1990-03-20

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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in just six hours Namibia will become fully independent from South Africa. There has not been an independence celebration anywhere in the world for nearly six years. This event is particularly momentous as Namibia is the last colony in Africa.
Namibian independence is, in the first place, a success story for the United Nations. The UN, which for 10 years previous, had no new peace-keeping operations has launched no less than five in the last two years, of which by far the largest was UNTAG, the UN Transition Assistance Group in Namibia. UNTAG was nearly stillborn last April when a tragic final outburst of fighting broke out between nationalist guerrillas and South African-controlled forces on the very day of the formal ceasefire. But reason prevailed and the transition process was accomplished without a hitch, military withdrawals and demobilizations, amnesty and repeal of apartheid legislation, repatriation of refugees and release of detainees, and finally registration of voters and the election of a Constituent Assembly in November. UN special representative Martti Ahtisaari and UNTAG now leave the country with the great satisfaction of having accomplished their mission-in full, on time, and within budget.
Namibian independence is also a success story for Canada. In 1977, Canada, with France, West Germany, the United Kingdom and the U.S.A., took the lead in negotiating a settlement plan for Namibia that came to be universally accepted as Security Council Resolution 435. Several years of negotiations followed, with Canada centrally involved in what was called the Contact Group, to overcome obstacles to the implementation of Resolution 435 through a parallel agreement on constitutional principles and UN impartiality. The final obstacle, linkage to Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola, was resolved in the fall of 1988 through an American-mediated regional agreement.
Canada then pitched in to implement the plan it had helped to devise. We advanced 80 per cent of our UNTAG assessment of $15 million to get the operation off to a fast start. Over 500 Canadian forces personnel served in UNTAG in two rotations, later joined by 100 members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 50 election supervisors from the federal and provincial electoral institutions and the national political parties, and 12 fingerprint and computer experts. The government established a diplomatic observer mission in Windhoek while our UN mission remained active in the search for solutions on the Security Council.
Four parliamentary observers went to Namibia last September for the elections, as well as a Canadian member of a Commonwealth group and a number of independent non-governmental observers throughout the process. Some $3.9 million worth of development and humanitarian aid was provided, including $2 million for the UN refugee repatriation. Four thousand ballot boxes were supplied for the election.

March 20, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Canada has invested over $22 million to help Namibia secure its independence, and over 700 Canadians have participated and contributed personally. I know I speak for all members of the House in saying that we are very proud of, and grateful to, every one of those Canadians.
Above all, Namibia's independence is a success story for the Namibians. They are emerging from over a century of German and South African colonialism. When given the chance to participate in free and fair elections, their enthusiasm for democracy knew no bounds. They walked great distances and waited patiently under blazing sun in lines up to a kilometre long in order to elect their Constituent Assembly. The turnout in that election was 97 per cent.
The new Assembly, animated by a strong, all-party commitment to reconciliation and co-operation, adopted unanimously in just 80 days an exemplary constitution. It provides for fully entrenched human rights, a presidency accountable to a bicameral Parliament, an independent judiciary, regular multi-party elections, and the absence of preventive detention and the death penalty. Namibians are justifiably proud of their new constitution and they are determined to make it work in practice and not just on paper.
Lastly, Namibia's independence is a success story for South Africa, and a harbinger of hope for the future. South Africa has decolonized with dignity and shown the world that it can be trusted to fulfil international agreements. South Africans can now look to Namibia for persuasive proof that fundamental political change can be achieved through a peaceful, negotiated and democratic process. Namibia, long a hostage to apartheid, is now leading the way for South Africa in dismantling apartheid, by showing what is possible when reason overcomes emotion and compromise replaces prejudice.
And so Africa's last colony later today takes its long-awaited and rightful place among the community of nations. We will welcome the Republic of Namibia as the fiftieth member of the Commonwealth and soon as the one hundred and sixtieth member of the United Nations.
[Translation\
Canada is represented at the independence celebrations by my colleague, the Minister for External Relations and International Development (Mrs. Landry). The delegation also includes parliamentarians of all three parties-the members for Waterloo, Haldimand-Nor-folk (Mr. Speller) and Windsor-St. Clair- who have a long standing interest in Namibia and Southern Africa.

Namibia will need the continued support of its friends. I am pleased to announce today that Canada is opening a high commission in Windhoek.
Canada is also ending the application to Namibia of certain economic sanctions which were directed at South Africa when South Africa was in control. The ban on new contracts for the toll-processing of Namibian uranium is lifted with effect from March 21, 1990. I am confident that uranium can become a field of productive co-operation with Namibia and that new contracts can soon be secured. The ban on importing South African uranium remains in place and will be stringently and effectively monitored.
Canada is also moving to normalize export promotion in Namibia. The program for export market development is now available there, and we will be active in promoting trade with Namibia.

The Export Development Corporation has been told that there are no longer any barriers to export finance and investment insurance, and the chief executives of major chartered banks have been told that export credit restrictions and other voluntary financial sanctions on South Africa no longer apply to Namibia.

As for development assistance, the Minister for External Relations and International Development is advising Namibian leaders that CIDA will be providing a special independence contribution of up to $1 million to support an expanded program of immunization through UNICEF. This is a high priority for the new Namibian government. With a further $1 million already pledged by the Prime Minister through the Commonwealth Fund for technical co-operation and other aid, total Canadian
March 20, 1990

assistance to Namibia is expected to exceed $4 million this year. It will be delivered mainly through Canadian and Namibian non-governmental organizations and multilateral channels.
Finally, Namibia has a continuing need for security assistance. There is a requirement to strengthen and reorient the police force so that the stability essential to economic development can be maintained in a climate favourable to human rights. With the concurrence of my colleague, the Solicitor General, the RCMP will soon be providing police training services funded through the Commonwealth, and the RCMP director of training will shortly lead a needs-assessment mission to Windhoek. Namibia is also being invited to join the Military Training Assistance Program already offered by the Canadian Forces to southern African and Caribbean countries.
To mark the actual moment of independence-midnight in Namibia and 5 p.m. here today-a motion of congratulations will be proposed then for unanimous consent in this House.
Namibian independence is a success story for the UN, for South Africa, for Canada and, most of all, for its own people themselves. It is a world class achievement which this House, and all Canadians, proudly applaud.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, to add my comments to the statement made this morning by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
We are of course delighted with Namibia's independence, and we shall be very pleased to support the motion which, Mr. Speaker, I believe you will propose to the House for unanimous consent at five o'clock this afternoon.
Besides the Namibians themselves, I think the happiest person alive today is probably Canada's former ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Bill Barton, who is at last seeing the results of his efforts. In 1977, acting on behalf of Canada and together with the ambassadors of a number of other countries, he initiated a resolution, universally adopted in the form of a United Nations resolution and referred to as Security Council Resolution 435, which signalled the start of the independence process in Namibia.
Routine Proceedings
The minister has every reason to be proud, since over the years, his department, through various officials, has led a sometimes discreet, sometimes vigourous campaign at the United Nations. Above all, he can take pride in the efforts of over 700 Canadians who contributed, either directly or indirectly, to the event we are celebrating today.
I would like to join the minister in extending our warm thanks to 500 members of our Canadian Forces personnel who certainly played a vital role in the exemplary democratic process that took place in Namibia; 150 members of the RCMP, who also played an important role; 50 elections supervisors who went there to see to it that the election took place according to the best democratic traditions, and another 50 Canadians, including ambassadors, public servants and technicians, who were down there and also played an important role in bringing about the event we so proudly celebrate today.
Of course, I believe most of the credit should go to the Namibians themselves and to the United Nations which, with tremendous skill, was able to break the deadlock at a time when it seemed there was very little hope of having a free democratic election in Namibia.
I think it is also appropriate to mention the role played by various non-governmental organizations. I was particularly impressed by the level of Canadian interest as expressed by a substantial number of these organizations. In this respect, I would like to single out OXFAM Canada which helped to keep the Canadian government up to scratch, as it were, and ensure that the government and its representatives remained dedicated to this cause. I must say that OXFAM kept us very well informed throughout.

In fact, Oxfam Canada regularly distributed news reports and analyses filed by the Namibia communications centre, a Namibian church-sponsored news service. Oxfam Canada launched this program as part of a larger information, education and election observation project founded by partnership Africa Canada, and under the leadership of the United Church of Canada and World University Service of Canada as well as Developpement et paix, and, of course, Oxfam Canada.
These reports were distributed weekly across Canada to journalists, members of Parliament, development organizations, solidarity networks and the public at large.

March 20,1990
Routine Proceedings
Occasionally, they were complemented with reports from Namibia's leading newspaper The Namibian.
I want to express personally and on behalf of my party our sincere thanks to John Graham and to Hein Marais and others for their remarkable jobs and certainly for keeping us on our toes in making this process a successful one.

I would also like to mention very briefly the important contribution made by the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, which organized a round table discussion on Namibia at a time when the outlook seemed very bleak indeed. I am sure this international round table was also instrumental in persuading the United Nations to clamp down on certain irregularities that were on the verge of spreading just prior to the election in Namibia. I believe that the round table, which brought together a very high-powered group of individuals interested in this issue, was able to submit recommendations that proved very useful to the United Nations.

The success of the UN role in helping to facilitate the transition to Namibian independence, coupled with the fervent desire of the Namibian people to control their own fate through the democratic process, culminated in an election which saw individuals sometimes walking for days through the harsh climate of the Namibian desert proudly to register their votes. In all, 97 per cent of Namibians eligible to vote did just that. It is certainly an expression of democracy and freedom that should serve as a clear signal that despite the hardship of continued repression, freedom will eventually triumph.
I do hope that this example will give faith to many other people in the world who are suffering under various types of dictatorships. Indeed, as the United Nations, helped by countries like Canada and others, tries to emulate a greater effort of freedom and democracy throughout the world, many other individuals like Namibians, will eventually go through this process of free elections and will also be able to have their own democratic government.
Currently we see a tremendous example of this taking place in eastern Europe. I do hope that we shall see the same fervour for independence and democracy take place in some Asian and African countries. It is not something that we should only dream about, but see every nation in the world being free and able to elect their own government democratically.
As the Minister for External Affairs has pointed out, Namibia's peaceful transition to independence should serve as an example to all South Africans that reason in the pursuit of freedom for all members of a society can result in the peaceful transition from oppression to liberty. In this vein, I congratulate the South African government for its role in Namibia's transition to independence and ask that it show the same reason and courage in the upcoming negotiations over the development of a new constitution for South Africa. Perhaps South Africa can look to the spirit of freedom and respect for fundamental human rights contained in the exemplary constitution that the Namibians have adopted as a starting point for these negotiations.
We are pleased that the minister has decided to remove the economic sanctions that have been in place against Namibia. Perhaps this too will serve as an example to the South Africans.

In concluding, I may mention very briefly that two of my colleagues, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk have been interested for quite some time in the Namibia question. In fact, the hon. member for Haldimand- Norfolk is down there at this very moment, as a representative of the Liberal Party of Canada.
I would like to conclude with two short quotes from a report the hon. member made after visiting that country recently with several other Canadian parliamentarians, in which he said:

We affirm our support and friendship to Namibia and urge the Canadian government to respond generously to requests for development assistance particularly to expand training and education programs for black Namibians. We believe that the Canadian churches
March 20, 1990

and non-governmental agencies are uniquely positioned to be partners with the government in providing assistance.
Obviously, the amount of money that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has announced this morning is a significant contribution. I do believe that Namibia will need much more. I do hope that it will be possible for Canada, through non-governmental organizations or directly with bilateral aid to Namibia, to make a much bigger contribution.
Let me quote again:
We would welcome Namibia's joining the Commonwealth as one of the most promising new nations. It is important and significant that a peaceful iransition to independence in Namibia will have a positive effect on the struggle for human rights in South Africa especially in the battle against apartheid.
As Lester B. Pearson once said: "it is part of the Canadian psyche to accept international commitments". In accordance with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms we readily accept our responsibility to support Namibia's successful transition to independence, and will continue to show our concern for the well-being of Namibia and South Africa in general. After independence, Namibia will continue to be vulnerable to pressure from South Africa. Canada, and the other nations of the world, must ensure that this fragile new democracy is given every opportunity to develop in peace.

Finally, I hope that the minister will not only monitor very closely future relations between Namibia and South Africa but will also continue his past and present efforts to end apartheid in South Africa, which will be very soon, I hope.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of the New Democratic Party. We join with the rest of the House in celebration of freedom and independence in Namibia.
The excitement in Windhoek five and a half hours from now will be exceptional. At the airport planes must leave and park somewhere else as more and more people come to join in that celebration.
As the minister has stated today, this most recent United Nations success story is first and foremost the story of the will and determination of the Namibian people. Members of Parliament, development workers, church groups and other Canadians from all walks of life have taken a keen interest in events in southern Africa
Routine Proceedings
for a number of years. Today marks the culmination of these efforts by Canadians on behalf of the people of Namibia.
As Namibia attains independence, it is important to recognize the sacrifices made by those along this road to independence. Over 20,000 people lost their lives in the bloody struggle against South African rule and many paid for their opposition with long years of imprisonment and exile. I met many of those at an anti-apartheid conference that was concurrent with the last Commonwealth conference in Vancouver a number of years ago. We must remind ourselves that this was not a peaceful struggle for independence.
While it is important to recognize the goodwill and the compromises made by all sides to obtain this independence, we will be mistaken if we forget that this settlement was achieved through great pressure, and I think the Canadian anti-apartheid movement should take some credit for that. I know that the role played by Canadians was very important in keeping that pressure on and encouraging our government to act and to speak out forcefully in the struggle against apartheid.
The international community played an important role in bringing the South African government to the bargaining table through policies of economic and diplomatic isolation. These same policies will be essential in any upcoming settlement in South Africa, and it is interesting to note that one of the prime movers of the anti-apartheid struggle, the main symbol of that antiapartheid struggle, Nelson Mandela, will be in Windhoek this evening for the celebrations.
As well, we would be advised to recognize that Namibia is not entirely free so long as they do not control the essential port of Walvis Bay and as long as they remain economic vassals of South Africa. Canada must remain committed to the full independence of Namibia. Our aid commitments must be even more generous if we are to help Namibia to overcome the poverty and imbalance of years of apartheid rule.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs announce further aid to Namibia. Development assistance must be increased if Namibia is to prosper and shine as an example of self-determination. I was gratified to hear the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel extol the virtues of the non-governmental sector and particularly of Oxfam Canada. Prior to my election I

