1990-04-26

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: 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.]



ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.



CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the annual report of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for
1989,	in both official languages.



COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott -Russell):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of the official parliamentary delegation which represented Canada at the thirty-ninth seminar on parliamentary practice and procedure at Westminster from March 6 to March 17,
1990.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Let there be no mistake that although I am proposing that the House adopt the report of the committee, I

April 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
intend to vote against the motion because peculiarities of the House allow me only to move concurrence. As a private member I am not allowed to move non-concurrence in the report to which I am fundamentally opposed.
The report calls for the eventual privatization of the Canada Post Corporation. On a matter of this importance I believe that the House of Commons must have an opportunity to debate the issue and ensure that Canadians understand what it is that the government, as proposed by this committee, intends to be considering over the next period of time.
We sat in the Consumer and Corporate Affairs committee for most of the last six months hearing testimony from people from across the country on the operations of Canada Post. What we heard in committee, including testimony from the minister, from the president of Canada Post Corporation, and from witnesses from the private sector and community organizations, did not provide us with enough information to properly conclude that privatization is an option for the post office.
Even the minister suggested in his testimony before the committee that privatization was an option that would require two or three years worth of work, of solid performance by the post office, of productivity increases, of profits generated by Canada Post.
Unfortunately, the standing committee has provided the post office with an opportunity to continue doing what it has been doing for the last several years and which has led to the profit picture of this last year. That means the cutting of services to Canadians in suburban and rural areas and the harassment of workers who dedicate their lives to ensure the mail is delivered.
Essentially, the committee gives carte blanche to the post office to remain unaccountable to the people of Canada. The direction that Canada Post has been taking has been protested by Canadians from coast to coast, time and time again, over the last several years. We have newspaper clippings galore. We had testimony before the committee galore. We had all sorts of opportunities to pursue the matter of what Canada Post is doing and why it is influencing negatively the needs of Canadians and Canadian communities.
When the report was tabled in the House of Commons the day before yesterday, and at the media conference
announcing the tabling of the document, the chairperson of the committee indicated that the time has come for Canada Post to be privatized. I fundamentally reject that notion. As a member of the committee who sat in on almost six months of testimony, I want to ensure that the House and all Canadians recognize that we heard very little testimony that would lead us to conclude that the time has come for Canada Post to be privatized.
The worst thing about privatizing the corporation is that it loses accountability. Canadians will no longer have the ability to hold the post office accountable for their needs. It also ensures that the process by which the government removes itself from being accountable to Canadians for their postal needs is addressed.
I want to put on the record today a couple of things about the process that led to the deliveiy of that report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and also outline some of the things that I believe Canadians can do to ensure that we have, not only an accountable postal service, but one that meets their service needs as well as their community needs.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, contained in the majority report of the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Committee are minority reports, dissenting opinions from the opposition members of that Consumer and Corporate Affairs Committee. My dissenting report, as restricted by the committee-and I understand that the committee has the powers to do that-is 12 pages long and contains a large number of recommendations which I believe, if followed by the government and Canada Post, would lead to better delivery service by the post office.
The fact that the committee restricted me in the number of pages that I could include in that dissenting report meant that, in order to say all of the things that needed to be said about Canada Post, I had to produce a minority report of my own. That report is some 50 pages long. It details quite a lot of the advice that we got from different witnesses who appeared before us in committee and outlines a number of recommendations which I believe, if followed, would give Canada Post operating directions for the delivery of the mail in the future.
Before I discuss my own report, I want to put on record a few of the things that I am quite concerned about in the existing report, the second report of the
April 26, 1990

Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
As I already indicated, there is a problem with taking the testimony of the witnesses and putting it into the recommendations. We had no evidence, when writing the report, that the mandate given to Canada Post in 1981 was inadequate to meet the postal service needs of Canadians.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, in 1981, Parliament passed an act and gave a mandate to Canada Post that set the direction it was to follow. That mandate was quite clear: Meet the service needs of Canadians and try to be self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency does not, in the interpretation of most Canadians, mean showing a profit or making a return on investment to the government, its current shareholder.
The mandate of Canada Post, as described by many witnesses before the committee, was quite clear. The mandate was adequate to meet the needs of Canada Post, to meet the needs of government, to meet the needs of its workers, and to meet the needs of Canadians, whether they be in the urban setting and are now subjected to the supermailboxes, or whether they be in the rural setting where we are finding post office closures.
We did not have any evidence to conclude that the mandate was incorrect. We also did not have much evidence to support some of the contentions that were made in the report, particularly dealing with the rural side of Canada Post and the needs of rural Canadians to be able to get the mail service they deserve. Rural route service people were ignored entirely by the majority committee report.
The other oversight the committee made was its failure to recognize that as Canada Post is moving into the private sector. It is turning a lot of rural post offices and suburban post offices over to the private sector and individuals operate those private sector post offices. Canada Post calls them retail postal operators or retail postal outlet operators. Those RPOs are the subject of disagreement among large numbers of Canadians, particularly on the rural side.
Not once did this committee call before it for testimony an operator of a retail postal outlet, the people who
Routine Proceedings
are supposed to deliver the mail in rural Canada. I think that was a tremendous oversight. Under no circumstances could this committee rightly argue or set out in a report that the RPOs are operating, not only efficiently, but correctly and within the needs of the communities they are servicing. I believe very strongly in the right of rural Canadians to be able to get as good a service from the Canada Post Corporation, a Crown corporation, as do people in urban centres.
The main promise of the report is privatization and the selling of shares over the course of the next couple of years if Canada Post meets some of the standards it is trying to set for itself. Those are the standards which will lead to more post office closures, less letter carrier service, and less service to Canadians. Privatization was the main bone in this report.
What is the purpose of privatization? What is the reason, not only the government, but this committee is moving toward the privatizing of this Crown corporation? We have a very great need in this large country of ours to ensure that communication fairness exists in all parts of this country.
The privatizing of this corporation was not something about which we heard a great deal of testimony in committee. The minister alluded to it. The president of the corporation said they were not ready for it. We did not have definitions presented to us. We did not have any of the claims that Canada Post presented to us verified by independent witnesses. We never called before us the polling firms that do all of the work that Canada Post relies on for its public image. We did not have any of the individuals who are responsible for setting the direction of Canada Post called before us.
We had very loose statements by the minister that indicated he would like to move in that direction. But we had no evidence at all that the privatizing of one of our most essential Crown corporations would be in the interests of the Canadian people or in the interests of the communication system of the country, not to mention the major mail users who, in a sense, make up about 80 per cent of the volume of the Crown corporation.
The idea that Canada Post needs more money is the reason for selling shares in Canada Post as the means to privatize it. What evidence do we have that Canada Post is in need of more capital? We heard not too long ago in the House the government's desire to sell Petro-Cana-

April 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
da, a Crown corporation. The main reason for selling shares in Petro-Canada, with which I also have some disagreement but I will not get into that debate today, was that Petro-Canada needed more money and the government was not prepared to make any further investments.
We have not heard that evidence from Canada Post. In fact, we have seen just the contrary. The evidence provided to us in the annual reports of the corporation indicate that, not only is Canada Post making a profit in this last fiscal year, but it is going to continue making profits, to turn some of those profits back into the corporation for new technology, and, in turn, to make a rebate to the federal government. If this committee report is to be accepted, in the neighbourhood of 40 per cent of that profit will go back to the government.
At no time has this Crown corporation or the government indicated that Canada Post is in need of greater capital investment from the Canadian public through the government. Now, a committee of the government, without testimony to the contrary, is advocating to the government that it go ahead and sell shares in Canada Post and privatize the operation. And for what purpose? No good purpose, I maintain.
The report completely ignores the majority of the testimony that we heard over the course of that six months. At one point, I was very strongly considering advocating that the committee stop work on the report that it was drafting, go back to the drawing-board, and prepare another report that reflected in greater detail the evidence that had been presented before us. The committee did not do that. As a result, I felt very strongly that I had to do some work to try to set out what I believe would be an efficient, well operated, publicly owned Crown corporation delivering the mail across the country.
I have released a report, part of which was tabled with the main report. It is called: Canada's Post: A report of the New Democratic Party on the Future of our National Postal System. This report indicates that the government and Canadians have choices to make-choices about what kind of a national postal system we really want; choices that will relate to the needs of Canadians today and tomorrow; choices that will allow us to have full postal service in rural areas delivered by people who are
accountable to the Crown corporation and who are ensuring that the needs of their communities are well fulfilled.
One of the things that I propose in my report is the creation of a permanent full-time Canada Post commission that will administer the Crown corporation in a way that adheres to the mandate that Parliament and the people of Canada gave it in 1981. A Crown corporation with full accountability to Canadian people is the absolute necessary bottom line.
We should create a permanent, full-time Canada Post commission, established to oversee the operations of Canada Post, and whose prime function should be to ensure that the corporation adheres to its mandate in the context of placing accessible, quality service for all Canadians as a first priority.
The commission should be directed by a board composed with equitable representation from the rural organizations which are being ignored by the government. As we know, the representatives from Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and other rural areas were basically told by the committee and by the government that they were wrong.
There must be representation from consumer organizations, the people who work for Canada Post within the postal unions, representatives of small business and big business, seniors and the disabled on this commission to ensure that when we have situations where supermailboxes are absolutely essential that the needs of the seniors, the disabled, and the physically challenged are adhered to. Of course, there must also be representation from environmental and native organizations to ensure that the needs of the north and the needs of our new environmentally-conscious society are adhered to. The board of course would ensure that there would be equitable regional, provincial and territorial representation among its members.
The insurance that this commission has is that it is not just accountable to the government doing what a majority government wants to do, but it is accountable to the people of Canada and to Parliament through the Canada Post Act of 1981. We have to ensure that the mandate is adhered to so that we do not see a continuation of the decline of service, particularly in rural areas.
April 26, 1990

I go back not too long ago when even cabinet ministers were fighting to save post offices in rural Canada. In early April 1989 the minister of health was calling for the maintenance of a post office in his own constituency, a post office which I believe has not had the support of this government.
Countless retailers have been telling us about the problems that they have had. One franchise owner in Wilno, Ontario had to go to the community asking for donations because the funds that were provided for the sale of stamps from his post office by Canada Post were not enough to meet the operating needs of his store.
Canada Post must remain a Crown corporation and not be privatized as suggested this week by the second report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs. There is no justification for a privatized post office which would never ensure that service to rural Canada is met adequately. The Crown corporation exists to meet certain communication needs of Canadians and only a Crown corporation accountable to Canadians through Parliament will meet those needs.
Rural Canada has been fighting the Canada Post conversion program from day one and I know that they will continue to fight the corporation and the government, if it continues to close rural post offices. To lose a post office in rural Canada so that the government can earn a profit is scandalous and any process which moves us further in that direction must be opposed.
Canadians, rural and urban, depend on their post office and this government has a responsibility to see to it that this service is provided in an affordable and dependable manner for Canadians from coast to coast.
When Parliament created the Crown corporation in 1981, MPs expected it to grow with the needs of Canadians. Instead, Canada Post has grown away from the service needs of Canadians, particularly rural Canadians, and because it is virtually unaccountable for its actions nothing has been done to correct the damage which has resulted.
Privatizing the post office will not correct any problems that we see in the present day delivery of post office service. Only an accountable public corporation with a renewed mandate for service will correct those problems.
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Under Standing Order 43, the hon. member does have 10 minutes for questions and comments. I will now recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley on questions or comments.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments made by my colleague on the report on Canada Post. I know that he has done a great deal of work in this House, in committee, and in his own riding on how important Canada Post is, especially its rural outlets, to many of us who represent those parts of this country that this government is ignoring.
I have two questions that I would like to ask the member. The first has to do with what direction do we offer the people in rural communities who are concerned about the potential closing of post offices? What advice can he offer to these communities and groups in terms of keeping the pressure on to ensure that whether it is privatized, as members opposite seem to want, or if it stays as a public Crown corporation, we continue to improve the service that we get?
My second question has to do with commitments from Canada Post. Like many members in this House-I am not sure that Conservative members are concerned about post offices in their ridings-we write to the president of Canada Post and express our concerns. We want to keep monitoring the activities of Canada Post in our ridings. I am wondering what experiences he has had with commitments that the post office has given to members and communities about maintaining post offices, keeping them open, or have we had examples across the country where perhaps a little more rigorous watching of Canada Post is needed to ensure that our communities are served well?


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley for his question.
I know from our work in caucus that the hon. member who asked the question is very concerned about post offices in his community and has provided me with many opportunities to discuss postal matters with people in his riding and has made many representations to me and to government on this very issue.

April 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
As you may be aware, Mr. Speaker, a number of post offices in rural Canada have been under attack for closing, conversion or the new expansion program of Canada Post. In fact, in my own riding of The Battle-fords-Meadow Lake, there are eight post offices that are currently in negotiations with Canada Post about the future of the operations in those communities.
I have also worked strongly with the people in Dubuc, Saskatchewan, which has been fighting as hard as any community in this country to ensure that its post office is retained and the postal services from those full-time post offices are retained. I have also worked with people on Prince Edward Island with the help of Rural Dignity, the organization that has been working very hard to help maintain post offices. I must say that the advice and direction I am able to provide to these people comes down to one of just remaining vigilant, being constant and never giving up.
The Dubuc situation is one that provides us with a great deal of frustration and many of the other communities could find it very difficult to deal with. The community of Dubuc found itself 100 per cent in favour of maintaining service from the existing post office. Canada Post came into that community and asked if there was a business person who would be willing to provide service from his or her business location and establish a retail postal outlet in the community of Dubuc, Saskatchewan.
The people of Dubuc said no. None of the business people in the community of Dubuc wanted a retail postal outlet. They wanted service from the post office and a full-time postmaster working from that post office meeting the needs of that community. They even travelled to Ottawa to make their case before our committee, before the minister and before members of this House.
When Canada Post could not find a retail business that was willing to give service from a store, cafe, or even the grain elevator, Canada Post said: "All right. We will just close your post office and you will not get any service". Canada Post blackmailed the community, and now one of those businesses has said that it will put in a retail postal outlet, if it is the only way there can be service to the community and residents do not have to drive 15 miles to the next community to pick up registered mail, buy stamps, and those types of things.
That community right now is very angry. They have held a funeral service in their community for their post office. They have continued to write letters. They have not given up. They are going to fight Canada Post and this government for as long as it takes to get maintenance of the service in their own community.
The advice that I can give to other communities in this country is to do what Dubuc has done, and that is to remain vigilant, strong, united and true to their belief that rural Canada must be served well by a Crown corporation that delivers postal service in a quality and effective manner, and I salute the people of Dubuc for that very reason.
I could say similar things about people in Prince Edward Island whom I travelled to visit with for several days earlier this year. When the committee of Consumer and Corporate Affairs refused to travel across the country to meet with people in rural Canada, to meet with retail postal outlet operators, I decided I had to travel myself. On doing so, I learned a tremendous amount about rural Canada that this committee never had an opportunity to learn.
I presented a report to the committee on my findings throughout the Atlantic region. Obviously not only the needs of rural Canadians were ignored but also the voices of all those people through my report were ignored.
In answer to the second part of the question offered by my colleague, the commitments from Canada Post are ones that are very well couched in good public relations language. Canada Post treats what is happening in rural Canada, not as a problem but as a public relations challenge. They would rather not have to deal with the problems of rural Canada, maintaining a rural postal service, but instead would rather convince people that what they want is wrong, that what Canada Post is providing is the best for them.
Commitments made by Canada Post to communities in my own riding are: "We will maintain a quality service in your community". That means that the business person who is also selling everything from diapers to pizzas to you name it in that community will also be selling postal services. That is not a maintenance of quality postal service in a rural area where the full time postmaster is providing services that go way beyond selling stamps
April 26, 1990

from the counter next to where he or she sells cigarettes, diapers, magazines and the other things that are sold in those community stores.
I thank the hon. member for asking me these questions. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I wish Canadians well right across the country in their bid to help save a Crown corporation, a national postal system from the destruction that this government through this report is wreaking upon us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is still enough time for one more question or comment. The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, for a short question or comment.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has articulated very eloquently the frustration with the dismantling of Canada Post and its service to Canada.
My question is on the same subject but a different facet of it. That is the rural route contracts. In my constituency of Saanich-Gulf Islands, the people who have been contracted by Canada Post have phoned me and complained with some trepidation because they feel that their jobs are at risk by complaining. They are having to be the deliverers of large volumes of junk mail, which is a whole other problem that I am also getting a lot of mail with complaints from constituents on that, and they are not being given any further money for this. I would ask the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, what has his minority report done to articulate or deal with this problem?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The member has one minute to answer the question.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my report does deal with rural couriers and I am more than happy to go through some of that with the member. Given the time constraint, I should point out one thing. What is happening to the rural route couriers is a direct result of the slow privatizing, the contracting out of services that has been going on within Canada Post. This will even be exaggerated more as Canada Post becomes more responsible to the private sector rather than the Canadian people.
Privatizing a corporation like this is akin to privatizing a public utility. When you are dealing with trying to earn profits, you are earning them from the funds that are spent on this essential type of service. Contracting out to
Routine Proceedings
the rural couriers simply means that people are competing against each other to get a job. People in this country should not have to be competing against each other for employment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions or comments has expired. On debate, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, late yesterday afternoon a rumour was circulating that a member of the New Democratic Party would move to concur with the government's report to shut down the Post Office.
As you will well understand, Mr. Speaker, I refused to believe that. I refused to believe yesterday that any member of this House of any party would move to concur in that report. I apologize. I was proven to be wrong. Someone did move to concur in the government's report to shut down the Post Office.
Under our rules, Standing Order 124 refers to a motion of concurrence. That is what was proposed to us this morning. Of course, the first thing that came to my mind was that perhaps I do not understand what concurrence means. Perhaps my limited knowledge of Canada's other official language is such that I did not fully appreciate this. So I went to The Concise Oxford Dictionary and looked at the definition of concurrence and concur and it says-


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


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, it is important that I raise this point of order. I think my hon. friend is being mischievous because the person who moved the motion indicated clearly that he opposed the intention of the report. It was the only way that we could get it on the floor of the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member knows very well that that is not a point of order. It is debate. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell has the floor.


Don Boudria: As I was saying, before I was so rudely interrupted, according to The Concise Oxford Dictionary concur means:
Happen together, coincide; combine in its action; agree in
opinion, express agreement.
"Concurrent" means:

April 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Running in same direction, as parallel lines; meeting at or tending to
one point, existing or acting together-
Some of us have suspected a little togetherness between the NDP and the Tories across the way, but now it is all confirmed.
I was not content with that definition in the Oxford dictionary. I figured I might as well look at another dictionary, Webster's dictionary, which could perhaps this one would clarify the situation. Maybe I was misunderstanding what was being said here. The definition of "concur", according to Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms is:
To conjoin; to unite; to combine; to co-operate; to accord; to
harmonize.
Canada was harmonized with the United States in the trade deal and now the NDP is being harmonized with the government. It goes on to define concur: "To agree, to coincide, to consent, to assent, to accede, to acquiesce". Would you believe it, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP are acquiescing with the government?
I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I do not acquiesce to shutting down rural post offices in Canada. I do not acquiesce to shutting down 5,221 post offices. I do not acquiesce to the firing or laying off of 10,000 rural employees, 8,300, or 83 percent, of whom are women. I do not acquiesce, agree or consent to the largest firing of women in the history of Canada, and I certainly do not concur with that proposition.
I hope that there will be an opportunity for us to vote on this concurrence motion, because I intend to oppose the NDP's attempt to concur with this government's report. I do not want to concur with shutting down post offices in Canada. I do not want to concur with a number of things that the government is proposing here.
Let me summarize some of the things that I do not want to concur with. I do not want to concur with recommendation No. 2 that states:
Canada Post continue with its plans to realize a 14 per cent return
on equity-
I want Canada Post to generate operating profits necessary to meet its own capital investment needs and to maintain and improve services to Canadians. That is why I do not concur with that proposition.
I do not concur with recommendation No. 3 which states:
The Government of Canada examine the feasibility of requiring Canada Post to pay corporate income tax.
I do not concur with recommendation No. 4 which states:
The Government of Canada consider the replacement of postal subsidy programs with direct recipient programs.
I want us to have those subsidy programs that help northern Canadians. I want us to have those programs that help the delivery of rural newspapers in Canada. So I do not concur with that proposition of the NDP. I do not concur with that at all.
I do not concur with recommendation No. 5 which states:
The Government of Canada endeavour to provide publishers of rural community-owned newspapers-with-financial support -
-without giving any further details of that and while allowing the government to dismantle the infrastructure subsidy program. I want the infrastructure subsidy program to continue.
I most certainly do not concur with recommendation No. 7 which states:
Canada Post discontinue its retail postal business and devote its resources to the collection, processing and delivery of mail.
Instead, my colleagues and I want Canada Post to maintain its existing retail network and to continue to devote resources to the collection, processing and delivery of mail. So I do not concur with that part of the report. I do not concur with those who produced the majority of the report, nor with those this morning who propose for us to concur with it. I cannot agree with that proposition.
This is what we are being asked to concur with this morning: "Where possible Canada Post contract out mail delivery". We are being asked by the NDP to concur with contracting out mail delivery. What is this world coming to?
We are being asked to concur with recommendation No. 33:
In the event of a disruption in postal services, Canada Post's exclusive privilege to deliver letters should be suspended -
We are being asked to concur with that this morning. Mr. Speaker, do you believe that? The minister responsible for Canada Post probably has a hard time imagining
April 26, 1990

that the NDP would have proposed for us to concur with that proposition.
The NDP has proposed for us to concur with this report, and Committee recommendation No. 36 of the report with which we are asked to concur states:
The Government of Canada privatize Canada Post once adequate financial performance, comparable to the private sector levels, has been attained and once the industrial relations climate has improved.
The Liberals do not want to concur with that. Instead, we want Canada Post to remain a Crown corporation. We stand firmly behind that proposition in my party. We do not want to concur with any such proposition.


