canada. With the latest devastation brought about by the trade deal and the destruction of jobs which is occurring in the fishing communities in British Columbia, Agnes MacPhail would be turning in her grave, because women's jobs, usually immigrant women's jobs, are at risk. They are the ones who are going to be losing those jobs which are moving down south of the border. This is just an additional indignity that these women have to suffer.
In closing, I just want to say in support of this motion that the government should be supporting rural Canada through the post office, through support for community development, through support for child care programs, through support for women's programs, and by providing a full range of services and skills training to support the crucial role played by women in all rural communities.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I know how committed my hon. friend is to women's issues. I noticed she mentioned on a couple of occasions the social problems which society is witnessing now. They are almost foreboding when you sit down and list them all and wonder if there will ever be solutions. She also spoke about the lack of commitment that we find with the current government in reference to child care services. It seems to go in cycles. I am sure that we will hear from the government again just prior to the next election.
I wonder if my hon. friend sees any correlation, as I do, between the lack of child care services and what constitutes some of our major social problems. We all know that those early years are the years in which some kind of service offered to children has a tremendous impact on their later lives. Does she see a correlation there between the lack of child care services, which are
March 23, 1990

begging, and the social deprivation and social problems which follow from that dearth of services?


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has put it very well. Child care services are an investment in our future. If we do not have those child care services provided, women who are the primarily child care givers in our country have the terrible option of leaving their children at home in order to find the means to support them.
If there is not a national child care scheme, then it is our future that we are jeopardizing. We can either invest in children when they are small or in increasing the number of prisons and mental institutions, for those children who are neglected in their youth are disproportionately the ones who are in our prisons and mental institutions.
That is not overdramatizing the need for a national child care program. The ones who are being neglected are the children of Canada. I would urge the government not to wait for the next election but to act now to institute a national child care program.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague, the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, for speaking so eloquently of one of our predecessors in the House, Agnes MacPhail, and the work that Agnes did over the years not only for the women throughout Canada but for citizens throughout this country who live in our smaller rural communities.
In passing, my colleague made specific mention of some of the concerns that we have about the direction that Canada Post is taking in eliminating a very needed and necessary service with the post offices in our smaller communities.
My area in the Okanagan-Shuswap has a number of these small communities. I know that the citizens in those areas are most concerned with what they see as an erosion of not only the quality of service that is given by Canada Post but an erosion of the very dynamics and the social fabric of those small communities. Those members who have smaller communities in their ridings would agree with me that the post office is very often a centre of social activity where people come to meet on a regular basis and chit-chat as they pick up their mail.
Supply
The arguments we have been hearing in those communities where the post offices have been closed is that whole nature changes when the post office service has been privatized to a retail outlet. I know in one particular area of my community up in the north Shuswap there is considerable concern now that that has been privatized. Even though the individual is doing the best job that he can in providing a retail service, it has to come secondary to what he is really there for, and that is a retail grocery outlet. For much of the service that this individual provides, there is no payment provided in the contract. Much of the work he is doing on behalf of the community, I might add, is being done without adequate remuneration.
There are a number of other smaller communities in my area such as Lumby, Armstrong and Enderby where notice has been served that retail outlets will also be established. I think it is step one in what will be a phasing out of Canada Post in those communities.
On behalf of those citizens who have spoken to me very clearly, they see it as a real erosion in the quality of life in rural Canada, and particularly in the Okanagan- Shuswap area. Those individuals want to go on record as saying that this erosion of service and the erosion of the lifestyle that they are used must be stopped. We must continue to provide the kind of service that Canada Post has provided to those communities throughout Canada. We want to see that kind of service continued.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, the comments of my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap echo a number of other comments regarding Canada Post and the destruction of rural Canada through the government's initiatives. We stand as part of this motion in condemning that action. I know in my riding it is the same story: the ongoing rural post office privatization initiatives are really hurting the rural communities.
The destruction of rural communities is the destruction of the whole history of Canada and the way we want to live. Those people choose to live in small communities for very good reasons. When the services are withdrawn from them they sometimes have no option but to move into the bigger cities and bring with them a whole bunch of social problems. It is a negative dynamic that should be reversed by the Canadian government giving the kind of resources to Canada Post so it can support rural post offices.