March 20, 1990
Routine Proceedings
was a colleague of John Graham at Oxfam Canada and I know the level of commitment, not just within Oxfam, but that the other non-governmental organizations have in this struggle. The non-governmental organizations understand only too well that development assistance is part of this struggle for independence. If we are going to have true development and not charity we have to fund those organizations very generously.
Non-governmental organizations have urged the government to do more in this regard, and I invite the Secretary of State to seriously consider these representations.
Today, however, we celebrate with our friends in Namibia and with the many Canadian organizations and individuals who have contributed to this historic event, including the non-governmental organizations, the RCMP and the Canadian military, many of whom live in my riding, who have been to Namibia and contributed to this historic event.
Namibia independence marks the final chapter of a decolonization process of over 40 years in Africa. The last colony in Africa-that has a wonderful ring to it. Today we celebrate Namibia for all of Africa.
In closing, it is with great excitement and enthusiasm that the New Democratic Party welcomes an independent Namibia into the international community.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34,1 have the honour as vice-chairman of the Canada-NATO Parliamentary Association to present to the House, in both official languages, the thirteenth report of the Canada-NATO Parliamentary Association.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-40, an act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain acts in relation thereto and in relation to radio communication, with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents who oppose what the government has done regarding VIA Rail cuts. The petitioners hope that the government will reconsider its curtailment of VIA Rail service in various parts of Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of constituents commenting on the government's goods and services tax. They feel it is a very unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for the taxpayers' ability to pay. They are asking the government to reconsider continuing with this particular tax.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a number of petitions, totalling some 1,500 signatures from petitioners across eastern, central and southern Ontario. They call upon the Parliament of Canada to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax and call upon the Government of Canada to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 which relates to passenger rail service in Canada. Canadians are not giving up in
March 20, 1990

their struggle for a passenger rail service that will serve them. The petition that I am presenting is on behalf of many of the constituents in the province of Saskatchewan. They ask Parliament for a passenger rail act giving VIA Rail a firm legislative mandate and to revise the costing arrangement for that railway to operate.
In conclusion, these Canadians insist on a passenger rail service which will allow them equitable and reasonable transportation service throughout Canada. This is our national transportation link and Canadians are not going to take its winding down lightly.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 with a petition from people of Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, British Columbia and Saskatchewan who, as well as those whose petitions have been tabled earlier, are greatly concerned about the killing, if you like, of VIA Rail.
This group of people is telling the government that they are joining the efforts of Transport 2000 and of Rural Dignity of Canada in order to obtain justice and satisfaction to what they feel are legitimate demands, and that is the saving of the railway.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty, on behalf of citizens from across Canada to present a number of petitions dealing with VIA Rail. These petitions are in a different form but they all call upon the government to live up to its original pledge to support VIA Rail and to provide the necessary resources to allow VIA to operate as a modem, effective transportation company.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, today, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 wish to table a petition from Lebel-sur-Quevillon in the Abitibi area, concerning the recommendations of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
Lebel-sur-Quevillon is without question an isolated area, and that is why your petitioners consider the Brunelle recommendation to be discriminatory, unfair and inefficient as it concerns the northern tax benefit
Routine Proceedings
system. It does not encourage settlement in the north and offers no incentive to develop northern resources.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to table five petitions from Canadian men and women who object to the government's proposal to impose a 7 per cent goods and services tax on Canadians.
According to your petitioners, this government's record on taxation is terrible. It has introduced 31 new taxes since it came to power in 1984 and raised taxes on manufactured products from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent.
Your petitioners object to a new goods and services tax because they feel this is a tax Canadians will find very hard to pay, a tax that will put an additional burden on small businesses, cause inflation to rise and interest rates to rise very substantially, and probably increase unemployment to alarming levels.
Your petitioners ask the House of Commons to reject the government's proposed 7 per cent tax on goods and services.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present petitions signed by dozens of Canadians who, like the ones mentioned by my learned friend for Ottawa-Vanier, are opposed to the goods and services tax. They have signed these petitions which call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax as unfair, discriminatory and wasteful.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 228, 232 and 233.


Mr. Milliken: Since the date of the appointment of Mr. Brian Gallery to the Board of Directors of CN, has CN placed advertisements in the magazines

March 20, 1990
Speaker's Ruling
"Seaports and the Shipping World" and "Sailings" and, if so (a) what number (b) what was the amount paid for such advertisements?


Hon. Douglas Grinslade Lewis (Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National advises as follows:
a)	CN has been advertising in Seaports since 1973.
a & b) From 1985 to 1989, CN advertised in Seaports magazine, expending between $17,000 and $32,000 per annum to cover advertising in a range of between 8 and 14 insertions.
During the same period, CN had one advertising insertion in Sailings magazine, expending $1,200.


Mr. Nault: Has the government entered into any contracts with Lavalin Inc. for maintenance, repair, construction or reconstruction of any buildings at C.F.B. Goose Bay during 1989 or 1990 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the (i) nature (ii) amount of the contract (b) has the work been (i) commenced and, if so, what is the anticipated date of completion (ii) completed?


Hon. William Hunter McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: No.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East): With regard to the fatal crash of a Canadian Forces CF-18, during a cruise missile test over northern Canada on January 29, 1990 (a) was any part of the loss in personnel and material insured and if so, to what degree (b) what are the total costs of the loss (including, but not limited to, the costs of the plane and the costs of any settlement awarded the dependents of the pilot) (c) will any part of the total non-insured costs be borne by the government of the United States and, if so, what part?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: a) No.
b)	With respect to the cost of the loss of the CF-18 aircraft, the crash recovery is still ongoing; figures are not available at this time. In addition, over and above normal benefit payments, e.g., pension benefits, dependents are not awarded monetary settlements.
c)	No.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: Committees sitting at the same time as bells are sounded to call members into the House for a recorded division continues to be a problem in the eyes of some hon. members. On January 25 and again on January 30, first the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and later the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca raised this matter.

This is not the first time this matter has been brought forward. Last May 31, for example, the hon. member for Hamilton East complained that the Standing Committee on the Environment was sitting at the same time as division bells were ringing in the House to call the members in for a vote.
The Chair appreciates the difficult position that members are put in because they cannot be in two places at the same time. Committees sitting concurrently as the House calls in members for a vote can mean that an hon. member has to decide to attend either the House to cast his or her vote or to attend the committee meeting. This is very often a serious dilemma for members.

Let me first point out that subsection (1) of Standing Order 108 grants powers to standing committees which specifically includes the power to sit while the House is sitting and during periods when the House stands adjourned. Subsection (5) of Standing Order 113 grants exactly the same powers to legislative committees. There is no qualification whatsoever in the wording of these Standing Orders. Thus, it would appear that there is no restriction in our rules which would prevent any committees of this House from sitting at the same time as division bells are ringing to call the members in for a recorded vote.
This view is in keeping with rulings arising from similar situations that have occurred in the past. I can refer the House to rulings of the Chair on February 16, 1971, February 22, 1971, May 28, 1971, May 5, 1976, June 23, 1976, November 7, 1978 and June 8, 1981. These are rulings of Speakers Lamoureux, Jerome and Sauve, and all are agreed that the Speaker can do nothing in the circumstances complained of in the face of the Standing
March 20, 1990

Orders. In the ruling of February 22, 1971, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux spoke of records showing that such situations had occurred in every regular session since 1952.
Mr. Speaker Lamoureux pointed out in the same ruling that the Standing Committees of the House of Commons at Westminster interrupt their proceedings in order to allow members to participate in divisions. It is only fair to add, however, that this is the usual practice in our committees. It is a voluntary action to suspend proceedings and respond to the bells.

I am concerned about the matter raised by hon. members but, in my view, it is neither a point of order nor a question of privilege. It is rather a grievance but a serious one and in light of the many instances where the matter has been raised on the floor, it is one that merits some attention by the House. Perhaps the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges might consider the situation and decide whether or not to recommend changes to our rules.

Another issue relating to the bells was raised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt on January 30, 1990. He asked whether a 15 minute bell or a 30 minute bell is not required to sound for the full time provided in the Standing Order. In other words, he maintains that a 15 minute bell must ring for a full 15 minutes and a 30 minute bell for the full 30 minutes. With respect to this point, I should bring to the House's attention the wording of Standing Order 45. The relevant words are found in subsections (3) and (4). They are "-the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes" or "-for not more than thirty minutes."
The important words appear to be, "for not more than", which would indicate that the bells can be sounded for any period of time which does not exceed the time mentioned in the Standing Order. It implies, however, that the time for the bells to ring may be less than the total stipulated. Thus, the process followed in the circumstances complained of was proper.
It is interesting to note that in the recent revisions of the Standing Orders creating legislative committees, those committees were given a prior right over that of
Point of Order
the Standing Committees to sit during sittings of the House. I am here referring to Standing Order 115, which I will read in part to the House.
(1)	Notwithstanding Standing Order 108(1), no standing or standing joint committee shall sit at the same time as a legislative committee on a bill emanating from or principally affecting the same department or agency.
(2)	During periods coinciding with the hours of sittings of the House, priority shall be given to the meetings of legislative committees over those of standing, special and joint committees.

The legislative committee thus has priority to sit over the standing committee but no provision is made for situations where the House is dealing with a bill or motion in a similar subject area as that before a committee.
The Chair has suggested that the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges might also look at this issue to decide whether or not to make recommendations to the House to amend the rules in this area.

I wish to thank all hon. members for their assistance to the Chair in these matters. I must repeat that the Standing Orders, in practice, do not at this moment give the Chair authority to respond more positively to the hon. members' complaints.




Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know normally during Routine Proceedings there would be a call for applications under Standing Order 52. While I am well aware of the requirements under Standing Order 52, the fact that a priest was dragged away from the front of the Parliament Buildings yesterday and arrested by the RCMP was going to encourage me to call for an emergency debate on this Draconian action.
In my anger and frustration, myself and a number of my colleagues actually went out in front of the Parliament Buildings this morning to see if we would be arrested as the ordinary citizens of the country were arrested yesterday, only to find out that we were not.

March 20, 1990
Government Orders
Therefore I missed filing a request with you an hour in advance.
I was wondering if there is any mechanism that you are aware that would still permit me to request that the House adjourn to make the case for an emergency debate on this Draconian initiative.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put the matter to the House. The only way that his application could be accepted would be with complete consent of the House.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the hon. member there is not consent.



DEMONSTRATION ON PARLIAMENT HILL

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on a different matter. Yesterday the Acting Speaker indicated that the Speaker would respond to the concerns raised by hon. members by requesting a report by the Sergeant-at-Arms on the whole issue.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you could indicate to the House and to hon. members, and to the people of Canada, when such report would be forthcoming.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that there was an exchange of views in the House yesterday. I will be discussing the matter with the Acting Speaker, and I will report back to the House as soon as I can.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-48, an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act, be read a third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended 31 minutes, beginning at one o'clock.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-48, dealing with crop insurance. Although the bill very specifically deals with crop insurance, it is symbolic of the direction that this government is taking and has taken relative to agriculture in this country.
This bill seems to be part of the government's effort to reduce its costs to agriculture across the country. There seems to be little concern in this bill for the viability of the farm or any indication that this insurance bill will assist farms across Canada to become viable in any way. It is doubtful that this bill will help stop the exodus from the farms and farm communities across the country.
This exodus could represent the disintegration of rural communities in Canada. Half of the farms in Saskatchewan, for instance, have disappeared in the last 20 years. In the last few years, this exodus from the farming community and the communities which support those farms has been increasing.
While this bill may have streamlined the process of crop insurance to some extent, there is no doubt that the government's purpose for the bill is to reduce the cost of crop insurance to the federal government.
Cost reduction seems to be the driving force behind all of the government policies brought before us in this last five years. The overriding theme in the minister's Green Paper, Growing Together is how to cut down the government's cost and involvement in agriculture?
The government is attempting to reduce the cost of agriculture to itself in a number of ways. During its previous term of government, the Nielsen report recommended a number of ways to reduce the cost of federal government programs. One way to accomplish this is to reduce the service the federal government has provided in the past. The cost of a program is passed on to the provincial government, the municipality, the farmer, or the consumer. Another way to reduce cost is to pass the service on to some other organization which then proceeds to charge a fee to provide that service and make it an extra cost to the farmer.
This often results in passing responsibility and control of what happens in agriculture from the government to the multinationals or other organizations. The final step is to abandon the whole process, in most cases to the market. The government's rationale is that the farmer or
March 20, 1990

the consumer should have to pay for it. That is the theme of the Green Paper, Growing Together.
There is, of course, a great deal of overlap in these areas of cost cutting. For example, how does the government eliminate or reduce the services? In the last session of Parliament we had a number of examples, including the reduction in meat inspection services and the reduction in services of the inspection of seeds that are being sold into the market. The cost of that is passed on to somebody else, or the service is no longer offered. In the case of meat inspection, the service almost disappeared, although the abattoirs, the packers, the processors are supposed to pick it up themselves.
The government has passed on a number of expenditures which used to be part of its expenditures in agriculture. This insurance change is one of them. The cost of this insurance is passed on to the provincial government and ultimately to the farmer or to the taxpayers in the provinces. It no longer appears as a cost to the government. The increase in levies in stabilization programs is another example of cost passed on to the farmer or the taxpayer.
The municipalities, by the very process, have also taken on a certain amount of the costs which were previously federal government responsibility. Every time a rail line is abandoned in Canada, the roads must take up the traffic. That is a cost to the municipalities and provinces due to the increased traffic and maintenance on the roads.
A portion of the cost for branchline rehabilitation, elimination and abandonment and freight assistance has been transferred to municipal governments and of course, the farmer himself has taken up a major portion of the cost which used to be a cost to the federal government. Some of these are the inspection of meat and seed, the operations of the Grain Commission and fuel taxes. Farmers used to get a rebate of the taxes they paid on fuel. That rebate will disappear entirely before the end of the year.
The stabilization levies have been increased, particularly to western farmers. The interest on advance payments used to be picked up by the federal government. That program made it possible for the farmer to bridge the period of time when he needs funds and is unable to deliver any crop he may have left in the bin. The farmer
Government Orders
was able to get some money in order to pay his bills. Again in the spring, when it is on occasion impossible to get to the bin, the farmer can get some advance payments to tide him over.
The GST is another thing that is going to increase costs to the farmer. The government has passed some of the costs on to the banks, multinationals and trust corporations in the whole process of credit. The government is removing itself very effectively from the credit structure relative to farms, putting it in the hands of the multinational banks and trust corporations, and forcing the farmer to deal with them instead, to their detriment in most cases. There is a continuing abandonment to the market. In fact the whole of the paper Growing Together is aimed at making the agricultural industry much more market oriented.
One of the real dangers to the farm community in this process the government is perpetrating on it is that it is insidious, disjointed and all pervasive. It goes under many names and you cannot recognize it in all cases. You have to look at it very carefully. It goes under the suggestion that you leave it to the market, that you are developing a sustainable economy, that it is a consultative process, that it is cost sharing, that it is cost cutting, or deficit reduction. In every case it is an attack on the income security of the producer. That sounds Draconian and ominous, but it is an attack; a war.
The minister has stated that the seven task forces- and that also sounds like a war-from the Green Paper will report and that when consensus has been reached the government will act. That in itself has an ominous sound because if the government acts on each of these separately as consensus is reached within that task force, it will be making a decision on a very small part of the concerns of agriculture. In the process it is not looking at the effect of those decisions or that action on the rest of the industry.
All fronts, to again use war terminology, will be treated separately. The farmer is expected to protect himself on all of these fronts at the same time. The government is refusing to pay to assist the farmer to protect himself in these task forces. If you want to be represented in the task force you have to find the money to be there. The cost for a farmer funded organization to be represented at all stages of the hearings would be from $25,000 to $50,000.