Mr. Keyes:: Do you think Mr. Parrot concurs?


Don Boudria: Mr. Parrot I do not think concurs with that either. I think he is with us when he says that Canada Post should remain a Crown corporation.
Government recommendation No. 37 that we are asked to concur with this morning-


Mr. Gauthier:: By the NDP.


Don Boudria: By the NDP my colleague reminds me. I am sorry, I had almost forgotten that. It is hard to fathom that proposition. We are asked to concur with the following:
The privatization plan be carried out by means of a public share issue and should incorporate an employee share ownership plan.
The Liberals want that clause to be eliminated. We do not concur with that.
We are also asked to concur with the following:
That Canada Post, if privatized, continue to be regulated by an independent, third party regulatory agency with decision-making power.
The Liberals do not want Canada Post to be privatized at all. In addition to disagreeing with all those things we are asked to concur with this morning-


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: By the NDP.


Don Boudria: By the NDP, my colleague reminds me. I had almost forgotten again. The Liberals also want Canada Post to restore its previous corporate identity; that it have a program that reflects the role of the corporation as an institution of the Government of Canada.
Routine Proceedings
We think it is important for Canada Post to have the flag of Canada. The Government of Canada has allowed Canada Post to adopt this new corporate logo and name, which states: "Mail" and a logo symbol of a wing and thenposte. There is nothing wrong with that. However, it has removed the flag of Canada from its logo, and there is something wrong with that. It has removed the word "Canada" from Canada Post. We want to put Canada back into Canada Post. That is a dissenting recommendation of the Liberal Party. We do not want to concur with anything otherwise.
We, the Liberals, also want Canada Post to ensure that postage stamps being sold at retail counters are not being sold below the retail price, as a result of those privatized jobs that the minister likes so much. What is happening now is that chain stores are selling postage stamps as loss leaders. We think that proposition is wrong and we want measures to prevent that.
In The Montreal Gazette this morning the following editorial appeared, and I want the minister to be well aware of this. The headline states: "Post office is a public service" and the article states:
Some Conservatives in Ottawa have an almost indecent urge to privatize for the sake of privatization.
Their latest target is Canada Post. The Conservative members of the Parliamentary committee, with the blessing of the Mulroney government, have just recommended the selling off of the Crown corporation as soon as it gets profitable enough to interest private investors.
It further states the following:
Would a privatized postal system keep rural post offices open? Would it scrap the hated supermailboxes? Would it continue "unprofitable" activities, such as delivering the mail to the far corners of the country? Not bloody likely. Indeed, it would be likely to prune service even further in those areas-notably service to remote places -that are not profitable. Yet such service is clearly in the national interest.
Now that Canada Post is no longer a drain on the treasury, the government should not be thinking of selling its profitable parts to the highest bidders. It should be thinking of using the profits to pay back taxpayers for long years of deficits, and to restore lost services to the customers.
I want to tell the minister, very briefly, one tangible example of what has happened with the closure of one post office in my riding. Yesterday, the minister said that rural post offices were only closed when there was a so-called natural opportunity. These alleged natural opportunities were defined as the resignation or death of the postmaster.

April 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
There is an incident going on right now in the village of Dalkeith in Glengarry, in my riding. The minister has been around Ottawa long enough that I am sure he knows where Glengarry is. He may not know the community of Dalkeith. It is not one of the larger communities, but it is, nevertheless, an important one in my riding.
Here is what happened. The Postmistress is no where near retirement age. She may be a few years away. Canada Post went to the Postmistress and offered her a lump-sum payment. In other words, they offered to create a natural opportunity because none was there. They offered this money, and I do not know the amount and, of course, I do not blame her for taking it. A person who is a few years away from retirement can always use money. But in any case, they actually purchased the rest of the time.
They gave her a financial incentive, asked her to retire and then, once they had artificially created this so-called natural opportunity, they circulated a letter to my constituents saying, "Guess what folks, your post office is shutting down because of the retirement of your postmistress". As a result they are going to offer alternative services to us. We will have a retail postal outlet, as Canada Post calls these things, inside a store in the village. There is only one store in the village and Canada Post officials went to see the store owner. The store owner then said, no way, we don't want this. We don't want to be the cause of the shutdown of the post office. We don't like the proposition and we don't want in any way to be associated with any such devious scheme by Canada Post.
Then they went to see the local furniture store. It is a small store where they manufacture furniture themselves. It is called Pine Teak and they have asked the owners if they were interested. At last report they were totally uninterested.
The present situation is that Canada Post has created artificially the closure of our post office without even pre-organizing another outlet. It is bad enough that they orchestrated this thing artificially. They did not even bother to see the store owner first and make a deal with him. We went from having a post office to having no post office at all and no alternative service in that community.
We were at a meeting the other day when they told my constituents not to worry, because they could always go pick up their mail and have postal services 13 miles away in the other village. If worse comes to worse that is what they will have.
Well, that's great, Mr. Speaker, that is going to be really useful for the people in my riding, going from Dalkeith to Vankleek Hill. It is unfortunate that those people who have these plans do not think them through a little bit better.
We are assured by the minister and by others that the post offices in rural areas are there to stay, but that is not always true. When we are told that post offices in rural areas are not shut down unless the postmaster is ready for retirement, it is not necessarily true. In this case, they created a situation where the person was made to retire years ahead of time. All the assurances we are hearing in this House are, and I am putting this gently, inaccurate and that is the best way I can put it.
The people of the riding that I represent want to keep the rural post offices and want to have a postal system that is not just a business but is also a service to the community. That is why my colleagues and I have issued a dissenting report to the document known as Moving the Mail. That is why we cannot support the government's idea and why we cannot support the concurrence motion proposed to us this morning.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Kamloops has just said, the member who just spoke is being quite mischievous this morning. He is having a lot of fun at my expense and I very much enjoy this kind of partisan rhetoric because he knows how much I oppose the direction that is taken in this report. I can appreciate him having fun at my expense and I realize that he too does not concur with the report.
The member is knowledgeable of the rules of the House. He knows that as a private member neither he nor I can move any motions of non-concurrence, or can put on the floor of this House for debate, at times like this, any dissenting opinions about the committee's work or about the role that the government is taking. He knows we have not had any debate in this House on privatization and as private members we have a great deal of difficulty initiating this. Does he not appreciate the opportunity that I have given him this morning to get a few words on the record about how much he opposes the government's work? If he does not appreciate the opportunity that is presented to him this morning, I
April 26, 1990

wonder if the member could tell me what procedural moves he has proposed to hold this government accountable for their destruction of the postal service in our country.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be a procedural adviser to the New Democratic Party caucus.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I wouldn't let you do it.


Don Boudria: It is the last thing I had in mind. My Elouse leader says he would not allow it, and I thank him, because that is a very wise decision. It is an interesting proposition for a House leader to entertain, that is allowing Liberal members to advise the NDP-not that we would do it anyway.
Seriously, my colleague should know that you do not move concurrence in a report that you do not want. To say that that is the only trick he could come up with is just not good enough. Mr. Speaker, you do not move to adopt something that you oppose. I do not understand that proposition. I do not know how the idea ever came to the hon. member, but it is not for me to ask where that idea came from.
I could give some free advice, perhaps, to my colleague. For instance, I asked questions on the report yesterday, and the day before, through a mechanism reasonably well known. It is called Question Period. I have raised questions on two separate occasions during Question Period. I have also issued press releases regarding it, another device which is relatively common here.
After one raises an item in Question Period, there is also a procedure known as the adjournment debate. One can use that mechanism as well. In addition to the adjournment debate, one can move a private members' motion, and place it on the Order Paper. This is another reasonably well-known device. One can always ask for an emergency debate, ask to adjourn the House under Standing Order 52 and have an emergency-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are giving them advice.


Don Boudria: Sorry, my House leader says I should not be giving advice, but I was asked to provide alternatives.
Routine Proceedings
It is hard not to do so when I am being urged on like this, notwithstanding the wise counsel of my House leader.
I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not ever recall moving to adopt something that I was against.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the advice of my learned colleague.
I would like to ask the member another question along similar lines. As he is aware, even though the privatization of the Post Office issue has been kicking around for some time now, it has never come forward for debate. Questioning the minister is one thing, but the minister and the government have not brought matters to the House so that backbenchers could comment on the closure of post offices in their own constituencies.
I am wondering if the member is aware of situations in any constituencies in this country, outside of his own, that might prompt members of the opposite side to rise, and to talk about the saving of rural post offices, about the saving of rural constituencies. Is there any need for a full-fledged debate on what Canadians want in an accountable postal service in this country?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have just illustrated five different devices available to members in order to debate these issues.
We could go through the Standing Orders one by one on some later occasion and probably come up with a number of other ways. But I have enumerated five different ways in which this issue can be addressed in the House. To repeat what I said before, I cannot propose something that I disagree with. I just do not want to do that, and there is some difficulty in terms of that proposition.
My colleague also-I thank him for the compliment-referred to me as a "learned" colleague. I am not a lawyer. I appreciate the compliment nevertheless, but I am not learned in the law. I wish I were, but I am not at the present time. Seriously though, in addition to what has been raised, my colleague asked if there are examples of Conservative members of Parliament losing post offices in their constituencies.
I know through speaking to people at Canada Post that the Minister of Health personally objected to the closure of the post office in his riding, that he literally had a

April 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
temper tantrum in front of some officials of the post office in a futile attempt to try and keep the post office for his riding. Apparently he was unsuccessful, as have many other Conservative members who have probably tried this as well.
Canada Post at the present time is not in a deficit position. We know that.
The Marchment Committee, the Postal Services Review Board, said that the indiscriminate closing of rural post offices, whether or not they made any money, did not make sense. That policy should be revisited. I invite the minister to think about that. That is an independent agency which the minister himself appointed. When the government did not like some of the recommendations which the Postal Services Review Board made, they fired the committee. They turfed them out of office because they did not like the message that they heard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend or expect to be talking about the post office today but I welcome the opportunity.
Unlike the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, I was not too alarmed to hear the New Democrats move concurrence of that report. Consistency has never been their long suit. I knew it had to be a cover for something else because they would not have suddenly been struck smart. So I was not sent running to the dictionary like the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to find out what the NDP were doing. They were doing what they were usually doing-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: -and only Jean-Claude Parrot knows for sure! I suspect that is why we are having this debate today.
But in any event, Mr. Speaker, it is comforting to know-I am sure Fidel Castro is comforted to know- that there is at least one or perhaps two other political parties in this hemisphere of the world that still believe in state ownership as preferable to private ownership. It is getting lonely for the fellow out there, getting lonely
all over the world. His soulmates are saying socialism does not work.
We must go to the market if we are going to satisfy the aspirations of our people for a decent standard of living and opportunity. And there was poor old Fidel getting isolated on his island in the Caribbean saying: "Woe is me! Am I the only one who still believes in state ownership? Socialism is the preferable system." Naw, he is not isolated. We have the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada who are absolutely and firmly committed to the principle that the state can do it better than any private organization, and the state should do it, should do it all.
Gorbachev does not believe that any more. But the New Democrats do, and apparently so do the Liberals.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I say they are welcome to their points of view. If the lessons of history do not serve to educate and they are determined to remain the soulmates of Fidel Castro and, is it Hawkes in Albania? There are not many soulmates left for you folks, is there? It is getting awfully lonely being a socialist.


An hon. member:: Hawkes is in Australia!


Harvie Andre: Nowadays socialists are getting to be a rare breed and except for the odd professor, it is really quite rare to find anybody to willingly come out and openly suggest that socialism is still a way to go, state ownership is still preferable to private ownership. I am sure the member for Papineau does not agree with the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
When the hon. member for Papineau was Postmaster General, he indicated that for the post office to be able to perform in a satisfactory manner for its customers, the people of Canada, it was necessary to remove political interference and that political interference was at the root of the historic problems of the post office. That was obvious to everyone who has studied the post office and, goodness knows, there has been study after study after study. In spite of that, we still have the hon. member from the New Democratic Party asking me, as a minister, to intervene and impose my political judgment on the post office in Dubuc, Saskatchewan. I have forgotten the name of the village in-


Don Boudria: Dalkeith.
April 26, 1990


Harvie Andre: Dalkeith. The hon. member thinks that we should not allow the post office management to operate in Dalkeith and that we should impose our superior political judgment on the post office.
That kind of call is understandable, but it is the collective result of all that over decades that produced the catastrophic situation which existed in the post office in 1983-84, when it was running a $500-million deficit. Think of that, Mr. Speaker, in terms of economic policy and social policy-$500 million from the taxpayers to the users of the post office.
Eighty per cent of the post office's revenue comes from private sector business such as mass mailers, Visa cards, utility bills, and so on. We had a situation where the taxpayers were subsidizing business to the tune of $500 million a year.


An hon. member:: Oh, come on!


An hon. member:: Shame!


Harvie Andre: The New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party say: "That that is quite all right. Is that not what governments are supposed to do? That is an acceptable price for the purity of a state-owned operation. What is a puny $500 million of taxpayers' money if you are able to retain the purity of a system where the government runs things as opposed to the private sector."
I ask members of the New Democratic Party to look back in Hansard and they will see that their own members stated that the problem with the post office is political interference. They will see in the committee evidence the testimony of Shirley Carr and Jean-Claude Parrot saying: "Let management manage". It was on that basis that we unanimously said: "Yes, we should change the post office from a department of government to a Crown corporation so management could manage." Well, that is what we have been doing.


An hon. member:: With success.


Harvie Andre: Yes, with success. In 1984 the government said to the post office: "Go manage. We will try to keep the political jackals off your back. We will try to prevent people from coming in and saying, 'No, no, no management.' You can manage, but not in Dubuc and not in-"-I am sorry, I keep forgetting the name of that village.


An hon. member:: Dalkeith.
Routine Proceedings


Harvie Andre: We said: "We will let the post office manage, but not in Dalkeith, and not in Dubuc". You cannot have it both ways.
Can someone go around and say anecdotally that the post office made an error here in this town and that town? Of course they can. Any group of people, and certainly an organization like the post office, makes mistakes. It will be the first to admit that. But, if one looks at the things it has done right versus the things it has done wrong, one reaches the inescapable conclusion that it is doing a whole lot more things right than wrong. The post office today is a whole lot better than it has been in the past.


Don Boudria: Why do you want to get rid of it then if it works so good?


Harvie Andre: The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell wants to know why we want to get rid of it if it is working so well. He said "good" but I will say "well". That is the American influence where they have given up adverbs entirely. We still use adverbs in Canada and we are determined to keep using adverbs in Canada!


Don Boudria: My English isn't too good but it's better than your French.


Harvie Andre: Your English is a lot better than some of those on American television whose English you are copying.
No decision has been taken in terms of privatizing the post office. That is a fallacy, that somehow there has been a decision taken. This committee did not recommend that tomorrow we start selling shares in Canada Post Corporation. The committee did not say that. The committee recognized the reality-if one cared to look at it-that things are different today than they were in the 1940s and 1950s and that the structure of a post office which was appropriate in the 1940s and 1950s is not appropriate today. Times have changed. They are changing.
Those rural post offices, which people talk about in terms of some mystic influence bewildering to the people who actually live in those communities, are a part of the past. Today, when someone gets into their car-be it from a farm, a suburban area, or from a downtown area-to go to do their personal business, they drive to a

April 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
shopping centre or a store that is open in the evening when they have access when they are off work.
The New Democratic Party says that, in terms of equal work opportunity, it believes that the traditional family where the woman must stay in the house is no longer appropriate. We agree absolutely with it. Statistics reflect that families today are totally different in terms of how they function compared to the families of the 1940s and 1950s. We have participation rates in my city of more than 75 per cent. That is 75 per cent of the work age population, men and women, actually work. People, such as the housewife, are not at home to do the household mailings from nine to four, the time traditional post offices are open.


Don Boudria: Nine to four? Name one that is open from nine to four. Name one!


Harvie Andre: As I said, they get into the station-wagon after coming home from work, go to the dry-cleaners, and stop at the grocery store to get the milk and bread and to do their shopping. It is convenient for them if they can also do the household business and mail the cheques to MasterCard, Visa, or whatever. They do not use the mail today as they did 30, 40, or 50 years ago to keep in touch with Aunt Nellie. They do that by phone.
The post office serves a different function today and, in recognition of that different function and of how our society has changed, the post office is changing the way in which it operates. There is a lot more competition. Today, 58 per cent of the post office business is fully competitive. That seems to have escaped the notice of some members. They still think of the post office in terms of delivering the standard letter. No, that is nonsense. There is a whole range of products, parcels, special delivery, and courier-type services. There is a whole variety of competitive business at which the post office is doing very well.
By what rationale, other than some philosophy that you are so stuck in you cannot change, does one say: "Well, that may be true or not, but if, in fact, state ownership was the way we operated 40 or 50 years ago, that is the way we have to operate today"? Why? Why would members of Parliament be so closed-minded as to say we cannot consider an alternative?
Two or three years down the road, when the post office will be fully self-sufficient in the real sense of the word,
including cost of capital, I will concede that someone may then say: "Well, here are the arguments for privatization of some sort; here are the arguments against. In our view, the arguments for are not sufficiently strong to overvalue the arguments against. Therefore, we do not think it is appropriate to go ahead with the privatization at this point in time." I will concede that possibility. But, why will members opposite not concede the contrary? Perhaps, two or three years down the road, it will be looked at by someone who is rational and not locked into philosophical positions more to do with 19th century socialist philosophy than with 20th century reality, or even 21st century reality.
I do not understand the mentality that says state ownership is a must. I understand the New Democratic Party to a degree. It gets funded by the unions and I understand why Jean-Claude Parrot would prefer government ownership to private ownership. It is far easier for him to try to achieve what he wants to achieve through the exercise of political influence than through the normal collective bargaining of the private sector. I understand that and I understand why the New Democratic Party has to do that.
I do not understand where the Liberals are coming from. I do not understand that whatsoever, unless, perhaps, they are getting some money as well. Philosophically, what has been proposed in this report is something the member for Papineau, the former Postmaster General of a Liberal government, has in essence said should occur.


Don Boudria: When did he say you should shut down rural Canada?


