1990-03-14

Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 12, in this House we passed a resolution which was enthusiastically supported by all three parties, recognizing the Republic of Lithuania as an independent sovereign state.
Although the initial reaction from the Soviet Union was cautious and somewhat negative, I am sure that Canada and other members of the international community had hoped that the democratically arrived at decision for independence would eventually be respected by the Supreme Soviet. Unfortunately, within less than 24 hours of the passing of our resolution, President Gorbachev stated unequivocally that he considers the declaration of independence by Lithuania illegitimate and invalid.
I want to urge the Prime Minister of Canada to convey to the Soviet Union, either directly or within an international forum, that we are shocked at this turn of events and that we would hope, in keeping with the spirit of the democratization of eastern Europe, that President Gorbachev will demonstrate his commitment to perestroika and glasnost by respecting the will of the people of Lithuania.


NATIONAL GALLERY
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians from coast to coast were angered and annoyed to learn that the National Gallery of Canada
recently paid $1.8 million for an American painting by Barnett Newman. This painting may well be a fine piece of art. However, such a lavish expenditure in a time of restraint does not make much sense.
Canadians called for deficit reduction. The government responded by bringing down a tough but fair budget, and now the National Gallery shows no regard for prudent spending by laying out $1.8 million on one painting.
I call on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Communications and Culture to have officials of the National Gallery appear before the committee to explain the reasons behind this preposterous expenditure of taxpayers' money. Canadians have a right to know.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the crisis in agriculture is escalating. Saskatchewan's grain industry has called for an immediate $500 million federal government payment just to get the seed in the ground this spring. Without the federal government's commitment to compensate for recent droughts and low grain prices, an even greater number of farmers will be forced from the land this year.
The international grain war is continuing and our government has an obligation to support our farmers, our troops in that war, a war where the Europeans and Americans are unfairly forcing down the price in the world market-place.
In this fierce international war, the government opposite is doing something it would never do in any other battle. With cutbacks in agriculture programs and its lack of commitment to ongoing support programs, this government is disarming our troops and the industry is dying.
Saskatchewan farmers need that $500 million payment now. The Minister of Agriculture has an obligation to provide it now.

March 14, 1990


DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN HAITI
Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, on January 20, after a number of undemocratic measures had been taken by the Haitian government, I expressed my concern about the fate of the democratic process in that country.
For four years, a people, proud of its history as the first free Black nation in the world, has been trying to find its way back to democracy. A country that produced men like Toussaint Louverture, Dessalines and Petion, created the Panamerican concept, took part in the American Revolutionary war at Savannah and helped Simon Bolivar liberate Venezuela, can look forward to more such inspiring pages in its history.
Canada, as a friend of Haiti, must support its desire to "live free or die", the motto of all its heroes.
I wish the new president good luck, and I want to ask my government to help Haiti in every respect, both politically and economically, so that it can once again join the ranks of free and democratic nations.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, considering that the goods and services tax is the harshest tax scheme in our history; that it is the most controversial tax ever imposed on Canadians; that it contains many regressive elements that will affect needy Canadians and the working middle-class; and that the Conservatives have a majority in this House, it is therefore resolved that only the Canadian people can make this government change its mind. You can help by calling 1-900-720-6052 or 6051, before midnight Friday evening. This is an appeal for fiscal justice!
*	* H=


NOVA SCOTIA BARRISTERS SOCIETY
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, I am shaken by the news today concerning the women's issues critic of the Liberal party who is also the national policy co-chair for the Liberal convention. The Nova Scotia Barristers Society has found the member guilty of
four counts of professional misconduct, three involving the handling-


Mr. Speaker:: We really must not use statements as a personal attack on any member here. There may be another place to raise it, but it would not be appropriate to do it here.
He sje *


NATIONAL GALLERY
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, the National Gallery has purchased an American painting for $1.8 million, which could have been produced in this country by any design or graphic artist for under $200.
The people of Delta have requested that their objection be added to those of the speakers yesterday and today, denouncing this purchase in this time of restraint. If the money was to be spent, it makes a lot more sense to support our Canadian artists.
I am asking the National Gallery to cancel the purchase now, to demonstrate to all Canadians that common sense will prevail in this country.


ACID RAIN
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, in February 1985, Canada launched an all-out offensive against acid rain in order to achieve a 50 per cent reduction in emissions produced in Eastern Canada by 1994. The result: emissions have already dropped by nearly 40 per cent.
Thanks to the perseverance and hard work of our Prime Minister in his meeting with U.S. government officials, our representations aimed at achieving a 50 per cent reduction in transboundary emissions affecting Eastern Canada have been successful.
Last June, President Bush introduced a legislative measure to that effect. More recently, after satisfactory negotiations, the United States said it was prepared to ratify this measure.
It is the most positive initiative ever taken by a U.S. administration in this area in more than ten years, and it was largely instigated by Canada.
March 14, 1990

Mr. Speaker, implementation of the U.S. initiative, combined with the Canadian plan, will make it possible to reverse the acidification process, and we will have a cleaner and healthier environment.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight on statements made last week by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
On March 7,1 asked the minister about a $246 million cut in alternative energy and conservation found in this year's Estimates. The following day during Question Period the minister told this House that the figures I used the day before were incorrect, that I was wrong to use that figure. In addition, he suggested I would find the correct figures in the Estimates.
As I told the House on March 8, our research was very thorough and, indeed, it was not in error. In fact, page 31 of the Estimates supports the figure, $246 million, that I quoted. The error, therefore, lies within the Estimates themselves and not with our research.


CORPORATE TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the nominees for this week's corporate welfare bum are: Alcan Aluminum Limited. Alcan paid only $39 million in income taxes after registering a net income of $433 million in 1987. In 1986 Alcan received a $6 million tax credit on a net income of $270 million.
The second nominee is Power Corporation. It received an income tax credit of $2.1 million in 1988 and paid only $2.6 million in taxes in 1987. Its total net income from the two years is close to $400 million.
The third nominee is Gulf Resources which recovered $18 million in income taxes in 1988 and $29 million in 1987 after a net income totalling over $100 million in the two years.
The envelope, please. The winner is Gulf Resources. The Reichmann brothers plan to sell Consumers' Gas to
British Gas and get all sorts of tax benefits from companies like Gulf Resources to finance their real estate development in London and Moscow. Actions like that have earned Gulf Resources the corporate welfare bum of the week award.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with today's announcement that the GST will cost an estimated $1.4 billion to implement, I have to say that this thing is getting out of hand. The government has made several miscalculations as to how much the GST is going to cost Canadians. One day the government adds $300 million to the cost then, "Whoops, sorry folks, we miscalculated, add another $300 million to that bill".
Miscalculations of this kind have spurred Canadians into writing or calling their MPs to express their outrage. You may ask just how outraged Canadians are? To give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, the 900 number we set up so Canadians can electronically petition against the GST has been so busy that we have had to add another phone call.
Now Canadians can call either 1-900-720-6052 or 1-900-720-6051, 24 hours a day until March 16. In case you missed it, I will repeat the number: Call 1-900-720-6052 or 1-900-720-6051 to add your vote to the 40,000 Canadians who have already called to oppose the GST.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, when a boatload of 173 Sikhs and one Sri Lankan came ashore at Nova Scotia in 1987 claiming refugee status, this government went into a frenzy of fear mongering. It talked about an invasion, kept the refugees incognito and hinted that they might be terrorists. The government even blew 12 million tax dollars sending the navy and air force to scour our coast for another boat that was tied up empty near England. The refugees' pictures were sent to the Indian government asking if they were terrorists. The government succeeded in raising such fear of these dark-skinned people that Parliament was recalled to pass anti-refugee legislation.

March 14, 1990
Oral Questions
Well, the dark-skinned people were not terrorists. Canada's refugee board on Monday ruled, after 18 months, that two of them are refugees because sending their pictures to India so embarrassed that government as to put them in danger.
I call on the Minister of Employment and Immigration to land the rest of that boatload immediately and stop this time wasting horse play that slanders refugees and embitters race relations in Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. You will recall that three months ago his government allowed the takeover of Connaught BioSciences, one of Canada's premier high technology companies, by Institut Merieux, a company controlled by the French government.
I have with me a document released by Investment Canada summarizing the undertakings that Institut Merieux gave to the government as a condition of the government allowing its acquisition of Connaught Bio Sciences.
In the document Merieux undertook to "submit within six months a medium-term operating plan and a longer term strategic plan for government advice and input".
Has the government received these plans?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I obtained the information. I was also informed of the decision taken by the company. The information we have suggests that the owners of Merieux will fill the positions that were occupied by Canadians with Canadians and thus respect the company's commitments.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my clear and direct question. Has he received the plans which Institut Merieux promised the government?
Mr. Speaker, if he did not receive these plans, how can the minister assure this House that the key positions in this company which is vital to our science and technology will be held by Canadians?

If the government does not have the operating plan from Institut Merieux, how can we be sure that Merieux will live up to its undertaking to the government, and I quote from the Investment Canada document, that Connaught will "retain a strong Canadian identity"? Or is the government simply going to lie down as it has on every issue of Canadian ownership and identity since it has been in power?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question before and I will repeat what I said.
I said that the guarantee which has been given by the company is that all, or at least most, of the jobs which have been touched by the decision will be filled again by Canadians. In any event, we have the power to enforce that decision and, of course, we will look very carefully at exactly the way the company will work.
If there is any necessity, I will intervene through Investment Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister's answer. All he could say was he had an indication that Merieux will fill the top Canadian management positions, all or most of them, with Canadians.
How can Institut Merieux carry out its undertaking that the company will retain a strong Canadian identity if there is a lower Canadian level of top management after it fills the posts from which it has fired the Canadian led management?
How can the minister be sure of that if all the company is saying is that all or most of the positions will be filled by Canadians? How can he state this with any assurance, if the government has not been able to get Merieux, three months after it took over Connaught, to fulfil its undertaking to give the government its plans for this key Canadian high technology firm?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said. I said that we have the capacity to enforce the decision
March 14, 1990

which has been made. When Investment Canada considered the proposal by Merieux, it considered all benefits that Canada could get.
I assure the House and the hon. Leader of the Opposition that everything will be done to ensure that the commitments which have been made by Connaught are respected. We have the authority and we will exert the authority to do that.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who is also the political minister for Alberta.
The Premier of Alberta has said that the province will go ahead with construction of the Oldman River dam despite the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal quashing the federal construction permit for the dam and ordering a full environmental assessment of the project.
Has the government sought an injunction or taken any other action to ensure construction of the dam is stopped now so the required environmental assessment can take place?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, based on very preliminary information, this decision of the Federal Court of Appeal appears to have very far-reaching implications. It must be considered very seriously. We think that it must be reviewed very carefully. I will certainly have to discuss this with my colleagues in the cabinet.
As a matter of fact, there will be an interdepartmental meeting at the end of the day with officials of Environment Canada, Justice Canada, Fisheries and Oceans and Transport Canada. The government will look very carefully at the situation and the judgment and will abide with all its obligations.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the order of the court was absolutely clear. It took less than that amount of paper.
My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. The decision of the court shows absolutely that not one but four ministers knew before construction started the
Oral Questions
environmental risks of diversion, flooding, sedimentation, toxic spills, mercury contamination, the use of explosives, the destruction of fish habitats and damage to an Indian band and its reserve lands, and they refused to carry out their responsibilities to conduct environmental impact assessments.
Has the Prime Minister directed his minister, in the strongest possible terms, to immediately begin those environmental assessments that are required under the act of this government?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to show indignation today, but the member should remind the House that the licence was issued in 1987, before the delivery of the first Rafferty-Alameda judgment, at a time when it was felt all over the country, by Justice and all people, that the environmental assessment could be delegated to the provinces.
In those times we did not know what we know now. The courts have been very active on the environmental assessment sector. Now we know more and we have to live with the effects of this, but we must do it in a very reasonable manner.
This is not a case to use scare tactics or play partisan politics. This is very serious. It deals with the very fundamental policy of assessment of environmental impacts before any project is begun.
As the House knows, we are very actively working on the drafting of a very important piece of legislation on assessment. The country is certainly expecting this government to be serious, and responsible and to take the time required to make the right decision.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my first question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously quashed the 1987 approval of the Minister of Transport-not the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Transport-which gave Alberta permission to construct the Oldman River Dam.
Since construction of any dam in Canada, whether it is in Saskatchewan, Alberta or Quebec, requires approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for which the Minister of Transport alone is responsible, and since the approval yesterday was removed by the courts, will the minister invoke today, along with his cabinet colleagues, Section 12 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, terminating the work at site so that a fair and achievable