March 20, 1990
Government Orders
Again it sounds like a war, a war against the farmer, as it is today. To defeat the enemy you attack on all fronts, and that is what the government is doing. The enemy in this case seems to be agriculture. I do not think it is the individual farmer, but it is agriculture as we know it today. The structure of agriculture as we know it today is under attack in every part and in every way by this government.
The aim of this Green Paper seems to be to take production out of the hands of the farmer and put it in the hands of the processor, which in most cases means putting it in the hands of the multinationals. If you take enough farmers off the farm and put production in the hands of people who are closely attached to the processors, like Cargill, you have in fact put the effect of production in the hands of that multinational.
If you think that is far-fetched, take a look at the free trade deal. Cargill had people at the top level on both sides of those negotiations. It had advisors at the table on both the U.S. and Canadian sides. So, who got a good deal out of the free trade? Cargill.
This insurance bill is just one spoke in the wheel. It gives very little extra security to the farmer. That is why it is insidious. It seems to improve the situation. It suggests that maybe the farmer is getting a little better deal, when actually he is being conned into a situation where he has given a little and has made it possible for a different approach by the government. Except for a quirk in the process of legislation, the government would have had the ability to withdraw from insurance entirely. The bill does not allow it to do that, but it is not the government's fault that the bill does not allow it to do that. It is the fact that the opposition in the House of Commons made a change.
Nothing is being done to assist the farmer and a great deal is being done to undermine. Nothing is being done about the debt. In Saskatchewan, for example, 20,000 farmers are going to be eliminated or affected by debt during the next year or so. There is nothing in this kind of bill to increase the possibility of them staying on the farm. Who will own and operate these farms when these farmers are forced off the land?
The system is being undermined. I could go into a long story about the effects of government legislation on supply management, the putting in place of quotas. It
makes me a little suspicious all the way around. If they undermine the supply management system by increasing the quotas and saying they are supporting it every time we talk to them, you become a little suspicious about what kind of defence they are making of Article XI at the GATT talks right now.
Nothing seems to be happening regarding the promised money for seeding on the prairies. We all know that the farmers there are waiting for money to seed. It has been promised. We are told that they are looking at it, but nothing is happening. There is nothing on the table, not even a promise that you can take to the bank and ask for some money. The banks are refusing to supply that money for seeding.
Even though I recognize some value in the changes in the crop insurance bill, I cannot support this bill. It is part of the process of destruction of what I know and love of rural Canada. By doing it a little at a time, the government is ensuring that there will eventually be such anarchy in the agricultural industry that it can eventually be dominated by those strengths in this economy which would rather see the control of production in the hands of someone other than the farmer. If this is a move in that direction, neither I nor anyone who loves and believes that rural Canada is worth saving can support it.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could expand briefly on his comments with regard to reduction of service and the implementation of fees for service under this government, which carried out a program begun by the previous Liberal government. Perhaps he does not have the numbers in front of him, but could he tell us what this is doing to the actual taxpayers' costs for agriculture and how this is costing farmers even more than the numbers that he utilized in his speech?
I understand that the spending estimates for agriculture have dropped from something like $3.2 billion two years ago to in the neighbourhood of $1.8 billion or $1.9 billion this year. When we take into account the receipts which do not show up as a net figure in the Estimates, the actual cost to the Department of Agriculture is something under $1 billion this year in terms of government funding. This means that less than 1 per cent of government revenues are going into the whole area of
March 20, 1990

agriculture which employs something like 20 per cent of the population from farm gate to consumer.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the approach that the member has taken. It is very obvious, if we look at the Estimates, that there has been a considerable reduction. If we look very closely at the Estimates, we will find there is some fiddling in there that we have not quite got to the bottom of yet. If we take a look at the expenses of the Farm Credit Corporation we will be amazed at the increase that appears in the Estimates but does not appear in the operations of the Farm Credit Corporation.
In the last year and a half we have done some investigations of the impact of changes in government policy on the farmer or on the taxpayer. In some cases the taxpayer does not have to pick up the cost; in some cases it disappears. For instance, I mentioned the fuel tax rebates. That is going to be reduced by $125 million this year and by 1991-92, with the excise and the sales tax back on, it is to cost farmers about $260 million.
In the last session we had the elimination of two-price wheat which cost farmers $240 million. We have increases in the stabilization levies I mentioned before which are now costing the farmer an extra $91 million. The elimination of interest-free advances for farmers is costing them over $27 million.
All those areas have a direct impact upon farmers. The crop insurance bill that we have before us in itself, according to the government Estimates, is to save it $90 million in 1989-90 and $110 million in 1990-91. Again that is an indirect attack on the farming economy, in that at a time when the farmers are really short of income they find themselves having to pick up more and more of the costs which over the years have been the costs of the government relative to its involvement in agriculture.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the committee hearings on the crop insurance legislation, we heard representations from virtually all farm organizations indicating that the crop insurance program was quite inadequate in handling losses due to depredation by wildlife. There is a clause which deals with depredation under the Migratory Waterfowl Act. The American and Canadian governments have come together to provide some forms of assistance where
Government Orders
geese, cranes, or ducks move in on crops and clean them out. They provide a spot loss kind of adjustment process which normally occurs with a federal-provincial agreement each year, although there have been a few years when some of the provinces have failed to complete those agreements.
Has the hon. member any opinions on whether wildlife depredation by elk, deer, racoons, or blackbirds for that matter, could be treated on a spot loss basis something like hail damage is now? Could he speculate on why the government chose not to include that permissive possibility in the legislation?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns of all the people who came before us was the division of sharing of costs. One-third, one-third, one-third was what they all wanted, which they did not get. A good number of these people suggested that waterfowl coverage should be changed to wildlife coverage.
To be fair, I have to say that the changes in the waterfowl coverage are somewhat of an improvement in that they have established a structure that makes it much clearer, because it will now be in the act and it will also pay relative to what the farmer got off the rest of the field in a spot loss, which it did not before. It was estimated by someone and the farmer got paid. One of my neighbours, for example, got $600 in crop loss for half of his field and he took $6,000 off the other half. This really was not a fair payment.
The insurance people tell us that wildlife damage can be claimed under spot loss insurance, but I know from discussing it with the farmers who were before us, farmers in my area and from personal knowledge, what can happen in the case of wildlife. A herd of elk in my area can eliminate a field of alfalfa in one night. The farmer cannot claim that under any of the insurance policies.
It does need some clearing up, and I see no reason why it cannot be put into the regulations in such a way as to cover these situations. We do it in other parts of insurance programs for crops, and there is no reason why we cannot recognize wildlife damage in such a way that the farmer can claim under the insurance programs presently in place.

March 20,1990
Government Orders


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to join in the debate on third reading of this bill, an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act.
I listened with great interest to the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. I must commend him on his remarks. It is quite easy to see that he not only has a great amount of expertise in the area but speaks with a tremendous amount of passion on agricultural matters. You may think, Mr. Speaker, that as a relatively new member with virtually no agricultural background I am easily impressed, but I think all members in the House look upon members such as the one who spoke previously with a great regard.
I know we are not supposed to comment on who is and who is not here, but I see the parliamentary secretary on the government side, the member for Huron-Bruce, and the member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup who care tremendously with equal passion about agriculture.
In opening I should like to refer to remarks made by a colleague of mine, the hon. member for Algoma, as reported in Hansard of March 14 on page 9289 when he said:
This bill does some very good things. It provides for greater benefits to be paid under the crop insurance legislation, but the percentage of the premium is the problem. It does not provide for tripartite participation.
He continues:
Practically every farm organization in this country from the prairie pools to the Ontario government, to com producers, to soybean producers have asked that the percentages be 33, 33 and 33.
That brings me to the words of the member for Mackenzie who indicated that this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-48, was inadequate. I believe it is just another example of the government's strategy, its diminishing commitment to Canadian agriculture. This legislation simply follows the trend established by this Conservative government to reduce agriculture support programs regardless of the financial hardship caused to our farmers.
It is becoming more and more obvious as the days go by that the government's Green Paper on agriculture entitled Growing Together: A Vision for Canada's Agrifood Industry should possibly be renamed. I would suggest the title "Going Broke: A Blueprint to Dismantle Canadian Agriculture."
The reason behind crop insurance is clear enough. It is to provide protection for farmers who suffer crop loss. Obviously this is a very important program. It gives our farmers a measure of security against the many risks they face in growing their crops. It is therefore very unfortunate indeed that the federal government by way of Bill C-48 will continue to make farmers pay high premiums for crop insurance coverage.
High crop insurance premiums simply add to the increasing costs of farming. This financial burden is a factor in producers deciding to take out less insurance coverage. When farmers are forced to take less coverage, the demand for ad hoc programs such as the special grains program or the drought and flood relief programs is increased and perpetuated such as we have witnessed over the past several years.
I would like to refer to some comments of the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council, a highly regarded group representing many commodity organizations such as the Ontario Apple Marketing Commission, the Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board, the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, the Ontario Canola Growers Association, the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board, the Ontario Soybean Growers Marketing Board and many others.
Very briefly it says:
The major reason for crop insurance reform is to eliminate the
need for ad hoc weather related relief assistance by providing an
affordable and flexible program in which farmers will participate.
Bill C-48 does not provide adequate changes to the current Crop Insurance Act. It does not create an equitable sharing of the program's cost between the federal and provincial governments and the producer. It is clear that the primary objective of crop insurance reform is not achieved in Bill C-48.
A letter to the hon. Minister of Agriculture from the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board says it very well, simply and concisely. It reads:
Premium costs should be shared equally between the federal
government, the province and the producer.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, again with regard to the tripartite program, says:
March 20, 1990

We will particularly continue to press for the legislation to allow for a one-third federal government, one-third provincial government, one-third producer cost sharing.
That just highlights the inadequacies of this particular piece of legislation.
It seems quite counterproductive and ironic to have a program which is supposed to protect farmers being itself placed in jeopardy by the government. Farmers are once again being denied the opportunity to participate fully in this program as many are not able to afford the high premiums. Furthermore, the problem will be exacerbated as the premiums increase as a result of Bill C-48. Producers who were unable to afford crop insurance last year will certainly not be able to do so in 1990. So much for crop insurance reform.
The government will, of course, say that the amendments contained in this bill will make crop insurance more attractive to farmers. This simply is not the case. The following should be obvious even to this government. If crop insurance premiums are so high that farmers cannot afford them, what benefit is there in improving particular aspects of the program when farmers will not be able to participate in it?
The changes in the cost sharing formula contained in Bill C-48 reduces the federal government's contributions to the crop insurance program from 50 per cent to 25 per cent. The government shifted the other 25 per cent to the provinces. While crop insurance is co-ordinated by the provincial governments, this move nonetheless reflects the recent federal government policy of dumping its responsibilities on the provinces as seen in the recent budget. Currently the provinces contribute 10 per cent to the cost of the program. Farmers will continue to pay the remaining 50 per cent. A tripartite arrangement would see the cost shared equally by all three parties.
According to the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council this decision by the federal government on cost sharing represents no improvement for producers. The vice-chairman of the council is indeed correct in his assessment when he said:
The government's objective has been primarily cost savings for the federal treasury with only marginal improvements provided for
Government Orders
farmers. There would be little to show for all of the time, effort and
finances that have been devoted to crop insurance since 1986-87.
The decrease in the government's support of this program will create higher premiums for crop insurance. For example, Bill C-48 will enable insurance coverage for com producers to rise from 80 per cent to 90 per cent. This translates into an increase in premiums from $5.71 per acre to $10 per acre and almost doubles the current premium for only a 10 per cent increase in crop coverage. The rise in insurance premiums will simply increase the number of producers who cannot afford to take out crop insurance.
It is not unheard of in Canadian agriculture for the federal government to participate in tripartite arrangements with the provinces and producers. Such an arrangement already exists in the tripartite stabilization for beef and pork producers with all parties contributing one-third of the program costs. It is not unreasonable, then, to question why the federal government does not see fit to have a tripartite system for crop insurance. The answer of course is that the government does not want to do so. In fact, it is more interested in cutting its contribution in half than to have the three parties equally share the costs. This is simply not good enough. Canadian farmers and the national and provincial farm organizations will no doubt agree.
Organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board joined with farmers across Canada to try to convince the government that an equal cost sharing arrangement would be the most constructive course of action for crop insurance reform. A tripartite crop insurance program would indeed be very welcome. It is most unfortunate and unreasonable that the government chose to ignore these representations. The government has instead decided to do what it wants and not what would be best for either the viability of the program or for what is the most beneficial to producers.
In conclusion, the reasons behind the government's decision to limit its contribution to the crop insurance program is not based on any desire to support Canadian agriculture or to ensure that producers will be able to maintain and afford protection for crop loss. The decision is based on the government's over-all plan to reduce agricultural support programs in this country. It is indeed

March 20, 1990
Government Orders
sad that in the final analysis it is once again the Canadian fanner who will suffer. I simply cannot support this bill.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Stormont-Dun-das knows, this is a very important bill. That is why it should be given more serious attention. The shared cost provisions of crop insurance in this bill are also very important, and the hon. member has mentioned those.
It just seems that the government does not care about the weather and how it affects farmers. It is the bottom line on the Minister of Finance's budget and his Estimates that the government seems to be most concerned about. As the hon. member indicated, it almost looks as if the government's philosophy is to kick the farmers when they are down. This is very well exemplified by the fact that when the farmers met early last July they were agreed on a one-third, one-third, one-third breakdown with the federal and provincial governments on the cost shared program for crop insurance. Then when the federal government and the provinces met at the end of July, it ended up at 25 per cent for each of the two senior governments and 50 per cent for the farmers.
Does the hon. member not feel that this relates to the very important face-saving of the Minister of Finance on his projections in his budget and how he wants to come out looking good on them? Or, is this just another example of the leadership of this federal government in trying to bring the agricultural community in Canada down to the level of no subsidization at all, no assistance whatsoever; let the farmers loose to sink or swim in competition with the American agricultural industry as a result of free trade?
Is this a continuation of the same kind of deal that we saw this government give Canadian agriculture under free trade? Here is another example of the federal government refusing to give the agricultural industry in Canada any support whatsoever because it wants to look good on its financial statements and it could not care less about what is happening out there.
It is going to make the farmers pay more for crop insurance at a time when the climate of this country has been very cruel to farmers. Should there not be a more flexible system than the one in the minds of the Minister
of Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister who are handling this very crucial issue?