Supply


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, thank you for recognizing me, because I really want to ask my colleague a question. When the special committee formed by the government and chaired by our colleague, the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, travelled across Canada, obviously the matter of child care in rural areas came up. Among other things, rural women have very special needs for child care. At various hearings, for example, farm women told us they have to wait until the children come home from school to go to the bam. They need more flexibility and want the government to provide appropriate measures. They asked for bigger tax credits and larger child care expense deductions.
So I would like to ask the hon. member if she agrees that in the first part of the child care strategy, the government has recognized these needs, especially for farm women. For example, deductible child care expenses were increased by $4,000. We will agree that it is never enough because we would like to do more for farm women. Does the hon. member agree with the government which raised child care expense deductions so that farm women could have services, because farm women do not need public services; they need private services in the community, where children are kept by neighbours, but for that they need receipts and higher child care expense deductions. So does she agree with the government on that?


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. That is an important initiative of the government, but it certainly falls far short of a national child care scheme. The hon. member is quite right that they need flexibility. We are not talking about large day care centres. We are talking about flexible arrangements so that women who mainly have to make the arrangements for child care have the ability to make them. However, if there are no child care spaces available, there is very little to arrange. When we are seeing the destruction of rural communities there are no neighbours for the women to leave their children with. A kind of danger that exists where children are left alone or left near farm equipment, and every year at harvest
time we hear sad stories where children are injured by farm equipment.
The government should be taking an initiative for a national child care scheme, to provide the dignity of the workplace for the child care workers and the safe environment for children to be cared for.


Mr. Ross Reid (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, this is an important motion before the House this afternoon. I would like to make sure the House understands that we consider it so important that I am going to share this time slot with my colleague for Argenteuil-Papineau.
First of all I want to compliment my friend from Prince Albert on the way he has put this motion together, particularly the second clause which refers to the fishery. Quite clearly, he has captured the essence of the problem that we face in the fishery.
He has captured the essence of the process that we as a country must pursue to deal with the problem if we are going to come to terms not only with the economy of Atlantic Canada in particular but also with the very nature of the rural part of this country that has been there so much longer than the rest. He has said that we must assist fishing communities to survive the current crisis and we must ensure proper management of the fishery in the future.
Those are exactly the two principles that are guiding and have guided this government in dealing with this very clear and very obvious crisis that we face. We know, as I think all Canadians know, that there are less fish to be caught and less fish going to be produced. As a result there will be less people there to produce the fish.
The first thing that we must do that is tantamount to any action that we take in dealing with the fishery is to deal with the conservation question. We must make sure that we have fish there that will sustain Atlantic Canadians for as long as Atlantic Canadians want to pursue the fishery.
We must take whatever action is necessary to make sure that the fish stocks, wherever they grow, can be enhanced so that there are fish there to be taken and produced. That must be our concern.
In recognition that clearly we do not have enough knowledge to make those decisions properly all the time,
March 23, 1990