March 14, 1990
Oral Questions
environmental impact assessment and review can take place without more damage being done on the site?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend, the Minister of the Environment, indicated, the government is reviewing the implications of this judgment. They are far-reaching and we think that we should move after consideration of all the implications and not in haste.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister, who understands full well what the spirit of the law and what the spirit of the ruling by the Federal Court of Appeal was yesterday.
In order to have a proper environmental assessment and review, the construction at the site must stop. We would have hoped that Premier Getty would have realized that yesterday.
Since Section 12 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act makes it veiy clear that the Governor in Council, the cabinet, can invoke that section to terminate the work at the site, in the spirit of a very important landmark environmental ruling of yesterday, will the Prime Minister take this to cabinet today and make use of Section 12 of the act to halt the work at the site?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this is a judgement rendered yesterday by a very important court in our country, a little over 24 hours ago. The opposition would like the government to make a hasty, ill-considered decision, while we are dealing with something fundamental for the future of environmental assessments in this country. This government intends to fulfil all its responsibilities, including the responsibility to make a reasonable decision in the light of the advice given by its legal advisers.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also for the Prime Minister. Canadians know you cannot drive a car unless you get a licence; you cannot
build a house unless you get a permit; you cannot build a dam on any river in Canada unless you have an approval.
The Federal Court of Appeal has unanimously struck down the approval to build that dam on the Oldman in Alberta. It affects federal jurisdiction.
Will the Prime Minister rise in his place and stand up for the spirit of the law in this country and say it applies in Alberta, just like it does in Saskatchewan, just like it does in Quebec, and halt it so that we can find out what the impact on the environment really is?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a leader on this issue. We are the most advanced country when it comes to environmental assessments. And now, in this very advanced country which we are, a decision has been rendered in a brand-new area; this judgement has created an extremely important legal precedent. It is most important, a little more than 24 hours after the judgement was rendered, to take the time required so that the decision will comply with environmental obligations and give due consideration to the consequences, because preliminary analyses suggest that this judgement will affect not only this project but all projects, whatever they are, throughout the country.
Caution, reflection and responsibility are therefore in order.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of the Environment. Manitoba Hydro, right now, is beginning an environmental assessment process on the proposed Conawapa hydroelectric dam. This dam will likely be the biggest dam in the Manitoba region.
What strategy is the minister following to ensure the protection of the Manitoba environment? Will he be dragged through the courts again, as he was with the Rafferty-Alameda dam and the Oldman River dam project, or has he learned his lesson? Will he save Manitobans time, money and aggravation by immediately setting up an environmental assessment, as called for under the guidelines order?
March 14, 1990


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think that the member should recognize that this government, in every circumstance, has assumed its responsibility to comply with the requirements of the federal guidelines. We do that all the time.
The main problem we have is that the judgment which we have spoken about a few minutes ago concerns something actually in the process of being built. This is a transition problem which is very complex. We must admit that. But, in the case of new projects, it is very simple as of now. We will apply EARP in any situation.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is going to commit himself to an EARP process, can he now tell us that he has in fact set up an expert panel, that open hearings are going to be set up, that he has developed a program, and that he is going to announce this in public, or are we going to wait and are we going to end up in the courts again? Will the minister please tell us exactly what he intends to do?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the member, but it appears that he should know more about the process. This process has two steps. The first step is the initial impact assessment and then, in the light of the conclusions of the initial assessment, the proponent minister has to make a decision as to whether or not he will need a full panel review.
We will apply the full process, but beginning with the first step, and then the decision will be made accordingly.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In August 1989, when the technical paper on the GST was released, the Minister of Finance estimated that administration costs would be about $200 million. In the last Budget, in February 1990, the cost was estimated at $260 million. Yesterday, his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, said before the Finance Committee that it would cost $300 million. Will the Minister of Finance, tell the House once and for all how much this administrative nightmare is going to cost?
Oral Questions


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, since some statements were attributed to me yesterday, the hon. member will know that many of the headlines in the papers today about $670 million, $1.4 billion and $1.1 billion are incorrect, if not mischievous.
The fact of the matter is that the estimates which came out not too many weeks ago stated quite clearly that the cost this year was going to be $110 million. During the transition period, it will be $260 million up to $365 per year, and when the tax becomes mature, it will be at $300 million per year.
Let me point out to the member that this is one of the lowest costs for collecting this sort of tax in the whole world. In fact, it will cost approximately 1.5 cents for every dollar collected, which is far better than any other country in the industrialized world because of the efficient systems, because of the innovative methods and because of the technology that we will be using to administer the GST.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to a newspaper but to an official document.
From $200 million to $300 million is $100 million more, and that is a lot of money for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I have a brochure that was sent to 1.2 million Canadians and small businesses. On page 8, for instance, it says that the GST is due on the date the tax is paid, while in the legislation it is the other way around. My question for the Minister of Finance is: Why does he keep spending millions of dollars to confuse Canadians, since this brochure for small business costs in the millions? Does he realize that the example given on page 8 of the brochure does not say exactly what it says in the bill?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure I understand the specific question that the hon. member is asking.
There are differences, I will acknowledge, between the amounts that were put in the technical paper and the amounts that were put in the December 19 paper. That represents the result of further work that has been done on the part of the government in deciding precisely what the administration costs would be. As my colleague, the Minister of Revenue has pointed out, the cost to collect this tax on an on-going basis will be 1.5 cents for every dollar of tax. That represents a very efficient system of tax collection.

March 14, 1990
Oral Questions


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Yesterday, at the finance committee the minister informed the people of this country that he has now recruited the banks and the financial institutions to help collect the GST. Yesterday, before the finance committee he could not tell us how much the banks would be getting to help collect the GST.
I wonder if the minister has done his homework today, and can he confirm to the House that the government has made a deal with the banks that every time a business makes a deposit to collect the GST, the banks will be paid a service charge of $1 per deposit on each and every single deposit that businesses make at the banks of this country. Can he confirm that today in the House?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that this experienced member is as misinformed as he is today, and yesterday. He should know, as most hon. members are aware, that Canadians today are utilizing for efficiency's sake and for convenience banking institutions to pay through the banks to the federal government, whether it is CPP payments, the current federal sales tax-


Mr. MacKay:: Ontario Hydro.


Mr. Crosbie:: Newfoundland Light and Power, Newfoundland Telephone.


Otto John Jelinek: -various provincial payments, unemployment insurance-


John R. Rodriguez: How much?


Otto John Jelinek: I would like to know if the New Democratic Party is suggesting that we not use the banking and financial institutions and make the system more complex for small business. Is that what they are saying?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. The answer is $1 per deposit made by businesses for every deposit in a bank.
In the first ten months of this fiscal year, before the GST is even in effect, Canadians businesses made some 6.5 million deposits in Canadian banks on their taxes. Can the minister tell us now how many more millions of dollars taxpayers will have to fork out to the banks in service charges when a business makes a deposit at a bank when the bank helps to collect the GST? Will it be an extra $15 million, an extra $20 million, or an extra $30 million? How much more will the banks get in service charges to help collect the GST from the taxpayers of the country?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is barking up the wrong tree. To be specific to his particular question, the Department of Supply and Services is currently negotiating with the banks in regard to the GST.
The fact of the matter is, and I repeat what I have said in my first answer, that this is asked for by the business community.


John R. Rodriguez: That's not the question. How much?


Otto John Jelinek: This is asked for by the small business community. This is a request on behalf of the small business people across Canada, and it is for sake of convenience, efficiency and saving tax dollars both to business and government. That is the answer.


FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. In last week's U.S. Business Week magazine, the Ontario government spent close to $500,000 for an advertisement to explain why Americans should invest in Ontario. One of the key Ontario advantages, as explained by the Premier of Ontario, is the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement.
In this week's U.S. Business Week magazine, the Ontario government again advertises the advantage of investing and locating in Ontario. Among other things, there is the free trade agreement and lower comparative wage rates and benefits.
How did the Minister for International Trade succeed in bringing Ontario onside and in total agreement with the free trade agreement, and what long-term benefits does he foresee, not just for Ontario, but also Canada, now that we have Ontario's wholehearted support for the free trade agreement?
March 14, 1990


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is correct. There is an eight-page advertisement which states:
In the tough new world of the '90s, it isn't enough to survive. You
want to succeed.
Right by Premier Peterson's red tie, it states:
The Ontario advantage
Under the Free Trade Agreement, most goods move between
Ontario and the U.S. without tariffs.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. minister would only want to read from the advertisement and not display it. I would ask him to co-operate.


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, I certainly do not want to embarrass the hon. gentlemen opposite, but the advantage of Ontario is that most goods move between Ontario and the U.S. without tariffs under the free trade agreement. That is the purport of this eight-page, $500,000 advertisement, paid for by Ontario taxpayers, boosting the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: As to the reasons for the Premier's conversion, apart from my own persuasive powers, yesterday there was a Japanese report, a glowing report, from the Ministry of International Trade and Industry on the attractions of investment in Canada under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Perhaps he was given an early copy of that report. The report paints Canada as a country of new found importance for Japanese companies planning a continental strategy. For all of these reasons Premier Peterson has had a $500,000 conversion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. John L. Murray, Attorney General and Chief Legal Adviser for Ireland.
I also wish to draw to members's attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. James Lockyer, Attorney General for New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions FISHERIES


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, if there is one point on which all fishermen in eastern Canada agree, it is that squid and capelin are vital to the rebuilding of our cod stocks because they are the food stock of our codfish. Wherever squid and capelin go, the codfish will follow.
I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries why, for the year 1990, this crisis year in the fishery, the Government of Canada has decided to issue licences to east bloc countries such as Poland, Bulgaria and the U.S.S.R., and to Cuba and Japan, to fish 72 million pounds of squid all along the coast of Newfoundland. Eight factory-freezer trawler licences this week have been awarded to Cuba and the U.S.S.R. Will the minister now cancel these licences and lift this aquatic Iron Curtain that is preventing our squid from reaching our shores in Newfoundland?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, this is hard to believe coming from that member. What he forgot to mention in his question was that this is a NAFO-managed stock. Maybe we are guilty of following what Liberal members of Parliament and Liberal ministers introduced in our fishery because the Grits started that a long time ago.
The fact is that we catch in Canada about 1,000 tonnes of squid a year over an allocation to Canada of 109,000 tonnes, so please get out of the water and put your two feet on the land.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, this minister and this government have also agreed to an increase in foreign quotas for capelin, just east of St. John's in area 3NO, an increase to the U.S.S.R. up to 15,000 tonnes and an increase to Norway up to 9,000 tonnes. There are large quotas for Poland and Japan with the smallest quota going to Canada with 800 tonnes. I have the document here in which this minister is negotiating with the Soviet Union to give a capelin quota to the U.S.S.R. right in the middle of our northern codstocks.
Will the minister now cancel this eco-interception? Does he not realize that if he had told the fishermen of eastern Canada when he was there two weeks ago what he told this House today, that foreigners would get capelin and squid as under utilized species, he would

March 14, 1990
Oral Questions
have been declared an endangered species, and if he awards these licences he is going to wish he were an extinct species?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bernard Valcourt: Again, Mr. Speaker-George, you surprise me!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bernard Valcourt: This capelin stock, especially in 3NO which the member is talking about, is again managed by NAFO.
Is the hon. member telling me today that we should not follow the rules of the Law of the Sea? Because he is the first member to yell at the world about the Spanish and Portuguese who are not following the Law of the Sea. And today he would not want me to follow the Law of the Sea? He does not want me to reallocate the fish which Canadians do not want to catch?
By the way the member forgot to mention our allowable catch of this fish to feed cod. We could take 250,000 tonnes of them without endangering our cod stock at all. Last year we took about 50,000 tonnes. He may talk about the eco-interception but he has a problem and it is ego-interception. That is what he needs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Forestry or in his absence, to the Acting Minister. The minister knows perfectly well that four of the forestry development agreements that expired last year have not been renegotiated and that three other agreements are due to expire at the end of this month. Does the minister intend to renew these agreements? Where will he find the money, and how much does he intend to spend on these agreements?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister who is at a major conference in the western part of our country, I can tell that hon. member that we have signed agreements with P.E.I., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. The two largest agreements with Quebec and British Columbia are still in effect. In the other three provinces, they are under negotiation now and when these negotiations are completed the announcements will be made.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. Hie Prime Minister told delegates at the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association's annual convention that his government would renew its $1.1 billion reforestation program. However, the Estimates tabled at the end of that month confirm that Forestry Canada's budget has been slashed by 31 per cent over last year's, and that regional development funds for subagreements have also been cut.
Where is the $1.1 billion promised by the Prime Minister and when will the new forestry agreements be renewed?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct, there was $1.15 billion in agreements in the last four years. That, incidentally, was about three or four times as much as the Liberals had.
It was mentioned that there is a process, and that process is being followed. When the negotiations are completed, the funds will be found and will be put into the budget of Forestry Canada. It is very simple.