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments and his question.
It has become increasingly evident that this government and its policies are largely, if not entirely, budget driven. We would recognize the good intentions of members on the opposite side of the House, but when it comes to delivery we see quite clearly that the bottom line prevails. Certainly this is a time when the agricultural industry is experiencing some very difficult times, as are the fisheries and other areas of our economy. But the level of anxiety is at its peak in the agricultural industry, if you will. When more stability is required it seems to be lacking in the leadership displayed by the government of the day.
It would appear that the biggest obstacle for the government might be the question of credibility. We hear quite repeatedly of its support of supply management on the one hand. On the other hand, and returning back to the Growing Together Green Paper, we repeatedly refer to having to become more market oriented. I have difficulty finding the compatibility between those two areas.
The agricultural community is increasingly being brought to its knees. Thank goodness for the farmers themselves and for their inner strength. They have demonstrated in the past how they have been able to adapt. Surely it is not too much for them to expect greater leadership from this government to assist them at this very critical time.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, we are debating today the merits of Bill C-48, a bill to amend the Crop Insurance Act.
In many ways it seems to be a fairly innocuous bill. It makes some technical improvements in that it increases the amount of coverage available to farmers. It includes some crops that have not been included before. Thus it does not seem to be a terribly striking bill; it is mainly technical in nature.
However, when one looks at what is motivating the government in proposing this particular legislation, it seems that it might very well be another aspect of what we have been seeing so much of, that is to say, the government withdrawing piece by piece from various
March 20,1990

sectors of the economy, bit by bit from various contributions that it makes to the assistance of different sectors of the economy. That is particularly shameful at this time in the field of agriculture.
Many of the groups that appeared before the committee said that there is already a problem with insurance premiums and coverage. Those farmers who are most in need of coverage, who have been hit year after year by drought-as has occurred in many parts of my province of Saskatchewan-and who are on marginal farms are already having trouble coming up with the crop insurance premiums.
Instead of the government recognizing that, and making it easier for farmers to get involved in the crop insurance program, this piece of legislation raises crop insurance premiums, particularly for the better types of coverage. The producer groups and the producers spoke eloquently in this regard. Members have reflected on the different groups which appeared.
What the government should be doing is coming forward with a tripartite approach, as it does in so many other aspects of agriculture. Surely, a one-third, one-third, one-third approach is the route to go. That is something at which the government needs to take another look in this legislation. It is certainly one of the reasons that we will not be supporting it.
Farmers are quite right to wonder about the government's commitment to its involvement in this crop insurance program. I believe it was only a few days ago that the hon. member for Mackenzie wanted to make sure that at least the 25 per cent of federal contributions to which the bill alludes is enshrined in statute, that it be a guarantee of 25 per cent government involvement.
In fact, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds and various spokespersons for the government stood and spoke against that suggestion. They said they needed this flexibility in case a province were to shirk on its contributions or something else happened in a particular year in a particular province.
That gave farmers an indication that not only was the government planning to withdraw to 25 per cent, but that in fact it had plans to leave its options veiy much open with regard to the 25 per cent. As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, it really was just by fluke that the 25 per cent guarantee came through because the government was
Government Orders
asleep at the switch and ended up voting against its own position.
When we look at the background against which we are proposing this bill, it really seems like a very inadequate response to the type of crisis we are seeing today in the farm community. Particularly in the prairies among grain producers, but also right across the country, farmers are losing their farms. Farm families are seeing generations of work go down the drain. Rural communities are not able to fill their schools or keep up their skating rinks, and so on.
In the province of Saskatchewan alone, one-third of its farmers-that is about 20,000 farmers-are tottering on the brink of disaster in this crop year. Many of those are farmers who had until now thought they were doing all right and had their debt loads under control. They were not the kind of farmers who, when money was free and easy a couple of years ago, borrowed a whole bunch of money and perhaps in some ways authored their own misfortune.
It must be added that in those days representatives of the Royal Bank went around from farm to farm in a nice little van with a desk in the back at which you could sit down with your friendly banker. The banker would ask how much you wanted, and if all you needed was $10,000, the banker would go through your statements and if he saw that you had so much equity in your farm he would encourage you to borrow a little more. You could perhaps buy a new piece of equipment that you really were not planning on buying. Those are days that are long gone now, but that is how a lot of people did get into trouble. That particular aspect was made worse by the cost allowance provisions in the Income Tax Act which were changed overnight and which left a lot of people high and dry.
What we have seen too with this government's response and the reason why people are cynical about this and finding it so inadequate is that we have an immediate crisis on our hands. Rather than debating technical adjustments to the crop insurance program, I think it behooves us to be talking instead about the crisis which is confronting agriculture-the 20,000 farmers on the verge of going broke. There are very many others who are not able to farm the way they should. We might in fact end up with Canada having much less of a crop to sell in the export market than it otherwise would have.

March 20,1990
Government Orders
Last November when I attended the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool annual meeting the president of that organization, Mr. Stevenson, put out a call for a $500 million payment to Saskatchewan. We have been hearing that for months. At that time it was already becoming clear that in the coming crop year there was going to be not only very low income among farm communities and farmers, but no income at all.
Next year it is forecast that in Saskatchewan there will be a minus income of $9.4 million. In fact there will not be anything to live on, there will not be anything with which to pay debts. There will be a minus income when it comes to income and expenses of $9.4 million. This means that, on the average, farm families across Saskatchewan will have nothing to live on and nothing to pay for their labour with. Of course that spells very disastrous times, not only for those individual farmers but for their families and their communities.
In many communities one spouse or the other has to leave the community in the winter to look for work in the cities of Alberta and British Columbia because there is no work in Saskatchewan. The Conservative government of that province has seen to that. That creates all kinds of stresses and strains on the family because not only are they already in debt, many of them feel guilty that family farms which have been built up over the years are in danger of disappearing. Also, there is separation from families which adds crisis to farm family life.
What we have seen is this government withdrawing from agriculture support right through the course of its term of office. Not only have we seen actions which have restructured agriculture, for example, taking oats out from under the Wheat Board without consultation, we have seen the price of oats fall dramatically to the point where it is hardly worth growing. Farmers were never consulted on that. They have called repeatedly for a referendum but never got it.
We lost the two-price wheat system. I have checked the Estimates closely in this regard. We were assured in Prince Albert by the Premier of Saskatchewan that just because free trade meant two-price wheat was going-it was worth about $800 million a year-we would certainly see that money returned to farmers directly. I have not seen anything in the Estimates since I have been here
which would reflect that kind of payment back to farmers.
We see a restructuring of agriculture in the agri-business model. We in Saskatchewan have always looked across the North Dakota border and have seen where that kind of approach has been taken. Rail lines have been consolidated. There are much larger elevators, and much larger farms. The population there has been disappearing from communities. You have towns without schools and very poor hospital services. What gradually happens is that not only does it become economically not viable to live in these rural communities, the lifestyle becomes so inadequate that families do not want to live there. The services are not there for their children and the whole rural way of life starts to crumble.
What do we need instead of this particular program? Certainly we need the $500 million that the farm community has been calling for. Here, again we see one of these now you see it, now you don't kind of smoke and mirror shows. It is just like going to the fall fair and walking through the house of mirrors when it comes to the $500 million or whatever the assistance payment will be. We heard the Minister of Agriculture earlier in the year say very categorically that there would be a payment in the hands of farmers before spring seeding. The time for spring seeding is getting closer and closer. People are already making their cropping decisions and certainly there is no money.
We have been pursuing that in the House. First, we heard that perhaps the money might be late in coming but nevertheless we would have a firm announcement very soon. There have been consultations going on continuously, allegedly. Surely, in this time of consultation with bankers, with ministers and with provincial officials there has been plenty of time to come up with a program. The need is surely there. Still we have not seen an announcement.
I would like to take this opportunity to call on the government to make an announcement on that payment because it is absolutely critical so that farmers can get on with their seeding plans.
As well, we have to start looking at the whole question of restructuring the farm debt. It has always struck me as absurd that we structure our farm debt in this country so
March 20, 1990

that every generation has to buy the farm over and over again. Every generation is in hock to the banker and creditors and paying interest over and over again.
Especially with high interest rates that have been prevalent over the last 10 years, anyone who got into farming in that time has found that they are very lucky just to keep up with interest payments. In many cases the farm debt that started out at a relatively modest level has in fact grown. I have had phone calls from many farmers who have said that 10 years ago they were $70,000 in debt and now they are $150,000 in debt. More and more land in the farm communities in the province of Saskatchewan is being held by financial institutions and by the Farm Credit Corporation. We need to get urgently at the problem of restructuring this farm debt. If we do not look at the restructuring of this farm debt it is going to end up in the hands of financial institutions. Those families which have been farming that land for all these generations will not get the opportunity to do so any more. Once it is gone it is very hard to get it back. That is one of the big reasons for the depression, the sense of hopelessness that pervades many farm communities.
I am concerned that this legislation is really being introduced in a bit of a policy vacuum. We had a conference to discuss the Green Paper on agriculture which is entitled Growing Together. This conference was called the Outlook Conference. I would like to rename the Green Paper "Growing Broke Together", a more appropriate title.
This conference spun off a number of task forces which are just starting to meet and report. My understanding is that while they might individually be doing some good work, in fact there are no linkages between them. Farmers do not know whether the task force on sustainable development, the safety net, transportation, marketing or the various areas they are looking at such as research and development interact. I understand there is no mechanism within the Department of Agriculture to make those kinds of linkages. It seems very premature to me to be talking about this as a panacea to the farm program.
Therefore, I would like to move the following motion:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
Government Orders
"Bill C-48, an Act to amend the Crop Insurance Act, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence".
I would like to go briefly through the reasons why I am proposing this motion. First, it is very important to review two things about the bill itself. One is the review of the cost-sharing formulas that have been included. Farm groups have made it very clear that their members will find it difficult to maintain the kind of crop insurance that they need with these 50 per cent premium levels. I think that aspect needs another review to make sure that farmers are able to get the crop insurance which is in fact intended for their benefit.
Second, I think we must do this to ensure that the government comes through with its commitment to assist farmers with their seeding program. I think that commitment is coming more and more into doubt as we listen to ministers make assurances which are more and more vague about what form this in fact will take. They cannot answer whether it will be a loan, whether it will be an acreage payment, on what basis it will be paid, when it will be paid out and so on. I think the government needs to be reminded of that.
Third, I think we need to make sure that we no longer continue with ad hoc agriculture programs. Before we adopt this particular piece of legislation we must be very clear that coming out of the task forces and the policy thrust being proposed by this government will be the context for the future of this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will accept the hon. member's amendment.
Are there questions or comments?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I was veiy interested in the comments of the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. He seemed to be putting the argument that the government really has no reason not to go ahead and announce the special financing program so that farmers can plant their crops. I think back over the last four and a half months when this question has constantly been put to the Prime Minister, to the Deputy Prime Minister, to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds and to the associate minister of agriculture. We always hear the argument: "We are the last of the big time spenders. We have provided $20 billion over the last five years".

March 20, 1990
Government Orders
The echo that I heard from the prairies when I visited with a number of producers there last week was: "We are not talking about the last four years. We know it has been the worst time in Canadian history in agriculture. What we want to know is whether the government is going to come forward with a special program of financial assistance to help farmers this spring so that we can put in a crop." I do not know how more graphic you can have it.
The minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan and the premier of the province went on province-wide television two weeks ago tonight and pleaded with the federal government to provide assistance. If that is not a dramatic move, I do not know what could be more dramatic.
A week and a half ago when I was in Saskatchewan I was reading a copy of The Leader Post of Regina, the March 7 issue. It pointed out graphically the problem facing rural Canada in Saskatchewan. It pointed out that the number of bankruptcies in farm and farm service operations in Saskatchewan in January of this year totalled 16. That is equal to the total number of farm and farm service bankruptcies in the province of Saskatchewan in 1980. In fact in 1989 there were 152. In 1988 there were 115. In 1987 there were 85, and so it progresses on down.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture like to tell about how terrible things were when the Liberals were in office. Clearly, if you look at the number of bankruptcies last year you will see that there were 152. In January of this year we started off with 16 totalling losses of $3 million.
The article went on to point out that the second largest group in Saskatchewan was the retail trade industries where 11 businesses went into bankruptcy involving $1.6 million worth of liabilities.
I would be willing to bet any amount of money that every one of those retail service industries went bankrupt because of the serious problem in cash flow in farms. That is what we are talking about here as we debate Bill C-48. We are talking about crop insurance.
We want to see the government make a commitment now with regard to cash injections. The leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan, Lynda Haverstock, has recommended that it be $20 per acre for seeded acres
and that it be something less for summer fallow. The premier is calling for roughly $10 per acre in Saskatchewan and a further injection throughout the year.
We do not need to get into the details. We just need the government to make this announcement today. This report from The Leader Post about the number of bankruptcies calls attention to the very serious problem facing the industry and the need for a cash injection and financial support in order to put in this year's crop.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for pointing out those very graphic statistics. As the hon. member knows, for every business that goes bankrupt, there are probably 10 entrepreneurs who walk away from an intolerable situation or walk away from their debts. Bankruptcy comes at the end of a long legal process that a lot of people do not bother going through. You can factor that by at least one to ten.
The hon. member's remarks also reminded me of what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign. In Dundum, Saskatchewan, on October 7, 1988, the Prime Minister said that "the government was not going to allow a single farmer, not one farmer, to hang out to dry simply because the Americans and the Europeans have this subsidy war going on. Until the matter is brought to a halt, the Canadian government has a responsibility to step in and defend the interests of the Canadian farmer."
"Not one farmer to hang out to dry", he said. Already in the month of January, the member alluded to 16 farmers that got hung out to dry. The member talks about the need for this program. The government is shifting more and more to ad hoc programs and this continual crisis kind of management in agriculture. As the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt pointed out, over the last two years while the government has bragged about the amount of money it has put in special grains programs and so on, it has also cut $1,077 million in ongoing farm programs that farmers could count on from year to year. Those were the contributions they now have to make through Western Grain Stabilization, fuel tax rebates, increases in crop insurance, which we are talking about, branchline rehabilitations and so on. We are into a crisis management mould.
March 20, 1990

The third point that needs to be made is with regard to why this program is so slow evolving, this very desperately needed program for financial assistance. Members from the prairies, on all sides of the House, I am sure are getting calls daily from very desperate farmers. In spite of his very obvious qualities, abilities, and skills, I think the time has come when the Prime Minister needs to look at whether or not we should have a full time Minister of Agriculture. I know the kind of clout that Minister of Agriculture has is certainly worth-while to farmers. On the other hand, we have been dragging on for four months with an obvious crisis. We seem to be no closer to being able to make the decisions and carry on the consultations that will put this money in the hands of farmers. It is time to consider very seriously whether or not the agriculture load, the massive crisis, and the need for a full scale policy review, doesn't require that the country have a full time Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate, but I wish we did not have to.
I am a child of the Dirty Thirties. All during the war and following the war, the struggle that went on by the farm community and the provinces to get some kind of a crop insurance program took years of doing. Federal governments of those years were persuaded to launch such a program. Initially, the provinces agreed to pay all the administration costs, including the crop insurance inspectors. The federal government and the farmers shared fifty-fifty in the premiums.
There is an old saying: "If it is working, don't try to fix it". All that needed fixing was additional kinds of coverage. This bill follows the same pattern as a number of other items of legislation. The government is following through on what it said about giving the provinces more say, more participation, and more involvement. What that really means is shifting the costs of programs that are a federal government responsibility, no one else's, onto the provinces. In some cases, it even shifts costs of the federal government's not only on to the provinces, but on to municipalities and on to individual farmers.
One thing that bothers me about this bill is that of all the times to bring about this kind of change, it is not now. If we had good crops and prices were good and what not, there might be some validity that farmers could afford to
Government Orders
pay more. I look at some of the premium increases that will affect people like tomato growers and winter wheat growers and so on at a time when prices are depressed, particularly on wheat. The nicest thing I can say is that the government's sense of timing is that it is about as bad as it can be.
If you had good times, if you were going to make this change and it was one that you were committed to ideologically-part of your government's policy-one would befmore hard put to argue. But it should not be an occasion when my province of Saskatchewan is in as bad a financial and economic condition as it was in 1938. If you transferred the situation into the 1990s, in terms of dollars or anything else-in fact, in many respects because we have a lot more things now to worry about than we had in 1938-we are worse off in 1990 than we were in 1938.
Our province is bankrupt. Its bond rating was reduced recently, and that is going to be happening some more. I remember, following the end of the war, my province could not borrow a nickel anywhere in the private market. My province was faced with every farmer having seed grain debts going back to the early thirties. There was no hope of getting enough money to pay them off. Every municipality had relief debts, payments made out to farm families all over the prairies in those years. We recovered from that during the war and the first number of years afterwards because we were feeding the whole world that had been devastated by war in Europe and Asia.
In light of what our neighbours to the south of us and the European Economic Community are doing, all their talk about free trade and getting rid of tariff barriers is sheer nonsense. When it comes to the crunch they are the first ones to protect themselves and to heck with a country like Canada, and we fall for it.
This bill is going to cost the federal government less and it is going to cost the provinces more. No matter what political stripe of my province-at the moment it is a conservative one-is in debt something over $3 billion. That is about as bad as it was in 1938 if you translate the then debt into 1990 dollars. So we are in the same shape.
Now the federal government is going to pick up half the administration costs. Before the provinces paid all the administration costs. The federal government is going to pay half of the administration costs and the provinces are going to pay half. In exchange, if you can