Harvie Andre: I am glad he raised this rural Canada thing because I have got to deal with this nonsense about shutting down rural Canada. Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of places, a few hundred places, where the traditional post office has closed and been replaced by a retail postal outlet, in a general store, for example. They try to go into a business with which people in that area would normally interact and, therefore, make it convenient for them.
Where that has happened, we have gone back with post-change public opinion polling and the approval rating is over 90 per cent. That is an over 90 per cent
April 26, 1990

approval rating. If one goes there before the change, as in Dubuc, people say: "My God, they are going to take away our post office and soon we won't get any mail. Soon, we are going to have to drive to Saskatoon or Regina to pick up your mail and soon, soon, soon-". The bogeyman and the scare tactics are used and the people say: "Holy smokes, holy smokes." It is human nature to be afraid of change. People say: "I don't know about change. I am pretty comfortable right now and you talk about change. This is comfortable, so why change?"
It is easy for the demagogue to tell them to fight that change. Change? They do not know what is going to happen. If we start this change, every woman in the post office might be fired, according to the hon. member. We might have weeks of delay. We might have to travel hundreds of thousands of miles to pick up our letters. People say: "Don't change, don't change! Where do I sign? Give me this petition and I will sign right now." It is easy to raise false fears in people when one says that change is coming. But change is inevitable.
The dinosaurs in the New Democratic Party and, increasingly, in the Liberal Party are locked into some notion that change can be resisted by political will. Well, it cannot and it should not, because change is progress and we are for progress. The change must be managed to make sure people are not hurt. The change should be undertaken in such a way to result in improvements and that is what the post office has been doing. It is running a profit for the first time in 30 years. Its users all say that the service is better today. Where these changes have occurred in rural Canada, the people affected have said: "This is an improvement." Not in every case, but an overwhelming majority say that this is an improvement.
The rest of the world is trooping in to Canada Post headquarters in Ottawa to see what is happening and they are amazed at the performance. In an article which I wish I had brought with me-but have not because I did not know this debate was coming up-Major users and mail groups in the United States said, if only Don Lander, the President of Canada Post, would come and become the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service.
We are leading the world because of one very little simple policy decision we took. That is that we are not going to allow political interference in the operation of
Routine Proceedings
the post office. With that one little policy decision we said: "You manage and we will keep the dogs at bay." I have the scars to show that sometimes that is tough, but it is worth it. We have the performance to show for it. This committee has said: "Keep up the good work, and two or three years down the line, when this progress has reached another level, as any intelligent government should do, take a look at the prospects of perhaps some form of privatization. You may find that the benefits are significant enough to make it worth while."
I ask the Opposition, in vain I appreciate, but I ask it nonetheless, to keep an open mind. Change very often. Indeed, most of the time, it is beneficial if you think about it. If you get nervous when you think about change, perhaps you should be finding yourself a nice beach blanket for the beaches of Cuba, because that is the place where change is being resisted the most in this hemisphere, and if you are comfortable there, you are welcome to it.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to apologize to the minister for my failure to use the right adverb, as he pointed out earlier. As I indicated to the minister, my English may not be the best but it is probably better than his own ability to speak the language of Moliere.
I am sorry about my less than perfect ability to use the correct adverb in English. However, I am sure his Quebec colleagues will remind the minister that his French adverbs leave something to be desired as well.
In any case-

I am sure the minister's colleagues will want to ask him a question or two later. Perhaps I could ask the minister a few questions, if I can get his attention.
The minister said that he does not interfere with the operation of Canada Post. He says, and I paraphrase here, that for members to want postal policy that does not shut down rural post offices, that would be somehow interfering with the post office. Does the minister deny that it is his government which adopted the Canada Post corporate plan of November 1986 which called for the shutdown and/or privatization of all 5,221 rural post offices in Canada?

April 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Given that it was indeed his government that approved that corporate plan, why is it so right for the government to impose that will of shutting down all post offices in Canada? Similarly, what is wrong with wanting to keep all post offices in Canada? Surely if one is deemed to be political interference, the other should be seen as being the same, and if one is not political interference, advocating the other should equally be appropriate. That is the first thing I would like the minister to answer.
Second, the minister says that Canada Post had a deficit in the past, and that deficit was supported by Canadians. I agree. The minister says 80 per cent of the post office's revenue is created by business. Of that 80 per cent, does the minister think that that portion of it was losing money? He said that Canadians would be supporting businesses. Would he not agree with me that the evidence that he has is the exact contrary, that the biggest paying proportion of postal operations is the ad mail business. In fact, that part is the revenue-generating portion that creates tremendous profit for Canada Post, as indicated in the last annual report of the post office.
Given that the minister probably knows that that information is such, I wonder why he pretended a while ago that individual Canadians were supporting businesses by wanting to have a publicly-operated postal system.
Second, if the minister was right-I think I have just proven he is wrong, in any case-in his proposition that Canada Post, and therefore the public, when it was losing money was supporting businesses. If when Canada Post was losing money it was supporting businesses, the public was supporting businesses, would it not be equally right that Canada Post, while making money, would have businesses supporting everyone else? If that is the case, why does he want to sell it now?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to criticize the member's English. His English is excellent, given that his first language is French. I was merely pointing out that along with a lot of other Canadians, as we get influenced by the United States, the use of adverbs is falling. As Nancy White said on one of her CBC radio shows, will the adverb disappear gradually or will it die real quick. That was the only point.
The so-called policy to shut down rural post offices is nonsense. The way in which all current corporations operate is that they are required under the Financial Administration Act to put forward a corporate plan.


An hon. member:: The Crown Corporations Act.


Harvie Andre: The Crown Corporations Act. In any event they put forward a corporate plan indicating what they anticipate in new expansion, growth and so on over the next few years and how they intend to match it. That is there. It is not something the government tells them to do in terms of its details. It is what management proposes to alert the government, alert the House, alert the country, alert everybody, in terms of what this Crown corporation is doing.
The corporate plan indicated the policy in terms of rural operations, and the policy is today, as the hon. member knows, that where there are natural opportunities, and no one is being fired or dismissed-


An hon. member:: No. no!


Harvie Andre: I heard the hon. member during his debate talk about his side of Dalkeith, the so-called bribe as he describes it. Whatever it was, in any event the policy is very clear. The policy is that when the-


Don Boudria: I accused no one of committing a crime.


Harvie Andre: Gee, I listened to the hon. member. I did not say he committed a crime.


Don Boudria: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, I accused no one of committing a criminal offence. A bribe is an offence under the Criminal-


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I will be allowed an opportunity. It seems the hon. member just cannot-


Don Boudria: He didn't withdraw.


Harvie Andre: Now here he is, heckling again. He is not allowing me to get a sentence out before he is heckling again. Will he allow me to speak? I sat here and listened to him. I did not interrupt him. Would he please allow me to proceed?
I have not accused the hon. member of any illegal act, for goodness sakes. What I said, as he knows, is that the policy of the post office in terms of-


Don Boudria: He did not.
April 26, 1990


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I may move an amendment to the Standing Orders that once a member has spoken he shall put a gag on his lip physically and allow others to speak and not heckle and interrupt.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That goes for you too.


Harvie Andre: I don't heckle and interrupt. The hon. member knows that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Never.


Harvie Andre: Now here he is, heckling and interrupting me again. And now the New Democrats. Everybody is picking on me, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope hon. members would not pick on the minister, please.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: I said, if the hon. member had kept his mouth closed and listened, I do not accuse the hon. member of any criminal act. That is what I said previous-


An hon. member:: Now, Harvie.


Harvie Andre: Ah, come on. Once a rodent, always a rodent, eh?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member on a very short point of order, but I think that the hon. minister would probably withdraw that other remark. The hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you will review the "blues" the statement has been made by the minister where he said that I had accused someone else of committing a criminal act. The insinuation was not that I had personally committed a criminal act, but that I had made that reference to someone else. I did not make that statement, and I do think that the minister should withdraw any statement that he made with reference to what I had said about someone else committing a criminal act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will review the "blues" and then come back if necessary to rectify whatever it is that has to be rectified.
Routine Proceedings


Harvie Andre: He said that I said that he said that somebody might have done something which he says may be a criminal act. He says I should withdraw.
I would like something in return. I would like a commitment from the hon. member that if I withdraw whatever I might have said, and I did not say what he thinks I said, that he will keep his mouth shut, not interrupt me and allow me to continue with the rest of my remarks.


Don Boudria: No conditions.


Harvie Andre: No conditions.
Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the substance of his questions, which I thought he wanted answered.
The question of the policy in rural closures is not to fire anybody or dismiss anybody, but when natural opportunities come up, to look at retail postal outlets. Where that has happened in communities of sufficient size, or because of the nature of the business and so on, the reality is that they simply replace the postmaster, postmistress, whoever it may be. The fact is that where the change to a rural post office has been made, it is found to be very popular with the people affected.
On the question of ad mail, the hon. member is wrong to suggest that ad mail is a source of a huge amount of revenue, because that happens to be an area where there is intense competition. The Southam chain and another-I forget the owners of-are also in the business of distributing ad mail door-to-door. If he looks at the annual report, as he claims to have done, he will see that the revenues on that have been falling off, but they never did amount to anything like a significant percentage. The major source of revenues is the first class letter mailers, the billers from banks, businesses and so on. That is the major business revenue.
I again say: "If you are going to run a subsidy, if you are going to run deficits, it is tantamount to the taxpayers of Canada subsidizing those businesses." I do not think that is good economic policy. I do not think that is good social policy. That is why we insist-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to participate in the debate today.

April 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
To make it perfectly clear, what we are debating is the report submitted to the House by the Consumer and Corporate Affairs committee that examined the state of the postal system of Canada. While the committee made a number of recommendations, I think it is fair to say that we, in the New Democratic Party, virtually dissociate ourselves from all of those recommendations.
I must say that my hon. friend, the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has submitted a minority report. It is entitled Report of the New Democratic Party and the Future of our National Postal System. It is one of the best reports I have ever read in terms of describing what is being done to the postal system. I suspect that if people are interested in copies, they could simply contact the member of Parliament for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake and get a copy of this excellent report.
I have read a lot of reports on the post office and most of them are rather gobbledegook. They try to justify the dismantling of the postal system of Canada. This is an outstanding report, and examines every minute detail of the postal system. Again, I have to compliment the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for doing what has to be only described as an outstanding job, as a parliamentarian in his work, particularly serving the people of Canada through the providing of a report that describes our postal system so accurately.
More important, it points out not only the problems associated with it, but I could take some time, which I do not think I will today because it is all available here in writing, a number of very important recommendations, 34 recommendations to be exact as to what could be done to make our postal system one of the best postal systems in the world, and maintain its comprehensive nature across Canada.
I listened with interest to the minister responsible for the postal corporation where in a sense he confirmed that it is the government's support of the postal corporation to dismantle 5,221 rural post offices in Canada. This can only be described as being anti-rural Canada. This is the dismantling of important infrastructure in rural Canada.
This is part of an ongoing program of the federal government to abandon support for those living in small communities and rural areas of the country.
As the minister has indicated, they say the post office has to make a profit and be run like a business like General Motors or the Royal Bank of Canada. I do not know why we have to make that assumption. We want an efficient and effective postal system. Why does it have to be run like a business?
We do not run our Armed Forces like a business and we do not expect our navy to make a profit. We do not expect the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to make a profit. We do not expect our hospitals, our long-term care facilities, our universities, colleges or schools to make profits. We do not expect our army to make profits and we do not expect the ambulance service to make profits. There are a number of areas like these that the taxpayers of Canada expect as a service.
We expect to be protected and therefore we pay taxes to have one of the best police systems in the world, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We pay taxes and we have a decent health care system across the country. Taxpayers say, not only do we pay taxes but we also pay for the postal service because it is, to a certain extent, user pay.
When I was first elected I think it cost 17 cents for a stamp to mail a letter across the country. Now, not too many years later, it costs 39 cents to mail a letter across the country. That is a tremendous increase in order to cover the cost. The same could be said of postal service for parcels and so on.
The corporation, with the support of the federal government, has denied the opportunity to enter into a whole variety of other services to help it raise money. The postal service in other countries includes many services, such as banking facilities. In very small communities they provide simple and straightforward banking services. They provide all sorts of retail and courier services and so on. In other words, there is a whole range of services that the post office could be providing in terms of revenue raising, but it has had that eliminated.
It seems to me that the government has tried to make it impossible for the postal corporation to succeed, except to dismantle it across the country. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that those Canadians who are most adversely affected are those people living in rural Canada and small-town Canada.
April 26, 1990

I want to give an example of a situation that took place in my constituency in a community called Westwold, British Columbia. Let me describe Westwold, as I know you are familiar with much of British Columbia and I suspect you even know the community well, Mr. Speaker. It was founded back in the 1880s when the first cattlemen brought their herds into British Columbia from the United States on their way to the gold rush. They found this huge area called Grand Prairie to be a fantastic place to feed animals over the winter season.
In the 1880s the agricultural sector was established and it has been a thriving community since. Today, Westwold is a community that is thriving. The farms are well kept and some of the ranches and farms have been there for generations. As a matter of fact, I know a number of families with four generations still on the land. There is the great grandfather, the grandfather, the father and now the young children. That is rather remarkable.
Westwold is one of the oldest communities in western Canada. It has had a post office for over 100 years, which, for western Canada, is a long time to have a post office in a small rural community. It is very vibrant and very alive. People are proud of their community, proud of their heritage and proud of what they have accomplished in terms of developing farms and ranches and a variety of other businesses, particularly in the forest industry.
Here we have a community with a relatively long history by Canadian standards. Here we have a community that is thriving and we have a community where the people are proud of their community and they are proud of their accomplishments. They are good and hard-working people. They work hard to make a success of their lives and they provide for their families in a way that can only be considered a model in our country. Part of the spirit and life-blood of that community is its post office.
That is where a lot of community work takes place, the exchange of ideas and notices, where people do their post office work at a certain time each day. There is a regular pattern of life in the community that focuses around the post office and has done for over 100 years.
Routine Proceedings
The postmaster had to resign a few days ago. This was a sad day in the community. The postmaster performs many functions other than simply handling and processing mail for the people of the area. The postmaster keeps an eye on senior citizens in the area and when they do not show up for two or three days they ask someone to drop in or perhaps the local RCMP members are asked to check out this person to make sure everything is all right. Often they find out that things are not all right. This service is a lifeline in the community.
Within hours after the postmaster resigned bureaucrats from the post office descended on the place and said "This is our chance. We can now get rid of the post office". It was almost sinister. It was sad and a shock to the community. People could not believe that somewhere out there lurks these people who just wait for the opportunity when someone either passes away or has to leave the post office for family reasons, or for whatever reason, and there is a change of postmaster.
The bureaucrats come and pass around notices in the community stating "There is great news. We are going to close the post office". People could not believe it. They were aware that this was going on elsewhere.
My colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has raised this issue on many occasions in the House. Post offices in Atlantic Canada, the prairies, Ontario and Quebec, and in northern Canada are closing down almost on a weekly basis. Hundreds of post offices have closed. But until it happens to you one does not really appreciate the effect. You cannot believe that the Government of Canada would actually close a post office that has been open for over 100 years. That is what is happening. It is Canada Post Corporation that is doing this with the support of the federal government. If the federal government did not support this initiative, it would speak out.
This is a rural community based primarily on ranching and forestry and because there have been a number of disastrous fires over the last number of months there are no retail outlets in the community. There is no service station or community store because of these drastic and tragic fires which have taken place. There is no place to have a post office. You cannot consider a local service

April 26, 1990
Routine Proceedings
station, shop or restaurant running a franchise post office on the side, so the alternative is to have none.
A post office serviced the community for decades and now because of this policy there will be no post office. The corporation can say "Cheer up, folks, we are going to put some boxes in your community where you can pick up your mail". That is small comfort for a community that has had a post office for about 120 years. That is despicable, disgraceful and unCanadian. It is anti-rural Canada. It is as if there was a wish to destroy rural Canada. There is always someplace to put a franchise in the cities.
My hon. friend across the way is shaking his head. I can hear him from here.
In rural Canada there is not always an alternative. There is not always a shop to franchise the postal operation. As in this community, there is no way to have a post office. They either have the existing one or none at all.
Do hon. members opposite really want to say that they represent a government that wants to take away the post office from Westwold, British Columbia? I see the Conservatives nodding their head that yes, this is their policy. This is what they support. We, in the New Democratic Party do not support this system. We feel that the taxpayers of Canada, the people who work hard and pay taxes, buy stamps and provide all the necessary costs, deserve to have small post offices.
Mr. Speaker, you should see this post office. This is not a fancy post office with big pillars. It is a little small box. It is a very small place packed full of boxes. It is very crowded and inconvenient for the postmaster. It is a very modest, humble post office. The government is saying "You cannot even have that kind of post office". It is a disgrace. It is unCanadian.


Ms. Mitchell:: Right, absolutely.


Nelson Andrew Riis: This is not what this country is built on.
The government is saying that it does not have confidence in Westwold, British Columbia.
It does not appreciate what the people who have lived on that land since the 1880s and have developed that community have done for the country. The one federal government installation that provides support for that community is going to be ripped out by this government.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is like ripping out your heart. It is like ripping a vital organ out of your body.


An hon. member:: They want postal services!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Listen, he can't understand very well what I am saying, Mr. Speaker. There is a goat or something over there bleating, saying that they want postal services. I am telling you they cannot have postal services because there are no alternatives other than a post office. I know that is a hard concept for the member opposite on the Conservative benches to understand, and I respect that. But I will explain it to him later-as a matter of fact I will put it in writing if it will make it any easier for him to comprehend.
There is something sinister going on in this country. When I read in the report that the government intends to close down over 5,220 rural post offices, I wonder what kind of government would close down every single rural post office in Canada if it had any respect for the people who built this country.
The people who built this country are from rural Canada by and large. We have had a rural-based economy for years. They are the ones who struggle hard. They are the ones who work 18 hours a day and continue to do so. They are the ones who are being challenged by high interest rates and the spectre of a GST and the dismantling of a whole number of services. Now the final death blow to the community, the final spike is being driven into the heart of Westwold, British Columbia, and the people of Westwold, with the government saying it is going to rip out their post office.
Mr. Speaker, it is a despicable act by an uncaring, arrogant government. That is the only way to describe it. I hate to do so because I know the hon. members across the way are not like that. As individuals they are wonderful people, but when they get together in a group something goes wrong. Their minds close off, or they blank out in terms of logic and rationale. There is something about a group of Conservatives that makes me shudder when they get together because this is what they come up with, a lovely plan to dismantle a rural postal system.
According to this report, the government is going to remove support for a number of Canadian publications. In other words, one of the ways that the federal government can encourage a Canadian identity is to promote
April 26, 1990

and support Canadian publications, such as B.C. Beef which is a very important communication tool for the livestock industry in British Columbia. We struggled and got a postal subsidy so that they could actually circulate their publication. Ranchers and cattlemen read it regularly and learn what is going on in the industry. They are up-dated, educated, and informed of the state-of-the-art machinery and technologies involved.
That is likely going to go now because the government is saying it can no longer afford to support Canadian publications like this anymore, it cannot afford to encourage the development of Canadian culture and communication. Publications like B.C. Beef are probably on the chopping block as a result of the government's initiative to make money.
When the government says it has decided to change everything and will have our Armed Forces make money then I will understand. But I see my time is quickly running to a close so I would like to move an amendment to the concurrence motion. I move:
That the second report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs with instruction that they have the power to amend the same so as to recommend that Canada Post remain a crown corporation and that a commission be appointed with the powers to oversee Canada Post.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to pay tribute to Jean Fontaine who on April 24 was awarded the Prix Robert Cliche by the Corporation du Salon du livre du Quebec after a unanimous vote by the jury, as part of the Festival national du livre, for his novel: Les lievres de Saint-Giron.
In addition to being a writer, Jean Fontaine also works as a cameraman for Radio-Quebec in Val d'Or. Incidentally, he was born in Rouyn-Noranda in 1958.
His book, to which the author referred somewhat humorously as an allegoric adventure story, has an unusual history. It was submitted to several publishers, including Editions Quinze where it was initially turned down but later published. His novel also provided the basis for a scenario for a feature film in 1981 and for a dissertation submitted towards a Master's in literature at the UQAM in 1983.
Mr. Speaker, we congratulate the winner of the Twelfth Prix Robert Cliche for young Quebec writers and wish him every success with his current activities.