FISHERIES
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries.
On March 9, the minister released regulations which allowed direct U.S. access to salmon and herring caught
March 14, 1990

off the B.C. coast. The official backgrounder released on that date would: "Make 100 per cent of the salmon and herring catches available to be counted, weighed and sampled prior to export".
Within 24 hours, External Affairs responded to industry lobbying by issuing 107 export exemptions which permitted the export of round herring for freezing, the first stage of processing. What consultations with the minister's department preceded the granting of these 107 export exemptions?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. salmon and herring dispute happily has been resolved. The regulations in order to carry out that settlement have now been promulgated and the system has been put in place.
As to whether there have been any export permits given with respect to frozen herring, if there are any such given, it is at the request of the Canadian industry, which states that they do not have sufficient freezing capacity themselves.


Ms. Langan:: Not true!


Mr. Benjamin:: That's wrong!


John Carnell Crosbie: If you do not mind me giving the explanation, then the hon. gentleman can jeer, sneer and do what he likes.
There is a request from the industry that they be permitted to freeze herring in the U.S. and bring it back to Canada for processing so it will be processed in Canada.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to ask you the question, but I will go back to the Minister of Fisheries. His department knows that never before in history has there been any shortage of freezer capacity on the B.C. coast for herring. It seems more than a coincidence that within 24 hours of this agreement being signed we find it necessary to issue 107 export exemptions.
To go back to the Minister for International Trade, what guarantee can the minister give B.C. shoreworkers that these fish will be returned to B.C. for further processing and not just shipped as round herring direct to Japan?
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, one of the successes of the agreement we reached with the United States was that as a result of our agreement with the Americans, we could put into effect the Export and Import Permits Act and that the only exports permitted of roe herring from Canada will be herring that is exported to the United States to be consumed in the United States or processed in the United States to the same degree as it is processed in Canada. Since they have never processed herring there, it not too likely that will happen.
There will be no raw roe herring exported to Japan by this means or any other. That is one of the strengths of this agreement that was reached. If we had not reached an agreement with the United States, we would not have been able to put this into effect. The hon. gentleman should be supporting and shouting the virtues of this settlement throughout British Columbia.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Telecom Canada fused a new link of unity for the country when it completed a fibre optic chain from coast to coast, and the Prime Minister oversaw the last splice.
Let me remind him of what he said to First Ministers last fall: "Just as the railroad made it possible to create links between east and west 100 years ago, so telecommunications can do the same today, strengthening the unity and the sovereignty of the country. We simply cannot allow our system of communications to be fragmented and broken up by different regulations."
Will the Prime Minister follow these words, take the necessary leadership, ensuring that federal jurisdiction is upheld in this field, as the Supreme Court dictated?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, indeed, I was happy to point out the presence of my hon. friend yesterday at the very important Telecom ceremony, along with the Minister for Communications whose department played such a vital role in bringing this major achievement about. The government will of course proceed in such a way as to uphold the rights of Parliament in this very vital area of our national life.


Sheila Finestone: I am glad to hear the Prime Minister affirm the ruling of the Supreme Court. I am pleased that the fate of the last spike

March 14, 1990
Oral Questions
and the last splice will perhaps be the same thing-or I am not so pleased. I had better be careful about that.

Considering the economic and social impact that information and technological advances in telecommunications will have throughout the world during the next 20 years, could the minister give the House the assurance that no stumbling blocks along the way will prevent regulation of this advanced technology sector by a federal regulatory agency?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the government has already announced what its policy will be. We are continuing discussions with the provinces, consumers and users. This morning I had the pleasure of meeting another minister from one of the provinces and received a number of counter proposals from another province.
I can give the House the assurance that discussions are in a very active stage and we hope to be able to release the conclusions of these negotiations as soon as possible.


AGRICULTURE
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Agriculture and relates to Canada's agricultural producers and the three basic principles of the Canadian supply management program concerning dairy products, poul-tiy, yogurt, ice cream as well as the review of the national farm policy and external trade.
Since success depends on the position upheld by Canada during the current GATT negotiations, can the minister give some assurance, particularly about yogurt and ice cream which recently have been the subject of a controversial decision by the GATT panel?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a very interesting issue. In Geneva this morning our team of negotiators finally tabled Canada's position concerning Article XI. The team is under the able direction of my colleague the Minister for International Trade. After lengthy consultations with farm organizations throughout Canada, including producers, processors and various parties interested in the agri-food sector, it has been agreed that a Canadian position be developed, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure that in the coming months and with the support of all interest groups we will be able to tell the rest of the world what our position is, particularly with respect to clarifying and reinforcing Article XI. That is the promise we made to the producers and the farm community, Mr. Speaker, and we have delivered the goods.


CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CANADA
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. The Weir report was initiated by Correctional Services Canada to investigate the escape in Alberta of a dangerous offender while on an escorted temporary absence, an escape that had very tragic results.
This partially censored report was critical of Correctional Services Canada personnel and procedures.
When will the Solicitor General tell Canadians, and particularly Albertans who have been most affected by this, what steps have been taken to ensure public safety in Alberta? Will he undertake to provide, either himself or through Correctional Services Canada, a full public and honest response to the Weir report?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague has indicated, the Weir report was made public four days after it was given to us. Some recommendations have already been implemented, others have been referred to task forces, and some still have to be considered. I can assure this House that I will be looking into it very closely.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, Canadians and Albertans are looking for a bit crisper response than that. It has been three months since the report was made public and one more sequence of mistakes like those which occurred in the Gingras escape could well cost another Canadian his or her life.
March 14, 1990

When will the minister complete and fulfil his obligations to Canadians and honestly address the problems and potential solutions that were raised by the Gingras escape? When?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I think it is an acknowledged fact that the Weir report indicated some mistakes that have been made by people, not by the system or process that was in place.
I am more interested in bringing in some correct answers than crisp answers.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Agriculture who has already notified the House that Canada's position to amend Article 11 of the GATT Round has been tabled today. It shows that for those products produced under the supply management, a processed product can be controlled coming into the country if it is totally or mostly a primary or fresh product.
What was the response from our partners in the Cairns Group and, particularly, what was the response of the U.S.A. to this particular position when it was laid down at the GATT round this morning?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we are attempting to strengthen Article 11 by proposing that processed agricultural products could be covered by Article 11, import quotas, if they are made "wholly or mainly" from a fresh product under effective supply control.


An Hon. Member:: We already knew that.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman did not know that, because he did not use the words "wholly or mainly", so do not embarrass him, please.
This proposal that we have made is a proposal made by Canada. The Cairns group understands-I made it clear to the Cairns group last November-what our position was with respect to supply management and the attitude that we were taking. The Cairns group does not agree with us on this particular point, but they know that
Routine Proceedings
generally our objectives are the same. They welcome Canada as a valuable member.
The United States has its own position, but while the United States may dictate to the NDP what position they should take, they do not dictate to us what positions we are going to take.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, if this proposal becomes the rule under the GATT, will the guaranteed access provisions of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement become invalid, particularly those sections which guarantee access to poultry under the CUSTA. Will this now become invalid because the GATT would overrule it?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we will have to see first whether these provisions become an accepted part of the GATT. There will be a long and arduous negotiation. We are going to require that there be major changes on behalf of the United States, for example.
The hon. gentleman mentioned the United States. There are very objectionable features of law in the United States that we would like to see removed, particularly with respect to import controls. All these matters will be dealt with. I can assure the hon. gentleman that we will be getting the best possible deal for Canada in this multi-faceted and difficult international negotiation.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to table in the House today, in both official languages, the orders in council announcing appointments made recently by the government. Pursuant to Standing Order 110(1), these orders in council are deemed to have been referred to the standing committees as specified.

March 14, 1990
Routine Proceedings


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



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General in both official languages.
This report refers to the report "Taking Responsibility", which was prepared by the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General and tabled in this House in August, 1988, with a request that the government table a comprehensive response. However, Parliament was dissolved before a response could be tabled.
Believing that "Taking Responsibility" is still valid, the committee request pursuant to Standing Order 109 the government tabled a comprehensive response to that report.



BILL C-56-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-56, an Act to amend the Small Business Loans Act (with amendments).
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.] REPORT OF STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a meeting of the striking committee. I have a report to present to the House. Unfortunately, I do not have it in my hands at the moment. I will have it to the table in a minute or two from the striking committee.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Bob Kaplan moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code (duty to give assistance).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment to the Criminal Code to establish what is known in civil law as a rescuer's duty within Canadian law.
The idea comes from incidents like the situation in Calgary, and also in other cities, where victims of rape or other crimes are left and passers-by ignore them. There is a sense in the community that this is improper and that to the extent that a person can help someone else out without putting themselves in danger, they should do so.
I have taken a recommendation of the Law Reform Commission of Canada to this effect, based on the practice in many other civilized countries of the world. Judging from public reaction to these incidents, I believe it would enjoy great public support.


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


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, notwithstanding any Order or practice of this House, the report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1989, which was deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on January 31, 1990, (Sessional Paper No. 342-1/13A), be deemed referred as well to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development.
I believe there would be unanimous consent for that at this point in time.
March 14, 1990


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is also unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That the Special Committee on the Review of the CSIS Act and the Security Offences Act be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C. for the period from TUesday, March 20, 1990 to Thursday, March 22, 1990 for the purpose of holding discussions respecting security intelligence administration and structure, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee;
and that the committee be authorized to travel to Vancouver for the period from March 25, 1990 to March 28, 1990 for the purpose of hearing evidence related to the committee's order of reference and of visiting regional police and security facilities, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, again with unanimous consent, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development be authorized to travel to Montreal on Monday, March 19, 1990 to visit the laboratories of Hydro-Quebec in relation to its study of a science and technology strategy, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Routine Proceedings PETITIONS

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have yet another petition which comes from my constituents, certified by the House, containing 160 names from one community, La Salle, within my constituency, indicating that the petitioners object to the government's plans to go forward with the goods and services tax.
They feel that the government has not addressed the unfair tax system in this country and therefore call upon the House to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax and to reform the taxation system so that there are effective minimum taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations and the tax burden will be shifted away from ordinary Canadians.



FISHERIES

Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of almost 3,500 people mostly from the greater Victoria area who have asked me to submit a petition on their behalf. The petition deals with the use of drift-net fishing in the north Pacific Ocean.
It has been pulled together by the group AWARE that is based in Victoria. Drift-net fishing, the petition notes, is leading to an ecological disaster in the north Pacific. There is a requirement for very clear, firm measures by the Canadian government including the institution of economic sanctions and the placing of prohibitive tariffs and duties on imports to Canada from these countries unless they cease and desist from this very wrong and difficult practice.



NORTHERN TAX BENEFITS

Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to submit to the House two sets of petitions from constituents in my riding of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. They are residents of the town of Meadow Lake, Rapid View, Pierceland, Loon Lake, Goodsoil, Green Lake, Dorintosh and other communities.
These are communities affected by the northern tax allowance program and the petitioners, as have others that I have presented in this House, recognize that the report of the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas released in late October fails to address

March 14, 1990
Routine Proceedings
the realities of living in the north and it calls on Parliament to reject the recommendations contained in that report and in turn, develop a fair and equitable tax benefit program that recognizes the financial needs of the people of the northern and isolated areas.



GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

['So ordered.']
Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen -Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 and present another petition added to the thousands of names and many petitions I have already presented to the House against the goods and services tax that this government proposes.
People will not be fooled by this government's attempts at selling them on a lower rate and they have asked that this government cease with its present proposal which shifts the tax burden to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform. They ask the government to get on with real tax reform and get away from this regressive tax.



Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the pleasure to present a petition signed by several hundred constituents concerning a Canadian citizen and taxpayer, Mr. Wih-Sheh Leo, who was arrested unlawfully and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment for exercising his right to return to his native land and is currently under indictment on sedition charges, facing a minimum term of 10 years imprisonment. These charges are the result of political persecution by the authorities in Taiwan.
The petitioners ask the Canadian government to issue a public statement expressing Canada's concern over a Canadian citizen's rights being violated, instruct the Canadian Embassy in Japan or the High Commissioner's office in Hong Kong to send a representative to Taiwan, appoint a lawyer to handle the case and request Canada's allies which have representatives in Taiwan to assist in this case.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting in this Chamber five petitions signed by members of my community in my riding of York West. Essentially they are petitioners against the goods and services tax and we urge through these
petitions and by calling 1-900-720-6052 for Canadians to demonstrate the frustration and the anger that Canadians from coast to coast feel against-


Mr. Speaker:: I have to remind the hon. member that he is to present his petition, but to try as much as possible to stay away from entering into debate.


RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and privilege today to table a petition regarding the rights of the unborn child.
This petition has been signed by the residents of my constituency in Thunder Bay-Nipigon. It has been certified by the Clerk to be correct. The petitioners pray that the legislation be changed to effectively protect the life of the pre-bom child without distinction as to stages of development.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and pleasure of presenting a thick sheaf of petitions signed by well over 2,000 western Canadians, 800 of whom signed these petitions attended an anti-GST rally in Brandon last month and took the opportunity of expressing their displeasure and their opposition to the GST.
These petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36, have been certified as correct as to form and content. They simply point out that this GST is unwarranted, unfair, regressive, and they have asked us in the Liberal party to do all we can to oppose the tax and ask the government to come to its senses and withdraw the tax as soon as possible.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty on behalf of a number of constituents of Saskatoon, Waldheim, and Rosthem to put before the House a petition which calls upon the government to reject the current proposed goods and services tax and put in place an effective tax which is broad in base and does not harm the middle class Canadian.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36.1 have six petitions here, duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions, from a total of 210 constituents who are concerned about the goods and services tax.
March 14, 1990

They are concerned that it will be hidden and will be applied to virtually all goods and all services that they are involved in, particularly for the low and middle income Canadians that I largely represent and another group, the group of small businessmen who really feel that this is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by hundreds of students from the University of Prince Edward Island.
The students call upon their elected representatives to stop the erosion of quality and accessibility in our universities, colleges and other post-secondary educational institutions of Canada.
They also call upon Parliament and the Government of Canada to commit to arranging a federal-provincial conference of the highest political representatives to establish obligations of the two levels of government in the financing of Canadian post-secondary education and to ensure an end to the shameful neglect of higher education in Canada.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition with over 3,500 names on behalf of my constituents in Nipissing and also on behalf of the people of the Timiskaming riding who are against the goods and services tax.
These people feel that this tax is unfair and will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle income Canadians. It is also an unfair burden to small business.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three more petitions to add to the hundreds of petitions that I have presented from my riding of Prince Edward-Hastings from people who are concerned and fearful of what the goods and services tax is going to do to them as individuals and to their small businesses.
Routine Proceedings
They are asking the government to withdraw this unfair and unwarranted tax, go back to the drawing board, and put something in place that is more fair and more equal to the taxpayers of this country.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by numerous taxpayers and residents of Canada who object to the goods and services tax. They recite how unfair this tax is for them and for all Canadians and call upon Parliament to reject any bill based on such an inequitable measure.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 209 and 221. [Text]


Mr. Caccia: 1.	With reference to the sale of Candu nuclear reactor technology by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) (a) have AECL officials visited or worked at the Cemavoda site in Romania and, if so (i) on what dates (ii) what number of officials (iii) what were and are their job titles and descriptions (b) was AECL aware of the use of army conscripts and forced labour on the Cemavoda project and, if so, did AECL take any action to protest this practice (c) has AECL given Romania the right to sell Candu technology to third parties (d) has AECL been paid for the Candu technology installed in the Cemavoda power plant and, if so (i) what sums (ii) by what persons?
2.	Is AECL currently negotiating with other countries for the sale of Candu reactor technology and, if so (a) which ones (b) in each case, what stage have the negotiations reached?


Hon. Arthur Jacob Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. (a) Yes, AECL officials have both visited and worked at the Cemavoda site in Romania.
1. (a) (i) & (ii) The first AECL assignments to the Cemavoda site started in September, 1980. The average staff levels at this site were:
Year	No. of Persons
1980	2
1981	2
1982	2
1983	2
1984	2

March 14, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Year	No. of Persons
1985	2
1986	3
1987	8
1988	14
1989	15
1. (a) (iii) As of February 2, 1990, AECL has the following staff of 15 technical assistants assigned to the site:
-Construction Manager
-Civil Superintendent
-Quality Assurance Representative
-Nuclear Steam Plant Mechanical Superintendent
-Mechanical Quality Assurance Representative
-Nuclear Pipe Supervisor
-Process Engineer
-Instrumentation Superintendent
-Electrical Quality Assurance Representative
-Reactivity Mechanisms Specialist
-Maintenance Equipment Clean-up Superintendent
-Commissioning Manager
-Unit 2 Construction Quality Assurance Manager -Unit 2 Mechanical Quality Assurance Representative -Unit 2 Mechanical Engineer
The duties of these technical assistants, for their respective areas of expertise and responsibility, are:
To provide technical assistance to the client in the observance of AECL design requirements, including assistance with:
-technical guidance and planning
-quality assurance manuals
-corrective actions for construction errors
-training of certain workers
-inspection of procedures, test results, etc.
-correction of errors or shortages in the design.
1. (b) AECL was aware that the army provided some manual (unskilled) labour to the Project, in addition to its security duties, but AECL was not aware of "forced labour" at Cemavoda.
(c) Romania cannot sell CANDU technology to third countries without AECL's and the Government of Canada's prior written consent.
(d) ROMENERGO is current on all payments due to AECL for CANDU technology. Pursuant to section 20 (1) (d) of the Access to Information Act, the amount of such payments is confidential commercial information.
2. AECL is not currently negotiating the sale of CANDU reactor technology to other countries. However, in late January 1990, AECL received from South Korea an Invitation to Bid on engineering services for the construction of a second CANDU reactor in that country, that could eventually involve the sale of CANDU reactor technology. Negotiations for this unit are expected to begin later this year.


Mr. Blaikie: Has Atomic Energy of Canada Limited conducted any studies as to the likelihood of seismic activity or earthquakes occurring around the Cemadova reactor site in Romania, and if so, what were the major findings?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows:
Studies as to likelihood of seismic activity or earthquakes ocurring around the Cemadova site in Romania were conducted by the Romanians. Therefore, under the terms of the agreement with Romenergo and pursuant to section 20(1) (b) of the Access to Information Act, AECL cannot release the requested information.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-18 in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands is acceptable to the government with the reservation stated in the reply and the documents are tabled immediately.
March 14, 1990


[Stage Direction]
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the current list of lawyers and notaries in Canada approved to perform legal services for the Federal Business Development Bank.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if you would be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-22 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg- Transcona.


[Stage Direction]
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all studies conducted by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited as to the likelihood of seismic activity of earthquakes occurring around the Cemadova reactor site in Romania.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports that the requested studies were conducted by the Romanians. Therefore, under the terms of the agreements with Romanergo and pursuant to Section 21(b) of the Access to Information Act AECL cannot release the information contained in the reference document. In view of the above information I would ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Mr. Gauthier:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: So ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-48, an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Government Orders SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: There are 10 motions and amendments set down on the Notice Paper at the report stage of Bill C-48, an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act.
I have reviewed the motions.

Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the honourable, the Minister of Agriculture, seeks to extend the application of the crop insurance program to honey. This particular motion has caused the Chair a great deal of concern because of the history surrounding the whole issue. Nevertheless, the Chair cannot ignore the fact that the Minister is seeking to make a substantive amendment to the Bill by amending an interpretation section in the Bill. He is also introducing a new proposition into the Clause. This is against our pratice and I would refer the House to Citation 773, subsection 10, of Beauchesne's 5th Edition and to paragraph one, at page 555 of May's Parliamentary Practice, 20th Edition.
It is with regret but I must rule the motion out of order.
[English ]
Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Algoma also causes the Chair problems because it seeks to extend compensation for crop damage caused by water fowl to coverage of crop damage caused by wildlife. This, of course, is not procedurally acceptable because not only does it go beyond the scope of the clause but it also infringes on the royal recommendation.
Citation 540 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition stipulates that an amendment infringes on the financial initiatives of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also extends the objects and purposes set out in the communication by which the Crown has recommended a charge. I might also add that this motion was moved in the legislative committee and ruled out of order.

I have no choice therefore but to rule motion No. 2 out of order.

March 14, 1990
Government Orders
Since the hon. member is seeking to do the same thing with respect to compensation for crop damage in motions Nos. 3, 6, 7 and 8 as he tried to do in motion No. 2, he will know that I must also, rule those motions out of order for the same reasons.

Motion No. 4 also stands in the name of the hon. member for Algoma. This motion in amendment would increase the amounts paid by the Government of Canada to the government of a province. As I have pointed out above, increasing a burden or charge on the Treasury infringes on the royal recommendation and is contrary to our practices as found and set out in Citation 540 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. For this reason I have no choice but to rule the motion out of order.

Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mackenzie caused the Chair to reflect because it was dealt with in the Committee. Eiowever, the Chair has received representations from the member and is prepared to accept the arguments that the amendment is significant enough to warrant consideration at this stage.
For this reason, I will allow the motion to be put to the House. It will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 9, standing in the name of the hon. member for McKenzie is also acceptable. It will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 10, standing in the name of the hon. member for Algoma caused the Chair to reflect. However, other instances were found where similar advisory, consultative and other similar types of committees were created without any charge on the federal treasury being necessary. Therefore, the motion is acceptable and it will also be debated and voted on separately.

To recapitulate, motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 are out of order and will not be selected for debate.

Motion Nos. 5, 9 and 10 are acceptable and each will be debated and voted on separately.
I want to thank all hon. members for their co-operation in discussions on these matters with the Chair.
The House will proceed first with motion no. 5, which I will now propose to the House.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, I respect your ruling and certainly do not want to take issue with it. Your ruling with respect to motion No. 1 does put us in a bit of a dilemma, inasmuch as the amendment was being put in place with a view to satisfying a requirement that was proposed by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. This has been an ongoing issue for quite a number of years. The purpose of this amendment was to resolve that particular issue and to clarify the definition of crop consistent with the recommendations of this committee.
Just to recap, the purpose of the amendment was to revise the definition of crop. It really does not change in a major way the thrust of the bill. In effect, what we are doing here is adding the words "including honey"-because honey has been included as a crop under the provisions of this legislation in the past-to the end of the present definition, both the French and English versions. The French version would be amended to replace the word agricole on line 19, page 1, with the word vegetal. The change to the French text would ensure that the English and French versions are more consistent. That also would include the reference to the words "including honey".
As a matter of fact, on February 22, 1990,1 received a letter from the Joint Committee indicating that there should be an amendment to ensure that the definition of crop would permit honey to be considered as a crop for the purposes of this act. It went on to state that between 1985 and 1988, the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations of the Department of Justice had expressed differences of opinion as to whether the definition of crop in the existing Crop Insurance Act sufficiently provided authority to allow honey as an insurable crop.
I would like to clarify this, if it is possible. I suspect that one way of clarifying it would be seeking unanimous consent of the House. If that unanimous consent was granted, it would seem to me that we would do two things. We would make it very clear that honey was included and it would clarify that issue, plus I think that
March 14, 1990

it would satisfy the requirement of the Standing Joint Committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the hon. minister. I very much regret that my ruling on procedural grounds is causing him difficulty on such a substantive matter. The Minister has asked for consent. I wonder if the hon. member for Mackenzie and the hon. member for Algoma could assist the Chair. The hon. member for Mackenzie.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think the minister has stated the situation quite clearly. The regulations and the practice have included honey. The law as it would have come before this House failed to mention it. I think it was an oversight. I also think we should give unanimous consent to include it, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the permission of the other parties in the House.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, I think we would like to see honey included. It is an important crop. Although it may not be as large in dollar volumes as some others, I think we would want to see it included.
That way it clarifies that it is covered by the crop insurance legislation, and especially by Bill C-148. Because it is a clarification of what is covered under the term crop, it seems to me that it does not require a change in the royal recommendation. It simply clarifies an existing situation which has been ongoing for a number of years.