March 20, 1990
Government Orders
call it an exchange-it is not a fair trade-the provinces will pay half of the premiums, which comes to a heck of a lot more than half of the administration costs. This was a bad deal for the provinces. This does not resemble one-third/one-third/and one-third to me. The provinces got sucked in on a bad deal. But, of course, considering the fact that the four western provinces have Tory governments one can expect them to be suckers with their so-called sound business practice. The provinces just should have said, no, on day one.
The program of crop insurance is, in effect, being eroded. Farmers are in no position to pay higher premiums. The provinces and the municipalities on the prairies, and I suspect the same is true in central and eastern Canada, are having enough trouble as it is. This is the stupidest time of all to try to bring in these kinds of changes. It was a struggle over the years to get crop insurance which people could afford.
Some special assistance for spring seeding has been mentioned. That is what we went through in the years when I was just a kid, growing up. The special assistance was for seed grain. There was hardly a quarter section of land in Saskatchewan without a lien or a caveat on it for seed grain debts. It was not until 1944 under Tommy Douglas that the province took those debts for seed grain off the backs of farmers and took the relief payments off the backs of muncipalities. These had been piling up for years.
There has been much talk about some kind of a national disaster fund for agriculture. This is a good idea whose time has not come, and will not come under this government. We have crop insurance and that covers the dealings we have with Mother Nature. She decides and there ain't a dam thing we can do about it. So we tiy to protect ourselves collectively: the farmers, the provinces and the federal government.
There was the income stabilization bill, which was designed to protect farmers from the vagaries of the market. There are those who would say that we have to have a free and open market system. It is free and open, but it ain't free for farmers. All farmers have had is price lowering. The income stabilization program was designed to protect them from the vicissitudes of the
market. You had a combination of two things, to try to provide a measure of stability and insurance. They both are essentially insurance programs to which the farmers contribute and contribute handsomely.
Now we need a third one. We need some kind of insurance for agriculture, generally, to protect the farmers from this kind of government. Anybody stupid enough to make these kinds of changes in the crop insurance program, in light of the conditions that our farmers are in, has to be some kind of congenital idiot or else just plain ignorant and stupid. I do not know if there is any difference in those, but I cannot judge it any other way. It was working, it needed some improvements, and it still does; nobody is arguing about that. We will all work and discuss improvements that we can bring in over the coming months and years.
There is an area that I have always felt strongly about. I like to go hunting for goose, duck, sharp-tailed grouse and Hungarian partridge and I have always felt that people like me in Canada-and there are a few million-should make a contribution to the cost of conservation of wildlife, but also to the cost to the agricultural community from wildlife crop loss and damage.
I do not know what the situation is right now. I tried to get an answer from the Minister of Agriculture one day last week. I know for years a portion of my hunting licence fees went to this very thing. Some went to wildlife preservation and some went towards wildlife crop damage. That was always separate from crop insurance but I think it should be included.
Those who go hunting and fishing should make a contribution, although I do not know of any fish that are damaging our crop-we do not have any rain. That is an area which needs to be included in the crop insurance program. I, as an ordinary citizen and one who likes to hunt and enjoy the outdoors, am perfectly willing to make a contribution towards the cost of that kind of protection for our agricultural producers.
I have seen what 12,000 or 15,000 Canada geese and 5,000 or 6,000 sand-hill cranes can do in an 80 acre field of swath. You have a pretty large mess and I have seen what can happen. Many efforts have been made by Ducks Unlimited, by municipalities and provincial governments to provide lure crops, safe habitat and feeding
March 20, 1990

areas for wildlife, but you cannot cover it all. Canadians, as a whole, should make a contribution.
Some Canadians who enjoy hunting of all kinds should be making an additional contribution. I am quite willing to do so. I know the Saskatchewan Fish and Game League and various groups in my province support a portion of our licence fees going into that type of program. If the government has to raise the fees $5 or $10 more a year-they have raised them a few times lately-but if they have to raise it some more, that is fine, fair ball. As long as we know that is where the money is going.
I do not understand why the government would require grain producers to pay more than they are paying now on crop insurance for their grain production. Let me give you an example. Winter wheat, a farmer pays currently $4.50 for basic coverage. His increased coverage will cost him $7.72. We have an extra $2.22. If you had a tripartite arrangement, it would cost the producers an extra six cents, not $2.22. The government is doing it backwards. In its drive to reduce the the national deficit it is attacking the people who are in no position to pay a higher share of those kinds of objectives. If it were attacking banks that pay no income tax or some 90,000 corporations that made a profit in 1988 and did not pay a nickel's worth of income tax in order to reduce the deficit, it would be applauded by people all over Canada of every political stripe.
No, the government is not doing it that way. It is going after the people who are not in a position to pay any more than they are now. It does not matter whether it is a property tax, income tax or sales tax. When you look at the cost of food and housing these days in a province like mine, what logic or civility is there in picking on the very people who are in the worst position to pay more? That is what the government is doing in the case of farmers.
We have lost thousands of family farms. In some cases, the land has been in the family for three or four generations. It is not only an economic tragedy but a human and social tragedy for which we in Parliament, the government and the previous one, have no excuse. There is nothing rational about further devastating our farm and rural economies.
Government Orders
When my riding covered a much larger rural area there were dozens of implement dealers. There were little communities in which two or three generations of people had invested their endeavour in those communities, businesses, community halls, skating rinks, elevator companies and everything else and they just folded up. All the nation could tell them was to get up and walk away.
This type of legislation adds to that. Why in heaven's name would the government want to bring in a measure that increases the already existing problems? It makes no sense. It is unchristian, uncivilized and unjust. I do not know how many "un" words I can think of to label this.
The federal government should continue to pay half the premiums. It should increase the areas of coverage. The provinces should continue to pay the administration costs. If, in certain areas of increased coverage, it is peculiar only to a certain province or region and they want increased coverage because of circumstances peculiar to a province or a region, then fine. Let them have it but they will have to share in the cost of the increased coverage. Otherwise, why load more of this on to the backs of provinces? Surely it is an evasion of national and federal responsibility to get the federal government out of something for which it is responsible. This is what I call a weakening of federalism. One of the main reasons we are here is to keep this confederation in which people in every walk of life in every region, province and territory of Canada are treated with a reasonable degree of equity and fairness.
No wonder we have the anger and frustration that we have in different parts of the country. I say to the government: "You brought it on yourself".


An hon. member:: They are waiting for this legislation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This kind of legislation will increase the anger and frustration.


An hon. member:: It sure will.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I haven't any farmers in my riding who have told me they are waiting for this. I have not had a single one and I have been out to see them.
Why did the government mess around with it in the first place?

March 20, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Regina has put forward a very convincing argument at third reading. We are on the amendment to the six month hoist so there could be a number of other speakers.
I would like to ask the hon. member what he thought of the arrangement last July when the federal and provincial ministers got together and carved up the pie in Prince Albert with no fanners being there.
The Minister of Agriculture likes to say: "Oh, there was great agreement on all this. We all agreed to it." When you check it out, P.E.I. did not like it. New Brunswick did not like it. British Columbia did not like it and Ontario did not like it. The formula left in Bill C-48 is the formula that Quebec and Newfoundland have used for years. Quebec has a special way of adjusting it so it becomes a three-way split anyway.
I am wondering if the hon. member really believes that the farmers had any input into this. Was it just a case of the federal government using its muscle power and twisting some arms to get some support from the three prairie provinces because they are waiting on their drought assistance with the farmers not being there?
What you have is a deal of two partners carving up the pie on the basis of a drought assistance payment with the feds saving themselves 25 per cent or 50 per cent of their previous costs and the farmers being left to hang out to dry and faced with 50 per cent of the costs and the federal-provincial government reducing their costs. I wonder what the hon. member thinks of that kind of a deal with the partner who will pay the biggest chunk of the premium in the future not being at the table?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his question. His point about carving up the pie in Prince Albert is just another classic example of the wheeling and dealing going on among some premiers and the federal government.
In some cases the premiers have been nothing more than suckers. They allowed themselves to be suckered in on this one in the hope that they could get another drought payment and they would not have to lose any more federal programs or have them reduced. They thought they were being statesman-like and diplomatic
by agreeing to pay higher costs on this program in order to get some money for something else. It is the only thing to which I can attribute it, either that or outstanding stupidity on the part of certain provinces.
The bill before the House right now is similar. I do not understand why the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. are not raising hell about losing the at and east rates which means $40 million so that they can mill flour and have grain terminals in Halifax and Saint John. That legislation will doom all three of those operations. It will finish them. We heard not a word from the premiers of those three provinces. Similarly, the premiers in the three prairie provinces blocked this nonsense.


An hon. member:: It is not the Ontario farmers.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not know of any farm organizations and I just checked with our critic on agriculture.


An hon. member:: I will send you a list.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Send me a list and I will predict who they are. It is not the co-operative organizations. It is not the National Farmers Union but I can predict who it is, all the ones that do not farm; All the ones that do not farm such as the chemical producers. They think it is a good idea.
They are destroying the intent of the legislation, the practice of crop insurance premiums which farmers could pay. If this legislation had provisions in it when prices went up farmers paid more and the government a little less.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 1.31 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.31 p.m., the House took recess.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
[Stage Direction]


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, between 1885 and 1923 Canada collected a head tax of as much as $500 per person from Chinese immigrants either for the reason that they came from
March 20, 1990

China or because they were racially Chinese-we're not exactly sure which.
However, we are sure that our predecessors in this House of Commons were morally wrong in imposing such a tax.
For Canadians, part of the legacy of this discriminatory legislation, which carried on until 1947, is an obligation to admit the moral wrong and learn from our history, and to provide redress to those materially harmed.
This legacy also includes a diminishing number of lonely old men who paid the tax but could not bring their families, leaving them alone in their new homeland. To these men, this House owes an acknowledgement, an apology and repayment of the tax, however token or symbolic that may be. To all Canadian society, including those of Chinese origin, we owe a mechanism for redress to manifest our collective awareness and our national coming of age in a multiracial world.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I am here to emphasize to our colleagues in the House and to the country at large that British Columbia is a haven for many people who move there from the rest of Canada; thousands of people are migrating to British Columbia, and for very good reason.
Today we are announcing that spring has already arrived in British Columbia. While on the one hand people go to British Columbia, to places like Whistler to enjoy skiing, just a few minutes away, a few miles down the road, we are already enjoying the balmy spring weather.
So since spring has arrived, we want the rest of the country to know that spring in Canada always begins in British Columbia. It is the first place to which it comes. British Columbia is a great place to visit and even greater place to live. The flowers that have been distributed to all members in the House today are a symbol of spring having arrived in British Columbia.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, a few months ago the immigration commission and minister planned to deport two refugee claimants, Simon Mwindi and Abdilahi Hantoosh, back to Kenya. Outbreaks of government violence in Kenya rightly prompted the minister to stay the deportations. Again she recently ordered them deported as of today, but after phone calls, telegrams and a demonstration in front of her constituency office, she again stayed these deportations. Yet she seems unwilling to consider Kenya a repressive, refugee producing country.
However, the truth is that demonstrators in Kenya have been killed, wounded or arrested by the military of President Arap Moi. On March 1, Moi banned all demonstrations, announcing: "From now on, the government will not allow demonstrations of any kind in the country".
I urge the minister to place a moratorium on all deportations to Kenya and consider landing these refugee claimants on humanitarian grounds. After all, even the Canadian government that has banned free speech within 50 metres of Parliament ought not to send Kenyans to likely prison or death.


CATHOLIC CLERGY
Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the head of the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II, announced the appointment of Monsignor Maurice Couture as Archbishop of Quebec City. The new primate of the Church in Canada is a man of great dedication who has always been very much aware of the needs of the least advantaged in our society. A communicator and a man of commitment, this member of the Order of Saint Vincent de Paul has always been very involved in working with young people, both in the "patros" and in education, the latter as director and founder of the Saint-Augustin Seminary near Quebec City.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the appointment of this man of action as head of the oldest diocese in North America,

March 20, 1990
and I wish Monsignor Couture every success in serving over one million Catholics in the 273 parishes of his diocese.
My best wishes also go to newly appointed archbishops Monsignor Jean-Claude Ibrcotte of Montreal, Monsignor Aloysius Ambrozic of Toronto and to Monsignor Pierre Morrissette, the new bishop of Baie Comeau.
I wish Cardinals Louis-Albert Vachon, Paul Gregoire and Emmett Carter a happy and peaceful retirement.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture gave unanimous approval to a motion I presented concerning the National Film Board.
The motion briefly states that "in view of the significant contribution of the NFB to the artistic and cultural life of this country, and as a tribute to its international acclaim during the past 50 years-the chairman be instructed to write to Canada's national air carriers, Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, to screen National Film Board productions."
I find it incredible that NFB productions can win nine Oscars and be heralded for its excellence around the world, and yet Canadians do not seem to have maximum access to this quality here at home.
Look at it this way, Mr. Speaker. If you were on the same plane that was transporting the Grey Cup or the Stanley Cup, would you not want to get a look at these national treasures that we are so proud of?
In my view, the NFB along with other Canadian film producers, turn out quality treasures which can and should be seen on Canada's airlines, not only within our boundaries, but everywhere we fly around the world.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Henri Eugene Duguay and Mrs.
Albertine Leger who organized a public meeting in Shediac, attended by several hundred fishermen and individuals involved in the fisheries industry. These people from southeast New Brunswick came to meet government authorities and talk about their concerns about the industry.
I listened carefully, together with New Brunswick Minister of Fisheries Denis Lozier, who had come especially to listen to these people. It is too bad, Mr. Speaker, that the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who was absent, was unable to see for himself the willingness of all these people to find a solution to the present crisis before it becomes an unmitigated disaster.

Representatives from different communities voiced their concerns about the uncertain situation of the lobster and herring industries. Fishermen have offered very positive elements for solutions, but it was stated very clearly that action must be taken in the very near future. The province of New Brunswick has taken some action, but the federal government is dragging its feet.

Very shortly, I intend to table in the House a petition with 2,800 signatures which I was given during this meeting.

1990 TITLE OF EXCELLENCE


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, the Association des femmes de carriere du Quebec metropolitan annually sponsors the Title of Excellence Award, and 1990 is the seventh consecutive year. The main purpose of the award is to acknowledge the impact and professional standards of women on the labour market in the greater Quebec City area.
As chairman of the jury, I would like to congratulate all finalists. In the executive category: Joceline Gros-Louis, director of the Lorettteville native friendship centre; Gabrielle Lapointe, director of administrative services of the Nouvelle-Beauce school board in Sainte-Marie de Beauce; and the winner in this category, Jacinthe Blackburn, Mayor of Baie Saint-Paul.
March 20, 1990

In the business category, the winner is Michele Beaulieu, owner of Alimentation des Quatre-cantons in Lac Beauport, and the other finalists were Ghislaine Lambert, president of Voyages Lambert and Reine St-Onge, president and director general of the Optometrists Clinic Reine St-Onge in Levis.
Award winners and finalists reflect the energy, courage and determination typical of all women in the Quebec City area, in Quebec and across Canada, to whom I wish to pay tribute today.
What has been achieved in the last 20 or 30 years on the labour market and in our communities proves that women are increasingly taking advantage of the choices and opportunities they are offered, and in Quebec, 1990 is a particularly important year because it marks the 50th anniversary of women's suffrage. I say, three cheers for all Canadian women!