AGRICULTURE

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario agri-food industry is under attack while the government sits idly by.
It has been confirmed that a large Toronto based vegetable oil refinery has purchased 10 million pounds of subsidized soy oil from Spain. Spain imports soybeans from Brazil and the United States, crushes them, then exports the oil at a subsidized rate to protect its olive oil industry.
In contrast, the Canadian government is refusing to protect the soybean producers by allowing unfairly subsidized oil to be dumped in Canada. This dumping was brought to the attention of the Canadian government by the grains and oil seeds critic and the Ontario soybean producers over two weeks ago, and raised in the House at the first possible opportunity, but the ministers did not respond.
In my riding, as in ridings across Ontario, this will have drastic effects on the agri-food industry. If gone unchecked, it could cost the Ontario industry $8.5 million.
I call upon the government to act immediately by countervail tariff or other anti-dumping measures at its disposal to protect this valuable Canadian industry.



NATIONAL BOOK FESTIVAL

Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, this week is the Canada Council's 1990 National Book Festival. For the twelfth consecutive year there will be a national celebration of Canadian books and authors. More than 500 Canadian authors will participate in

April 26, 1990
projects planned for 442 cities, towns and communities throughout the country.
The theme of this year's festival is "Book an Adventure". The activities planned are as diverse as the country itself. This year there will be public readings of prose, poetry and drama, writing workshops, instant book productions and many film festivals based on Canadian works.
I invite all Canadians to participate in this year's activities, and to take the time to read to our children and to help those who have reading problems. The ability to read is a skill that we should not take for granted.



BANKING

Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina -Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Conservative government gave the giant U.S. corporation, American Express, the right to go ahead and establish itself as a bank in Canada, and essentially do the kind of business that our own Canadian banks are, by the laws of Canada, not allowed to do.
Further, this Conservative government has given the American Express Company bank status that the company is not even entitled to in the United States, because the business that AMEX conducts is not considered appropriate to a bank in that country either.
Even if the government proceeds with the changes in the financial regulations, the head start it has given this American company is unconscionable. Is the selling out of Canadian interests the price this government is willing to pay for the support that AMEX has given it in terms of the free trade deal?
I find it appalling that this government has chosen to ignore the laws and the interests of Canada.



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton - Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, in today's highly technological world, individual Canadians, industry and governments have to rethink the commitment presently being made to research and development in this country.
This government is instituting many economic reforms to make Canadian goods more competitive in the international marketplace. Not only is this an important step, it is essential. But we must not stop there.
To ensure the prosperity of future generations of Canadians, we must devote more effort to research and development, not only through government but through industry and universities as well.
In recognition of this fact, the government has established the Centres of Excellence Program, which promotes excellence in science and co-operation between these three institutions of our society.
This innovative program encourages research relevant to industrial competitiveness, working toward making Canada a strong player in the international marketplace. We can compete.



CROATIAN ELECTION

Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend members of the House were privileged to have been invited to monitor the first democratic elections held in the Republic of Croatia in more than 40 years. The results mirrored those of last month in the neighbouring Republic of Slovenia in a clear repudiation of the Communist party and all that it has represented.
It was heartening to observe this extremely emotional event and to witness the democratic zeal and excitement brought about by this unique opportunity. Croatians take their democratic responsibility very seriously and the rejection of the iron fist of the Communist party, after a history of repression, was an honest expression of a people who have suffered greatly.
As my colleagues and I watched the political process unfold, we were acutely aware that history was in the making and that once the floodgates of democracy have been opened, it will be difficult to retreat from the course of ongoing reform.
I hope that all members of the House will join me in congratulating the Croatian people and welcoming them as the newest member of the international democratic family.
April 26, 1990



CFB SUMMERSIDE

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, today, April 26, we will observe the first anniversary of the most infamous budget leak in Canadian history. For the people of P.E.I. the most vivid recollection of that budget leak was the announcement of the closure of CFB Summerside.
The town of Summerside, the riding of Egmont and the province of P.E.I. were in shock. The second largest employer on the Island was to close. Twenty-six hundred jobs would disappear. A $50 million payroll would be lost.
The people of Summerside and area gathered their forces to fight the closure, to fight for the life of their town. The Friends of CFB Summerside was set up. A Mother's Day march and a Caravan of Hope to Ottawa were organized. A federal-provincial task force was established. A comparable federal presence was promised. A private consulting firm was hired, but the report is still top secret. We are still waiting for the announcement.
One of the worst situations is the plight of the civilian workers. Some are being uprooted from their homes. Some are getting lay-off notices and are facing unemployment in a depressed area.
The solution is obvious. Leave 413 Search and Rescue Squadron where it is. Summerside is the best location. P.E.I. would have a military presence, it would save lives and it would save the government money.



NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK

Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, this is National Volunteer Week, an opportunity for all Canadians to pay tribute to so many of their fellow citizens who work for the well-being of their community.
Individually or as members of a group, about 13 million Canadians have made volunteer work part of their lives. Without them, many programs and agencies would no longer exist. Many of these organizations have made it
their aim to remedy the inequities and injustice in our society.
Through volunteer work, all Canadians have a chance to play an active role in their community. Volunteer work and the personal commitment it represents are firmly anchored in the democratic principles on which Canada was founded. In fact, this active personal commitment is considered to be one of our basic human rights.
Without the contribution of its volunteers, Canada would not be as we know it today. The generosity of these Canadians is therefore an important part of our national identity.
Today, I urge you to join me in congratulating all volunteers and to thank them for the invaluable contribution they are making to our society.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!



OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 23, this House voted in favour of my private member's motion calling upon the government to reinstate funding for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
Although the government had planned to remove all funding for the centre by next year, even Conservative members opposite voted in favour of reinstating its funding, clearly signalling their disapproval of the government's privatization plans.
For ten years the CCOHS has provided Canadians with cost-free, impartial and unbiased information on occupational health and safety matters. Under privatization the centre would concentrate its efforts on the sale of products as opposed to the delivery of vital services.
In an open letter delivered to the Minister of Labour yesterday, I stressed that, in light of all-party support of the motion, the minister is now obligated to reinstate full funding for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
This place has spoken. Canadian workers anxiously await the minister's reply.

April 26, 1990



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun -Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has admitted that certain groups of the labour force in the urban area of Montreal have major economic problems. The south west sector of Montreal Island is represented by a committee of volunteers who have joined forces to invite all three levels of government-municipal, provincial and federal-to form a partnership and co-ordinate the implementation of their various economic programs.
In this connection, the Minister of State for Employment, the Elon. Monique Vezina, and the Minister of Labour, the Hon. Jean Corbeil, announced on April 9 that $1.2 million had been set aside for the current year as financial support for the harmonization committee of the City of Montreal and the economic and community development corporations (CDEC).
The partnership concept promoted by the forum on employment was reflected Employment and Immigration's participation in the Montreal action plan for neighbourhood economic development.
Thanks to this concept, the development committee will be able to adjust our employment and training programs to the specific and pressing needs of the community.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 provides for a similar, dynamic use of unemployment insurance funds. Bill C-21 would let us do more to meet labour force needs. The recent announcement by the Minister of State for Employment reflects our desire and our ability to help workers overcome their difficulties by ensuring that they will be able to obtain worthwhile and permanent employment.



LAW OF THE SEA

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister likes to speak of the need for international co-operation to solve global problems. If he wishes to be taken seriously he should see to it that the Law of the Sea is ratified to honour Canada's commitment in 1982. Because of the Prime Minister's lack of leadership, Canada has not done so.
The Law of the Sea, intended to serve humanity in managing the oceans, is unenforceable because an insufficient number of nations have ratified it.
When will the Prime Minister cross the bridge between rhetoric and action? If he is to be taken seriously on environmental issues, Canada should ratify the Law of the Sea, but the political will, alas, seems to be missing.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were reminded of just how effective the free trade agreement has been for Canada. It was another victory for the United States, this time on the issue of lobster exports.
Atlantic Canadians have heard repeatedly that the Conservative government intends to defend the interests of our lobster fishermen. The Minister for International Trade described U.S. action against Canadian lobsters as trade protectionism at its rankest. The Prime Minister told the House that the full weight and influence of the Canadian government would be brought to bear on the U.S. Congress and administration in an attempt to settle this very serious problem, in the interests of our fishermen.
The consequences of the U.S. action are estimated to cost the Canadian lobster industry up to $127 million over the next three years.
It appears that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has already given in, indicating in a briefing book that discussions are now under way with industry on how best to implement the changes made necessary by this American government action. The final decision will not be made until May 15, yet the federal Department of Fisheries has conceded defeat already.
Whose side is the government really on?



VOLUNTEERS

Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the ninth annual Volunteer Recognition Banquet. In attendance were some 200 people, representing over 4,000 volun-
April 26, 1990

teers from throughout the communities of Abbotsford, Matsqui and Clearbrook. The energy and good will that filled the Ag-Rec building of the Central Fraser Valley Exhibition Park was phenomenal.
It has been said that volunteers are the heroes of our society and I can tell you that it is a great feeling to spend an evening with 200 heroes.
The Matsqui Abbotsford Recreational Committee awarded three individuals-Fred Phillips, Frank Bogle and John Whittenburg-with commemorative plaques in appreciation of their exemplary commitment. Commitment is what volunteering is all about, commitment to the sense of community. It makes me proud to live in a community that is so well served.
To the thousands who contribute selflessly as volunteers, thank you and congratulations.



STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, on April 11, at a public meeting before witnesses, the Aboriginal Affairs Committee, without a dissenting vote, invited Georges Erasmus to attend committee meetings to question ministers on the budget Estimates affecting native people. At this meeting a minority of government members were present.
Yesterday, the committee met again, on short notice in camera, to discuss committee business. This time, all the Tories attended but there were no Liberals. As a result, Tory members were able to push through two resolutions. One limited the ability of committee members to present motions without notice and the second disinvited the National Chief of the AFN to assist the committee in questioning the ministers on Estimates.
It is time the Liberals and Tories attach some priority to attendance at meetings of the Aboriginal Affairs Standing Committee. How can the committee retain any credibility if it reverses its decisions from one meeting to the next, based on whether Liberal or Tory members are interested enough to attend?
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Canadian Manufacturers' Association issued a report which stated that the government's policies on interest rates and the dollar have already placed our manufacturing sector in a recession and that these policies could "permanently damage the manufacturing sector".
Is the minister going to persist in this high interest rate, high dollar policy which the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has said would permanently damage the manufacturing sector of the country? Why does he want to do permanent damage to a sector that is the foundation in many ways of the entire Canadian economy?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on three separate days I have answered a series of questions on this same topic.


Mrs. Gaffney:: We never got an answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that I have not given an answer. I think she will read in Hansard that I have answered as precisely and as fully as I can. I am going to give another very precise answer and I would encourage her to listen carefully to it.
In the early part of 1989, we had business credit growth in the country somewhere between 9 and 10 per cent. In the early part of this year, business credit growth is in the 11 per cent to 11.3 per cent range. In consumer credit growth, in the early part of the year, we were at 14.5 per cent. It is down in the 11.5 to 12.5 per cent range in the most recent figures, but the economy is growing at a rate of 7 per cent.
By either of these measures, bank credit growth has been growing more quickly than the economy has been growing, and that is a prescription for further inflation unless we can slow down that credit growth. The best way that we know to slow down that credit growth is to have an interest rate policy which puts interest rates higher, makes that credit more expensive, and, therefore, will slow down the credit growth. That will solve the problem of inflation, which is the thing that we are

April 26, 1990
Oral Questions
most concerned about, and which is what a government in the 1970s did not take seriously enough. That led us to the problems of the very serious recession in 1981-82. Surely, the hon. member remembers those problems.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Canadians would like an answer to the conclusions and concerns of the Canadian Manufacturer's Association, as expressed in a report which came out only yesterday afternoon. With respect to the point the minister is trying to make, the association states:
The objective of monelary policy is to permit economic growth with reasonable price stability. We believe the balance has shifted excessively to price stability at the cost of undermining economic growth and competitiveness.
Is the minister now going to listen to the Canadian Manufacturer's Association on this, or is he going to persist in policies which drive manufacturing and jobs out of the country? If so, how can he follow a policy which is so damaging to the Canadian economy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I listen to this new-found concern of the Liberal Party for the manufacturing sector of the country.


Mr. Peterson:: Nonsense. We've been there all along.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The member for Willowdale suddenly wakes up.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister is responding, apparently, to a new-found concern. I am sure all hon. members would like him to continue his answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, thank you for drawing me back to the question.
The question is: What are we doing for the manufacturing community in the country? We are removing the manufacturer's sales tax which will lower the cost of doing business for the manufacturers in the country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It will make them more competitive in international markets and will make it better for them to be able to sell their products on international markets. What do we hear from the Liberal
Party of Canada? It says, "Scrap the GST, go back to the manufacturer's sales tax."
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot, on the one hand, talk about saving the manufacturing sector from the high interest rates and, on the other hand, increase the cost of doing business for the manufacturing community by leaving the manufacturer's sales tax in place.
Canadians understand when a political party is talking out of both sides of its mouth and that is what the Liberal Party of Canada is doing.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Canadians' understanding of this government is reflected in the polls.


An hon. member:: Right on.


An hon. member:: Exactly.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Obviously, the government will not go up in the polls with that kind of remark.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Manufacturers Association also said, and I quote: Manufacturers are being beaten with the blunt instrument of monetary policy for inflationary problems for which they are not responsible. Why is the minister refusing to listen to Canadian manufacturers who create so many jobs? And when will the minister stop harassing them and stop driving companies and jobs out of the country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I said on Tbesday of this week, I take no comfort at all in what is happening to some of the companies that are finding it tough to do business today. But I know what the alternative is. The alternative is an increase in inflationary pressures which will lead to higher interest rates on a more permanent basis and that will be far, far more damaging to the manufacturing sector of the country than the policies that we are following today.
If we want to see proof of that, we need only go back ten years to find out what happened when the Liberal government-the government that my hon. friend supported-ignored the problems of inflation. It led to a blow-off in the inflation rate of 13 per cent in 1981. That
April 26, 1990

led to the very high levels of interest rates in 1981 and 1982 and the high levels of unemployment that were caused by that. That is what we are trying to avoid.


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has to understand that representatives from every sector of our economy are now asking that interest rates be reduced and that the value of the Canadian dollar be allowed to fall.
Is the Minister of Finance going to listen to business, labour, and consumers, or is there a part of the free trade deal that requires the Canadian Government to keep the value of the Canadian dollar above 80 cents and is that, in fact, why it will not lower interest rates?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have had this red herring time and time again. If the hon. member understood how financial markets work, how interest rate markets work, how the Canadian dollar market works, he would never ask that question. He would know that if a commitment of that sort were given it could not be fulfilled.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the Bank of Canada is clearly obsessed with zero inflation, and now the government is supporting that obsession. I want to ask the Minister of Finance today, since he is responsible for Canada's monetary policy, whether, considering demands across this country from all sectors of our economy, he is prepared to see Canadian interest rates and the value of the Canadian dollar go down. The time has come to listen to Canadians. The minister did not listen to them during the GST debate. Will he now listen to what they have to say about interest rates?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that the government and I, as a minister, can say we have done, it is that we have listened very carefully. We have consulted broadly about all the ranges of economic policies that we have put in place over the last five and a half years. That is a matter of fact; that is a matter of the record. It is not a matter of judgment on the part of anyone.
Oral Questions
We have talked to a wide range of people, during the course of the last few months and the last few years, on the questions of economic policy, be it it is inflation, monetary policy, or fiscal policy. We listened and we have taken all that into account in the decisions that we have taken as a government.
My hon. friend talked about an obsession. Our obsession is to have good, non-inflationary, sustainable growth over an extended period of time. We had a good period of that in the latter part of the 1980s, from 1984 through to 1989. We are going through a rough period now, but our commitment is to get back on that track of sustainable, non-inflationaiy growth, and I believe that if we continue these policies we will be able to do so in the very near future.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The discount rate of the Bank of Canada today went up for the twenty-first time since 1988. The Canadian Manufacturer's Association is stressing that the manufacturing sector across the country is being devastated by these interest rates.
I want to quote another economic observer who put things as follows:
The inflation rate is between 5 per cent and 6 per cent. The
current interest rate at 13 per cent or 14 per cent is simply too
high."
Does the minister accept this clear judgment, and will he act to bring these rates down now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that the answers that I gave earlier this week in the House, as well as those I have given today, are a very clear response to that question.
We have indicated very clearly our concern about inflationary pressures. We are determined to get those inflationary pressures down. When they do come down, interest rates will come down. That is very clear. That is a clear statement of this government's policy.


Steven W. Langdon: Of course, Mr. Speaker, that quote was the hon. Minister of Finance, himself, when he was in opposition.
I ask the minister if what was right then is not right now. If what was right at that time as an analysis that those interest rates were too high at 13 to 14 per cent,

Oral Questions
with an inflation rate of 5 to 6 per cent, and if that was wrong then to keep those rates so high in December 1982, according to Michael Wilson, why is it suddenly right now, according to the Minister of Finance?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me say to my hon. friend that I would like him to show me that precise quote. I would like to see that precise quote, but I will respond to the question, in any event.
The statements that I was making in 1981-82 were presenting an essential position that decisions that had been taken in the 1970s and the early part of the 1980s led to the problems that we were facing at that time. That is exactly what I am saying today. Mistakes were made then. Surely my hon. friend would like to learn from those mistakes today and avoid the problems of the 20 to 25 per cent interest rates and the 13 plus per cent unemployment that spread across the country after that. This is the problem that we are facing. We want to avoid seeing that repeated.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am entranced. I am interested in discovering which Michael Wilson was mistaken. Was it the Michael Wilson of 1982 or the Minister of Finance of 1990?
In view of the precise conditions being exactly the same as the minister stated in 1982, is he not in fact doing a complete flip-flop on the position which he took in the past with reference to interest rates, and does he not recognize that this country requires, for the sake of consistency, that he bring these interest rates down now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I note that my hon. friend has not given me a precise quote and he has not sent that quote over to me. I again ask him to give me that precise quote and then we will talk to that. What I will say is that the Mike Wilson of 1981, the Mike Wilson of 1979 when I came to this House, and the Mike Wilson of 1990 is exactly the same person.


AMERICAN EXPRESS
James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. How can the minister tell this House that American Express has not
received a special deal when the government has broken five out of its own nine guidelines?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I have had frequent opportunities to explain to the hon. member, here and in committee, why this decision was taken and why it was such a good decision.
Here we have an organization, one of the world's largest financial service institutions, that is already operating here. They are here today and they were here yesterday, unregulated, doing exactly what they will be doing tomorrow, providing competition. We wanted to bring them in line with others and allow them to compete within the Bank Act.
I am fully satisfied that this is a good decision and this will not prevent us from making sure that good, sound, vibrant national institutions develop in this country. But we must bring in more competition for consumers.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the American Express bank licence is fraught with suspicion. We have the flaunting of our guidelines. We have the role of three American Express directors, James Robinson, Ross Johnson and David Culver, all leaders of the pro-free trade lobby during the last election. We have the last minute Order-in-Council sneaked through by this government on November 21, 1988, election day. Now we have the finance minister's broken promise that Canadians would see their new financial legislation before this licence would be issued.
There are many unanswered questions. Will the government agree to an independent judicial inquiry so that all the facts regarding this very special deal for a special friend can be made public?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I think I will give up hope of ever convincing the hon. member that he is wrong, but he is.
American Express first approached this government in mid-1985. They started discussing it seriously in 1986, years before the free trade agreement came into place. We had very serious discussions with them because we wanted them to be brought in within the Bank Act. We asked them to move out of certain areas. We looked at the precedent created by the Liberal government when it was in power, giving authority to the Midland Bank and giving to the German Deutsch Bank the right to have links with Mercedes. We looked at that very seriously and we convinced ourselves that we could accept them,
April 26, 1990

and we should accept them for the good functioning of our institutions having more competition.
As I said, this is a publicly traded, widely owned, well capitalized institution that has given us all the guarantees we need to proceed with the licence.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and it concerns a very serious and even tragic matter.
As the minister will know, the proud people of the Mohawk community of Akwesasne in my riding are virtually hostages in their own community as a result of disputes between pro and anti-gambling natives on the U.S. side of this reserve.
Since the community straddles the Canada-U.S. border, has the minister contacted or will he contact the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. James Baker, and ask for his immediate assistance so that both Washington and Albany can get involved and take their responsibility in this very important issue.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for a very seriously motivated question about a series of incidents which led to a very unfortunate conflict on Monday and Tuesday of this week in the Akwesasne Mohawk community.
There have been extensive discussions among government officials, federally and provincially, over the past day or more with a view to calming and restoring order in the community of Akwesasne, particularly the St. Regis community on the Canadian side of the border.
As part of that effort, ministers have been involved and contacts have been made with the solicitors general of Quebec and Ontario and important international initiatives have also been taken.
Our embassy in Washington this morning approached the United States State Department to underline the Canadian government's concern about the escalating violence on the reserve, to express concern about the
Oral Questions
effectiveness of policing action on the U.S. part of the reserve in order to curb that violence, and our officials made it clear that this issue requires the full co-operation of law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border.
The State Department, in turn, assured Canada that they were aware of the seriousness of the situation and have initiated contacts with the New York State Governor's office and the Bureau of Indian Affairs with a view to taking action. The State Department concluded by indicating that they would be in contact with our embassy as soon as possible to report on specific further actions to be taken by U.S. enforcement agencies on their side of the border.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's response. Unfortunately, yesterday Major Robert Leu of the New York State Police is quoted as having said that his police would not intervene for the following reason: "We are viewing it as an internal matter".
I am sure that I speak for both my colleague for Beauharnois-Salaberry and myself when I say that this kind of reaction on the part of U.S. authorities is most inappropriate when the lives of both American and Canadian citizens are at stake.
Given that 2,000 people are landlocked in St. Regis, 26 cars have been burned, the cultural centre was burned, four and a half hours of gunfire took place the night before last, and today I have just learned from speaking to the chief that one person is reported missing, will the minister again ensure that not only the authorities in Washington co-operate but that we get specific action from Albany, particularly in the area of the State Troopers?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member and all members of this House would want to know that we also have initiated actions on the Canadian side. I have already answered the question regarding representation to the U.S. State Department, state authorities and officials and we expect a response from them very, very shortly.
As well, I personally met with Chief Mike Mitchell, Grand Chief of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, and

April 26, 1990
Oral Questions
leaders of the tricouncils last night here in Ottawa. I have been on the phone to Chief Mitchell again today.
As a result of our intervention with the Attorney General for Ontario, OPP police patrols were instituted on Cornwall Island last evening. As a result of that, I am told, the evening passed in a very peaceful and orderly fashion and that as of this moment peace has been restored.
We hope to have further information to report as it becomes available.