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. We have to give the minister credit for bringing forth this amendment. He obviously is trying to sweeten up this bill. Of course other parts of it were ruled out of order which we thought would have made it much more palatable, but because he has introduced this particular amendment we know what he is trying to do and we will go along with it on behalf of the honey producers of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is consent for the minister to move the motion. Again I thank the hon. minister for bringing the matter to the attention of the Chair. Of course I am bound by the rules, but the House can make its own rules and in this case it certainly has done so.
Government Orders


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-48 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 20 at
page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"criteria contained in the regulations, and includes honey;".
Motion No. 1 agreed to.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-48 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 3 to 8
at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) an amount equal to twenty-five percent of all premiums paid in the province under the insurance scheme in that year."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have proposed this amendment because I think the words of the act would reflect more clearly the speeches and the public announcements that have been made on this particular area of the cost sharing arrangement. We have been given to understand that the federal government will pay 25 per cent of the premium costs, the provincial governments will pay 25 per cent, and the producers will pay 50 per cent of the total cost of premiums for crop insurance.
This particular amendment would state that quite clearly. In its original form before my amendment it would simply provide for a share of up to a maximum of 25 per cent of all premiums paid in the insurance year by the federal government and by the province, which by simple logic means that the producers would be paying much more than 50 per cent on those particular years. I think this makes the formula clearer and more consistent from year to year. I would hope that all members in the House would support it.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise and congratulate the hon. member on the amendment he has put forward. A similar amendment was proposed in the standing committee. It ensures that the government is not going to welsh on its commitment of 25 per cent.
This bill does some very good things. It provides for greater benefits to be paid under the crop insurance legislation, but the percentage of the premium is the problem. It does not provide for tripartite participation. It does not even provide for 25 per cent participation. It

March 14, 1990
Government Orders
is not guaranteed, and that is what the hon. member is seeking to do in this amendment.
There is great concern in the country that historically Canada has paid 50 per cent of the premium, farmers have paid 50 per cent, and the provincial governments outside Newfoundland and Quebec where this particular arrangement has been in effect have paid only the administrative costs.
In this bill we not only have the government reducing its share of the premium from 50 per cent to 25 per cent. We do not even have a guarantee that it is going to pay 25 per cent, and that is what the amendment attempts to do. Practically every farm organization in this country from the prairie pools to the Ontario government, to com producers, to soybean producers have asked that the percentages be 33, 33 and 33.
For the life of me I do not understand why the government did not accept those amendments, or why it brought in a bill like this one. The government and every farm organization would like very much to get away from ad hoc programs such as the Special Canadian Grains Program and the drought program. They would have cost the government some $850 million in the case of drought and, in the case of the special grains program, $1 billion two or three years in a row.
Yet we bring in a crop insurance program that goes to the higher percentage of coverage, from 70 per cent to 90 per cent and in some cases from 80 per cent to 90 per cent coverage. It makes a number of other improvements, yet the premium is increased so dramatically that the question is whether farmers will take out the coverage.
At the same time we see the government chiselling away and deciding whether it is going to provide 33 per cent or 25 per cent. In the case of this amendment, it is not even going to guarantee that they will provide 25 per cent. It may be less at some time in the future. This would leave the provinces in a desperate situation.
In provinces like Prince Edward Island just switching from administrative costs to 25 per cent puts them in an impossible situation. Nobody knows exactly how in the world they are going to meet their share because it goes from about $150,000 a year to $650,000 a year. That is half a million dollars, which for larger provinces might
not be a big cost but for provinces like Prince Edward Island with 130,000 people is a major cost.
We have pleaded with the government. Our amendments have been ruled out of order. I think the government is nickeling and diming and cutting the thing tight for producers and small provinces. A bill which theoretically would work will not work because premiums are so much higher. I do not have all the figures, but for com the premium rose from something like $5.70 to $10 an acre. That is almost a 50 per cent or 60 per cent increased cost per acre to move from an 80 per cent coverage to a 90 per cent coverage.
Besides that increased cost for those producers, provinces like Prince Edward Island are going to have great difficulty. They are hoping that through cost shared arrangements or some other deal the government can slip them $500,000 under the table rather than cost sharing it on a proper basis up front.
When the ministers of agriculture met last year in Saskatoon, it is interesting that provinces like Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario and British Columbia opposed it. There was no change in the existing legislation as far as Newfoundland and Quebec were concerned. Producers across the country opposed it. Yet we ended up with this cost sharing arrangement which will only mean that we will have to bring in special drought assistance programs whenever there is a national disaster such as we had in 1988 and in 1989. Provinces like Saskatchewan, Manitoba and southwestern Ontario have already demanded crop assistance for 1989 as well as 1988. We can understand it in the case of com producers. If we look at their net margin and the volume, their returns as a group are almost the same in 1989 as they were in 1988.
The Minister of Finance can come into the House as he did in April 1989 and say that he is going to save $200 million in crop insurance because he is going to off load on to the provinces. We see provinces like P.E.I. facing an increase of almost 400 per cent in the cost of its premiums.
That is a serious problem for those provinces, but equally serious is the fact that many responsible farm organizations-the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Corn Producers, and many other groups-
March 14, 1990

are saying that the problem with this bill is that we will not get the same kind of coverage because the premium costs will be so high.
We are not even guaranteed as is in the existing bill that the government will provide even 25 per cent. If the government drops that on some whim to 20 per cent or lower, provincial governments or farmers will end up with a major new cost as a percentage of the total premiums to be paid.
The amendment we have before us would at least ensure that the federal government is to provide 25 per cent of the costs. This is a good amendment. I hope that the government will a'ccept it. It does not require any change in the royal recommendation because it provides up to 25 per cent now. All the minister has to do is accept the amendment and farmers will at least be assured that the federal government is making a commitment to ensure that at least 25 per cent will be paid under the cost sharing arrangements with the provinces and the producers under this legislation. I hope that the government will accept this amendment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly appreciate the intent of hon. members, both the hon. member who proposed the amendment and my hon. friend across the way from Algoma.
What is important to remember is that the wording has been chosen very carefully because it has to be consistent with the provisions contained within the clause itself. It preserves the very important principle of equal sharing between the federal and the provincial government.
Bearing in mind that crop insurance programs fall within provincial jurisdiction, the federal government actually reimburses moneys to the provinces that have advanced the federal share of premiums to their respective insurance agency. In order to get a full appreciation of this, Mr. Speaker, you have to go back and read the beginning of Clause 4 which talks about contributions. It really reflects my earlier statement when it states:
The contribution payable to the government of a province in respect
of a year in relation to an insurance scheme shall bean amount equal to
Government Orders
the aggregate of (a) 50 per cent of the expenses incurred by the
province in that year in the administration of the insurance scheme-
That is 50 per cent of the cost of administration and it continues:
-and (b) an amount equal to the share of the premiums paid by the province under the insurance scheme in that year, up to a maximum of 25 per cent of all premiums paid under the insurance scheme in that year.
What we are enshrining in here is the principle of 50 per cent of the cost of administration and up to 25 per cent of the share of the premium paid by the province under the insurance scheme in that particular year. The words in this clause have been chosen very carefully to reflect the fact that we must have the flexibility to match the amount paid by the province in the event a province were to elect to pay less than 25 per cent.
We have no intention of reducing our share, but if in the event a province did, we would have to comply consistent with that principle of equal sharing. This is a matter of upholding a principle and of maintaining consistency. We have to be consistent with the principle that underlines the program and is contained earlier in the clause I just quoted.
I should say as well that at our request the Department of Justice has reviewed the clause. It has pointed out that subparagraph 4(l)(a)(ix) at page 3 sets out the elements that are to form part of an insurance scheme established in the province in order for the scheme to qualify for contributions. This is driven by the provincial government and these are the conditions that have to be set out for the federal government to participate.
If we look at subparagraph 4(l)(a)(ix), at the top of page 4, we find that it outlines the manner of determining the premiums to be paid under an insurance contract and the share of those premiums to be paid by the province. Under that particular provision of the bill it provides that the share of premiums can be spelled out in the federal-provincial crop insurance agreements.
I want to assure all hon. members in the House and the country that we will be ensuring that a clause is put into each agreement with our provincial counterparts to the effect that both levels of government will be contributing 25 per cent. I have no difficulty with that whatsoever.

March 14, 1990
Government Orders
What we want to do is ensure that the province contributes 25 per cent and we will contribute 25 per cent, and that will be enshrined in each of the respective agreements. I think that in itself should give hon. members comfort and assurance that we will fulfil and uphold our obligation.
Therefore this particular clause would be inconsistent and it could have the effect of violating a fundamental principle that is enshrined in the bill.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow on the minister's comments. For the last year and a half that we have been discussing this particular bill, the federal government has been making a good point that it is 50 per cent, 25 per cent and 25 per cent.
However, if there is a reduction by the provinces under the present structure of that particular clause, there will be an equal counter-reduction by the federal government and the information that we have been passing out around the country will be wrong. Instead of producers being 50 per cent, the producers will be 80 per cent or whatever is the decision. If they go down to 10 per cent or 15 per cent, then we would have a situation which would no longer be the situation with which we have been dealing for a considerable length of time.
The minister made the point that they can put into the contract an assurance that it would stay at 25 per cent. All this particular amendment does is make sure that the federal government in its contract with the province will put it in at 25 per cent because if it does not the cost sharing will break down.
Consequently, it seems to me that all we are doing by passing this particular amendment is making sure that the 50, 25, 25 and 50 per cent of the administration costs will happen. In other words, we are fulfilling the promises we have made to the producers across the country.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief comment. I do not know whether it is in order for me to ask the minister to make a clarification.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, it is.


Lyle Vanclief: Following on the comments of the previous speaker, what the minister said in his comments a minute ago if I understood him correctly was that the
wording of the bill at the present time is up to 25 per cent. If a province were to make a decision for whatever reason to back off to 15 per cent, then this legislation would allow the federal government to back off to 15 per cent. This would be a total contribution to the premium cost of 30 per cent, leaving 70 per cent to be picked up by the producer.
I would like to stress to the minister that this is a concern I have heard from many producers. Given the criticism that many of our agricultural programs are coming under in the world and given the trading situation at the present time, this may very well be an action that could be taken by a government in order to quell concerns and to satisfy people. That is the concern of producers.
If we take this to the extreme, it could go down to zero and zero, and the federal and provincial governments would simply split the administrative costs fifty-fifty while the producers would have to pay 100 per cent of the premiums. I am not saying that is the intention of this government or of any government, but the way I understand the legislation it is not an impossibility for that to happen legally or for it to go down to 1 per cent. What is the guarantee that it will not go down, down and down?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be indifferent because I know what the hon. member is driving at. The principle he outlines in terms of the federal government's share is pretty clear in our own mind. These are set out in the respective agreements that we negotiate with each of the provinces. Each of the agreements varies in some detail. We lay out here the terms and conditions under which we reimburse and refund, bearing in mind that crop insurance is a provincial responsibility and a provincial program.
What we are defining here are the criteria under which the federal government shares in the cost. The principle of equal sharing is inherent throughout this particular piece of legislation. It is based upon the premise that 25 per cent of the funding will be paid by the province and 25 per cent of the funding paid by the federal government. I have indicated that that is our commitment. It stands on that basis.
On the basis of the legal requirement and the review of the Department of Justice, in order to be consistent and in order to maintain the principle of equal sharing it
March 14, 1990

has to be provided for in the bill in the manner in which it is described at the present time.
I sympathize with the hon. member. I know what he is driving at. I can only reiterate that our firm commitment is there. On the basis of the negotiations that will take place, we will ensure that the 25 per cent is a fundamental part of the agreements that are negotiated with the provinces.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, when the minister was responding to my comments he did not deal with the question of provinces like Prince Edward Island which are facing a massive increase in their premiums. Their administrative costs in the past have been about $150,000. Their premiums and the premiums provided under this proposed legislation will be something like $650,000 plus the administrative costs or cost sharing. Prince Edward Island is facing a $500,000 increase in cost. Since that province did not agree I just wonder if any special arrangement or system is to be provided by the federal government for those smaller provinces.
I ask this question in view of the fact that under the existing legislation Prince Edward Island is not even guaranteed that it will get 25 per cent. The federal government may provide it. It should provide it and we hope that it will, but it is not guaranteed. I assume that there are similar figures for New Brunswick and British Columbia since they are both opposing this legislation. I wonder what arrangement there will be for such a massive increase in premium costs for smaller provinces.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before recognizing the hon. minister, I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members that particularly right now when debate is permitted no member shall speak more than once or longer than 10 minutes during proceedings of any amendment at this particular stage.
Motions Nos. 5, 9 and 10 will be moved and we will have 10-minute speeches. Perhaps we can deal with this motion and begin consideration of the next one.
I will allow the minister to answer the question this time, but I think we should follow the Standing Orders.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I was going to rise on a point of order to seek unanimous consent to respond to
Government Orders
the very legitimate question of the hon. member. With your permission I will try to respond as briefly as I possibly can.
In his earlier remarks the hon. member left the impression that the whole country, all provinces, wanted a sharing arrangement of a third, a third and a third. He is absolutely wrong, and he should not leave that impression because he was not at Prince Albert. This happens to be a provincial program. I want to remind him, once again, that the provinces that utilize crop insurance to the fullest wanted no part of the one-third/ one-third/one-third arrangement. He should know that. Ontario was there and it reluctantly accepted it.
They would have preferred the one-third/one-third/o-ne-third sharing arrangement, but it was something like dealing with the Constitution. One will not get unanimous agreement on everything one does, in spite of one's best efforts. We did try to work out a solution to the problem and try to bring forth a piece of legislation that would reflect in a genuine way the best interests of all the producers and the participating provinces. I want to make sure that that impression is clarified.
The hon. member says that British Columbia is against this piece of legislation. That province has had some reservations but it is on board. New Brunswick has had some reservations, but we were working out an accommodation for them. It was not objecting to the principle as much as it was objecting to the fact that it needed some time to phase in the new sharing arrangement. We said that we were prepared to work with them in helping them ease into the new sharing arrangement. Those discussions are ongoing. We are prepared to do the same thing with Prince Edward Island.
This is not the perfect piece of legislation, but there are many players who are involved. We believe that it is a good starting point from which we can build a better crop insurance program on the basis of improvements that may be brought forth from time to time. When the hon. member suggests that this is more off-loading on the part of the federal government on to the provinces, I want to remind him that the share of the federal government's participation is not going down. It is going up. It is up to around $300 million odd this year, and it

March 14, 1990
Government Orders
will be back to that level in the 1994-1995 crop year again.
The suggestion that this is an attempt to off-load is certainly not accurate. Whatever burden that has been shifted on to the provinces has been taken up by the improvements and the enhancements to the program. We firmly believe that, because crop insurance is a provincial responsibility, they should be sharing more than just simply the cost of administration. They should be sharing at least a part of the premium and equal to, if not more, than what the federal government is providing. I think that that is fair and that is what we have tried to achieve. We have tried to achieve a balance that will provide improvements.
As a matter of fact, the multi-year disaster benefit program, which has just unleashed an additional $100 million or so to those who have had successive crop failures as a result of drought or other weather related disasters, is an add on and an enhancement. We are going to see more of that in this particular program.
The urgency of this is such that we should get along with it and move it ahead. It has had a great deal of public discussion. It does have a great amount of support from the provinces. We have tried to work together with the provinces and the producers, in designing this legislation as best we can.
I know that it is the job of hon. members opposite to try to get more and to identify weaknesses, and I am attempting to respond to them. I can assure them that this is the best possible solution that we can come up with at this time, and I urge their co-operation and understanding. If improvements are needed as we go along, I am sure that we can attend to them in the due course of time. This is a very major step forward and I commend it to all hon. members.