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, this government has no commitment to supporting social programs. During elections or when in opposition, the Tories pretend to care about the sick, the poor, the aged and the young. But as soon as they get their hands on the levers of power, the disadvantaged are immediately sacrificed to the interests of the rich and powerful.
When in opposition in 1982, in this House the Minister of Finance reproached then Minister of Finance Allan MacEachen for his attack on health and education spending. The Minister of Finance wept crocodile tears over the "risk of major cutbacks in medical care and post-secondary education"-to use his words, as a result of Mr. MacEachen's savage cuts to the provinces.
Now the Minister of Finance is making the biggest cut to social programs in the history of Canada. The effect of his cuts to health and post-secondary education in 1986 and 1989 will be to cut $24 billion by 1994-95. The effect of the latest vicious cuts announced in the infamous budget of 1990 will cut an additional $7.3 billion by 1995-96. The total of the cuts is the equivalent of all the federal money spent on health and education for two years running.
The Minister of Finance is the Pontius Pilate of medicare. By washing his hands of responsibility he is signalling to right wing governments across the country that they can slash medicare, hospital insurance and privatize universities with no threat of reprisals from the federal government.
The Minister of Finance has signalled his intention to pull the teeth from the Canada Health Act and refuse to enforce its provisions setting out minimal standards and hospital insurance. This government must be thrown out of office before they destroy-


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, upon taking power, the Prime Minister went to work on the constitutional problem which threatened to worsen the isolation of Quebec brought about by the Trudeau-Chretien-La-londe gang in 1981.
With the premiers of all the provinces and the support of Robert Bourassa, in the spring of 1987 the Prime Minister achieved a real reconciliation, but the opponents of Meech, by spreading disinformation, have managed to stir up anti-Meech feeling among the people.
The accord in its present form fully respects anglophones' rights, meets Quebec's minimal demands and ensures constitutional peace.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Canadians to adopt a better attitude. Let the debate on this be calm, tolerant and moderate. I rely on reason.
What Trudeau and Chretien are now saying is an insult to the intelligence of Quebecers and Canadians. They are bringing about a growing intolerance in English Canada.
As a Quebecer from the Beauce, I am humiliated. Will Quebecers forever deserve the contempt of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his followers?


THE LATE DALTON MCGUINTY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sorrow and that of the community of

March 20, 1990
Oral Questions
Ottawa South at the death of our member of the provincial Parliament, Dalton McGuinty Sr.
Dalton's service to the community is well documented: trustee and vice chair of the Ottawa Board of Education, executive administrator of the Terry Fox Humanitarian Award and MPP. Indeed, he did Ottawa proud.
A man of strong convictions, Dalton's success was in part due to his ability to look at the world and himself with a sense of humour. He enjoyed life and made life enjoyable for those who knew him.
Dalton set out his approach to politics in an essay he sent to me not long ago: "The politician as a Reflector or Beacon". He said: "The reflector view maintains that the politician merely reflects the consensus view of those around, regardless of his or her personal views. The politician as beacon considers the views of others, and looks to his or her own understanding and the dictates of conscience within. With a clear conscience, the only just reward. Let the votes fall where they may".
Dalton described himself as the beacon, and it is clear that people respected him for it.
To Dalton's wife Elizabeth, their 10 children, and the McGuinty family, our deepest sympathy.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party continues to stand with the overwhelming number of Canadians who oppose this government's goods and service tax.
Yesterday, members of the House saw a feeble attempt by the Minister of Finance to undermine the unprecedented success of last week's anti-GST hotline organized by the Liberal party which received calls from more than 70,000 Canadian households calling in their opposition to the goods and service tax.
In response to a planted question-and a poor one at that-from the member for Halton-Peel, the Minister of Finance gushed as he told the House that since last August his toll free GST line had received about 100,000 calls from Canadians questioning the tax. After spending tonnes and tonnes and tonnes of taxpayers' money in promoting his hotline, the Minister of Finance has only received an average of about 400 calls a day. He cannot
even tell us if one of those callers supported this unfair tax.
On the other hand, the Liberal hotline which people had to pay to use because we have not abused taxpayers' money on this side, got over 10,000 per day with every caller opposed to the goods and service tax.
Today, I issue a challenge to the Minister of Finance: be brave, be responsible, be fair. Set up a 1-800 service that will give all Canadians a chance to vote either for or against the GST. The Minister of Finance may then finally see the error of his ways, do the right thing, and axe this tax.


STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, last night I did something I thought I would never do. I slept with a Tory.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: In fact, I spent the night with a whole committee of them.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it was not a pretty sight. Between winkin', blinkin', and Blenkie and snoring Dorin, I can only conclude that there is no happy ending to a bedtime Tory.
My Liberal colleagues, young as they are, did no better. They woke up to find themselves in the compromising position of having no position at all.
But, Mr. Speaker, what I really want to put on record is, though I slept with these Tories, it was the taxpayers who learned that love certainly means never having to say you're Tory. All in all, it was a very taxing experience.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. I want to ask him about the unacceptable regulations the government proclaimed in force on March 14 dealing with demonstrators within 50 metres of the Parliament Buildings.
March 20, 1990

Oral Questions
Why did the government not follow its own regulatoiy policy and allow 60 days for public comment before bringing these regulations into effect? Why did the government fail to follow its own policy before it proclaimed these regulations to be in force?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, these regulations came as a result of a request from an all-party committee, of which he was a member, asking the Department of Public Works to bring in regulations under the Public Works Nuisance Regulations.
In fact, that was done. It was no secret. For two weeks, these regulations were promulgated. They had been reported in the media. The hon. member, or any other member of this House, had an opportunity to object to them.
The only thing that was done by the government was to respond positively to a unanimous request from the hon. member and the member for Kamloops-Shuswap to introduce such regulations. I find it rather surprising that the hon. Leader of the Opposition should now say that those regulations which he asked for are somehow improper.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the record the House Leader placed in Hansard yesterday shows that the members of the Board of Commissioners of Internal Economy did not agree to the specific regulations. They were never shown the regulations before they came into effect.
This is demonstrated by the letter from the Speaker which states in part:
The Board discussed the possibility of designating specific areas on Parliament Hill where demonstrations could take place.
The Speaker's letter went on to say:
It is not the intention of the Board to limit access to Parliament Hill by the public-
I want to specifically ask the government House Leader why, before proclaiming these regulations in effect, not only did the government not follow its own regulatory policy of allowing 60 days for public comment, but instead consulted with the Secretary of State state ceremonial, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Department of Justice and Public Works Canada, but not the House of Commons and the Senate.
Why, at least, did the government not consult through the usual and accepted channels with the House of Commons and the Senate before proclaiming these specific regulations in force? Why can he not give us a straight answer to these questions?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, all this preceded my membership on the Board of Internal Economy, but I am told by my colleague who is a member now and who was a member then that all of this was done through the Board of Internal Economy.
The regulations in question do not restrict anybody's access to Parliament Hill. If the hon. member reads the regulations and what was requested, namely, that "No person shall participate in a demonstration, march or other public gathering upon any public work, except in areas specifically designated for such purposes", he will know that what was in fact requested was much more restrictive than the ultimate regulations which state that you can demonstrate anywhere on Parliament Hill, except there must be a clear area of 50 metres at entrances so that people are free of being pestered and allowed to enter.
My colleague, the minister responsible for regulations, says he had no indication of concern from any member of this House. Even though they have known about these regulations, they chose not to comment on them. I wonder why now.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the minister in charge of regulatory reform could expect to get comments from anybody if the government did not first publish the draft regulations in the Canada Gazette and give people a chance to comment.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the government did not follow its own policy calling for prior notice to enable the public to comment on such regulations. Also the government consulted several government departments but not the House of Commons and Senate before putting those regulations into effect.

For that reason, and because of the concern in the House of Commons and across the country about the possible impact on the rights of members and of the public of these regulations, I ask the minister if today the government will withdraw these regulations and enter

March 20, 1990
Oral Questions
into consultation with the House of Commons and Senate, through the usual and accepted channels, as a way to deal with this matter which is consistent with the rights and privileges of members and of Canadians generally?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the government has done nothing but respond to a unanimous request from an all-party committee, of which the hon. member was a member, and he is asking now whether in fact the government will unilaterally amend these regulations for which he asked.
I would remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that, in fact, it was his point of privilege in which he stated that he was not able to access the House of Commons because of demonstrators at the front of the Parliament Buildings that led the Board of Internal Economy to reach this unanimous conclusion.
I find it surprising that he should now resort to what he thinks is a politically opportune time to score political tricks.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister forgets that my question of privilege was about how I was limited in access to the Parliament Buildings in my work as a member of Parliament.
I want to ask the minister, by what type of strange Tory double-think and double-talk could he say that a regulation making it possibly illegal for members of Parliament to have access to the grounds of the Parliament Buildings could be a response to my concern about broader rights for members of Parliament?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition did not have time to write out his question so I will forgive his misspeaking it.
To suggest that somehow these regulations prevent a member of Parliament from accessing Parliament Hill is absurd. The hon. Leader of the Opposition raised a pornt of privilege saying that demonstrators prevented him from accessing the House of Commons. That matter was referred to a committee of this House. It was in part
because of that concern that the Board of Internal Economy, of which the hon. member is a member, unanimously asked for these regulations. The Board of Internal Economy can ask for amendments but that is where this should happen. The hon. Leader of the Opposition should not go back on his word this way.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I certainly stand by the decision taken by the board, which was not a decision for these specific regulations and we were never shown the regulations.
I specifically want to ask the government House Leader, when the regulations state that "no person shall engage in any of the following activities", how can he say that these regulations do not apply to members of Parliament? They apply to members of Parliament surely from the wording itself.
Therefore, I ask the minister again, will he withdraw the regulations until this matter can be gone into further through the accepted channels in the House or the Senate? If he is concerned about the freedoms of members and the public, then why will he not do this? Certainly, it is a perfectly clear, logical and simple request.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, of course the regulations apply to every citizen. Not even members of Parliament are above the law. But the Leader of the Opposition should examine the "blues". What he said earlier is that the regulations prevent members of Parliament from accessing the House of Commons and that is simply not true. They do no such thing.
As to the question of whether in fact the government would respond favourably to another decision from the Board of Internal Economy, they generally do, and of course they will. The decision that is now in place was a result of a unanimous request from the Board of Internal Economy.
If the hon. member, for political opportunistic reasons, now wants to reconsider his decision of last November 22, well so be it. Let us do it through the proper channels.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, let us make it perfectly clear that the Board of Internal
March 20, 1990

Economy has never, ever seen the regulations that were introduced by Order in Council by this government-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops will put his question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of fine words in the last little while from this government about how wonderful it is that the people of eastern Europe have thrown off the chains of oppression. Yet yesterday in front of the Parliament of Canada, that belongs to the people of Canada not the Tory government, we saw a priest, who was standing in a silent vigil, dragged away by police.
Since these people are simply exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, I am asking the government House Leader if he would now do the honourable thing, since he did it in secret, he did it behind closed doors, he did not alert his own caucus, and admit that this is a government initiative and withdraw this initiative.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I read into the record, as reported at page 9468 of Hansard, that the regulations in place were as a result of a letter from yourself, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Board of Internal Economy which, on November 22 by way of minutes, which I also read into the record, and the House Leader of the New Democratic Party was there, unanimously asked that Mr. Speaker write a letter asking for regulations under the Public Works Nuisance Regulations that would in fact provide freedom from harassment and freedom from obstruction for all persons accessing the House of Commons.
The House Leader of the New Democratic Party comes back from two weeks in England and declares himself surprised that what he asked for has been implemented.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as the government Whip clearly indicated in this House yesterday, the purpose of the legislation was to allow emergency vehicles access. That was the Board of Internal Economy's concern, that emergency vehicles did not have access.
Oral Questions
Was the priest who was arrested by the police yesterday, jailed overnight and in court this morning, obstructing emergency vehicles from accessing the House of Commons?


Mr. Nystrom:: Arresting a priest, come on!


An hon. member:: Answer that.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I read Beauchesne's, the hon. member just asked me for a legal opinion. All I can say, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: All I can say is to repeat-


Nelson Andrew Riis: What a phoney.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, all I can-


An hon. member:: Where is Doug Lewis when you need him?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I had indicated yesterday, in response to the House Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Ottawa-Vanier, that I would certainly think it would be appropriate for this matter to be brought back to the Board of Internal Economy for reconsideration. I will repeat that today to the hon. member. I would make one request and that is that this time if the hon. House Leader of the New Democratic Party agrees to something he keeps his word.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, needless to say I will be rising on a question of privilege at the end of Question Period.
I want to refer to the regulations which read that a peace officer or the minister can now walk out in front of Parliament and within a 50-metre radius decide which protester, which member of Parliament handing out literature, which child making loud disruptive noises, perhaps crying, or what person demonstrating with a sign can be requested to leave and, if he or she does not leave, he or she will be arrested.
Yesterday the police or the minister requested that two protesters outside be arrested and jailed. After Question Period, when some of us as members of Parliament will be standing out in that same 50-metre radius and handing out literature in contravention of this

March 20, 1990
Oral Questions
regulation, will the minister be out there asking for our arrest and for our jailing?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, not this minister, not any minister of this government, asked for anybody to be arrested and jailed. Regulations were promulgated in keeping with a request from an all-party committee of this House, including the hon. member.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are all lying again.


Harvie Andre: Those regulations, according to law, are to be enforced by the RCMR The RCMP enforced those regulations, as I understand it. If the hon. member does not like the regulations or does not like the RCMP being on Parliament Hill-


Mr. Barrett:: You're liars.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sudbury.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance for a little change of pace.
Canadian consumers will be hard hit by this government's proposal to tax with the GST such essential commodities as hydro and home heating fuels.
Yesterday Ontario Hydro announced that its rates will rise by well over 12 per cent next year, in large part as a result of the proposed GST.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Duhamel:: It is really funny, a 12 per cent increase!