in recognition of the scientific advice particularly as it was applied to the northern cod stock in the area we know as 2J3KL, we appointed a group of eminent people, including scientists from around the world and Canadians who understood the fishery. It was headed by Dr. Les Harris, president of Memorial University. We have asked them to tell us what we must know and do to be able to make better and sounder decisions.
He tells us that the model is right. He tells us that things are not bad but obviously we must do more. We know that from his first report. His second report is coming and the government will be in a position to carry out many of his recommendations. The government will be able to talk to Canadians about what Dr. Harris and his panel will suggest that we do. Those who have a stake in the industry and depend on the fishery primarily in rural Atlantic Canada can say what must be done for the future.
There is no question that those who depend on the fishery the most are those who are telling us in the strongest terms that we must take action to protect the fishery and ensure through conservation measures that there is a cod stock in the future. We know that the effects reach far beyond the fish stock itself. Clearly, we have seen fish plants closing and trawlers tied up. In some areas of my province of Newfoundland we have seen inshore fishermen catch virtually no fish where they and their fathers and their grandfathers have fished for years without any problem.
As always, it is the people and the communities to whom we have to respond, because they are the most important. We can come to terms with the problem of the fish stocks. But we must be able to tell Canadians who depend on the fishery that we will help them.
What we did with the Harris report in Newfoundland and Labrador, we did with Jean-Eudes Hache in Nova Scotia. He looked at the capacity problem and has given us some advice on what we must do.
But how have we dealt with the people to assist them and the communities to survive? We established a cabinet committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs to bring together all the resources of the government to determine what we must do as a government and as a country
Supply
to deal with these problems and what we must have in place for people.
We have approached this in two ways. In the short term, we immediately ensured that a $130 million package was available to those people in those communities that needed it most. Of course, there is unemployment insurance. Community Futures and the Industrial Adjustment Strategy are the two most important components not only of what we need to do to survive but also in terms of what this resolution is demanding of the government. Quite clearly, we are well on the way to achieving what is stated in the resolution.
The IAS is implemented the minute the plant is closed, and is complemented by Community Futures and a number of other programs. The essence of these programs is to respond as a government to the people who know their community and its resources in a way that will provide alternatives, that will create new economic opportunities, that will create different job opportunities, that will give a future perhaps in a whole different industry, perhaps in the same industry but in a different way, to the people of the community, particularly the young people.
We recognize that there are other requirements. We have a special problem in dealing with older workers who have less mobility opportunities and less training opportunities. We have said we are going to enter into a program to help older workers, and that is being undertaken with the provinces. The mobility and the training functions are there. They are important as components to an over-all package as we assist communities to survive the current crisis in the fishery.
Very clearly, we are saying to the people of Atlantic Canada that we will bring together the resources that we have in the federal government, which is about $130 million. As well, the cabinet committee, particularly as a result of a lot of the work that Ken Stein's committee has done, is looking at other ways to help people deal with their future inside the fishery and outside the fishery. We must be able to provide people with new resources as we consider underutilized species, new markets and new technologies. These are matters on which, particularly with the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, a great deal of work has been done to ensure that a package is in place and is ready.