Mr. Laporte:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With regard to the rules, I believe that what we should have been doing is having 10-minute speeches with no questions and comment period. I believe that is correct.
As a matter of fairness, however, the agriculture critic from the Liberal party has had a question. I know that the member for Mackenzie has a short question and I would ask the Chair to allow the member to put that question, please.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is report stage today, and it is not committee of the whole. Each member should speak for 10 minutes, then we can go on to the next motion. There are two other motions, so it is not that we are going to delete any debate here today.
The hon. Member for Mackenzie.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that it is report stage. I just note that we had diverged from the rules and, since the minister was taking questions, I wondered if I could ask one.
We listened with great care to his explanations as to why he had to reject my amendment. I believe he said that he had to do this because he had no way of making certain that the share that the province paid would be the same as the share that the federal government paid. I think that he and all future ministers-and we always have to think of future ministers when we are putting bills before Parliament because the bills will last a long time-still have that power under Clause 4(l)(a)(ix) of the act, which he quoted today himself. It permits the minister to set out the elements that are to form part of an insurance scheme established in the province, in order for the scheme to qualify for contributions, including the manner of determining the premiums to be paid under an insurance contract, and the share of those premiums to be paid by the province.
I submit to the minister that his or any future minister's ability to determine what share of those total premiums the province pays is still well protected with my wording. I would ask him again to consider that, since it is in effect guaranteeing that the federal government will be contributing 25 per cent, and since this other clause that I just quoted permits him to extract an equal share from each of the provinces, is it not what we are really trying to do with this amendment that I have proposed? Are we not trying to guarantee that the producers will never be stuck with more than 50 per cent of the premiums?
He has been addressing the equality between the federal and the provincial governments, but the whole reasoning behind this change to the crop insurance legislation was to ensure that producers also had a certain amount of protection. I would like his response as to how he sees the producer being protected if an amendment such as mine is defeated by his members and if the governments, federal and provincial together, choose to pay less than 50 per cent. Where then is the protection for the producer? The producer will have to
March 14, 1990

pay more than 50 per cent. That was the whole reasoning behind the amendment in the first place.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, in part answered his own question, inasmuch as the precise share is technically spelled out in the agreements that are negotiated between the federal government and the province. That is what that whole clause outlines.
As far as we are concerned, we ensure that we are going to be incorporating the sharing arrangement of 25-25-50. That will be reflected in each of the agreements that are negotiated. My legal people tell me that that flexibility has to remain within the context of this particular bill to preserve the principles and to maintain the consistency of the act.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the comments just made by the hon. minister. It is very clear that the government is doing nothing more than simply playing politics with the producers in western Canada, at a time when they are in a crisis situation. They need some stability and some certainty from the government. What the government said before is not what it is doing now. In the promotional material that it sent across the country, it is very clear. I have a copy of one of these promotions right here. It states that the federal government will pay 25 per cent of the premiums.
The minister is simply playing political games. There is no assurance for the producers of the country that down the road the federal government will continue to pay 25 per cent. The motion moved by the member for Mackenzie would clarify that. It clearly states that it will be "an amount equal to 25 per cent of all premiums paid". That is very clear. It clarifies and makes certain the position that was put forth by the government earlier. To have this motion defeated will put the producers in a very risky situation. Who knows what will happen in the future?
If the government decides to reduce the premiums to 20 per cent or 15 per cent, who is going to pay the extra amount? It may well be the producers. In fact, until recently, the federal government was paying 50 per cent of the premiums. Now it is down to 25 per cent. The government said it was 25 per cent, but now this bill
Government Orders
states "up to 25 per cent". It could be reduced below 25 per cent in the future. The government is doing nothing more than playing politics with the producers across the country. The minister and the government know that.


An Hon. Member:: It is shameful.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Yes, it is shameful.
The producers need some assurance. They need the assurance of the government that it is looking after their interests and the needs of agriculture.
The whole rural infrastructure of the country is in a very sorry state these days. The economic infrastructure in western Canada, which is agriculture, is in a very shaky situation. The infrastructure in Atlantic Canada, which is the fishing industry, is in a very shaky situation. What people need in western Canada is some assurances, commitment and leadership from the government. They are not getting it. They are getting games and doubletalk from the government. This is not what the producers in western Canada deserve. Furthermore, when producers in western Canada are in difficulty, the whole infrastructure of western Canada is in difficulty too.
In the last few years in the province of Saskatchewan we have seen a falling out of the bottom of agriculture. As a result, we have 14 per cent of people in that province living below the poverty line. That is 14 per cent, which is the second highest number of people living below the poverty line of any province in the country. Only Newfoundland exceeds that. In addition to that, we have lost 28,000 people from of the province last year, a direct loss of population. A lot of that can be attributed to the agriculture economy.
What people need in Saskatchewan and in western Canada is some commitment by the government that it is doing something to help the agricultural economy of western Canada. When the agricultural economy is in crisis, small businesses are in crisis. The general store owner in small towns is in difficulty. The people who sell fertilizer, gasoline, and fuel are in difficulty. The government has not provided the leadership that people in western Canada need. This is just one more example of double-talk and politics. There is one thing the government is very good at and that is playing politics and political strategy. It is not very good when it comes to

March 14, 1990
Government Orders
helping ordinary Canadians. That is the real failing of the government.
As the member for Mackenzie pointed out, Clause 4 of the bill allows this government and future federal governments to negotiate with the provinces with respect to cost sharing. There is nothing that hinders that ability in the amendment put forth by the member for Mackenzie. His motion simply gives some assurances to farmers and producers of western Canada and across the country that the government is going to commit itself to paying 25 per cent of the crop insurance premiums. It is not asking too much for the government to put its legislation where its mouth is. That is all we are asking. For the minister to stand up and make those comments is an outrage, and it is an insult to western Canadians.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, I was in the House listening to the member from Moose Jaw. He kept using the word "politics", and said we are playing politics.
I wish the member would read the wording of the bill under which crop insurance is presently enacted. It is the bill that provides the details and the administrative and legal framework for the agreements which the federal government signs with the provinces. He would see that the wording is very similar to that of the present bill. If he saying that we are playing politics with the bill that is before the House, he is, by implication, saying that we have been doing the same thing for the last 20 or 25 years during which crop insurance has operated.
With regard to politics, it may be useful to look at how various political stripes of governments have treated farmers. My province had an NDP government until two years ago. One can look at the amount of money we spent federally in the province of Manitoba and the amount of money that was spent provincially. I am sure that producers would be interested to know that for the last year in which the NDP was in power in Manitoba, it contributed something like 8 per cent of all the money spent directly to support agriculture, as opposed to the federal government spending 92 per cent.
If the hon. member wants to talk politics, first of all I would suggest that he read the legislation that crop insurance presently operates under and compare it to the wording we have in front of us in the amendment. He would have to admit that it is very similar and that this bill is going to provide considerable advantage to producers that they do not have now under the present legislation. If he would go back and examine again the record of the last NDP government in the province, he would see who was playing politics and who was there for the farmers in terms of support. I will back our Minister of Agriculture's word and commitment to agriculture to anybody and any NDP government from coast to coast in the country.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the minister admonish the member for Algoma by saying that he had not been in Prince Albert when the discussions on this took place.
I was in Prince Albert, that being my home town. I was not party to the closed door discussions, but I was at the press conference and heard the explanations to the media and other interested parties when the minister announced the agreement which had been reached. There was no hint in the words of the minister at that time that there might be anything less than a 50 per cent contribution from the two combined levels of government or that a possibility existed in the legal framework that by some action of some government, farmers could end up picking up 60, 70 or 80 per cent of the cost of premiums. That was no part of the discussions at all.
The minister knows that he very clearly left the impression that the federal share would be 25 percent, the provincial share would be 25 per cent, and the farmer's share would be 50 per cent. That is very important to hammer home. As the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre so clearly said, what the farming community needs is some certainty and security and it needs to get away from ad hoc programming. Helpful as it may be from time to time, certainly it does not encourage somebody to go the bank another year to get another loan or young people to get into farming. There has to be security for the farmer.
March 14, 1990

I am afraid that the government, by rejecting this amendment, creates the impression among farmers that, yes, indeed, agriculture programming is highly political.
The previous member who spoke wanted to make some partisan comparisons. Some may be valid and some may not be. The farming community is becoming cynical about politicians and the basic willingness and good faith of governments to come to their assistance.
I think if the farming community was to become aware of what is happening, it would again reinforce the cynicism that farmers have about governments because what they see is the provincial governments and federal government protecting themselves but nobody protecting the farmer.
The minister might reconsider Section 4 which allows him to set the terms and conditions. If a particular province does not want to contribute 25 per cent, the minister can say under this legislation that, no, we are not going to be part of this agreement and thereby force every province to contribute 25 per cent. The ability to do that is there even if the minister accepts the hon. member's motion.
The minister makes the point that it is his intention, as long as this government is in power and he is the minister to sign 50 per cent agreements, but he might not always be the minister and government priorities change. When you talk to members privately, there are a lot of decisions not made by ministers. For example, the Minister of Forestry has made commitments all over this country about his commitment to reforestation. The Minister of Finance says, "Well, that is not possible. There is not that kind of money".
In future years the Minister of Finance might say to the Minister of Agriculture, "Sorry, buddy, there is not this kind of money available, we are cutting back on the federal share of crop insurance". There is not much that minister could do about it.
If the polls persist and the Conservative's arch enemies, the Liberals, came to power and decided to make some amendments, that could result in a change. You never know. If farmers are going to feel protected through this and the government is keeping faith with them, there has to be a statutory provision. It just cannot
Government Orders
be an agreement. It cannot just be "take my word for it today". Farmers need a statutory provision.
It is possible to meet the minister's objectives by accepting this motion. I urge him to reconsider it and have his members support Motion No. 5, the motion put forward by the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am not an agricultural or constitutional expert, but I want to say that the minister brought up the word "Constitution". He talked about the fact that we try to make constitutional agreements. I think what is concerning not only the farmers of this country but people in general is that over the last period the government has basically been on a retreat from national governance, whether it is VIA Rail, unemployment insurance or the Post Office, it has been unloading everything.
As a result, this is a situation here where farmers could face the same exposure. The minister said, "We want to have a 25-25 split with the provinces. But, technically speaking, he is exposing a disadvantaged province because if it cuts back by 5 per cent, then basically what he is saying is that the federal government is going to take its lead from that province. If that is not the case, I stand to be corrected.
When we have so many youths leaving the farms, with bankruptcies and bank managers refusing lines of credit day in and day out, I do not think this is a time for the federal Minister of Agriculture to be in any position where he will have to retreat on something as fundamental as crop insurance.
So I follow other members in this House and ask the minister to make this a statutory requirement.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate what my colleague, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds said, the wording in this particular piece of legislation is really the same as it was in the existing legislation. The hon. member asked me to keep faith with the farmers. I am keeping faith with the farmers consistent with the legislation that has been in place for the last 20 years; the same principle, same wording, same thrust. What is so different about the wording today compared to the previous legislation? That is what this debate is all about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On the same point of order, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.