WOMEN'S CENTRES
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Recently, in Vancouver the Meralomas Rugby Club hosted something they call "hard rock night" a so-called party. At this event, they put on a skit of the Montreal massacre with a floor plan of the Ecole Polytechnique with drawings to show where the young women had died. Toy guns were passed around at this party. A video was shown of a Chinese person, his pockets stuffed full of money, going around buying up Vancouver real estate and at the end the Chinese person was hanged. This is something-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. As the hon. member knows, I come from Vancouver and played many games of rugby against that particular club, but that is not why I am rising. The reason I am rising is that I cannot see the relevance of the question to anything that has to do with administration of government. I wish the hon. member would put her question very clearly and perhaps we could then see what it is.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, this government has cut back funding to women's programs-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. I would ask the hon. member to put her question.


Dawn Black: Will the government reinstitute the funding that has been cut to women's programs and to multiculturalism over the past two years so that the very badly needed education in this whole area in Canada will be addressed?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely outrageous. The program that has been reduced in my ministry does not-and I repeat-does not and has never funded activities which provide direct social and health services to the public.
There was a specific program that was used for information, for advocacy, for education. That program now has less money. That is recognized. Core funding, as a result, was taken away from the women's centres.
I have had some excellent meetings with women across the country. We have been trying to look creatively on how we both, in partnership, and certainly we are looking for ways of diversification as well, can guarantee their continued existence. That process should be allowed to continue right now.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, that is my point exactly. This funding was meant for education to address these very issues. This has happened not only in Vancouver, it has happened at Queen's, it has happened in Calgary, it has happened in the Maritimes and the answer from these people is that women do not have a sense of humour. They need the education. That is what the women's program funding is meant to do, provide the education. Reinstate it. Reinstate the funding for educational purposes now.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we indeed had some excellent meetings in the last few weeks with representatives of women's centres from coast to coast. We indicated quite clearly that if they had any creative ideas that I would be prepared to examine them, which is being done, and I will get back to them as soon as we have had an opportunity to review carefully what they are asking me to look at.


EMPLOYMENT
Gilbert Chartrand: Mr. Speaker, current economic restructuring in Montreal is causing serious problems for workers in that city. My question is directed to the Minister of Employment. What does the minister propose to do to solve the problem of cyclical unemployment and manpower adjustment on Montreal Island?
April 26, 1990


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, our government is aware of the serious problems being experienced by a number of Montreal workers. We are now considering measures to help these communities, and that is the spirit in which we, as a government, tabled the Canadian Jobs Strategy and Bill C-21, which will help us set up community development programs and improve training. Allow me to repeat what I said yesterday and urge our friends in the other place to ensure that Bill C-21 is passed as soon as possible.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. During the free-trade debate, fishermen had been given the assurance that the bi-national panel would protect Canadian interests. However, the first decision on salmon and herring went against Canadian fishermen. The second decision on lobster seems to go against them as well. The Americans are going to win again! It is now 2-0 for the U.S.
Why is Canada unable to enforce its conservation standards, as in the herring and salmon case, while the Americans, who are using conservation as an excuse to control the lobster market, have won their case? What is going on?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the first panel report under Chapter 18 on B.C. salmon and herring led to a settlement of that issue which was in the interests of Canada, as well as being in the interests of the United States and it was certainly not a victory for either side.
With respect to the lobster question, there is no report yet. There was an interim report which was given to the parties on a confidential basis under the terms of the FTA, so that they can make further submissions to the panel before the panel reaches it final conclusions.
Oral Questions
We will know on May 15, what the final conclusions are of the majority.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Last September, the Prime Minister promised to intervene to prevent Americans from taking this kind of action. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister was unsuccessful. Does the government have a support plan for our lobster fishermen who stand to lose more than $30 million because of the free trade panel's negative decision and also, of course, because of the Prime Minister's failure to turn the situation around? Has something been planned for these fishermen?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there is no report of this particular panel as yet. Even anticipating the report that might be made, it is quite clear that opinion in the lobster trade is certainly divided on this issue and that there are several schools of thought on the issue.
I have no doubt that if lobster fishermen require assistance because of any untoward events that occur with respect to them, that will receive careful consideration, but there is no indication of that at the moment.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
One thing that both sides of this House can agree on is that there is a shortage of air traffic controllers in Canada, particularly at Pearson Airport. We may dispute how many we are short, but we all know that there is an acute shortage.
Considering this shortage and the hours of overtime that each controller must put in to keep the system at Pearson working, how can the department reduce the number of air traffic controllers by considering overtime cuts at Pearson this year by $1.9 million?


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.

April 26, 1990
Oral Questions
member for his very timely question. Yes, while there is concern among the air traffic controllers and their ability to handle the traffic, every effort is being made to make sure that safety is not compromised.
The hon. member will recall a year ago that, when there was a concern that there was too much traffic going in and out of Pearson, a limit was put on the number of planes that could go in and out of Pearson to make sure that the traffic controllers that were on staff would be able to adequately handle everything in a safe environment.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, just let me read from the protected memo: "The first thing to go will be all project work, meetings, refresher development training. This will not be nearly enough to meet the amount that is going to be cut: the speciality shifts, the tower, the north, south, east and west specialty shifts. Naturally, levels at Pearson will drop, as will probably the cap at Pearson".
It just seems that we cannot afford any more of this nonsense going on at Pearson. We have to take hold of this airport and find out what is going on with the security, the air traffic flow and so on. What is happening at Pearson?


Ross Belsher: I can assure the hon. member that nothing is being compromised with regards to safety at Pearson International Airport and nothing will be compromised.
I can certainly appreciate the member's concern with the ability of being able to handle the traffic that is demanded at Pearson. I can assure him that the traffic control system of training is filled to its capacity and every effort is being made to entice more traffic controllers into the system so we can make sure we fill the needs as they become available.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
As the minister knows, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has asked the government to reinstate the
wage and price controls that the Liberals introduced in 1982.
Will the Minister of Finance, who is obviously following the high interest rate policies of the Liberals, guarantee to hundreds of thousands of Canadians that they will not have their wages rolled back or limited by further government action?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have made it quite clear that I do not believe in wage and price controls. I do not think that they work.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the minister may say he does not believe in them, but what we need is a guarantee that he will not do exactly as he said in the past. He said he was against high interest rates, but now he has high interest rates.
What is he going to do in the future to make sure that Canadian workers are not going to be forced into a regime of wage controls?
He said he was against high interest rates. We have high interest rates now. He says he is against wage and price controls. Are we going to have wage and price controls in the future?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my criticism of the previous policies of the Liberal government have been because they followed from very inappropriate policies that disregarded the seriousness of inflation and that led to the high interest rates that came about in 1981-1982.
That is the sort of policy that we are trying to avoid today, by trying to stop inflation now when it is 5.5 per cent and not let it run to 13.5 per cent. When it goes as high as 13.5 per cent, you are bound to have a blow-off like we had in 1981 and the resultant disaster in the economy and the high interest rates that led to that. That is what we are trying to avoid right now.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
What are the consequences of the Senate's protracted delay in passing the income tax changes arising from the April, 1989 budget contained in Bill C-28, which included a tax on large corporations?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is a very timely question. The 1989 budget and the large corporations tax were a very important part of the policies that we have been following to get the
April 26, 1990

deficit down and to put a better balance between the interest rate policy and the budgetary policy.
What is happening as a result of the delay of Bill C-28 in the Senate is that corporations are not paying on time their large corporations tax. The result is that about $200 million worth of revenues that we could have put into the last fiscal year have gone uncollected. That is the problem when the Senate takes the actions that it has to delay these bills.
This action by the Senate, I believe, is a sharp departure from Canadian constitutional practice. I do not think that there have been times in the past when there have been money and tax bills such as this delayed for as long a period of time as they have. It is important for us to realize the significance of this and the importance of having the Senate blocking a measure that has been put in place by a properly elected government.


LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. I want to get back to the federal-provincial agreement signed by Saskatchewan and Canada on establishing a system under which the French minority in this province would control and manage its own schools, which would be a first for this province.
I would like to know, considering the fact that the province has backtracked, put the plans on the backburn-er, in fact, has put the whole project on hold, whether the secretary of State will give the House his guarantee that all monies, namely the $26 million to be provided over a ten-year period, will be withheld and not given to the province until it has developed a program with a firm commitment and written guarantees for the Government of Canada that it will proceed as soon as possible.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: You are no doubt aware of our very firm commitment, having read or having heard what was said by the Prime Minister who indicated he was disappointed that the
Oral Questions
government of Saskatchewan had not found a way to introduce legislation during the current session.
I also had a discussion with the minister, Mr. Meikle-john, who told me about the reasons for the delay. I am sure you also read what was said by the Commmission nationale des parents francophones. Mr. Poirier says he is very pleased with Mr. Mulroney's gesture. I quote: "By offering Saskatchewan his government's co-operation, the Prime Minister of Canada has shown the kind of leadership all Francophones outside Quebec will appreciate".
We will follow further developments very carefully. [English]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I will put the question in English. I am asking the minister if he will not, today, give us the assurance that he will not spend any of that money until Saskatchewan has given a firm commitment, in writing, to Canada, that they will proceed. That is a simple question. I do not want to know about all the other correspondence they have exchanged. I want to have the assurance that that money is there for that purpose, nothing else.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr, Speaker, there is a 10-year agreement between Canada and Saskatchewan. It calls for the disbursement of funds as those expenses are made.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We know that. Yes or no?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Obviously, certain processes are ongoing. We have the assurance and the firm commitment of the Government of Saskatchewan that they are going to be proceeding within the briefest delay possible. Obviously, work will continue, and we will continue to meet our part of the commitment.
There is an agreement in place. We expect to make sure that that agreement is carried forward.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture. Almost a month ago, the minister announced a special funding for farmers facing financial

April 26, 1990
Business of the House
crisis this spring. So far, not one dollar has been paid because provinces have not been able to come up with their share of the money.
This morning, the Associate Minister of Agriculture for Saskatchewan, Mr. Harold Martens, said: "We are not in a position where we can back down. The other two Prairie provinces feel the same way and producers are saying we're right in what we're doing".
In view of the stalemate, can the Deputy Prime Minister say how and when the money is going to be paid to these farmers facing serious financial crisis with seeding about to begin?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed very encouraged by the fact that the government of Ontario, the Minister of Agriculture specifically, has made a commitment to work with us in terms of the program that was announced. It is encouraging to note that some $48 million was allocated to farmers to help offset the income deficiency of this particular year. Those discussions are ongoing at the present time between our officials to ensure that that program is executed.
The Government of Saskatchewan has to provide an interest rate relief program which will be eligible for matching funds. The Government of Manitoba is, I understand, prepared to do something in a similar vein. I will be meeting with the minister of agriculture and the provincial treasurer on Sunday to talk about details.
The Government of Alberta has announced a program specifically designed to alleviate the situation in the Peace River district. That program too will qualify for matching federal funds. Progress is being made, and as soon as we can identify the total package on the part of all the provinces, the matching funds will be forthcoming from the Government of Canada.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Deputy Prime Minister has outlined a scenario that should put the money from the federal government into the hands of farmers about July or August.
Can he tell us today where farmers are going to get the money to plant their crops, especially in the prairies and
areas of Ontario. Where does he propose that they get the money? The banks are holding them up and not providing funds on the basis of equity anymore, it has to be on the basis of cash flow and many of these crops will not provide cash flow. Where does he propose that the farmers get the money for this planting?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not take issue with me or this government. Our money is on the table right now. There was $500 million made available at the end of March.
If he has any complaints he should get on the phone to the ministers of agriculture of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan and ask them where their share of the money is because when it's there, ours will be there. We're ready today to help the farmers. I am not sure why the hon. member would want to deprive the farmers of provincial contributions which would match our dollars and which would get more money into the hands of the farmers.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if he could indicate to members the projected order of business for the coming days, Thursday and Friday and next week possibly.


Harvie Andre: It is the
intention today to start report stage of Bill C-15, the plant breeders' rights bill and to continue and hopefully to end debate on that tomorrow, Friday.
It would be our hope, and I think there is agreement of the other parties, that at the end of the day tomorrow, we might call for report stage of Bill C-43 in order to get the Chair's ruling on the amendments that have been filed. It would not be our intention to continue with any debate per se but merely to have the House informed of the amendments and their consideration and grouping by the Chair.
On Monday I would expect to resume second reading debate on Bill C-26, the At and East rate, hopefully to

April 26, 1990

complete second reading of that. Depending on further discussions, on Tuesday we might consider a possible return message to the other place in respect of Bill C-21. That will, of course, depend on the Chair's ruling on the point of order which the Chair, I understand, will be giving to us shortly.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, a short supplementary on a subject which is of interest to many members. It deals with the Deputy Speaker's position. As we know, we still have a Deputy Speaker, but it would be rather embarrassing for him to be sitting in that Chair since he is a minister of the Crown. I am just wondering if the government-and we would not accept that-had given some thought to following our Standing Orders, which call for an appointment forthwith. Can we expect an appointment to be made or consultations to be finished soon?


Harvie Andre: In such high esteem is the current occupant of the deputy speakership held that even though he now has cabinet responsibilities, there is a great reluctance to accept his resignation in order to propose his replacement. However, I understand that the discussions have advanced to some extent. If I may paraphrase all my predecessors-I stress, all my predecessors-in this position, we will be acting soon.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly hope so!


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: On April 3, 1990 the hon. government House leader rose to contest the acceptability of certain amendments set out in the Senate message respecting Bill C-21, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act. He sought "the Chair's guidance in formulating a motion for a return message to the Senate," and asked the Chair "to rule that certain amendments contained in the message from the other place are out of order, because they differ in one way or another with the specific conditions laid out in the royal recommendation of Bill C-21, and because they infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown." In his
Speaker's Ruling
reasoned and well-documented arguments, the hon. minister also claimed that the proposed amendments infringed upon the financial privileges of this House in that the Senate amendments "undermine in a significant way the budget of April 27, (1989) in which this House has expressed its confidence". He also claimed that the amendments violated the principle of the bill, that is to set up the unemployment insurance program, as an employer-employee finance program.
Following the hon. minister's intervention, we had, on April 3 and again on April 5, quite a full airing of this issue.

Perhaps it would be well to summarize briefly at this point the chronology of the proceedings to date on Bill C-21.
On April 27, 1989, the Minister of Finance tabled a document entitled "the Budget Speech" which at page 12 reads: "At the same time, changes will be made to ensure that the financing of the program is consistent with our efforts to control the debt. Beginning January 1, 1990, unemployment insurance paymens will be fully financed by employer and employee premiums". This budget was adopted by the House on May 11, 1989. Subsequently, on June 1, 1989, the bill entitled "An Act to Amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act" was introduced in this House and read a first time June 1, 1989. The bill was debated at second reading on June 6, 7 and 21, 1989. The debate at second reading was closured June 21, 1989 and the bill referred to a legislative committee.
The committee after travelling, hearing witnesses and considering the bill at length, reported it back to the House with amendments on October 10, 1989. The bill was considered at report stage on October 16, 1989. The time allocation motion covering both report stage and third reading was debated and agreed to on October 24, 1989. On October 25, the bill was again considered at report stage and concurred in with further amendments. It was debated at third reading on November 2, and after further debate on November 6, 1989 read a third time and passed.

April 26, 1990
Speaker's Ruling
Subsequently, it proceeded through the Senate and was there amended. The Senate sent a message to the House asking this House to agree to amendments it made to the bill. This first message from the Senate was considered on March 12 and March 13. Debate on the motion of the Minister of State and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons in relation to the Senate amendments was closured and the motion concurred in on March 13, 1990. Therefore, on March 13, this House sent a message back to the Senate setting out its agreement with some of the amendments and its rejection of others. This occasioned a second message from the Senate which is recorded in our Votes and Proceedings of March 20, 1990.
In this second message the Senate informed the House of Commons of its concurrence in the amendments made by the House to amendments Nos. 1, 4(b) and its insistence upon its amendments 2(a), (b) and (c); 3(a) and (b); 4(c) and (d); 5(a) and (b); 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Finally, in the third message on March 21, 1990, the Senate set out the observations-and I underline that word-contained in the fourth report of the Special Committee of the Senate on Bill C-21. That is the position the House was in when the government House leader rose on April 3 to ask the Chair "to rule that amendments 5(a)and (b), 7 and 9 in the message from the other place are out of order because they differ in one way or another with the specific conditions laid out in the royal recommendation of Bill C-21, and because they infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown".
I want, of course, to thank all hon. members who assisted the Chair by participating in the discussions of this complex matter on April 3 and April 5. In the interests of both gravity and clarity I will summarize and marshall the several arguments into two categories.
All the arguments advanced dealt either with the substantive question of whether the Senate is entitled to amend Bill C-21 as it did or they questioned the process by which the Senate amendments were being challenged.

I must express my gratitude to the Hon. Minister for indicating when he rose on this issue that he did not
expect an immediate reply. As the minister and the parliamentary secretary both pointed out, our relationship to the other House is a most fundamental one which goes back to the beginnings of parliamentary democracy.
I would not want to render a decision touching on such momentous matters in haste. Thus, I reiterate my thanks to all members for allowing me some time and distance to sort out the threads of argument advanced and to formulate a considered response.
During the course of the argument, the Chair attempted to direct the hon. member by stating its understanding of the substantive issue and I think that may bear repeating.

What we have here is a bill based upon the budgetary policy of the government, as approved by the House of Commons, which amends existing legislation, that being the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act. The bill proposes in part to eliminate funding from the treasury of Canada to the unemployment insurance account and to make that account a self-sufficient fund by means of contributions paid directly by the employers and employees. That is a somewhat simplistic explanation of the bill that was passed by this House. Now the Senate has made amendments to this proposal.
The Senate has returned with the proposal that some of the funding which this House agreed to eliminate should be restored. According to the government House leader the Senate amendments would cost the Consolidated Revenue Fund $1.75 billion annually. The question is this: is it proper for the Senate to restore a charge which this House has taken away? The question arises because of two fundamental principles. These are that, first, bills for the spending of public moneys must originate in the House of Commons, as stated in Section 53 of the Constitution Act of 1867; and, second, such bills must be recommended by a message from the Governor General which can only be obtained and presented in the House of Commons by a minister of the Crown. This is called a royal recommendation. The foregoing is also a very basic explanation of the substantive matter that has been preoccupying the Chair.
April 26, 1990



In addressing this substantive issue, the Hon. Members for Ottawa-Vanier, (Mr. Gauthier), for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and for Kinsgston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken) all questioned the necessity for a royal recommendation in respect of Bill C-21, contested the argument that the Senate had no right to amend a bill of this nature and insisted that since the amendments made to the bill reduced existing charges provided for in the existing statute, they in no way infringed upon the financial initiative of the Crown. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing (Mr. Ax-worthy) also supported the latter contention.