March 23, 1990
Supply
About two hours after the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was sworn in he said to me that the first thing he wanted to do was consult with the people who could best tell him as the minister what the real problems were and what the real solutions were. Less than 48 hours later, the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans left for Shippagan in northern New Brunswick to meet the premiers of the four Atlantic provinces, into Prince Edward Island, down to Gaultois, meeting with the workers and the people of Trepassey and Grand Bank and the people of St. John's who have been affected by the close down, as well as the small producers and the unions. Off we went the next day to Lockeport and Canso, in less than 24 hours. That is the sign of a government that is concerned first and foremost about how to assist communities survive this crisis. We recognize there is a crisis and we recognize that action has to be taken.
I congratulate my friend across the way for endorsing the actions that the government has taken to deal with the problems of rural Canada, particularly in the part of the country that means so much to me, frankly, if I can be a little parochial. I am delighted that he has endorsed the two fundamental tenets here; that we have proper management which ensures conservation, and that we assist communities to survive this crisis. That is exactly what we have been doing. That is what we are doing now and that is what we will do in the future.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, this government has been in power now for five years. If I were going to be cynical about this, I would suggest that if we leave the problem long enough those rural communities are going to disappear and the government will not have to deal with them. That is one way of solving the problem. Just make sure you do not do anything for five or six years and eventually there will be no rural communities and you have no problem.
I say this out of a certain amount of experience. In 1985 the government, both in agriculture and in the fisheries, indicated it was going to put in place a program which would kick in automatically to help these communities survive. It was supposed to help the farmers, fishermen and foresters survive so that they would have in place an insurance structure, if you wish, which would
kick in. That was back in 1985. They were still talking about it in the 1988 election.
The government claims proudly that is acted within 48 hours after the crisis. This motion suggests that we need to put in place a program which is ready to be implemented when the crisis starts. That is the basis under which the planning should have been done. Six years later is too late.
The Minister of Agriculture took a similar approach to the problem as the hon. member. Why does the government not put more of a human face on its decisions on the economy? Why does it not make sure, first of all, that these communities survive before doing a study which is going to find out whether the fish are going to survive, or in the case of agriculture, whether it is going to be worth while to grow more of a particular type of grain? Why does this government not put a more human face on the problems out there?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, the 25 or 30 or 50 farmers in my riding are probably very unhappy with me because I have never spoken on agriculture. I have never spoken on agriculture for one very good reason. I do not know a hill of beans about agriculture, but I do know a couple of things about the fishery.
We talk about waiting five years to deal with the problem. From 1986 to 1988, we had the best three years in the fishery that we ever had in this country. The total allowable catch for northern cod was recommended at
295,000	tons two years ago, and we chose in the interest of conservation to set it at 265,000 tons. The problem we faced is that all of a sudden we were told that instead of being 265,000, when they wanted it at 295,000, it should be set at 125,000 tons. As a result we have a problem. That is where the problem is.
I think there is an understanding that provinces have allowed, for instance, virtually doubling the expansion of capacity to respond to rural situations in Canada. We have seen far too many people go into the fishery as an employment option of last resort.
Fishermen are the only self-employed people in this country who can qualify for unemployment insurance. Community Futures which spreads right across Newfoundland is designed specifically to deal with rural problems like this on a regional basis. It has been hugely successful. We are trying to ensure that young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can get from school to a workplace in a sensible and organized fashion. We are
March 23, 1990

spending $56 million to find out why it does not happen. For the last four years we have had emergency response.
We have had an emergency response which has kicked in every year. We did not have to find the money because we budgeted for it. We knew these problems were going to happen. We had been there ready to deal with them.
Let me say one thing, Madam Speaker. The future of the rural communities in Atlantic Canada is fish and if we want to keep a human face on the coastlines of Newfoundland and Labrador we better have fish looking up at those faces, and as a result we must take fish decisions to protect those people and ensure that they have the future that they so badly want.


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, as you know, it is always stimulating to rise in the House after an eloquent speech like the one we just heard by our colleague from Newfoundland. In fact, whenever people from this province speak in the House, I don't know what it is but they have a way with them that is probably typical of Eastern Canada.


An hon. member:: It's the electricity!