March 14, 1990
Government Orders


Dennis Joseph Mills: The government should just say clearly and specifically that if a disadvantaged province which may not be able to put its full complement of funds on the table has to cut back 20 per cent, it will not follow that provincial contribution in a matched way and fall back as well. That is what I cannot seem to understand. If it would just say that will not happen, then I personally would be satisfied.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the hon. minister to answer, but we are getting into a debate again on this report stage. We are not going to get past Motion No. 5 today. The hon. Minister of Agriculture.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member, the record clearly speaks for itself. I appreciate his sincerity and his concern. But when we talk about equality and what the federal government's commitment is to those provinces who have difficulty in meeting some of the challenges in agriculture, my hon. colleague, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, pointed to these facts. In the province of Manitoba in 1988-89, some $551 million worth of federal assistance went into the agri-food industry for 91.72 per cent of the total assistance in agriculture to that province. The province provided $107 million for 8.28 per cent. That was 1988-89.
In 1987-88, it was a similar figure of $782 million for the federal government, and $70 million for the provincial government. In 1986-87, it was $521 million provided by the federal government, and $67.9 million by the provincial government. If that does not demonstrate the sincerity and consideration of the federal government in dealing with agriculture crises as they occur, I do not know what is.
Furthermore, let me just point this out once again. He is a constitutional expert and he probably understands legislation as well. We are using essentially the same wording in this bill as has been used in the past. There is no difference. The contracts, the arrangements, and the agreements that have to be negotiated between the provinces and the federal government still have to be negotiated in the same manner. We contribute consistent with the criteria that has been established here. Our bottom line is, we are there for 25 per cent of the action. We have been there for 50 per cent of the action before and there were no questions asked about it. We are here for 25 per cent of the action now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


An Hon. Member:: On division.
Motion No. 5 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 9.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-48 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 42 at
page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"Minister, who may for that purpose consult with representatives of such producer organizations as the Minister considers appropriate, and the Minister shall cause a".
He said: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the discussions on this bill in committee, there was a series of amendments which were aimed at providing the minister with the power to strike a consultative or advisory committee to get feedback from farmers and their organizations as to the operations of the crop insurance legislation.
This is, in effect, the most watered down version that we got to. At the committee level most of the members on the government side decided that they had better vote against it until they found out what the government's thinking was. My understanding is that the government now sees that it would, in fact, enhance the legislation, would not harm it at all, and is, I understand, prepared to accept it.
I will not say any more than that. It is simply a matter of permitting the Minister of Agriculture in the future to strike a committee of producers and users of crop insurance across the country so that he or she can better gauge the effectiveness of the program.
I think it is a necessary adjunct to the act. I hope that my understanding that the government will be providing its assent to this motion is correct. I thank the Minister of Agriculture for having accepted it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. I think that it is a reasonable proposal that makes sense when conducting a review of the act that producers be given an opportunity to provide input, guidance and advice with respect to future changes.
March 14, 1990

We assume that this motion provides sufficient flexibility for the Minister of Agriculture responsible to conduct such an evaluation. Certainly we, on this side, will support the hon. member's motion.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate my support for this motion. As the minister indicated, I was not at the Prince Albert meeting of ministers last July. The problem was that many groups, like the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which represents Prairie Pools and other groups, were not there either.
Essentially what we had was a carving up of the pie, with the federal government reducing its input by 50 per cent from 50 per cent of premium to 25 per cent of premium. The province is assuming a 25 per cent premium and the farmer is left with the same percentage, 50 per cent of the premium.
The problem with that is that this legislation is very good in some ways. It brings in the waterfowl coverage and more flexibility. Most of all, it increases coverage in many areas of the country from 70 per cent to 90 per cent. That is very important. The problem is that the premiums go up. For instance, in Ontario the premium rate for a car going from 70 per cent to 90 per cent increases from 2.4 per cent of whatever your coverage is to 6.9 per cent. That is almost a 300 per cent increase to gain a 20 per cent improvement in coverage.
The same applies in Saskatchewan where hard red spring wheat goes from 12.5 per cent to 19.5 per cent. That is why I am delighted, because that represents at least a 50 per cent increase of the premium.
Perhaps, since the minister has indicated that he is willing to have this consultation, we will not have this backroom deal taking place in Prince Albert where the three partners-the provincial government, the federal government and the producers- will be at the table so that there will be more consultation. Although the objectives of the bill are laudable because they are going to provide up to 90 per cent coverage, the premiums are going to go up by 50 per cent to go from that 70 per cent coverage which is typical in the west to a 90 per cent coverage which is what we are seeking to achieve.
In many cases, it is even more dramatic than that. In Ontario, for instance, in winter wheat just to go from 80 per cent to 90 per cent, you have an increase of 63 per
Government Orders
cent in the premiums. In com, just to go from 80 per cent to 90 per cent, you have a 64 per cent increase in the premiums. You end up with a good program, but will fanners take it? Mostly, across the country, farmers are saying that they like the program but the premiums are too high to get that maximum coverage. That is why our proposal to have a tripartite arrangement, as we have for pork, beef and other commodities, would be so much more improved. But perhaps with this consultation mechanism proposed in Motion No. 9, there will not be this kind of backroom deal, with the federal and provincial governments, two parts in the tripartite arrangement, cutting a deal with the farmer left out in the cold and still paying 50 per cent of the premium and ending up with a premium so high and so unfairly cost shared that farmers will not be able to afford the additional coverage.
That is made so clear in the Canadian Federation of Agriculture brief which supports the Prairie Pools. It was made clear by the Canadian com producers and the Ontario soybean producers. The problem of the whole bill is whether or not we are going to get the adequate coverage.
I want to indicate support from our caucus for this amendment. We have a more formal proposal in Motion No. 10 which would establish a much more formal arrangement for an advisory committee, but I will wait to speak on that a little later.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 9 agreed to.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-48 be amended in Clause 8 by adding immediately
after line 44 at page 7 the following:
"13.1(1) The Minister may constitute an advisory committee on any terms and conditions determined by the Minister.
(2)	The advisory committee may be composed of persons designated by the producers to whom this Act applies, of such persons responsible for the implementation of this Act as are appointed by the Minister and of such persons responsible for the implementation of any insurance scheme and waterfowl crop

Government Orders
damage compensation program as are appointed by provincial governments.
(3)	The function of the advisory committee is to monitor the efficiency and performance of every insurance scheme and waterfowl crop damage compensation program as well as any matter deemed relevant by the advisory committee.
(4)	No terms or conditions determined under subsection (1) shall provide for any remuneration to be payable to any of the persons acting on the advisory committee."
He said: Mr. Speaker, Motion No., 10, standing in my name, is designed to put in place a national advisory committee. We were told in the committee hearings that that was not possible to do, that there were drafting difficulties in this. I have been very careful in drafting this motion to not make it compulsory. It says that "the Minister may constitute an advisory committee on any terms and conditions determined by the Minister". It also sets out those terms and conditions.
We believe that there has to be a better system of safety nets. Crop insurance is one way to get better safety nets. When it comes to agriculture, Canada is not one country, it is at least four or five countries because the types of agriculture that we see in southwestern Ontario are very different from those that we see in northern Ontario, in western Canada, in British Columbia, in Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces. We believe that if you had a national advisory committee on crop insurance that it could lend a great deal of support and assistance to those producers across the country.
We have been very careful in drafting this legislation that it does not infringe on the Royal recommendation, that it does not involve remuneration or other matters which might infringe. A national advisory group could sit down with the minister from time to time throughout the year and would be able to say: "Look, crop insurance nationally is not working because the premium costs are too high". This would have to be canvassed by the various members of the advisory group. If you had a tripartite way of funding, where the farmer would be paying the same amount as the federal and provincial governments instead of the 50 per cent that is proposed in this bill now, it may be that we would get much better coverage.
For instance in the drought year, 1988, com producers' coverage was something like 30 per cent, or perhaps even lower. Yet they were facing a disaster of tremendous proportions throughout those hot, dry days of June and July 1988.
I believe that this amendment would make this available to the minister. It does not require him to do it because that involves infringing on the royal recommendation. It simply provides a formal arrangement for an advisory group that could meet from time to time.
The minister constituted a task force this winter which is looking at safety net mechanisms. This would put in place a safety net mechanism for consultation on an ongoing basis for crop insurance. Clearly, this is an ongoing demand, an ongoing need, where hundreds of millions of dollars at the federal and provincial levels are spent every year.
There has been some criticism that the administration of crop insurance is sometimes too loose, or that the system is not sensitive enough. This would give us a national perspective where the minister would be able to have representatives from all across the country.
We have known since last November that we have had a demand. Groups like the Prairie Pools have been demanding in the strongest possible terms since last November that the minister bring in a special support program, over and above crop insurance. If he had this advisory board, perhaps he would realize how urgent this is.
The fact that the Premier of Saskatchewan wrote to the Prime Minister last November does not seem to have had any effect. The fact that the Premier of Saskatache-wan, a week ago Monday night, went on province-wide television calling for a program of hundreds of millions of dollars of cash flow support, does not seem to have had much impact.
Perhaps if the minister would constitute this advisory group he would see how urgent it is that the government make a cash payment like those that are recommended by the Saskatchewan Pool. We are talking in terms of $500 million. They have been making this request for about four months now. It is essential that payment be made in the next few weeks.
Yet, when officials came here a week or two ago to meet with the Department of Agriculture, they said: "We have not made the decision but if we did make the decision it would be about four months until funds
March 14, 1990

come". That is simply too late. The assistance is needed before seeding. It should already have been committed and made now. Surely, the minister should move even more rapidly now that we are nearing spring seeding and farmers are trying to put a decision in place.
Last week I met with a group of young farmers who are on the Advanced Agriculture Farm Leadership Program. That was the argument that they put to those of us from the three caucuses, that there is so much uncertainty. Is there going to be a special grains program? Nobody knows. In 1986 it depended on whether there was an election in Saskatchewan and on how that election was going. It depended on whether Grant Devine was doing well in the polls or not doing well in the polls.
Clearly that kind of thing, the total uncertainty as to whether or not there are going to be special payments, is extremely discouraging to young people going into farming. Perhaps if we had an advisory committee to the Wheat Board we would have more certainty that there would be a commitment.
American farm producers have a target price which they get if it is below the world price. They have a loan rate that guarantees them a certain percentage of the value of the crop.
We had something like that until the budget of 1989 when the government took away the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Program which had provided a very minimal kind of arrangement. It was based on something like 50 per cent of the crop value. In other words, for every two bushels of grain you had in the bin you could get a loan on one bushel of grain.
There is tremendous uncertainty in the Canadian agriculture scene today. There is uncertainty in our fruit and vegetable industry. There is uncertainty in the pork industry. There is uncertainty in the dairy industry because of concerns with what is happening with American countervail, with GATT and with access by the U.S. to our markets. We need to have more certainty. I think that this crop insurance legislation could give more certainty if cash flows were not so tight, if commodity prices were not so low. This advisory group is simply to
Government Orders
try to pull that together to make the crop insurance system work better across the country.
I would hope that the government and other members in the House might support Motion No. 10, which proposes to provide the mechanism or the legal authority for the Minister of Agriculture to constitute an advisory committee on the Crop Insurance Act.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I wish that my hon. friend could have spent a little more time on the amendment speaking about wildlife crop damage.
As the minister well knows, I have some reputation for liking to go out duck and goose hunting, and I have seen what has happened in a field of grain swaths when about 5,000 sandhill cranes and 10,000 or 12,000 geese get into those swaths. There is not much left to even bother with.
I was under the impression that part of my migratory game bird licence and part of my upland game bird licence, which is under the provincial authority, went into the wildlife crop insurance fund for wildlife damage. I hope that is still the case. I wish the minister would tell us what the situation is at the moment. Is some portion of my $15 or $20 migratory game bird licence going into crop insurance for wildlife damage? It used to years ago and it should be now. I hope it is. I would appreciate if the minister would bring me up to date.
I do not have any problem with the amendment. We can support it, it is not anything mandatory. I suspect that we already have advisory committees from Ducks Unlimited, the Canadian Wildlife Federation and the farm community. I would like to hear whether the minister thinks this amendment is acceptable.
Could the minister tell me what the situation is now on the contributions made by various and sundry wildlife associations or the individual hunters from their hunting fees? Is a portion of that earmarked for crop insurance to cover wildlife damage? It used to be years ago.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly to the amendment that is proposed by the hon. member for Algoma. He was talking about all the things that the United States has for its farmers. He failed to mention