I should now like to turn to the second group of arguments, those that question the process by which the Senate amendments are being challenged. In doing so at this point, I want to emphasize that in the Chair's view these present a threshold which must be crossed before we can proceed to further consideration of the substantive issues.
I would include in this category a number of inter-related arguments. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, all pointed out that the Chair ought not to rule on legal or constitutional issues. In addition, they argued strenuously, as did the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, that, if the proposed Senate amendments were not in order, they should have been challenged on the first occasion when they were before the House, that is, on March 12 and 13 last, when the House first considered a return message to the other place.
The other place, for the public who is watching, means the Senate. These are words that we use to refer to the Senate; we call it the other place.
Having already made a decision to accept some of the Senate amendments and to reject others, and having so reported to the Senate, this line of argument continues. It is not now open to the House to reopen consideration as to the acceptability of the amendments. Corollary issues as to the purpose of asking the Chair to rule on the Senate amendments and the consequences of the Speaker of the House of Commons ruling a message from the other place out of order were also advanced.
Speaker's Ruling
My initial reaction, as a presiding officer, was that, if the acceptability of amendments made to a bill in this House were in question, then, of course, the Chair must make a determination as to the admissibility of the amendments at issue. That is the customary role for the presiding officer to play. It is the duty of the Chair to rule on amendments at each stage of a bill's passage through the House. Accordingly, my first reaction was to assess the receivability of the questioned amendments. However, as I explained, the Chair must take into account not only the fact that amendments to the bill are called into question, but at what stage they are questioned.
In fact, the House has already pronounced itself on the very amendments the government House leader invited me to rule on and the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has complained that it is too late for the Chair to now rule on their acceptability. It must be noted that the Senate, in its message of March 20, 1990, has insisted on amendments 5(a) and (b), 7, and 9. There is no doubt that the amendments are now, again, before the House for consideration and could be adopted if the House so wished.
It can be argued that the hon. government House leader should have raised his points on March 12 or March 13 last, but I see no reason to prevent his raising the matter at this stage, since the Senate message has returned those very amendments for reconsideration by the House. If those Senate amendments can be further amended, adopted or disagreed with, as Beauchesne's, fourth edition, citation 282 suggests, then logically they would also be subject to procedural challenge.
Therefore, the Chair rules that the intervention of the minister is valid at this time and I will attempt to reply to the various points raised in that regard.

The Hon. Government House Leader said he was encouraged by the decision of the Chair of July 11, 1988 on Bill C-103, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Bill, and I should like to turn for a moment to that decision.
In that instance, the Senate had split a bill the House had passed and had reported only a portion of it back to the House. It was the unilateral action of the Senate in that matter that I found objectionable and I said, in part:

April 26, 1990
Speaker's Ruling

There is some considerable doubt, at least in my mind, that the Senate can rewrite or redraft Bills originating in the Commons, potentially so as to change their principle as adopted by the House without again first seeking the agreement of the House. That I view as a matter of privilege and not a matter related to the Constitution.
In the case of Bill C-103, it is my opinion, and with the great respect of course -
I am quoting now from a former judgment.
-	that the Senale should have respected the propriety of asking the House of Commons to concur in its action of dividing Bill C-103 and in reporting only part of the bill back as a fait accompli has infringed the privileges of this place.
I went on to say:
I have ruled that the privileges of the House have been infringed. However, and it is important to understand this, I am without the power to enforce them directly. I cannot rule the Message from the Senate out of order for that would leave Bill C-103 in limbo. In other words, it would be nowhere. The cure in this case is for the House to claim its privileges or to forgo them if it so wishes, by way of message to Their Honours, that is, to the Senate, informing them accordingly.
I hasten to add, however, that I also said at that time that:
-	the Speaker of the House of Commons by tradition does not rule on constitutional matters. It is not for me to decide whether the Senate has the constitutional power to do what it has done with Bill C-103.
Later, having noted that Bill C-103 was a financial bill and that the Senate is somewhat limited in its review of money bills, I specifically declined to answer such constitutional questions as whether the royal recommendation still applied to the split bill and whether the financial privileges of the Commons had been breached. In so ruling, I relied heavily on actions of two of my predecessors in the Chair.
My research indicates several occasions since Confederation when the Senate amended Commons' bills with financial implications. For example, messages were received by the House on May 23, 1873, May 23, 1874, September 15, 1917, May 23, 1918, June 11, 1941, and July, 14, 1959. A close examination of these six cases reveals that the House agreed with the Senate amendments in all but two of these instances. In 1873, the House disagreed with all the amendments and, in 1959, it agreed to one and disagreed with another. What is interesting to note from a procedural point of view is
that the Speaker was only required to comment on two of the occasions, namely in the 1917 and 1959 cases.
In the first instance on September 15, 1917 the Speaker replied to two points of order, one regarding the authority of the Senate to amend a money bill and another regarding the obligation of the House to insist on its privileges and reject the amendment. On the first issue, the Speaker stated, and I quote:
-the question whether the Senate can make such amendments as has been made in the Bill now under consideration is a point of constitutional law in respect to which it would, I think, be improper for me to give an official decision. Matters of such high constitutional import are for the House and not for your Speaker to determine.
On the second issue, he stated:
-there is nothing contained in-our rules which prevents this House from adopting as its own, amendments such as this now under consideration-in my judgment the principle involved as to the authority of this House to waive under stated conditions its rights and privileges is the same.
In short, my predecessors many years ago refused become involved in a constitutional issue which should be settled by negotiation between the House and the Senate, and further ruled that nothing should prevent the House from waiving its financial rights and adopting the Senate amendment as though it were its own. I say that is an option always to the House.
The second case further clarifies the situation and emphasizes the fine line between the constitutional and procedural issues. After the government moved concurrence on certain Senate amendments on July 14, 1959, the Speaker drew the attention of the House to the procedural difficulties with a motion before the House to concur in a Senate amendment and to waive the House's rights, that is, the House of Commons' rights. The Speaker, in 1959, ruled, and I quote:
- if the House in its wisdom feels that-it should waive its asserted privileges in this particular case, by doing so it in effect suspends Standing Order 80(1). Therefore the view which I take is that unless the motion properly suspends Standing Order 80(1), it would require the unanimous consent of the House at this time to pass the amendments which are proposed -I have come to the conclusion that the motion-would require notice. That is why I said Standing Orders can only be suspended by an Order of the House made on proper notice or by unanimous consent.

In the 1959 case, unanimous consent was withheld and four days later the government introduced another motion, with notice to concur in some amendments
April 26, 1990

while rejecting others. This motion made reference to "the sole and undoubted right of the Commons to impose taxation" and was agreed to by the House.

The 1917 and 1959 cases clearly illustrate the longstanding principle that the Speaker should not become involved in constitutional issues regarding the authority of the Senate to amend money bills, but may only bring procedural irregularities affecting Standing Order 80(1) to the attention of the House in order that it can safeguard its own constitutional financial prerogatives.
I would now turn to the specifics of the case before us. In looking closely at the amendments of the Senate to Bill C-21, I must admit that on the question of the principle of the bill, the hon. minister has raised an extremely valid issue. There is no doubt in my mind that the Senate by way of amendment is modifying the principle of the bill, something which would certainly not be allowed at committee stage in this House. If the Senate amendments were adopted, the government will clearly continue to support financially the unemployment insurance account as was stated by the minister. That would run contrary to the approved budgetary policy of the government and contrary to the principle of the bill as adopted by the House of Commons.
However, for the same reasons referred to earlier in my ruling of July, 1988, the Speaker of the House of Commons cannot unilaterally rule out of order amendments from the other place. I can comment, as I am doing, but the House as a whole must ultimately make the decision to accept or reject amendments from the Senate, whether they be in order according to our rules or not.
As I have said, it is also clear from the review of the amendments of the Senate, which can be found in the Votes and Proceedings of March 21, 1990, that there will be continuing charges to the Consolidated Revenue Fund if Bill C-21 is so amended. It is perhaps less clear that there will be an increased charge over and above that which is presently lawfully provided for in the Unemployment Insurance Act itself.
Speaker's Ruling
I point out that the Unemployment Insurance Act was passed many, many years ago and has been amended many, many times. So, Bill C-21 is an amendment to that act.
It would certainly be permissible in this House to restore in an amending bill charges already provided for in existing legislation. For guidance on that point, I refer hon. members to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 21st edition, page 716, and I quote:
The same principle applies in the case of amendments moved to a bill which abolishes or reduces a charge authorized by existing law. Amendments to such a bill, which are designed to restore a portion or the whole of the charge which the bill proposes to reduce or abolish, are in order without the need of a preliminary financial resolution.
As the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader stated, that citation applies to the British House of Commons. But Erskine May is silent on what the Lords may do. Again, I have to say that it is not within my power to rule on whether the Canadian Senate should have the constitutional right to restore charges when the Commons have decided otherwise. As the hon. minister said at page 10144 of Hansard of April 5, 1990: "It is up to the House of Commons to defend our responsibilities and our authorities".
Having addressed the amount and limits of the charges, the Chair has however some concern in the area of conditions and qualifications, objects and purposes.
I should remind hon. members that citation 540 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, states:
In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge. And this standard is binding not only on private Members but also on Ministers whose only advantage is that, as advisors of the Crown, they can present new or supplementary estimates or secure the Royal Recommendation to new or supplementary resolutions.
If reviewed against this citation, the Senate amendments seem to have some impact on the royal recommendation, the extent of which is difficult to determine. Thus, for greater certainty the House might want to draw this to the attention of the Senate, even if the House were to choose to waive its financial prerogatives,

April 26, 1990
Speaker's Ruling
pursuant to Beauchesne's fifth edition, citation 115, which reads:
It is the function of the Speaker to direct the attention of the House, when the occasion arises, to a breach of its privileges in bills or amendments brought from the Senate, and to direct the special entries to be made in the Journals by which the House, in respect of particular amendments, signifies its willingness to waive its privileges without thereby establishing a general precedent.
The hon. government House leader further claimed that the Senate has interfered with the budgetary process of the government, as approved by the House of Commons. He said: "To tamper with that, or to reverse that somehow in another place, is to tamper with the very fundamental purposes and powers of this body," meaning the House of Commons.
The hon. government House leader has found support at pages 339 and 340 of a book entitled Modern Senate of Canada, which was published in 1965. The author's name is Mr. F.A. Kunz. He says:
On 1he contrary, the Senate has acted in full understanding of the meaning and the implications of responsible government and accepted as binding upon itself the proposition that it should not unduly disturb what has come to be called the "balance of ways and means" or, as Hopkins says, "that it would be inadmissible to tamper with the overall financial program submitted by the government in its budgetary proposals in such a way as to effect a material change in the budgetary surplus or deficit envisaged therein.
I repeat: "in its budgetary proposals in such a way as to effect a material change in the budgetary surplus or deficit envisaged therein." As I have already noted, the hon. government House leader has said that the amount involved is $1.75 billion annually.
That comment by Kunz is based on an article by an author named E. Russell Hopkins, who is a former law clerk and parliamentary counsel to the Senate of Canada.
At pages 321 and 322 of the Canadian Tax Journals Volume 6, September/October 1958, Hopkins comments on Section 53 of the Canadian Constitution. He says:
Section 53 of the Act provides that bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or for imposing any tax or impost, shall originate in the Commons." This clearly means that all taxation or appropriation bills must originate in the House of Commons. It is universally understood that it would be a violation of the principle embodied in this provision for the Senate to propose amendments which would increase a tax or appropriation proposed by the House of Commons.
I have a duty to comment, but I can only ask: "What would the learned author say if the words that I just read 'increase a tax or appropriation' were substituted or added to by the words 'an increase in the budgetary deficit'?" I bring this query to the attention of the House, and to the public who ultimately pay all the bills.
Hopkins went on to say:
The question whether the Senate should or should not amend a money bill in such a way as to disturb the balance of ways and means in any fiscal year is one of policy rather than of law: that is, it is a question for the Senate itself to determine in all the circumstances. The Senate may of course reject a money bill absolutely, and, in its view, may reduce a tax or appropriation.
He went on to say:
In either of these events the balance of the ways and means would be upset.
What Hopkins has concluded is that interventions by the Senate in money bills inevitably will change the budgetary and spending plans of the government.
I may say to hon. members and to the public that is listening, there are many Canadians across this country who may or may not have been well educated and some who think that they were well educated, who have no idea whatsoever of the awesome powers which the Senate claims to itself over the elected lower House. That is one of the reasons why it is important that hon. members listen carefully to this judgment because there is information here which many Canadians are just absolutely unaware of.
In attempting to shed light on this situation, I have looked at the British practice and I have found the following at pages 518 and 519 of Erskine May's twelfth edition. I am going to quote quite a bit of it because it is time this country got a history lesson. I am quoting from Erskine May. This is in Great Britain.
In 1909 the Finance Bill which gave effect to the budget of the year was met on its second reading in the House of Lords by an amendment declaring -
And I quote the amendment. This is the amendment by the House of Lords, which is their upper House.
- "That this House is not justified in giving its consent to this bill, until it has been submitted to the judgment of the country". The rejection of the bill by the Lords was condemned in the House of Commons by a resolution declaring "that the action of the House of Lords in refusing to pass into law the provisions made by the House of Commons for the finances of the year is a breach of the
April 26, 1990

constitution, and an usurpation of the privileges of the House of Commons".
Note that that statement was made by the House, not by the Speaker, but by the House of Commons of Great Britain.
A dissolution of Parliament followed,-
Which is a polite way of saying that an election followed.
- and in the new Parliament a Finance Bill to take the place of that rejected by the Lords was passed by both houses.
Now there are a lot of historical and very interesting things that happened that led to the House of Lords finally passing that.
The House of Commons also agreed to three resolutions in a committee of the whole house dealing with relations between the two houses and the duration of Parliament, as follows:
First of all, on money bills-that is what we are talking about here-that British House of Commons resolution said this:
"That it is expedient that the House of Lords be disabled by Law from rejecting or amending a Money Bill, but that any such limitation by Law shall not be taken to diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons.
"For the purposes of this resolution a Bill shall be considered a Money Bill if, in the opinion of the Speaker, it contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; charges on the Consolidated Fund or the provision of money by Parliament; supply; the appropriation, control, or regulation of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or matters incidental to those subjects or any of them".
The House of Commons resolution went on to deal with Bills other than Money Bills.
"That it is expedient that the powers of the House of Lords, as respects Bills other than money Bills be restricted by Law, so that any such Bill which has passed the House of Commons in three successive Sessions and, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, has been rejected by that House in each of those Sessions, shall become Law without the consent of the House of Lords on the Royal Assent being declared: Provided that at least two years shall have elapsed between the date of the first introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons for the third time.
Speaker's Ruling
"For the purposes of this Resolution a Bill shall be treated as rejected by the House of Lords if it has not been passed by the House of Lords either without Amendment or with such Amendments only as may be agreed upon by both Houses".
It went on to say other things with respect to the duration of Parliament.
"That it is expedient to limit the duration of parliament to five years".
Upon these resolutions when agreed to by the house a bill was brought in but further progress was not made with it. In the first session of the new Parliament which met in the following year the bill was again introduced, was passed by both houses, and received the royal assent as the Parliament Act, 1911.
It is important for every Canadian who cares about who decides how we spend our money to know that in Great Britain they settled this 80 years ago.

The British Parliament apparently resolved their problem some 80 years ago with the House of Lords recognizing in law the claim of the House of Commons as the final authority on money bills. Such is not the case in Canada. The Senate has consistently refused to concede the power to amend money bills. I would refer hon. members to the Ross report which was tabled in the Senate of Canada on May 15, 1918 and subsequently adopted by the Upper House, rejecting the House of Commons' position on the constitution. At page 199 of the Senate Votes and Proceedings for May 15, 1918, the Ross report states:

When the House of Commons of Canada claims that it can drag the Senate beneath it as the Commons did the House of Lords in England and through the "swamping power" -
Meaning there the addition of lords to the Upper House.
-	the answer is that it -
That is the House of Commons of Canada.
-	has not got this power and is as much bound by the British North America Act as the Senate. We have a Constitution that can only be altered by the Imperial Parliament. The House of Commons cannot by passing rules add to its powers or diminish those of the Senate.
That was the last Senate report of a Senate committee in 1918.
Therein lies the Canadian constitutional dilemma! Should the Senate choose to further insist on its amendments, the two Houses may well be unable to resolve

April 26, 1990
Point of Order
their differences and be faced with a serious constitutional crisis. The strength of our parliamentary system lies in all three constituent parts that is: the Crown, the Senate,and the House of Commons respecting their constitutional roles.
The events in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 20th century do not provide the Speaker of this House with any procedural solution to this particular conflict. Because of the Canadian parliamentary practice, the Speaker of the House of Commons is powerless when an impasse develops around this long unresolved constitutional issue which is now exacerbated by a deep difference of opinion on matters of public policy.
I want to refer hon. members to two matters. I do this as lawyers say, obiter dictum. That perhaps is part of the substandard ruling. But there is an interesting, curious book called A Student's Manual of English Constitutional History by a master of arts named Dudley Julius Medley, tutor of Keble College, Oxford, and examiner in the honour school of modern history. It was published in 1898. He was talking, of course, before the British-if I could be permitted to say this-came to their senses.
This vast increase in membership (of the House of Lords) has almost of necessity resulted in a weakening of the sense of political responsibility in individual members of the House of Lords, while the completion of the representative character of the House of Commons has made the body of the electorate increasingly impatient of any check by the hereditary House. Those who do not believe in constitutional cataclysms cling to the necessity of a second chamber.
I also draw to the attention of my colleagues-I know they will be very interested-on both sides of the House to hear the comments by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on September 7, 1917. As I say, this is not put in as the substance of the ruling. It is just brought to members' attention, and I hope the attention of every Canadian who has a chance to listen or read this judgment. This is what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said on September 7, 1917.
This was his view. He was a great House of Commons man: "Under Rule 78, the Senate has no right to amend or alter in any way a money bill sent to them from this House". Rule 78 is the same as our Rule 80 paragraph 1.
He said: "This House alone has the privilege of dealing with money bills. The only right the Senate has is that of rejecting or assenting to such money bills. That
rule has been confirmed over and over again in England".
Now, I point those two interesting comments out to hon. members because there is a long history in this. There have been strong views on both sides of this Chamber over the years as to what the Constitution does say, and what the Constitution ought to say in terms of our country, and the powers of our House of Commons of Canada.

I want to thank the House for its indulgence and its patience in listening so carefully to this lengthy explanation. This ruling has not been an easy one for we are here dealing with a fundamental issue which goes to the very heart of the Canadian Parliamentary process. May I close by saying I am extremely grateful to the members who made such useful contributions to assist the Chair in its consideration of this issue.

To say anything further, despite the fact that I am the Speaker of the House of Commons, would be trespassing upon what I am called upon to do, and that is to rule on procedural matters.
What I may think about the constitutional impasse which we have in this country, is not for me to say. If any of my colleagues or the public want to speculate on what I think, of course, that is their free and democratic privilege.



Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order with respect to Hansard for April 25, It concerns the exchange I had with the Minister of the Environment about the school system in Saskatchewan and plans for reorganizing control and management in that system. I think everyone in the House is aware of what is involved, but I simply wish to point out that a number of terms used yesterday in the House and reported in Hansard were corrected by someone, I don't know who, and they do not faithfully report what the minister said in the House and are actually misleading. I could give you a list of the
April 26, 1990

people who called me today to ask me to have this changed, because they heard the minister when he was speaking, and this is not what he said.
So I imagine the editor of the French text must have changed, on page 10650, what the minister said. I will read the words the minister used here in the House, and this is what he said:
Des aujourd'hui, le mouvement qui represente les Fransaskois a emis un communique -
In Hansard at page 10650, we read:
Des aujourd'hui, la Commission nationale des parents francophones a emis un communique -
That is not the same thing, Mr. Speaker. The Fransaskois were here during Question Period, they heard the minister, and that is not what he said, because the Commission nationale des parents francophones is from Manitoba. I believe the minister will agree these are not one and the same group.
On the same page, this time in the English version, the English editor incorporated the change, but I think this may have been done without realizing what was involved. The minister-

In answer to a question that I put to the Minister on the same subject, and I quote from the transcript of yesterday's Hansard he said:
I would remind my hon. colleagues from the other side of the House that today the Fransaskois themselves have issued a communique recognizing leadership.
Mr. Speaker, that could not have been correct, because they were in the gallery and they had not issued any communique to that effect. Indeed, the people who did issue a communique were la commission nationale des parents francophones, which are an entirely different group from Manitoba. I would hope that you would have a chance to review the Hansard and change that so there will be no confusion in history.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for his comments. This is a very important matter. I promise to check Hansard and make the necessary changes, as appropriate. I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this up.
Routine Proceedings
We shall now proceed with Government Orders.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, because of the procedural issues, which meant we were unable to revert to Routine Proceedings until the very end, and since I know you have before you my letter requesting an emergency debate on schools in Saskatchewan, I wonder whether, with unanimous consent, we could have a decision by the House today, so that we will know whether or not there will be a debate on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member did bring to me an application for an emergency debate on the Saskatchewan French school situation and what the hon. member has asked is if there is consent for me to accept his application at this time?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly have no objections to your ruling on this particular application. It was not the hon. member who caused Routine Proceedings to be missed this day. I would hope I am not giving consent to going back through all of Routine Proceedings.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I want to thank the House for its courtesy. I am waiting for a copy of the letter I sent to the Chair. Here it is.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I wish to ask your permission to move that the House adjourn to discuss a specific important matter that must be considered urgently, namely the Saskatchewan government's decision to suspend the federal-provincial agreement

April 26, 1990
Government Orders
allocating $26 million over 10 years to establish a system of schools controlled and managed by the francophone minority in that province.
The text is clear. I submit this request to the Chair.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Ottawa- Vanier. Clearly, this is a veiy important subject, but I think that, in the circumstances, there will probably be other opportunities to raise the matter in the House of Commons. Therefore, it is not appropriate at this time, but may be later.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-15, an act respecting plant breeders' rights, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are nine motions in amendment set down on the motion paper for the report stage of Bill C-15, an act respecting plant breeders' rights.
Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mackenzie and Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Algoma are in order and will be grouped for debate, but voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 2, 6, 7, and 8 in the name of the hon. member for Algoma are identical to the motions that were moved, debated, and negatived in the legislative committee. For this reason these motions will not be selected.
Motions Nos. 4, 5, and 9 in the name of the hon. member for Algoma are in order.
Motions Nos. 4 and 5 will be grouped for debate, but voted on separately.
Motion No. 9 will be debated and voted on separately. Therefore Motions Nos. 1 and 3 will now be proposed to the House.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-15 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 21 and
22 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"ties belonging to prescribed categories but shall not include categories of cereals or vegetables whose contribution to the nutritional diet is commonly recognized and deemed to be nutritionally significant and found, pursuant to subsection 27(1), to be".


Maurice Brydon Foster: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-15 be amended in Clause 32 by adding immediately
after line 41 at page 18 the following:
"(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) the Commissioner shall, after the expiration of a period of seven years from the granting of a plant breeder's rights respecting cereal grains, oil seeds or pulse crops, on application by any person, confer on the person in the form of a compulsory licence that is not subject to the payment of any royalty or other remuneration rights to do any thing regarding the cereal grains, oil seeds or pulse crops that the holder might authorize another person to do pursuant to paragraph 5(l)(d)."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, beginning the report stage to Bill C-15,1 want to say at the outset that these days all government bills are deemed to be urgent and most of them attract a closure clause within a few minutes or hours of debate.
That is not the reason for putting this amendment forward. I note that I have proposed on behalf of my party one amendment. I think this one amendment is a big compromise from our position and I am hoping that the government will see that this particular amendment has some merit given the limited response that we had from the public during the course of the legislative committee hearings.
During that period of time we found that there was some pressure for plant breeders' rights legislation from those groups and individuals that were producing ornamentals, flowers, shrubs and so on. They have been arguing for such legislation for a long time. But we did not receive very much pressure, if any, from the people who are developing plant varieties that would be used for food, forage and pharmaceutical use. I think that the
April 26, 1990

case was not made well for plant breeders' rights for any of the crops, but if it was made at all, it was to facilitate trade in the ornamentals.
The purpose of this particular motion is to limit the application of the bill to those kinds of plants and prohibit the use of plant breeders' rights for that type of production that would be used to produce food.
I want to review the basic problems that I have with plant breeders' rights. I think it is unnecessary control of genetic material. There will be a lot of problems with the concept behind plant breeders' rights, that we should have private ownership of life-sustaining material, whether it is plant genetic material or other genetic material. I question whether the House and the committee have done any work to determine whether in fact that is a proper use of the private propriety concept in our world.
I point out to the House that the last time that this question was dealt with in depth was by a royal commission in the late 1950s which recommended against the use of the Patent Act or any form of plant breeders' rights. The legislative committee that this bill was sent to chose, and perhaps it was mandated, to limit itself to only looking at the very narrow legislation itself. It did not choose to call people who had a broader view of life. It did not do the kind of job that a royal commission could do.
I think that the House would be well disposed to accept this amendment. If the government wishes to go beyond this amount of patenting of life forms it should do so only after having resorted to a full public inquiry of the type that a royal commission can conduct. There are a lot of questions about who should own life or whether life can be owned by individuals.
This particular bill does change the assumptions dramatically. It is as big a change as the technical and legal changes that occurred back in the Middle Ages when the western European countries began the process of colo-nialization and used their system of establishing sovereignty over lands that they discovered, regardless of whether there were societies situated on those newly discovered lands or not. The Europeans simply established their sovereignty and power and colonized those nations.
That is essentially what we are permitting large corporate plant breeding operations to do with this particular bill. I recognize it parallels legislation that is in some
Government Orders
other so-called western countries, but that does not necessarily make it right.
The whole system of colonialization was not fair, nor was it a proper or equitable distribution of power. I do not think that this particular effort to install plant patenting is either.
In the process of looking further afield at the effects of this legislation, I think that a royal commission or a public inquiry should hear from some of the people that we are aware of who are not anxious to have a regime of plant breeders' rights in our country.
A great many of the public plant breeders who privately do not think this is a good idea, but because they are public servants did not come forward to legislative committee hearings should be heard. So should the many farmers and farm groups who think this is a backward step, this business of privatizing genetic material that is often received for nothing from the Third World or the developing world.
They should hear from the environmental and scientific communities who can give us further insight into what this particular move does to our environment and to the future of civilization on this planet.
We should listen to the church and foreign aid groups who wanted to be heard, but very few got the opportunity to make even a brief presentation to the legislative committee.
We should listen as well to Third World development experts who realize that most of the plant genetic resources of our world are found naturally in the Third World. With plant breeders' rights legislation, more developed western countries can go and pick up that genetic material, sometimes licensing it directly, other times through process and manipulation, utilizing the material to produce a new form of material based on it. Yet the donor countries receive no benefit from the use of their resources.
Last, a public inquiry should listen to people who are concerned about ethics and the morality of patenting life forms. This is not just a simple piece of legislation that copies a handful or two of European and American legislation. This is a very fundamental question. We are making a change in the direction of what is, and is not, patentable.

April 26, 1990
Government Orders
The kind of questions we are being asked about this bill were raised publicly, but they did not get a proper airing in the legislative committee. I submit that the legislative committee is not structured for that kind of thing. It should have been a full public hearing under the aegis of a full royal commission.
In the interest of time, I am recommending that the House consider this resolution positively, that it accept this resolution, this amendment to Bill C-15, which would permit some experimentation with the idea of plant breeders' rights for ornamental plants only. We can then discover whether there are any advantages, economic or otherwise. In the course of doing that sort of an experiment, we will avoid creating difficulty and hardship, both economic and social for those people who depend on plant breeding as a source of nutrition for their very lives.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the motion standing in my name today, Motion No. 3, provides for compulsory licensing and I want to address that matter. Before I do that, I would like to say that this bill received considerable study in committee, however, we did not hear as many witnesses as we would have liked.
I think that the members who served on that committee came out knowing a lot more about the question of plant breeders' rights than when they went into it, because it is an intensely complicated topic. There are new developments every day in the whole field of biotechnology and, for a group of laymen, I think it is a bit mind boggling, but I believe that the committee members learned a great deal. I think that it was useful. We had people from international development groups, representatives from churches and from universities, from research laboratories, from government laboratories, and from farm organizations, a very broad range of people.
This bill, although it is often dealt with as an agriculture bill, has concerns and interests well beyond that. I think the members of our caucus have, in our second reading debate, expressed the concerns of many of the farm groups right across the country. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Federation and other groups across the country are vitally concerned with agriculture and with development in this country.
We think that the bill can make a positive contribution to plant breeding and research in this country. If you look at the situation now, especially with major crops such as cereal grains, most of the research is being done by the federal government. I hope that this legislation, when it is passed and is in operation, not only will continue to support and expand that research which is being done by the federal government laboratories, provincial laboratories and university laboratories, but, as well, will expand the research in the private sector, because it is a very important field, a field in which we want to see research take place. We have had mechanisms in this country to support plant breeders, through organizations like SeCan, which has been able to provide an incentive to the research organizations, especially those at universities and government laboratories.
We have many plant breeders' groups who produce hybrid varieties, especially in cereal grains like corn and, because of the hybridization, are able to get paid for their research, but we have not had a codified law like this plant breeders' rights to provide for that incentive to plant breeders. We have a commitment from the Minister of Agriculture that, in the long run, the government would look at increasing the percentage of research dollars which come back to Department of Agriculture from 60 per cent, which it is today, to 100 per cent of the royalties which are realized.
Some royalties have been realized on the current SeCan arrangement and there will be more. I think the minister and the department estimated something like $4 million would be realized per year in the long run with the bill in place. This will codify the arrangements which have taken place through SeCan and through the use of hybrid varieties.
This bill was strengthened considerably in committee by a number of amendments. For instance the complaint that we received from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other groups was that an advisory committee was not mandated with great enough reponsi-bilities. It wanted more input from farm groups and others of a public interest nature on that advisory committee.
April 26, 1990

It has been strengthened in that the advisory committee will now assist the commissioner of plant breeders' rights in the manner in which the act is applied in providing licensing. It will also have a responsibility to assist the commissioner in the requirements relating to licensing of plant breeders' rights, to advise the commissioner of the plant breeders' interpretation of "reasonable price" and other key sentences in the law itself, such as "widely distributed" and "reasonable remuneration", because these are key points.
For example, we should not put in place a regime that allows a multinational corporation to charge unreasonable prices for their seed, whether it is wheat, barely, corn or whatever. Certainly that is not in the public interest. If they do not provide enough to the marketplace that prices are driven up higher, that is not in the public interest. If they charge an unreasonable remuneration, that is not in the public interest.
So, the advisory committee has been mandated to provide assistance to the commissioner in deciding on the interpretation of those particular issues. Beyond that, we put in place an amendment at the committee stage which will provide for those powers to be defined under the regulations and provided for an annual report for the commissioner of plant breeders and the operation of the act.
Those provisions are in there and the commissioner has the power to give a compulsory licence to people if an individual plant breeder is charging an excessive or unreasonable amount in royalty for the seed or plant.
In spite of that, I think there is concern for cereal grains which provide the daily bread for Canadians. Even though those powers are there, there is a feeling that perhaps we should only provide for plant breeders' rights for cereal grains, oil seeds, pulse crops, and so on, for a seven-year period. Generally speaking, that is about the life of most cereal grains as there is usually a better variety which comes on stream.
That is why I put Motion No. 3. Even though there are safeguards, I think this is a new departure, a new regime and a new provision. Unfortunately, the companion Motion No. 7 was ruled out of order because it was put in committee as well. That motion provided for a parlia-
Government Orders
mentary review after seven years. That companion provision cannot be put this afternoon.
I put this motion because I think there are certain people in the industry, certainly people in the farm groups in some areas of the country, who feel that a seven-year plant breeders' rights would be adequate, and would provide a certainty that the plant breeders' rights, or the royalty regime, would not go on over a long period of time. That is why I am putting this Motion No. 3. I think it provides an additional safeguard, even though there is provision for the Commissioner to mandate compulsory licensing if a plant breeder does charge an excessive amount of royalty or remuneration to himself. I put that motion now.


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


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not anyone else intended to rise, but I am prepared to respond to Motions Nos. 1 and 3.1 would like to do that after the debate is finished, if anyone else was intending to rise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there any further debate with regard to Motions Nos. 1 and 3?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It would facilitate the debate considerably if the government side would indicate how it intends to dispose of the motion. I think that would then determine whether we can cut the debate off immediately, or whether other people want to continue to try to press the point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would you like me to put the question?


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker I am quite prepared to respond to the two motions.
At the outset, I would like to indicate that we anticipated speaking on this debate much earlier today. We were hopeful that the Minister of Agriculture would be able to be here to take part in some of the debate. Unfortunately, it has been late in the day when we started, and he will be unable to be here to take part.

April 26, 1990
Government Orders
That does not mean that he is not interested in this legislation. He has a keen interest in this legislation.
I also want to point out that, in the committee hearings, we did hear from some of the groups that the hon. member for Mackenzie had raised concerns about, such as the Third World, which is the Ten Days for World Development, the United Church, and the Environmental Law Association. Those are some of the people we have heard from.
The intent of Motion No. 1 is to exclude cereal and vegetable varieties from the eligibility for protection under plant breeders' rights. This would not only affect cereal and vegetable varieties, but would have implications for all species. If Canada is to join the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, then our legislation must apply to the largest number of species available. This is a requirement of the Convention establishing the International Union.
The effect of this motion would therefore be to prevent Canadian membership of the International Union. This would mean that Canadian plant breeders would not obtain the right to protect their varieties in other countries, thus forfeiting royalty payments back to Canada. We are already losing millions of dollars because Canadian corn and soybean varieties, bred by Agriculture Canada, are unprotected in Europe and so are sold without royalties. The direct effect of this motion on cereals and vegetables would be to discourage investment in breeding varieties of these kinds in Canada. Foreign variety owners would be reluctant to permit their varieties to be sold in Canada where they could not be protected.
As is currently the case, those most penalized by this motion would be those in smaller agricultural areas such as the Maritimes. There are cereal varieties bred for areas with similar climatic conditions in Europe. However, the breeders are reluctant to allow their varieties to be sold in Canada when there is no return.
If vegetables are to be interpreted as including potatoes, then the impact of this motion would be very detrimental to seed potato producers in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. These producers would like to be able to multiply seed of Dutch potato varieties to sell on the export market. The Dutch variety owners are
interested in having their varieties multiplied in Canada, but only if their rights can be protected. At the present time, there are numerous Dutch potato varieties representing substantial potential export market for Canadian producers, but these varieties are withheld from Canada because the breeders of the varieties cannot have their rights protected.
This motion is directly contrary to the wishes that the agriculture and horticulture producers expressed to the legislative committee studying Bill C-15. Both the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, speaking for agriculture producers, and the Canadian Horticulture Council appeared before the committees and supported the legislation.
I would like to read a letter into the record that was addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. It is dated April 23, 1990, and states:
Dear Mr. Mazankowski:
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is becoming concerned that the Act Respecting Plant Breeders' Rights (Bill C-15) is being unduly delayed within the parliamentary process.
Our members feel strongly that the legislation will have numerous benefits for Canadian agriculture. These include encouraging the development of new agriculture crop varieties as well as facilitating the exchange of propagating material between Canada and other countries.
We should point out that many of the caveats which our organization has had with respect to PBR have already been addressed directly in the Bill, by the Committee amendments -In addition, because Bill C-15 is enabling legislation other issues raised in our brief to Committee will be addressed by the development of regulations specific to each agricultural crop. We are confident that a co-operative effort will result in the development of effective regulations.
At this point we feel that your Government should give a high priority to the passage of Bill C-15, and you can be assured that our organization will be supportive of these efforts. Further delays in the parliamentary process will only postpone the potential benefits the farm community may derive from this important legislation. Thank you in advance for your efforts.
That is signed by Mr. Don Knoerr, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
These two organizations did not suggest any limitations on the crop kinds which should be covered. The producers support the legislation because they want more improved varieties of all crops. They realize that those varieties will only be developed or made available
April 26, 1990

if plant breeders can make a reasonable return on their investment. This legislation provides encouragement to Canadian companies to invest in plant breeding. It enables public institutions such as Agriculture Canada and the universities to obtain additional funds for their plant breeding programs. It provides the mechanism for Canadian plant breeders to obtain recognition of their rights in other countries and so obtain royalties.
All these benefits will be lost if this motion passes because the motion, in effect, destroys a large part of the benefit of the legislation. It radically alters the bill by removing from it some of the major crops in Canada.
I will take a moment or two and respond to Motion No. 3. This motion would require the commissioner to grant, on request, a compulsory licence for each cereal, oilseed or pulse variety seven years after the granting of rights in that variety.
This amendment is contrary to the principles of the bill and to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. Instead of plant breeders being able to plan the marketing of their new varieties on a long-term basis, the breeders would have their marketing system dictated to them without any say in the matter.
The effect of the amendment would be that there would be a compulsory licence for every successful variety of all the major food crops. The commissioner would be required to set the royalty rate for each of these varieties. This differs from the present arrangement in which a compulsory licence is granted only on the basis of a complaint because a variety is not widely available or is unfairly priced.
The amendment diminishes the role of the advisory committee because it imposes an inflexible marketing system which would apply in every situation. There would be no provision for varying the system by regulation on the basis of advice from those affected.
The impact of this amendment would be greatest in small niche markets, such as those in the Maritimes and British Columbia. There would be no incentive to seek out varieties for small specialized markets if, after seven years, the variety owner had to make it available to competitors to sell.
The amendment provides a particular disadvantage to varieties bred in Canada, and might act as a disincentive to investing in plant breeding in Canada. With an
Government Orders
introduced variety from another country, it might be possible to bring in sufficient seed stocks to benefit at least from seven years of exclusive or planned marketing. With a Canadian variety, it would take several years to build up seed stocks but the period of rights would have commenced and so there might only be four or five years or exclusive or planned marketing before the variety owner had to surrender the variety to competitors.
There is some difficulty in knowing how this amendment is intended to work. The proposed new subsection 3 is exempted from the conditions of the present subsections 1 and 2, but not the subsequent subsections. The present subsection 4 allows the altering or revoking of compulsory licences on the basis of representations to the commissioner. So, it would be expected that every compulsory licence granted under this amendment would be challenged, particularly as there is no provision in it for a prior hearing. This is a recipe for chaos, with a review required on every variety of food crops granted a right.
The international convention stipulates that rights may only be limited in the public interest. This proposal does not allow for any evaluation of the public interest. Instead, it imposes a marketing system which severely limits the rights of the plant breeder. The plant breeder may have set up a network of licensees to supply the market, but after seven years any market development they have done will be to the benefit of their competitors who will be able to take over the market since they will not have had the cost of variety development and promotion.
This motion would greatly increase the cost of administering the legislation. Instead of the compulsory licence being an exceptional provision for resolving abuses of plant breeders' rights, it would apply to every successful food crop variety. The market potential of each variety would have to be assessed to determine an equitable royalty rate. Even in the same crop kind, such as spring wheat, the appropriate royalty might be quite different for a variety adapted to a few thousand acres in the Maritimes as compared with one adapted to millions of acres in western Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On debate, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway.

April 26, 1990
Government Orders


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have been almost two years in this Parliament. It is Port Moody-Coquitlam. That was the last-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry. You are sitting so close to the hon. member for Burnaby- Kingsway. I just noticed the hon. member. He is kind of far away. You are blending in with the concrete.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I tried to be slightly radical for this place and actually put on a spring suit to look a little different than the normal blue serge of all the males in this House. But, it never works.