Lise Bourgault: The electricity! Again, Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the House today, first of all, to pay tribute to the first woman elected to the House of Commons, Agnes MacPhail. Mrs. MacPhail started her career as a teacher in a country school, and she did not forget her rural roots when she came to Parliament in 1921. She went into politics to represent the farmers in her riding, but it was not long before she expanded her activities to include an interest in women's issues. She was energetic in her defence of women's civil rights. Subsequently, as a member of the Ontario Legislature, she helped bring about the first wage parity legislation in Ontario, passed in 1951.
Many of these and other issues have made enormous progress since Agnes MacPhail sat in the House of Commons. I think she would be proud, Madam Speaker, of the number of women sitting in Parliament today and to see you sitting in the Speaker's chair, as she would be
Supply
proud of the many Canadian women in positions of power and responsibility in all areas of our society.
I believe Agnes MacPhail would be especially happy to see the tremendous progress made by farm women in promoting their legal, social and economic rights.
With their spouses, these women now operate the vast majority, fact 99 per cent, of Canadian farms. Since 1975, the number of women operating farms independently almost tripled in Canada, increasing from 13,000 to
35,000.	Furthermore, 23,000 women are sole owners of their farms in this country.
Officially, women represent 30 per cent of Canada's labour force in the agricultural industry, but this of course does not includes the thousands of Canadian women who combine work on the farm with another job to help support their families.
Women shoulder their share of financing, production and administration on Canada's family farm operations. In other words, they do their share of the work. In 1987, the National Farm Women's Conference found that in this country, women carried out 49 per cent of the farm chores and 97 per cent of the home making chores. We should not overlook that these same women are often involved in a career away from the farm. These women have guts.
In 1986, the Census of agriculture revealed that in this country, one third of all women farmers have a university or college education and currently use their special training and knowledge in the management of the farm or in the profession they are engaged in away from the farm. Madam Speaker, a great many of them use them in both.
Today, the Federal Government is more aware than ever of the enormous contribution women make to agriculture in this country. We know their contribution as farm managers, homemakers and family providers. We support women in their efforts to ensure a certain quality of life in the farm community and I know that it is not always easy.
One of the major areas in which our Government is striving to help women farmers is through the development of strategies with a view to harmonizing professional and family responsibilities.

March 23, 1990
Supply
The Government's policies in this area should clearly recognize the unique character of the work and family obligations which is particular to family farms. They should take it into account.
During the First Ministers' Conference which was held last November, the Federal, Provincial and Territorial ministers responsible for the status of women tabled a report describing the strategies which each government intends to implement in an effort to promote the integration of professional and family responsibilities.
Our purpose is to support women and men in their work environment, while helping them to assume then-responsibilities as parents and as breadwinners.
At that First Ministers' Conference the Canadian ministers responsible for the status of women tabled various reports describing some of the major government projects undertaken in recent years to ensure that, in education and training, women throughout Canada would be considered equal and have access to all facilities.
Not unlike Canadians in other economic sectors, women involved in farming know that training is essential if they are to keep up with the ever increasing pace of technological changes. These women never miss an opportunity to express their views on this issue.
After all, it was back in 1985 at the second national conference of women in agriculture that for the first time somebody suggested that women ought to have readier access to training.
At the present time, representatives of the Canadian Council of Education for Women Farmers and Employment and Immigration Canada officials are working together to develop strategies designed to encourage more women farmers to enrol in training programs.
I think the government, women farmers and their organizations must contuinue to communicate and exchange views on issues such as training, working conditions and family life.
Mr. Speaker, women farmers in my riding are very well organized and I meet with them on a regular basis. Not so long ago the issue of child care in rural areas came up. As I pointed out in a question to an NDP colleague,
women farmers have special needs concerning child care, and they want the government to show some flexibility in the implementation of national programs so that they will be able to have someone to look after their children when it becomes necessary. Farm women have to go to the bam when the children come home from school. They often live in outlying areas and their particular needs cannot be compared with those of city women. It is therefore imperative that the government take their needs into account in its national child care strategy. We have listened carefully to what these women told us during hearings of the Special Committee on Child Care. The government has responded, in the first phase of its national child care strategy, by, among other things, doubling the amount of eligible expenses to $4,000 and by increasing the child tax credit by $200 per child for youngsters.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the farmers of my constituency of Argenteuil-Papineau, a very agricultural and prosperous riding, that I am following with interest the development of agriculture and that I do not hesitate to defend their interests whenever the opportunity arises and that I will continue to do so as long as I am sitting in this House.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, given the time of day, I would like to address two issues in the last minutes of this very interesting debate on rural life in Canada.
In particular, I would like to deal with issues which concern western Canadians. One issue deals with the role of the western diversification fund in our economy. We heard earlier today an eloquent defence of government activities by the Minister of Agriculture, and he spoke in some detail about what the government says it is doing to help western farmers.
The reality is that the western Canadian economy needs much more than this government can provide and the fact that it is cash-short is as much a result of the government's own strategy and its own programming as it is with anything else. The fact that the government is not able to contribute sufficiently to the western economy is a product of the government's own reasoning and its own lack of imagination in helping westerners.
March 23, 1990