Diane Marleau: Whether you think it is funny or not, this is the equivalent of an extra month's payment. Instead of 12 payments a year, it is like having 13 payments on the electrical bill for every household in Canada.
How can the minister justify asking Canadians to pay so much more on such basic human necessities as heat and light?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the hon. member that there is tax now in her hydro bill. There is federal sales tax today
in the hydro bill as a result of the fact that there are elements Ontario Hydro used which are subject to federal sales tax.
The hon. member is saying not to tax electricity. The impact of that is that those people in this country who have a large house heated by electricity will get the biggest tax benefit compared to someone who has a small house that is also heated by electricity. She is telling us to give a tax benefit to those people who live in the largest houses because they are the larger users of electricity.
What we have suggested is to tax the product and then give the low income earners the benefit of the GST credit, which is a cheque paid four times a year that will offset the impact of the GST. In fact families earning less than $30,000 will be in a better position than they are today. We believe that is a much fairer way of treating the question.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, this is a shocking answer. We do not want the tax at all.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Diane Marleau: What this latest 12 per cent Ontario Hydro revelation leads us to believe is that Canadians will be far worse off with GST, especially those of more moderate means.
Does the minister not consider heat and light just as essential as food, and is not this just another reason to scrap this tax?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are going to scrap a tax. It is called the existing federal sales tax which is a tax that is hurting low income people, particularly in relation and in comparison to the proposed goods and services tax.
If my hon. friend is saying we should exempt electricity or exempt heating fuel and give the biggest benefit to those people who live in the biggest houses, which are the biggest users of heating oil and electricity, and not provide the low income people with a GST credit, I do not know where her measure of fairness is. Why does she want to give the biggest tax break to the people who own the biggest houses and take away the GST credit, that cheque that goes to low income people which make the GST a fair sales tax? Where is her sense of fairness?
March 20, 1990


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works.
Yesterday the Federal Court ruled that the government acted unfairly when it recommended choosing the second highest bid to accommodate the data centre for the goods and services tax.
Will the minister explain to the House today why the government chose to award the contract to the second highest rather than to the lowest qualified bidder?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I was not here yesterday for my colleague's question. I can simply point out to him that I have not had a chance as yet to read Mr. Justice Strayer's decision, but as far as the criteria are concerned I understand from my officials that there were factors taken into account such as security, working conditions, and quantifying the value of the premises. This process, as my colleague who is the official critic knows, is completely transparent. Any of the bidders who are curious can find out all the criteria by simply consulting with the department.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell this House whether or not negotiations have taken place with any of the four bidders prior to putting out the formal tender call?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. There may well have been.
I can assure my colleague that I noted with interest his suggestion that the government take a look at economizing and using existing premises. I will inquire as to the answer he wishes. I have no knowledge of what negotiations went on, if any.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Chairman of the Finance Committee presented a motion to end the discussion on the GST.
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, many people would like to give their opinion on this tax. Closing off the discussion is unacceptable. How will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that these people can continue to discuss this crucial matter?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate thing about last night is that there were witnesses waiting to be heard, anxious to be heard and could not be heard because of the obstructionist tactics of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: You denied them the opportunity. You didn't want them there.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is not new. This has happened before. What these tactics fail to take into account is the fact that we have had a debate on the goods and services tax which started with the release of the White Paper on tax reform in June 1987.
We had consultations and discussions with people in the private sector, with provinces, with various groups interested in this issue. It was discussed many times during the election campaign. It was the subject of extensive hearings in the fall by the finance committee.
We believe that the time has come when actions and decisions should be taken. We have had nearly three years of discussion on the goods and services tax and the whole proposal for sales tax reform.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Canadians do not want this tax. Canadians want to be heard about this tax. The government continues to refuse to listen to Canadians. The committee did not travel to all provinces. The New Democratic Party is simply saying: listen to Canadians.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister again: Will he show that this government is prepared to listen to Canadians and ensure Canadians that he will not invoke closure either in the committee or in this House so that Canadians can have full discussion of the goods and services tax and present their alternatives as we have done as a party?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that Canadians want to be heard. They have been heard. We have listened very carefully to what Canadians have said about sales tax reform. We have made a number of changes to the sales

March 20, 1990
Oral Questions
tax proposal which specifically take into account recommendations that Canadians have made directly to us as a government and through the finance committee. Again we have made adjustments to the sales tax proposal that take into account what Canadians have said.
After nearly three years of discussing this issue I believe that Canadians are owed a decision on this matter. We believe that it is important to get on with the business of government. What the finance committee chairman was doing last night was trying to get some agreement from the finance committee whereby we could have an understanding of how effectively we could get this legislation back to Parliament. Unfortunately, those discussions were not allowed to continue because of the obstructionist tactics of the New Democratic Party.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the numerous requests by various producer groups including the Ontario Com Producers' Association, the wheat producers, the prairie pools and the Premier of Saskatchewan, for financial aid to assist the farmers to plant their crops this year, will the Minister of Agriculture tell us today what help will be forthcoming from the government for this purpose?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that would help enormously is if the hon. member would appeal to his colleagues and to his NDP friends to get the crop insurance bill through. It would certainly help very much.
As I indicated to the House yesterday, we have the report of the monitoring review committee that was set up in December. We are looking at it. As we meet in the House of Commons right now the federal deputy minister is meeting with his provincial counterparts and discussing this very important issue.
I can assure the hon. member that we are working on it. It will be a joint federal response with the provinces being involved in the design. Hopefully it will be targeted. It will be flexible and because it is a multi-faceted problem we hope that it can be designed in such a way as to address the multi-faceted situation. Of course the program will be comprehensive and flexible.
I want to assure the hon. member that this is an issue that is going to require shared responsibility and we are working at it on that basis.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister forgave a $182 million debt for the Commonwealth Caribbean countries. Will the Minister of Agriculture commit his government now to a similar forgiveness of debt and an immediate moratorium of debt repayment and interest for our Canadian farmers as provided for in section ll(l)(e) of the Farm Credit Corporation Act.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the farm debt review board process has been very effective in dealing with this important issue. I think it is also important to note that hon. members make representations about the level of farm bankruptcies. I point out to the House that we reached a high in farm bankruptcies in 1983-84.
Under the Liberal regime farm bankruptcies across Canada approached about 550 on an annual basis. We have progressively brought it down to about 300, which is still too high but certainly demonstrates very clearly that it is the policies of this government that have worked and are removing some of the very difficult problems inflicted by the government of which he was a member.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and it concerns the amendments she proposed to the refugee backlog system.
According to the changes announced today, refugee claimants may now be considered according to such factors as separation of family members, employment, long-term residency, social integration, or whether they have had children raised or bom in this country.
March 20, 1990

Why did it take her government a year and a half to implement the very requests that were made by virtually everyone some 15 months ago? How long will it now take to clear the backlog under the new criteria?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the backlog will be cleared within the time frame that we originally established for it, and I have explained this to the hon. member on any number of occasions. It will be done within the budget that was originally allotted for it.
The guidelines were altered to meet the requests of Mr. Justice Jerome because it did not alter the principle that we had established of humanitarian and compassionate considerations and a credible basis review to determine refugee status as opposed to immigration status.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, as we speak today, the minister knows full well that the government is $100 million over budget and nine months behind her proposal. I think Canadians were interested in knowing the threshold from here on.
I should like to direct my supplementary to the same minister. Given the fact that many claimants have either been denied or deported under the old criteria, will the minister guarantee that those who have been denied or deported will receive a second full hearing in Canada under the new criteria?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as I outlined this morning, those who have already left Canada, who have voluntarily departed or have been deported, will get the benefit of a full humanitarian and compassionate review in our overseas posts, which is perfectly appropriate since we have people there who are perfectly qualified to give them under the same guidelines.


AGRICULTURE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday's Speech from the Throne in Saskatchewan reads in part:
Oral Questions
My government has received a commitment from the Government
of Canada that financial assistance will be provided to farmers for
spring seeding.
Will there be a direct cash payment of at least $500 million in the hands of farmers by mid-April?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House earlier, at this very moment the deputy ministers are meeting, addressing this situation, and reviewing the report of the crop review monitoring committee.
As I have indicated to the House on previous occasions, we would be trying to work out a joint federal-provincial program with the provinces involved in the design to meet the difficulties experienced in western Canada and indeed in other parts of the country.
The hon. member will just have to wait and be a little patient. I think he should take a lot of comfort in the fact that work is going on and progress is being made.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the same Speech from the Throne also indicated:
Ottawa has also agreed to establish a mechanism to help
counteract the international grain subsidy wars.
Does the minister now have a cabinet commitment of at least $1 billion to counteract the price effect of the grain subsidy wars on Canadian farmers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might ask the hon. member how he came up with the calculation of a $1 billion loss as a result of the grain war. If he could give me those figures, perhaps I would take them into consideration.


SPACE PROGRAM
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for Science.
The regional plan for the space agency included a regional distribution objective for spending with approximately 10 per cent identified for Atlantic Canada. To date, only a small portion of that has gone to Atlantic Canada.

March 20, 1990
Oral Questions
Is the objective still 10 per cent for Atlantic Canada, and will the agency work with the aerospace industry in Atlantic Canada to ensure that the maximum benefit is achieved?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure my colleague that the regional distribution of space agency contracts is very much a part of this government's policy. We have to realize that historically the space industry in Canada, in essence, developed somewhat unevenly across the country.
There may be a lag in terms of when we reach those distributions, but I can assure the hon. member that it is and will remain this government's policy that we work with the space industry itself to ensure that all regions of the country receive a benefit and the real benefit from the whole space program.


AGRICULTURE
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. On February 15, Canadian producers were to get a higher price for industrial milk. It seems the government changed the formula used previously to establish the value of inherited farms in Quebec, so that the increase was cancelled, despite a substantial increase in operating costs over the past year. Why did the government change the way it calculates costs for producers and why this discrimination against industrial milk producers in Canada and more specifically in Quebec?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to correct some of the figures quoted by the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel. If this year we had followed the usual procedure for setting the price of industrial milk, it would have meant a reduction of about $1.34, and after lengthy discussions, the Minister of Agriculture, the other interested parties and myself reached the conclusion that since we have a task force representing all interested parties, something unheard of under the Liberals, it was preferable to consult those concerned. Thus, we have a task force in which industry, producers, and all people involved in the dairy sector are represented and which is now working on
a report within the next few months that will help us decide on a formula that is agreeable to all parties. We have decided to maintain the price at its present level instead of letting it go down, which was very good news for Canadian milk producers.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer was long and belaboured, while the situation is actually quite simple.
Industrial milk producers have clearly established that their costs have gone up by 2.8 per cent, and that as a result, prices should go up accordingly.
If the minister needs outside experts to justify his poor decision-making and his government's bad policies, I would simply ask him to review this decision which, I think, was probably not made in Ottawa, but perhaps in Geneva or Washington, and give industrial milk producers what they deserve.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, this government doesn't need any long and belaboured advice from the opposition, which left the industrial milk question on the back burner for more than five years. Five years before we came to power, Canadian milk producers didn't know the meaning of a long-term dairy policy, Mr. Speaker. This government introduced a long-term dairy policy, which we have promised to extend, but we will do that in consultation with farm producers and all the people in the industry, Mr. Speaker.
We don't need the advice of the previous Liberal government which had simply encouraged farmers to object. What we are now seeing, as the hon. member ought to know, is that farm producers-


NATIVE PROGRAMS
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The minister is responsible for developing procedures to implement the new business policy announced in the budget which will, with some limited exceptions, eliminate grants to business and make more financial contributions repayable.


March 20, 1990

Applying this policy to aboriginal business would seriously set back aboriginal economic development. Will the government assure aboriginal people and communities today that the government remains committed to increasing aboriginal participation in the national economy and will not subject aboriginal businesses to a greater financial burden?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. colleague that the police designed to ensure that the business community repays contributions and grants paid to it by the government is a policy that is flexible and one that will certainly take into account the needs of aboriginal people, the needs of poorer regions of the country, and the needs of regions that are far north or particularly in difficulty.
The terms and conditions of the policy which will be approved by Treasury Board in the coming weeks will certainly reflect that intention.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: That was nice to hear, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary question is for the same minister.
The government's own aboriginal economic development strategy recognizes that aboriginal people continue to be the most disadvantaged group within Canadian society and that most aboriginal communities and individuals lack the financial resources to start up even the smallest enterprises.
Given the continuing socio-economic disparities faced by aboriginal people, will the minister agree to exempt all aboriginal economic development programs in all departments from the application of this policy? Will he make these exemptions?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with some of the issues my colleague just raised.
The policy clearly exempts all grants and contributions of less than $100,000. There is another feature in the policy that the minister responsible for a program, be it in one department or another, can make an exception to the other rules.
From the point of view of flexibility, all the flexibility is built into the regulations, and I am sure we are going to be able to meet his concerns.


Mr. Speaker:: A single question, the hon. member for North Island-Powell River.
Privilege


EXILED INUIT
Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it involves the high Arctic exiled Inuit who were forcibly removed from northern Quebec to Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord. The Inuit make claims of wrong-doing, forcible confinement, slave labour, rape, and theft.
Will the government formally apologize to these high Arctic exiled Inuit? Will the government acknowledge their role in the protection of Canadian sovereignty in the north? Will the government compensate these Canadians for the abuse and wrong-doing inflicted upon them by the RCMP and the government of Canada?


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the government is very sensitive to the concerns of the people from Inukjuak. In the 1980s, for example, when they mentioned that they would like to go back to their homeland, the government made $250,000 available to move them back and also provided 10 houses to ensure that they had comfortable quarters in which to live.
We are very concerned about these people and we will continue to consider their interests and their concerns.


PRIVILEGE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege based on the comments made by my hon. friend the government House Leader who, being unable to react to the substantive aspects of any argument, had to resort to personal attacks on myself by saying that I was being dishonest.


Mr. McDermid:: What did you call us?


Nelson Andrew Riis: For the record I want to be veiy careful. The accusation was that I was aware, because of my participation in the work of the Board of Internal Economy, that the regulations that prohibit individuals from making any loud noises in front of Parliament, from demonstrating alone or with other persons with or without a sign, from participating in any demonstration, from distributing any literature or documents, now can be approached by a police officer or by the minister and asked to remove themselves to an area 50 meters away from the doorway

March 20,1990
Privilege
and that if they fail to do that they would be subject to arrest.
I want to say very clearly that those regulations were news to me until they were brought to my attention by the media.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops has indicated that the minister said that he was dishonest. I do not know whether those were exactly the words used but, in any event, the hon. member for Kamloops raises that and I suppose is asking that whatever it was the minister said, if that was the imputation, be withdrawn. That is the single point I am here to decide, not to reargue what has already been argued extensively.
If the hon. member has a record of the alleged statement I would want to hear that. Otherwise I might have to wait until the "blues" are available and ask hon. members to address me further on the matter.
That is the single point I need to know on this application.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention and I will examine the "blues". Maybe there was some other term and perhaps "dishonest" was not the exact phrase. But the fact is that it reflects on my ability as a member of Parliament. That was the point on which I was rising in terms of what that would mean to my constituents if that were to go unchallenged.
I appreciate your point, Mr. Speaker. I will examine the "blues" and if that were the case I will certainly be asking my hon. friend and colleague, as House Leader, to withdraw this particular term.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the co-operation of the hon. member for Kamloops. I think that is the proper way to proceed. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants on a point of privilege.


DEMONSTRATION
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I tried to catch your eye during Question Period. I appreciate the difficulties involved in that. Also, I was not on any list, so that makes the difficulties even more difficult.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that if I had caught your eye I was going to ask a question of the House Leader about the present situation on this demonstration regulation that came out of the blue, as far as most members are concerned. If I go outside now and identify myself with some of those lined up ready-to-be political martyrs, am I also infringing on the rules and regulations of this House so that my effort as a member is impeded?
The question that I was going to ask the House Leader, Mr. Speaker, if I had caught your eye was to make sure, in view of the confusion and/or the misunderstanding about this regulation, that the House Leader took it upon himself as the House Leader can do to make sure that he instructs his officials not to implement that regulation any further until this matter is clarified.
That was the question I had wanted to ask, which I could not ask. Therefore I ask you, as the Speaker of this House, if I go outside am I infringing on the rules of this House and/or do I find myself in violation of something that I do not know anything about, and frankly did not make any contribution to?