Some hon. members:: Shame!


An hon. member:: When you speak, you should stand up.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am standing up, Mr. Speaker.
I have just a couple of remarks to make. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, when he spoke on behalf of the government on the amendment presented by my friend, the hon. member for Mackenzie-who is a real expert in agriculture-was giving the real reasons why plant breeders' rights do not really work for a small country like Canada. When he used the words "planned marketing"-to plan your marketing for the long term-I think of monopoly. Those are words that sometimes lead to a monopoly. To give the people the right to plan their marketing means to give them a monopoly and so they are set for a period.
The parliamentary secretary talked about taking away privileges with this amendment if it was passed. It seems to me that the amendment is giving privileges. The privileges do not exist now so the amendment is giving privileges. It is the bill that is taking away the privileges.
I also thought of the patent drug bill as an analogy. I am not an expert in plant breeders' rights, and I am sure hon. members will say: "Well, that is obvious when I hear him speak". I am not an expert. I am from an urban riding and this is a difficult subject, but I am interested in it from an international law point of view.
I recall when the government brought in the bill which deals with drug patents to give privileges and monopolies so they could plan and market for the long term. These words echo that debate. And what happened? Prices went up. There was no real new research in Canada. I
believe that there is outside control and other companies are taking over some of our Canadian companies.
One has to approach the problem of harmonization in the international world, the new international economic order. We are a shrinking world. A Canadian, Marshall McLuhan, said 25 years ago that we are more and more a global village. We are now, as the government will no doubt argue, and there is a lot of truth to it, a global village economically as well. So we have to harmonize the world economy. I suppose that does make some sense. It makes some sense to have an international order that runs better that way.
The problem with it is who controls it. Who has the monopoly? Who has those privileges? That concerns me again with the plant breeders' rights notion that we freeze things in the world and we take away, especially from the Third World, their resources, their genetic resources in this case, and we use those resources. The rich, largely big business people in the first world, our world, get to control those resources of the poorer people in the developing world. That concerns me.
I have mentioned the monopoly aspects. That is part of this whole internationalization. Licensing a life form also concerns me. I do not believe this has been done in Canada. It leads to all sorts of interesting legal questions that are being debated now in our modern world. Can you own a human being? Can you own a gene? Those are the issues.
This amendment basically says you can have plant breeders' rights, monopoly rights if you like, privilege, orderly marketing for a long period, but do not do it to our food, continue the public breeding program for our food which, it seems to me, has worked for a smaller country like Canada. That is what gives me great concern about plant breeders' rights and that is what leads me to support the amendment offered by the New Democratic Party, my party, and the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin -Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be brief. The member for Port Moody-Coquitlam mentioned the drug patent legislation. I think it is important that we point out to the House and to Canadians that if we are using the analogy
April 26, 1990

of the drug patent legislation, the opposition parties have nothing to fear from plant breeders' rights.
The report of the first full year of the drug patent legislation showed the companies investing more than they had promised in research and development and that the price of drugs had increased 1.7 per cent less than inflation. That is the first time that had ever happened. So if plant breeders' rights is handled the same way as the drug patent legislation has been handled, then Canada will be far better off.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, I became familiar with this bill a number of years ago. It was introduced first in this House, I believe, by the Hon. Eugene Whelan in 1980, so it is nothing new. I have companies in my community, one being Oseco Seeds, which is very concerned about this particular piece of legislation and would like to see it go through. It does a great deal of research itself but also does a great deal of purchasing of seeds from the west. I know of their concern to get this through.
I would share the hon. member's concerns if the largest farm organization in this country did not in fact support this legislation. My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture, laid it out very well. He is, by the way, a very successful farmer as well.
I am not concerned about this monopoly that the hon. member talks about. What I am concerned about is research and development and that the people who develop the various strains get fair compensation for their development as happens in other countries as well. I just do not have that same concern that the hon. member has.
I might say in passing that orderly marketing is something that every individual business person should do if they are going to have a successful operation, whether large or small. Orderly marketing is not something that should concern the members of this House as well.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion is deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Algoma. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: On division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Foster) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 9 in the name of the hon. member for Algoma are in order. Motions Nos. 4 and 5 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-15 be amended in Clause 73 by striking out line 14 at
page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"73. (1) The Minister shall constitute an."
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-15 be amended by adding immediately after line 4 at
page 38 the following new clause:
"74.1 The Commissioner, in consultation with the advisory committee, shall consult with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on all matters related to the administration of the Act if said matters could reasonably be considered as being of concern to the said department".
Government Orders

April 26, 1990
Ete said: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke previously I outlined that we had passed a fairly extensive amendment to the advisory committee to the commissioner of plant breeders' rights. This amendment would make the establishment of that committee compulsory.
The present legislation provides that the minister may appoint an advisory committee. I think that this is really the key amendment here this afternoon in that the powers of the advisory committee to assist the commissioner of plant breeders' rights have been more clearly defined in amendments which we passed in the committee itself. They are to advise and assist the commissioner on the manner in which the act is to be applied to individual licences or individual royalties on an individual plant variety.
It also gives the advisory committee responsibility to assist the commissioner in requirements relating to licence and to the interpretation of what reasonable pricing is, wide distribution of a plant variety and reasonable remuneration to the person holding the plant breeders' rights.
This is a key amendment. It is my understanding that the government is prepared to accept it. I know it had wide support at the committee stage so I would hope that it would find support all the way around the House this afternoon.
Motion No. 5 puts in place, in a codified way, a provision for ongoing consultation between the Department of Agriculture and the commissioner for plant breeders' rights. There was an agreement signed between the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Department of Agriculture in June 1988 when the previous bill was established which provides for ongoing consultation among the department, the Director of the Competition Act, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Agriculture Canada to ensure that competition continues to apply.
There has been a great deal of concern in the industry, certainly there was in the CFA brief, that there should be an ongoing arrangement. We were finally able to get a copy of that agreement. I think that the protection through the competition policy of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is there, but it seems to me that it is wise to codify it and to put it in the act itself. This agreement may lapse, maybe the Department of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs will have some other name eventually. This ensures that it is in the act itself and is codified.
It simply provides that the commissioner, in consultation with the advisory committee, shall consult with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on all matters relating to the administration of the act if such matters could reasonably be considered as being of concern to the said department. This follows closely the written agreement between the two departments.
I hope that the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the minister, who unfortunately is not here today, will be able to accept this amendment. I think it is useful in reassuring people that the director of investigations and research under the Competition Act will be in constant consultation with the commissioner for plant breeders' rights and will ensure that monopolistic practices do not develop, that consumers' rights, mostly in this case farmers, or people in other sectors of the agriculture industry, are protected and that there are not takeovers or corporate concentration which is harmful to the general public good.
I hope that both of these amendments will get the support of the House and the government this afternoon.


Brian White: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Once again I want to express to the member for Algoma my personal support for Motions Nos. 4 and 5, in particular Motion No. 4. I believe the work of the advisory committee is very important in the administration of plant breeders' rights. I believe that in the long-term interests of the administration of the act the formation of the advisory board should be compulsory and I would support that move.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to support both of these amendments that have been put forward. Many times when we debate in the House or in committee we end up on opposite sides of an issue. It seems to me that in this particular case both Motions Nos. 4 and 5 are good examples of how committees do refine and improve legislation.
The legislation currently before us on plant breeders' rights is long overdue and the industry has been requesting it. In this particular case the committee, and indeed my colleague, have done their job in ensuring that
April 26, 1990

legislation gets refined and gets to be better legislation by the committee process.
Motion No. 4 is an incredibly good motion because it ensures that there is more than one individual on the advisory committee and that there are a group of individuals to assist in ensuring that the act is being administered as it properly should as to licensing and other such things.
Motion No. 5, as my colleague has said, codifies the relationship with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If there is any fear of the development of a monopoly -and we would hope and expect that the department would be very wary of that in any respect-it basically commanded by this piece of legislation to be very vigilant to ensure that the consumer, in this case the farmer, is not at some future time gouged as a result of the legislation.
I rise in support these two motions and I would hope that others on all sides of the House would support them because it betters this piece of legislation.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I will be responding to Motion No. 4 and Motion No. 5.
The minister indicated in his speech at second reading and in the background document he released when the bill was first introduced, that he intended to have an advisory committee to advise on the administration of the Plant Breeders' Rights Act.
When the bill was drafted it followed a format that had been used previously, dating back to Bill C-32 which received first reading in May of 1980. In this format it states that the minister may appoint an advisory committee. I want to remind the House that it was a minister of agriculture who served for many years in this country, the hon. Eugene Whelan, who brought that bill in at that time.
The opposition has expressed a concern that the word "may" in clause 73 implies that there could be situations in which the minister may not appoint an advisory committee. The minister sees an ongoing function for the advisory committee and does not envisage a situation in which the committee would become redundant. For those reasons the government is very supportive of this motion.
Government Orders
Motion No. 5 would require the commissioner, in consultation with the advisory committee, to consult with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on matters related to the administration of the act which could reasonably be considered as being of concern to that department.
The motion is very similar to one which was considered by the legislative committee and rejected. It was rejected not because there was an objection in principle to the proposal, but because this matter is already being covered in a different way. There already exists a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Agriculture Canada with respect to this legislation. This MOU covers administrative aspects relating to other laws in the Competition Act and the other intellectual property laws. It is intended to ensure that the two departments work closely together and such agreements are not usually included in acts or regulations.
It should be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that the existing MOU is broader in its coverage than this motion. The motion refers to an official in Agriculture Canada, the commissioner of plant breeders' rights, but the MOU is an agreement between departments. Considerable consultation has been necessary between the two departments in the development of the plant breeders' rights bill. Such consultation will be ongoing as the legislation is implemented. This is provided for in the MOU and so this motion is unnecessary.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Foster) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 5. 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.

April 26, 1990
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. member:: On division.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Foster) negatived.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-15 be amended in Clause 77 by striking out line 6 at
page 42 and substituting the following therefor:
"(v) the development of sustainable agriculture in Canada,
(vi)	any increase or decrease of public research in plant breeding in Canada,
(vii)	the transfer of technology to Third World countries and the development of sustainable agriculture in such countries, and".
Ele said: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 9 deals with a report which is provided for in the bill itself. It is envisaged that this bill, after a period of ten years, would be fully opened up and brought to Parliament for a complete review. I had suggested that this be reduced to seven years. Unfortunately, my committee colleagues did not fully agree with that, so it is a ten-year period.
In order for the House of Commons to review it, there is a provision in the bill that the Minister of Agriculture would prepare a report on the operation of the act and the commissioner's office.
Of course, there are ongoing agreements. The UPOV agreement would, I suppose, be included in any report. In any event, clause 71(2) provides for this report. It is suggested that the report will cover the impact of investment as a result of the operation of the act, that it will deal with improvements in facilities to obtain foreign varieties of plants in Canada, protection abroad for commercial purposes of Canadian plant breeders so that they are able to sell their seed varieties abroad and have proper protection and receive the royalties that are due to them, the improvement of plant varieties and so on.
This amendment would simply add to that list of items the report itself could deal with. Item one is the development of sustainable agriculture in Canada. I believe that biotechnology has a great potential in this country for developing seeds which are more resistant to disease or to pests so that we can do away with a certain amount of pesticides and herbicides. It could have a very beneficial effect on sustainable agriculture in this country.
There is a lot more to sustainable agriculture than simply the reduction of chemicals, pesticides and herbicides, but that is one aspect. I think it would be useful for a committee of the House of Commons in the future to see how beneficial this act has been to sustainable agriculture and what elements of sustainable agriculture it would have an impact on.
The second item is an increase or decrease of public research in plant breeding in Canada. One of the greatest concerns is that the government plans to reduce the amount of public research in the country and essentially privatize. I think the government could show its concern, the minister has indicated that he is prepared to maintain public research in agriculture and plant breeding, by accepting that portion of the amendment. We are only talking here about a report containing information for the benefit of members after a ten-year period of operation of the act.
The third item is the transfer of technology to Third World countries and the development of sustainable agriculture in such countries.
At the second reading debate there was a great deal of concern that big, multi-national corporations would seize the plant breeding capacity in this country and then would exploit it to the disadvantage of Third World countries. At the same time there was concern as to whether the bill would be operated in such a way that there would be a good and a safe transfer of technology to Third World countries.
Surely we have a great responsibility in this country, not only for international development but especially for development of the food-producing capacity of those Third World countries. We should be doing that on the basis of sustained agriculture, not on the basis on which much of the agriculture in North America, the United States and other countries, operates today, which is highly dependent on chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides and so on.
April 26, 1990

That concern has been expressed by church groups and many other groups which came before the committee. I would think that the government might be willing to accept this amendment so that the report that will be made after the operation of the legislation for a number of years will, as much as possible, indicate the exact impact of the bill with regard to those three items which I have listed today. Some of these things are very difficult to quantify.
I would hope that the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the minister, might be willing to accept this amendment today. I think it touches on a number of areas of great concern to Canadians. At least in the annual report, if not in the parliamentary review which is provided for in this bill, those items of concern to many Canadians would be reported.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible. This motion incorporates the new section proposed for the minister's report.
I would like to list the difficulties posed by attempting to report on development in sustainable agriculture. There is no single agreed definition of what is meant by sustainable agriculture. There is no current measure of the level of sustainable agriculture against which to make comparisons. There are several thrusts, both federal and provincial, to develop the concepts of sustainable agriculture. While one of those thrusts is the breeding of varieties with improved pest and disease resistance, this is only part of the necessary changes. Other changes involve cropping patterns and systems of husbandry.
It can be hoped and expected that in ten years the level of sustainable agriculture will have increased. However, it may be difficult to quantify since the current level is undefined.
In addition, it would be very difficult to determine what proportion of any change will be attributable to the plant breeders' rights legislation rather than any of the other thrusts.
Although clause 77 of the bill does not specify that there will be a report on public plant breeding developments, it is implied in several of the items. An example
Government Orders
of this would be improvement of plant varieties to the public benefit and any other public advantage.
It seems unnecessary to spell out every single item that might be an important factor in a report to be delivered in ten years time.
The plant breeders' rights bill is intended to encourage plant breeding in Canada and for Canada. It is possible, although rather unlikely, that some of the new varieties developed may be of potential application in Third World countries.
Currently, there is no marketing of Canadian varieties to Third World countries although some Canadian developed varieties have been used as the basis for plant breeding of improved varieties in the Third World countries.
The introduction of plant breeders' rights in Canada will facilitate the export of seed of protected varieties to other countries. However, this will only impact on exports to other developed countries with similar legislation. It will not influence the export of seed to Third World countries.
The major impediments to Canadian seed exports to Third World countries are the lack of varieties adapted to their conditions and the lack of a seed industry in those countries ready to import and distribute seed.
Seed exports to Third World countries from Canada are not anticipated. In the broader area of the transfer of technology to Third World countries, there are numerous Canadian programs intended to transfer technology to such countries. These include some plant breeding programs funded by CIDA. However, there is no relationship between these programs and the introduction of plant breeders rights' legislation in Canada.
The development of sustainable agriculture in Third World countries clearly will be determined by their national priorities. It would be inappropriate for Canada to try to direct other countries' agricultural programs in a particular direction. Canada can only respond to requests for particular expertise to be made available.
It is impossible to establish a clear relationship between the introduction of plant breeders' rights legislation in Canada and either the transfer of technology to Third World countries or the development of sustainable agriculture in such countries. This proposal is irrelevant to the measurable impact of this legislation.

April 26, 1990
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member for Mackenzie wish to call it five o'clock?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I would like to call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS

['It being 5.12 p.m., this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member, the Chair would like to remind members that the random draw to establish an order of precedence for consideration of additional items of Private Members' Business was postponed indefinitely by an order made on Wednesday, January 30, 1990. As a consequence, once the remaining item on the current order of precedence has been dealt with by the House, Private Members' Hour will be suspended, except to consider a Private Member's Bill or Private Member's Bill from the Senate.
Private Members' Hour will remain suspended until a random draw has been conducted and the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections has reported on the selection of the votable items.
Since there will be no business before the House on Monday between one o'clock and two o'clock, the House may wish to agree to' meet only at two o'clock while Private Members' Hour remains suspended. On the other days of the week, the House will continue with the business before it prior to Private Members' Hour whenever there is no Private Members' Business to consider.



Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest) moved: that Bill S-13, an act to amend an act to incorporate the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to introduce this bill for the consideration of the House. Just before I speak to the bill, Mr. Speaker, I think you would find that there was unanimous consent to proceed today with all stages of this bill including referral to committee of the whole rather than our usual practice of a legislative committee.


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


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure on behalf of the Liberal Party to agree to the hon. member's request. We are in full agreement that this is a veiy worthwhile bill and we are agreed that it should proceed in all stages today.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I also concur. I have been informed that discussions have occurred and that the New Democratic Party is in agreement to proceed with this bill through all stages today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So ordered. On debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I would like to just touch on some of the background and history of this bill. Two years ago, hundreds of thousands of Canadians of Ukrainian origin rejoiced in the celebration of the millennium of Ukrainian Christendom.
Legend, supported by various chronicles and some research, has it that the great Apostle Andrew had preached the gospel of Christ along the southern shores of the present day Ukraine and had travelled north on the waters of the Dnipro River, and that he reached the hills where the present capital city of Kiev now stands, planted a cross on the site and prophesied that one day on those hills many churches would be built and from there the gospel of Christ would travel to many lands.
The millennium of Ukrainian Christianity traces to 988 A.D. and the occasion of the embracing of Christianity of Byzantine Rite by Grand Prince Volodymyr the Great, who adopted Christianity as the state religion and began the process of Christianizing his realm.
In so far as Canada is concerned, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada was established in 1918 to serve the spiritual needs of those who originally survived the various oppressions by immigrating to Canada and also the community of Canadians of Ukrainian heritage whose desire was to maintain their ancient Christian faith.
April 26, 1990

At the moment, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada has approximately 300 parishes, five cathedral churches, five sub-cathedral churches and its own theological seminary, St. Andrew's College of Winnipeg which is affiliated with the University of Manitoba. The church has roughly 100 clergy and three bishops whose primate is His Beatitude, Metropolitan Wasyly of Winnipeg and of all Canada.
To get to the substance of the bill, the name "Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church" was adopted at the time, in 1918, to signify its "Byzantine or (synonymously) Greek Rite", rather than the "Latin Rite". In practice, most parishes and institutions of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada have excluded the word "Greek" from their names since at least the 1950s or earlier as being redundant to the common usage of the descriptive word "orthodox". The proposed amendments to the church's 1929 charter are intended to update the charter to reflect the present day situation of the church and the current use of its name.
In addition to the formal change of name, a number of provisions in the original charter are proposed to be amended or repealed so that the church can provide for more effective management through its by-laws. The bill would also remove, as being outdated or no longer required, certain restrictions relating to the holding of real estate beyond a certain value or not required for the church's actual use and occupation.
I am indebted to an Alberta colleague in the other place, the Hon. Senator Earl Hastings, who assisted me in the researching of some of this material and who, indeed, was the sponsor of this bill in the other place.
In conclusion, there is a meeting coming up next month in preparation for the general council meeting of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, scheduled for the Canada Day long weekend in Winnipeg, which is the general council meeting which is held every five years. It is my hope that the House may deal expeditiously with this bill today, and I appreciate the generous unanimous
Private Members' Business
consent that has been extended, so that members of the Consistory who are preparing for the May meeting and the Canada Day meeting can be assured that, indeed, the church will be renamed to reflect the reality of our marvellous Ukrainian presence here in Canada and the reality of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I would move adoption of the bill at second reading stage.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest for taking on the work of this bill. It is very important and very significant that all members of all parties in this House recognize the importance of this and the contribution of the Ukrainian community. I know, in our party, we are all very pleased to be of assistance and to try to expedite this as much as possible.
I, too, would like to thank Senator Hastings in the other place for the work he has done in bringing this forward.
As the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest has said, the bill is fairly straightforward, relating to the Rite which was Constantinople more to a shift in the Latin or Roman Rite, and also with respect to the provisions in respect of the ownership of land, as well as some amendments regarding the administration and by-laws of the church. I think that it is certainly in our interest and the interest of all members of the House to have this passed as quickly as possible.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.12 p.m., this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 27, 1990