In particular, one of the most controversial aspects of its program has been the western diversification fund. Since its inception, the Progressive Conservative government has long trumpeted the Department of Western Economic Diversification as the answer to western Canada's economic woes. The program was announced previous to the 1988 general election with a great deal of fanfare. It would consolidate two programs; the western diversification fund which was announced in August
1987,	and the ERDA program which was started by the Liberals earlier in the 1980s.
The total value of these programs was to exceed $2.8 billion. At that time, the Prime Minister stated that the ERDA program would remain intact and the western diversification fund would be created out of new money. There was a great deal of promise from 1987 through
1988,	coincidentally just before the election, as to what the government would do to help out western Canadians. The reality is that the western diversification programming has failed to live up to its promises. Instead of pumping much needed capital into western Canada, it continued to fall short of its publicly stated goals.
For example, in the eight months before the 1988 election western diversification approved over $400 million in projects. In the fiscal year following the election, the government forecast that it would only spend $136.8 million to fulfil these commitments. Last year, the minister responsible for western diversification assured us that everything was on track and that $253 million would be spent. Today, we find that he is only able to fulfil 54 per cent of his commitment.
In Part III of the estimates for the fiscal year we find that he has promised another $252 million. What will be in the budget next year?
Because these statistics are so important, I want to read them into the record as the Minister of Agriculture was so fond of doing during his presentation, so that the Canadian people begin to appreciate what the government has been doing in each year.
In 1987-88, it estimated that it would spend $98.87 million. It actually spent $47,057 million, or 47 per cent of what it estimated. The importance of this is to understand the accumulation of the lack of funds actual-
Supply
ly being put in western Canada as a result of the decisions being made by the federal government.
The next year, 1988-89, the election year, the government promised $293,427,000. After the election it spent $75,300,000, or 25 per cent of the estimated amount. In 1989-90, the minister said in the House: "This year, I am going to spend $252,999,000." We find out now he spent $136 million, or 54 per cent of his target.
This year he says he is going to spend $251 million and we do not know when he is going to do it. The point is that the accumulated estimated amount is about $850 million. The real figure is about $250 million.
We find that the government is shortchanging western Canada. It then has the nerve to turn around and parade all these statistics about how it is helping the farmer. It is failing to help the farmer. It is failing to help diversify the economy in western Canada, and the two ministers responsible for that are the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for Western Diversification.
I would also like to address very briefly a second issue that is hitting home in western Canada, and that is the changes in the postal rates. The Union of Manitoba Municipalities has kindly brought it to the attention of the government and to members of the opposition that the hike in postal fees is going to have a serious negative effect on daily newspapers.
In Manitoba, for example, The Brandon Sun has been adversely affected by this increase. That paper will have to increase its fees for subscribers who receive then-paper via Canada Post from $114 to $220. The paper is trying to make alternative arrangements for trucking the papers to drop-off points. There will be a certain number which must be mailed out of province, for example.
The circulation manager points out that Canada Post only gave him two days' notice for this change. This is a blow against newspapers, an important communication link for rural areas and it comes at a very bad time. It seemed like another blow against rural areas by Canada Post.
We have heard a lot of discussion in the House in the last few months about the decline in the quality of life in western Canada. There are two components of that, I think. One is a diversification of the economy and the

March 23, 1990
Supply
second is a communications strategy involving Canada Post.
Without the ability to communicate, without the ability to finance interesting projects, western Canada is doomed for a bleak future. I think that that can be directly attributed to the lack of understanding of this government which is a great irony because it spent years in opposition saying that it was the only party that understood western Canada. Yet, when given the opportunity to govern fairly for western Canadians, it has failed miserably.
The only route left for western Canadians to regain their future is to defeat this government and to put in others who understand them, namely, this party.