March 14, 1990
Government Orders
that the American federal government is proposing to withdraw support of all crop insurance programs. Canada is moving in another direction on that, we are moving to improve crop insurance.
His proposal certainly has merit and I sympathize with it. The difficulty with his motion is that it encroaches on provincial jurisdiction. It goes beyond evaluating the federal act and indeed encroaches into an area of provincial jurisdiction. Such an advisory committee, which would have as its mandate the responsibility of monitoring the efficiency, effectiveness and the administration of provincial legislation, would certainly require the consent of the respective provincial government.
Having regard, however, to the merit that is enshrined within the thrust of the hon. member's motion, I think it would be good use of such a federal-provincial producer advisory committee for fostering a better exchange of ideas, for communication, for sharing information and for looking at the administration and management of the program.
While we cannot, as a federal government, encroach into that provincial jurisdiction, I would be prepared and undertake, as a condition of the agreements, to negotiate with the provinces the establishment of such a committee which could serve the purpose which the hon. member has outlined. In only that way can we avoid the consequence of encroaching into provincial jurisdiction at this particular time. The mandate that the member is proposing would clearly involve provincial legislation as well as federal legislation.
I would be prepared to give the House that undertaking and therefore accept the spirit and thrust of it. However, I do not think we can incorporate it into the legislation itself.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments and sentiments. What he is proposing is exactly what I had in mind when I moved this motion. Essentially it gives the minister legal authority to establish an advisory committee on crop insurance, especially the federal government expenditures in that regard. I have envisaged that he would only establish this advisory committee if and when he had negotiated this arrangement with all the provincial governments. It does not require him to establish this advisory committee, only that he would have the legal authority to establish it
after he had negotiated those agreements which provided for that. So if there was one province that did not have crop insurance or did not want to participate, it was not incorporated in its agreement, then of course there would not be a representative from that province in the advisory group.
So just to clarify, I certainly did not want to infringe on provincial legislation. It is simply permissive legislation that would allow the minister to establish this advisory group if and when he negotiated such an arrangement as a combined arrangement from all those 10 provincial crop insurance agreements. I hope that under those circumstances the minister would be able to see his way clear to agree to the amendment.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the minister say that he accepts the spirit of the amendment. I would just like to reiterate what my colleague from Algoma stated, that this is permissive legislation. It says the minister may do this.
We have had somewhat peculiar circumstances in the past years where, under certain circumstances, crop insurance was not able to cover isolated examples of very significant crop losses. I refer here to a few years ago in the northeast section of Saskatchewan, for example, where they were flooded out. The farmers were not able to plant their crops, and because they were not able to plant their crops they did not qualify for crop insurance. So I think that we have to take a look at that in detail. Also in that same year, at the other end of the province, we had a drought and those farmers did qualify for the insurance program.
I would also like to point out that in my own constituency we had a unique situation in Lambton County a few years ago. We had severe rains during the fall of the year and a bad storm along with it. The lake backed up into the Thedford Marsh. On the other hand, they had to open the dam at Parkhill and a lot of the potato growers were literally wiped out. We have one of them in the gallery with us today from the Wiltse family. He is up here listening to this debate.
They know what it is like when they do not have access to crop insurance through some quirk of the legislation or quirk of nature. I suggest that if we have the advisory committee available to us to co-ordinate the input from the provinces and their various crop insurance commis-
March 14, 1990

sions, we would be able to alleviate a lot of these problems that arise from time to time.
I also think that the government was wrong, when it had the meeting in Prince Albert, that it did not involve the key players. It is easy for a couple of groups to get together and decide: "We will divide up that 50 per cent of the premium. You take half and I will take half and everything is fine." But I look across this country and see the hardships that those farmers are having this year trying not only to cash flow their crops, whether it is in western Canada or Ontario, be it potato producers or com producers or wheat producers. They simply do not cash flow and they are being turned down by their banks for their input needs.
Surely if there was ever a need for an advisory committee to look at this and to see how we are going to cover these people if they can get their crops in somehow, it is now. If they do not have the financing from the banks, where are they going to get the money to pay for these premiums?
Witness after witness appeared before the legislative committee that was dealing with this bill. Time after time after time we heard the same thing. They were all requesting a three-way split. But obviously the government did not see fit to go that way because it cut a deal where the farmers and the producers were not involved. That must never be allowed to happen again.
It is for this reason that I strongly support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Algoma who put a lot of thought into this amendment. This is an amendment that will make sure that the minister has that authority to go ahead and set up a committee. I think he would be sadly remiss if he did not do that.
There are a lot of improvements in this crop insurance bill. Certainly I agreed with the amendment put forward by the minister at the start of the debate today. It helps to sweeten up the bill by including honey in it, but there are a lot of other things that should be improved.
My colleague already pointed out that with the added cost of the initial coverage, in many instances it is going to almost double the cost of premiums. Many of those farmers are simply not going to be able to afford that
Government Orders
added cost when they have to pay 50 per cent of the premiums.
It is a good plan but it has to be improved. Those improvements can only be brought about by the direct involvement of the producers themselves through their advisory committees and in consultation with each other and the provinces.
I suggest that there is another area here where that advisory committee would play a very important role. That is to bring about a better understanding between the provinces of the individual conditions which exist, whether it is in western Canada, Ontario, central Canada, Quebec, or in Atlantic Canada where the conditions are entirely different, and different crops are covered. It would bring about a better understanding between the producers of Canada and be able to make this legislation work far more effectively.
Above all, we have to make sure that the consultative process is adhered to before we have any more major changes in this legislation that affect the cost to the producer and that we do not have any more carving up of the premiums between the federal government and the provinces without that full consultation on the process that is suggested in this amendment by my colleague for Algoma.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the thought that was given to motion No. 10.1 point out to the minister again that as it has been stated, it is the word "may" that is in there.
As the minister has pointed out to us many times, and I recognize, this is an enabling piece of legislation. If this government could see fit, and I trust that it will, to put this amendment in the bill, what it says to me, and I think I understand correctly, is that if the provinces agree it gives the minister the opportunity to appoint this type of committee.
This type of committee can do many things. We address what it can do in the amendment. We address the make-up of the committee, that it be made up of those who administrate it, those who purchase the program, in other words those who benefit, and those that look after the program in total.
The purpose of any farm program or any program such as this is as a management tool for the food producers in Canada. What this type of committee can do from time

March 14, 1990
Government Orders
to time, without any obligation by the minister to do anything more than to listen to what they have to say, is to point out the types of things that the witnesses at the legislative committee pointed out.
A program has to be effective. It has to be affordable. Had this committee been in place to review the legislation as we did in the legislative committee, without the confines of the party politics involved, then they would have pointed out to the minister some of the problems of the changes that are being made at the present time. They would also have pointed out some of the good things in the changes in the bill at the present.
However, they would have pointed out that, yes, this bill does give enabling legislation for coverage to go from 70 per cent to 80 per cent, or 80 per cent to 90 per cent. What they would have pointed out is that even though it allows that to happen, when you look at the figures and the reality of what that allows to happen, it is not affordable for the potential purchasers of that insurance program. It is too expensive.
We recognize that when you increase a risk another 10 per cent on the top end, the premiums are going to go up. What the producers asked for in order to compensate for that was that there be a different distribution in the premiums.
I know the minister gets a little upset when we discuss with him the consensus that he talks about that took place in Prince Albert. I will repeat to him how I could see very easily how he got a consensus in Prince Albert.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What about that book, too? It was distributed widely.


Lyle Vanclief: It was very easy to get a consensus. There were two out of three parties present at Prince Albert meetings. One was the federal government that was paying 50 per cent of the premium, and it they had a choice to go down to 33 1/3 or down to 25 per cent. Since it was paying, I could see why it wanted to go down to 25 per cent.
I can understand why the minister wanted to do that. They had another party at the table, the provincial governments that were not paying any portion of the premium and they had a choice of going to 25 per cent or
33 1/3 per cent. I can understand why they wanted to stop at 25 per cent rather than going up to 33 1/3 per cent.
However, I point out that there was a third party and they were the producers who had been paying 50 per cent of the premium, but they did not happen to be at the table that day.


Ralph Ferguson: They were not invited.


Lyle Vanclief: No, they were not invited to that meeting. I agree that they had some meetings across Canada.
I am sure they were listened to, but they were not heard.
When the minister says that they had a consensus, it is not too hard to get a consensus of two out of three when only two are at the table and the two both agreed to the situation. Rather than being told that there was a consensus, I think he might better come right out and say that there was a unanimous decision. It just so happened that everybody was not there. It is back to the situation, the best committee is a committee of three with two absent. This time the objectors were absent and it was not too hard.
If this type of committee were put in place these types of things could be pointed out to the minister from time to time. The minister said a minute ago that the United States is talking about withdrawing support to any crop insurance program federally in the United States. That may be true. I know that this present government takes a tremendous amount of direction from the United States.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Only when you tell us to.


Lyle Vanclief: No, no, not only when we tell you. You take a tremendous amount of direction from south of the border. That is quite obvious and it is becoming more obvious to the farm community every day.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: So does your premier.


Lyle Vanclief: I would like to point out to the minister that just because it is done south of the border does not make it right. I hope he listens to that and realizes it.
This type of committee could point out to the minister the responses that they gave to us at the legislative committee. We had a group there from the province of Saskatchewan. We all know the problems that the province of Saskatchewan is going through right now. Unfortunately, in the agricultural field they are suffering greater than any other province at the present time because of the weather and the grain price situations,

and everything added to it. It does not matter what the price is. If you have nothing in the bin to sell, it is difficult to make money.
When I asked them in the legislative committee if the changes in this piece of legislation were going to improve the situation, they said that the potential was there to make some improvements. I asked if the producers and the farmers in Saskatchewan could afford this program, and they said no. I spoke to a producer from Saskatchewan last night who advised that in order to go up to the level of coverage that this legislation allows them to go to and which they want, it will increase the premium on their farm from $11,000 to $23,000 a year. This producer said that he cannot spend the $23,000 and he is going to have to take that risk.
The purpose of the Crop Insurance Program is to take some of that risk out. It has to be an equitable program. It has to be an affordable program. It has to give adequate coverage. Some of those criteria have been met.
If there was such a committee put in place, I feel that it would give the minister the opportunity to feel out the sense of what is there and hopefully avoid some of the pitfalls that can occur from time to time, whether intentional or not.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the nays have it.
Government Orders
And more than five members having risen.
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
On a point of order, the hon. Minister of Agriculture.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that when you called the question on Motion No. 5, I was involved in a bit of an exchange with the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, and that there may have been a misinterpretation on the position that was expressed on this side of the House in that we were opposed to this particular motion. I wonder if you would seek the unanimous consent of the House to go back to the consideration of Motion No. 5 so that the question might be more appropriately put.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Since opposition members have won that round, because they have refused to give unanimous consent to go back, perhaps we could agree to move on to third reading. I think that that is a very major concession that has been granted and it might help us in facilitating the passage of this bill.
I want to repeat to hon. members the points that have been made across the way on the motion that has been proposed by the hon. member for Algoma. I say again that I have a lot of sympathy and it has a lot of merit. Again, I went out to make doubly sure and our Justice officials have indicated and advised us that there clearly would be jurisdictional problems with the motion that is being proposed as it relates to the relationship between the federal and provincial governments.
I want to make it very clear that the only reason that we on this side of the House are taking that position is strictly on the advice of our Justice officials. I think that we will be able to achieve the ultimate objective and really put into effect what the hon. member is proposing here in a different way. I wanted to make that clearly understood by all hon. members. Perhaps with those kind words, we could proceed to third reading.

March 14, 1990
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Shall I call in the members?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, while I was interested in the hon. minister's comments on the point of order that he raised, the consultations that have been taking place are along the line that we would defer the division with regard to motion No. 10 and the report stage vote until tomorrow afternoon. I believe the consultations that have taken place are along that line.
In view of that, I understand that the government is disposed to call it six o'clock. If that were the decision, that would save calling in the members today, because I understand there will be an opposition motion tomorrow which would involve an agreement. The House Leaders have been discussing this and have been expecting that third reading would be debated next Monday. I may be wrong. There may be other consultations, but that is my understanding of the arrangement.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, part of the problem we are having here is that this has erupted in the last couple of minutes. I have had conversations with members on the other side of the House. I have not been able to have conversations with my own party Whip to confirm his understanding of votes. I would think that with the accommodation that has existed within the House today, perhaps we could pass report stage on division and go from there.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the arrangement was that we would defer the division until tomorrow on report stage and that we would go to third reading next Monday on this bill.


Albert Glen Cooper: I am sorry to cause confusion and difficulty for the Chair. Perhaps the Chair could give us a couple
of minutes because we do want to make sure that there is co-operation between the three parties, which is clearly the intention at this moment. We just had to get the right players together. If we could have a couple of minutes that will allow us to resolve it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the parties and I think you will find there is agreement that the questions would be put and we will deal with them when they are put. I understand the questions will be disposed of without the necessity of a vote. Assuming report stage of the bill is adopted, as I am sure it will be, we will then adjourn.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we do not want you to put the yeas and nays on the division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would you like me to put the question on Motion No. 10 again?
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Motion No. 10 negatived.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members on all sides of the House for their co-operation this afternoon. May we call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 15, 1990