Mr. Lyle Dean  Mac@: Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleague from Winnipeg North Centre brings forth some very interesting arguments regarding the problems with western diversification funding and other regional development funding programs for western Canada. His point is well taken that the funding that was supposed to have been funnelled through such kinds of regional development programs has in fact fallen drastically short of its mark.
Both the western diversification program and the ERDA programs were developed in order to funnel economic development priorities into provinces in the west. For example, we now see in British Columbia, at the end of this month, only a matter of a few days away, the cancellation of a $300 million five-year Forestry Resource Development Agreement that has gone on since 1985. That agreement is now to be terminated with no guarantees that there will be any other funding. The only hint of funding that we see at this point is about $30 million to $40 million to be funnelled in for forestry through western diversification.
We have seen a significant cut in the federal commitment to reforestation initiatives in British Columbia. There is no question that with that reduction in funding for forestry in British Columbia alone, as well as the many other provinces where those agreements are now coming to a close or have already been terminated, we see a significant loss of jobs in the forestry industry in the silviculture programs and replanting. An entire industry infrastructure has been built up around the FRDA
agreements. Now that infrastructure will begin to fall apart with the government essentially knee-capping the funds that are required for forestry development.
In one of the other economic sectors, the Tourism Industry Development Subsidiary Agreements are now also being terminated. The word we get from the Minister of State for Tourism is that those will not be renewed. We are seeing a retraction of the government's commitment to regional development through the kneecapping of funding in these programs.
I certainly concur with my colleague from the Winnipeg area that these programs are conceptually of great value. Yet, politically speaking, there simply has not been the kind of political or economic initiative supplied to these programs by this government to really make them work.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from British Columbia for reminding me about the forestry industry which I should have addressed more directly in my comments. It is impossible to understand the failure to renew an adequate agreement in forestry. Those who know the industry will know that it is the biggest employer in Canada when you include direct and indirect employment figures. It is the economic backbone of British Columbia. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are all trying to develop more aggressive forestry programs. At the very moment that the west is finding a way to broaden its economic base, the federal government walks out on it. That is totally indefensible and totally incomprehensible.
The list of ERDA agreements that are valuable to the west is endless. It would be easier for the government to tell us what it is continuing than for me to list what it is discontinuing.
The fact that the communications agreement is ending in Manitoba in 10 days and putting the motion picture industry there in total disarray is another example of the callousness of this government.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, to conclude the debate before us today, I would like to spend the remaining few minutes speaking about the other major initiative in this motion, and that is the fishery.
March 23, 1990

There is a crisis in the fishing industry, there are communities closing down, and there is a call by members of Parliament to put money into these communities to help them readjust. I contend that perhaps the greatest crisis facing the industry in eastern Canada is the crisis of having a government that is afraid to stop the cause of the problem in the fishery today.
I would like to refer to the facts concerning the fishery. We have, all along the coast of Canada, a 200-mile zone. It is 200 nautical miles, really, that is about 240 or 250 land miles. Within that zone Canada manages our fishing resource and has since 1977 when we declared the 200-mile zone like every other country in the world.
Let us look at the allocations for this year, at who is allowed to catch the fish inside of our 200-mile zone. Under the NAFO agreements, that is an international organization which manages fish stocks that come within the 200-mile zone and outside the 200-mile zone, the allocations are 310,500 metric tons to countries like Bulgaria, Cuba, the EEC, East Germany, Japan, Norway, Poland, U.S.S.R., and others. Then we have Canada's managed fish stocks. Under that we see that the total foreign allocations are 182,962 for 1990. Add both of them up and you get a figure of 493,462 metric tons.
What is the Canadian allocation? The Canadian allocation is, and I quote from the same document, 612,265 metric tons. So Canada is able to fish 600,000 metric tons, foreign nations are able to fish 500,000 metric tons, and the seals eating about two million metric tons. So between the foreigners and the seals we have a problem in the fishery in eastern Canada.
Here we are wondering what to do about the communities that are closing. Today MPs in their offices are taking calls from around the coastline. A gentleman called my office this morning from another person's riding and said: "Look, I cannot fish capelin this year. I am not allowed". He is not allowed to fish capelin this year because of a restricted entry regulation which was passed last year which said that you must be the skipper of a crew of at least three people and your boat has to be a certain size. These gentlemen, who have been fulltime fishermen all their lives, are not allowed to fish capelin this year.
Supply
Yet we see increases in capelin allocations to Cuba, increases to Japan, increases to Norway, increases to Poland, increases to the U.S.S.R., and restrictions on Canadians.
What is the problem in the east coast fishery today? Ask a fisherman, Mr. Speaker, and he will say: "We don't want money from the Government of Canada, we want the right to be able to fish".
In regard to all of this that is going on, I will read something into the record. For all of the fishermen of eastern Canada, here it is. Listen now, because you are going to hear it straight from the Government of Canada, the Government of the Soviet Union and all of those foreign nations. This is a letter to the Canadian government dated just four weeks ago.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Table it.


George Baker: I will table it, indeed I will. Just listen to this. I quote the Soviet side:
- taking into account the desire of both sides to preserve stability, considers that the total U.S.S.R. allocations for 1990 in the Canadian zone should not be less than the allocation for 1989.
"To preserve stability". What does that threat mean from the Soviet Union? Not only from them, but from Cuba, Poland, Norway, East Germany, Bulgaria. What do they mean?
Then we get the response. This was written four weeks ago to the Government of Canada. The answer sent back from the Government of Canada says, pursuant to our agreement on mutual fisheries relations, the following initial quotas are given.
And then we see it: cod, redfish, Greenland halibut, grenadier, silver hake, Argentine, squid. Here they are, all in the allocations. Both sides agree.
The letter continues:
The Canadian side confirms its intention to cooperate further with
the Soviet side.
So there it is. While Canadian fishermen cannot fish, while Canadian fishermen are being cut back, foreign nations write to this government and say in order to "preserve stability". What are they going to do; invade us? In order to preserve stability we want the same quotas we had last year, while Canadians have been cut back, while our fish plants are closing, while our fisher-

March 23, 1990
Supply
men cannot fish what they fished last year and the year before.
Here we have it. I am tabling it so all of these Tories can read it so they will know what is going on behind the scenes. Or perhaps they do know what is going on behind the scenes.
As if that was not enough, in this letter it says, and I quote again this letter that I would like the government members to read. It states here:
The Soviet side undertakes to finalize an exchange with the
Canadian side-(involving) 2 +3K capelin-
Now that may not mean very much to some people sitting in their fancy offices, but if you were to tell a fisherman that you are about to negotiate again with the Soviet Union, Cuba, East Germany and Bulgaria to give them more capelin, which is what codfish eat-


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Male capelin.


George Baker: The hon. gentleman says "male capelin". A codfish does not ask whether it is male or female. He will eat it no matter what it is.
Here we are today in the concluding moments of debate on a resolution asking the Government of Canada to properly manage the fisheries of our nation. We are asking for money. And here is the Canadian Government giving just as much to the foreigners as it gives to Canadians. It is afraid to take the initial steps to guarantee our fishermen their same quotas.
The Department of External Affairs runs the Department of Fisheries in this nation. The fishermen of Canada are saying to the Government of Canada: "All we want is the chance to fish. We do not want to be retrained with these great agreements that the Government of Canada is about to announce. We want to fish. That is what we have done all of our lives. You are today preventing us from fishing. You are today assigning to foreign nations exactly the same fish that we want."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 2.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 81(14).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.
A point of order, the hon. member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, Mr. Merrithew voted and had to leave the Chamber in the middle of the vote. I think it would be in keeping with our records if we have his name removed from the roll call before the count is announced.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 3.10 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 1 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 26, 1990