Harvie Andre: I will respond briefly, Mr. Speaker. Part of the question the hon. member was going to ask was whether I would ask my officials to stop something. My officials are not enforcing any regulation whatsoever. No officials of any minister are enforcing anything. The RCMP are enforcing regulations which were brought in at the request of the all-party Board of Internal Economy.
We have heard the discussion and the suggestion of the House Leader of the Liberal Party to have the Board of Internal Economy consider this matter again, which I agreed yesterday was the most appropriate, reasonable way. In the meantime, you may get on national television if you go out there and behave like those other members of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to call on the hon. member for Saint-Denis in a moment, who usually makes a helpful contribution to this place.
It might be helpful, given the feeling that has been shown on this particular issue, especially given the suggestion that seems to come from the Official Opposi-
March 20, 1990

tion and some indication from the minister that he would be prepared to consider it, that some conversations take place on both sides of the House.
The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants has posed a question to the Chair, one which I do not think it is appropriate for me to try to answer at the moment because the question is hypothetical. However, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants has been in this House for many years and has also made a suggestion which might be helpful. I would hope that his representations have been listened to. I do want to hear a very experienced member and colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Denis.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for introducing me that way. I hope that you will not change your opinion when I finish my presentation.
I must admit that when we are stuck with a problem we have to cool off. I have myself cooled off since yesterday. I received a phone call last night saying that I blamed the RCMP. To put the record straight, I am not blaming the RCMP. If they think that is their job, and probably it is their job, they have to enforce any law. So let us put the record straight, I am not here to blame the RCMP.
Second, I will even, to the shock of some, say that I am not here to blame the Minister of Public Works if he was asked to do certain research and to put forward a proposal. I am here to ask some guidance. It is well known that for 26 years now, soon 27, when I see people on the Hill most of the time I go to them first and see what is bothering them.
I want to know because when people take the time to demonstrate it is because there must be something wrong. Sometimes after looking and reading-I do not make comments. I do not insult people-I say that I do not think they have a good cause or, in my judgment, and I may be wrong, I say they have a good cause and I look into it. I have been doing that for 27 years.
I even wave to all the cameras because I know they are directly connected to the RCMP, and there are more cameras than ever on the Hill. If you want to know where they are just look on top of every building. There are two on the Peace Tower, one on my building, one on the East Block and one on top of the Langevin building. All of your pictures are taken by these cameras. I always
Privilege
tell those who come to demonstrate to give a good smile because their picture will be taken. I resent that, to be frank.
But when you go in the Senate now, if you scratch your nose someone is going to look at you. If you are interested, go and take a look for yourself.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, you are not going to put us through that in our House or in our buildings. If you go with me, people will say: "I saw the Speaker with Marcel". In the Senate now there are cameras on the sixth floor, fifth floor, fourth floor, third floor and at the entrance. Maybe they do not like us and they want to know who among the commoners goes to visit them. But anyway, that is the case.
I am a little bit worried about that. There is more and more security. We cut everything in the budget but we give $35 million more to this so-called James Bond organization that I opposed under Trudeau and I still oppose. I opposed that under Trudeau and I still oppose the creation of that service. We should have left it to the RCMP. I am still opposed today.
I am worried about this multiplication. I think we could resolve this by looking into it again. I will give you an example. I got this document in English yesterday because I was quick in getting the document. I learned two new words, "ingress" and "egress". It sounds like something in French that I will not mention, but I did not know what they meant.


Some hon. members:: Oh, Oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: Genuinely, I didn't know what they meant. I asked my colleague, Madam Mitchell, so I waited for the French translation.
I have to ask you something, Mr. Speaker, as our guide and as our servant of the House. We always take guidance from you. We may exaggerate a little bit. We may push too much without explaining. But I wish someone would tell me what this means: "Parliament Hill, Public Works Act, Regulation, Amendment put to me by the State Ceremonial, Parliament Hill, under the Schedule, subtitle, "Parliament Hill".
10.1 (b) demonstrating, alone or with other persons, with or without a sign, or participating in any demonstration;
I can imagine one of the gentlemen who was arrested yesterday coming back here with the thousands of kids in the summer who like to see the Prime Minister or the ministers coming out of the building. There are always

March 20, 1990
Privilege
lots of people watching us leaving. I do not know what they are watching us for but they do like to look at us.
I am not trying to suggest to the gentleman who was arrested yesterday what he should do tomorrow, but if it is helpful to him I hope he will listen. If he is there on the sidewalk alone with no sign, but just smiles and waves to everybody that he is annoyed at, is he going to be arrested?
I will say only that. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but I know your patience is coming to an end, and you are absolutely right. You know I will respect your guidance.
We are stuck with a problem and I would like this problem to be looked into again to see how we can depoliticize these great champions of human rights and political freedom, and all that when we know there is a little bit of political game-playing going on. We all know that.
I will act according to your guidance, Mr. Speaker, but I wish very much that you will take what I have said into strong consideration to see if we have not acted a little too promptly. My father always told me to make proposals and suggestions. Even if it is not acceptable, I will make one.
Maybe the whole matter should be returned to the Board of Internal Economy and it, having listened to everybody, will make some proposals. These proposals should go to the caucuses. If members are absent from caucus or the caucuses have not consulted, that is just too bad. After that, when you are satisfied, you say that these are the new rules on the Hill. This is urgent. Hon. members know that on April 24, my friends from the Armenian community will be coming to the Hill, as they have for 25 years. I would not like to see them in trouble because they do not know about this and they will not know exactly where to walk and where not to walk, and so on.
So I am in your hands, and I know we are in competent hands. It is a difficult cause to solve, but I would hope my colleagues will try to help out in depoliticizing- that is a tough word-

to depoliticize this issue so that we can come up with something intelligent.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding my notice to you about three hours ago, I was not going to rise on my point of privilege because it had been indicated to me about an hour ago by the Thble officers that my question of privilege would not be in order because it related to yesterday's incident in front of the House of Commons. But in the last 15 minutes all the talk has been about the incident of yesterday in front of the House of Commons.
I do not want to go on too long. I just want to say a couple of things. I think that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants has raised a very good question. I think there should be guidelines given to us immediately by the government so that not only MPs but the general public know where we stand.
Is this new regulation going to be enforced? Are we liable to be arrested if we go out and do something that is contrary to the regulation? I think it is incumbent upon the government to tell us exactly where we stand. I also think that my colleague from the Liberal Party who spoke just a few moments ago makes a very good suggestion that this matter go back to the Board of Internal Economy and that it be rehashed and brought to the caucuses so that once and for all the matter can be settled.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank hon. members for their interventions. We have all heard what has been said. There seem to be some helpful suggestions here and, as I suggested earlier, perhaps some appropriate discussions should take place. Again, I thank hon. members for their approach and for their helpfulness.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, as you probably are aware from reading Hansard, I was involved in the incident yesterday for which I think the legal term, in police words, is "occurrence". As you are probably also aware from reading Hansard I was having a conversation, as a member of Parliament, with a citizen. It was during that process that this harassment took place.
I have been asked to appear in court on Friday and I am not sure, as a member of Parliament, about the propriety of it. I have not been subpoenaed. I am a willing witness in this case. But there is much confusion about this regulation which, I understand, is a regulatory reform. There is a citizens' code here that requires a pre-publication in the Canada Gazette, if I understand
March 20, 1990

correctly, of 60 days. The 60 days' notice has not been given, as far as I am concerned or as far as I have knowledge of it. It looks as if the government has dispensed with this. I am not sure, as a member of Parliament, where I stand at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could meet with me in my chambers in a few minutes. I probably could give the hon. member some assistance.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-56, an act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
John Horton McDermid: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


John Horton McDermid: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, certainly I would like to speak on this bill. The bill itself, I believe, is an important part of a very important small part of where I think that the government should go in the area of small business.
The bill would extend at the present time the Small Business Loans Act for a further three years to ensure that certain loan guarantees of the government for the banks are insured for the small business community. That in itself is advantageous from that perspective. I would certainly like to see this bill passed by March 31 to
Government Orders
ensure that those small businesses that are affected will be able to have their loans guaranteed and proceed.
We must look at not only this legislation but at what this government has done for the small business community over the past some years. We see in its last two budget years there were cuts to the Federal Business Development Bank of some $13 million last year, and $18.5 million this year. We have seen shutdowns of rural post offices, which are of major assistance to small business. In small communities people come in to the post offices to visit, to talk to each other and extend out into the community, purchasing within the business community, doing their business in town.
We also see the high interest rate policies of this government. We know that this affects a great many small business people because they do not know from day to day what their expenses are going to be for interest rates. The uncertainty of being in business is bad enough without having the added worry of these excessively high interest rates that the government, quite frankly, can control somewhat, but which it has chosen to let rise at the expense of the small business community.
What else have we seen this government do? Last year in particular, but as well as this year, we have seen cuts in the tourism budget. Much of the tourism in British Columbia in particular and in Canada in general is run by the small business community. In our experience in British Columbia we have seen the rates of tourism increase as the government expended money to advertise tourism. We know that government intervention and government expenditures on advertising assist tourism and the small business community.
But what has this government done? It chose to cut back, again at the expense of the small business community and tourism. That is reflected, I would suggest, in lower tourism rates throughout most of Canada with the exception of those provinces that have put in major inputs into advertising tourism.
What else is there? The small business community does not seem to get the same tax breaks that large corporations get. We question why. Is it not important to Canada, I suggest to the Minister of State for Privatization, that the small business community is an integral part of the economy of Canada and should be treated as

March 20, 1990
Government Orders
such? We are asking a minimum tax on large coipora-tions, on profitable corporations. We are asking-if you pay attention, if the minister pays attention-


John Horton McDermid: Check your facts.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Profitable corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. Everybody in Canada should pay their fair share, including the minister. Unfortunately the minister does not really know too many policies. He does not even know the policies of his own government. As a matter of fact he got our page so upset that like him she spilled something just like he spills forth with stuff about which he knows nothing. That is exactly what happened here.
I would suggest further to the minister and to the Speaker that the small fishing community is again a small business community. What has the government done for that community? Perhaps we should ask what has the government done to that community? It seems that on the west coast and on the east coast we have a further destruction of the small business community for the fisherpeople. I would say that that again is unfair.
We also see a mass of bureaucracy and red tape for the small business community. These poor people who are trying to start up firms, often small businesses consisting from one up to five people, have to go to lawyers to get interpretations of all of the mass of red tape in order to get loans and start operations, with the added expense of the borrowing. That appears to be what this government has done to and for small business.
What do we propose for small business? We have to ensure that banks provide more loans to small business at the same rates as those given to the large corporations. We should establish in government a more aggressive "Buy Canada'' program which includes government contracts and is targeted to the small business community enterprises. This is how we can give a little hope to some of the small business community.
In the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt I have tried to ensure that the small business people there are aware of the government contracts that they can perhaps bid on. But the process is so complex and complicated. They go on a waiting list for over a year and they become frustrated.
Those who do succeed in getting some of those bits and pieces of contracts find that they have to wait from 60 to 90 days often to get paid for what services and goods they have supplied. We must streamline the process within government to ensure that we are geared to helping small business. The government should consider the small business community when making its purchases.
We should further provide risk and venture capital for small businesses. We should provide greater opportunities for women to establish small businesses, including the commitment by the banks to treat women in an equal manner. I have spoken a number of times in debate on small business bills and small business motions about the unfairness to the women in the business community when they deal with banks. I will not go into it in great detail at this time, but I want to show you, Madam Speaker, that in spite of strides that have been made by the banking community, and perhaps even by the various governments across Canada, women are still not looked on with equality in the small business community.
Further, we should identify areas in which small business could expand in order to meet consumer demands now covered by imports. We should provide small businesses with relevant financial marketing and management assistance through a federal one-stop shopping centre to be organized in conjunction with local business communities. I think this is a key to what we should be looking at for the small business community.
What we run into constantly as lawyers in communities, as advisers to the small business community and as members of Parliament fielding questions of the business community is that these people do not know where to go for assistance. They do not know where to turn. They do not know how to go about getting where they want to go through the bureaucracy, federally, provincially, or whatever. There should be offered to these people a one-stop shopping area where they can get the advice they need. They could pick up the brochures they need, as well as the forms they need in order to apply for various grants and programs. They could get advice there, something which they now do through case counselling in the Federal Business Development Bank. Everything should be in one location to assist the small entrepreneur who wants desperately to make it on his or her own in the
March 20, 1990

business world, to be their own boss, but with some chance of success.
What we see so often in the business community is people with a germ of an idea. They know where they want to go and what they want to accomplish. Unfortunately, they do not know what hoops they have to jump through in order to meet those ends and aspirations successfully. Often, they are unable to calculate a budget properly. Sometimes they have a lot of difficulty with the various rules and regulations set out by government bodies. I suggest that they be given that place to go to get some ideas, to get some basic training in business in terms of how to succeed in business, a place to look for contributions and grants, a place to go to put together their financial packages and to learn how to properly budget. All of these things could be offered in this service centre.
Further, I suggest that the Federal Business Development Bank should be reformed to refocus its activities on small business, especially those most in need. I spoke about this in a motion which was accepted by all sides of this House. I suggested in that motion that the Federal Business Development Bank should be made more relevant to small businesses as opposed to the large or medium sized businesses. Although not all business groups feel that the Federal Business Development Bank is the route to go, it seems that it is the one tool that can be used successfully to ensure a successful small business community, one that thrives.
I further suggest that we direct the Canada Patent Development Corporation to work with small businesses to help them patent new innovations and to market those patents world wide. It is particularly the case in small communities, as I am sure it is in larger communities in Canada, that people with ideas, inventions and interesting innovations do not know where to turn in order to have these successfully produced and patented and to have their inventions successfully protected. We have a lot of expertise within Canada and a lot of people with a lot of good ideas. They do not have the education to know which steps to go through. Often, one of the problems is they do not have the financial backing. They cannot afford to employ a patent lawyer to give them the advice that they require. We have to look at that area in assisting our small business community to expand.
Government Orders
I remind the House that in the last 10 years 70 per cent of the employment created within Canada was created by the small business community. The profits made by these small businesses are usually turned back into the businesses, therefore turned back into Canada in assisting Canada grow and Canadians prosper. We must ensure that this small business community is encouraged, is nurtured and is assured success into the future.
I would further suggest that the tax system be changed to make severance pay tax exempt and to allow the tax-free use of registered retirement savings plans where they are used to start up a new small business. It is not a new idea, but something I suggest could be looked at to encourage the way of the future for Canada. Such a provision would encourage these people who have tucked away some money through one method or another to be able to invest in their idea for the future and to create their niche within Canada's small business community.
I would suggest, as I did earlier, that we immediately move away from the high interest rate policies that we have at the present time. These are very destructive to the small business community.
Last, but certainly not least, in my list of suggestions for this government is that it must now listen to the over 80 per cent of Canadians, and the almost unanimous decision of the small business community, that it must get rid of this goods and services tax. It cannot continue with its jackboot attitudes toward democracy by what is going on in this House through closure, time allocation and by what has been going on in the finance committee over the last couple of days. The government majority in that committee is trying to stop free debate on a tax change so massive that it will cut the legs out from under the small business community when it needs the help the most.
What has been going on in that committee and what has happened in the House since I have been here is scandalous, to say the least. The government has simply said: "We do not want to hear you as Canadians. We do not want to hear you. We will take your briefs, we will not necessarily read them. We do not want to travel to your region of the country. We do not want you to know what we are doing and we do not want you to speak to the committee. We are restricting the ability of Canadians to appear before the finance committee. We are restricting the ability of your members of Parliament as your spokespersons to speak in committees and in Parliament". I say shame on the government for all of

March 20,1990
Government Orders
those 23 or 24 times that it has brought in time allocation and closure since November 21 of last year. This is the type of thing that shows the disdain this government has, and in particular the minister responsible for privatization, for small business and the average person out there on the street.
We do not need this kind of thing that we are getting from this minister who is a loudmouth with very little content. We need something with a little bit of substance. We need the opportunity to be heard as Canadians. We do not have that.
We do not need the gags that are being put on members of Parliament and members of the public as a result of what is going on in the finance committee. We in my party will not let that happen. We believe in the people of Canada. We believe in democracy. We do not believe in the jackboot tactics of this government.


An hon. member:: You do not know what democracy is.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Certainly the member does not know what democracy is since he is a member of the side that is putting the gag on. I say that these members should be ashamed of themselves.


John Horton McDermid: Did you hear what the Quebec farmers said about the NDP last night?


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, if the member knew how to read, he would also tell the House a little more about the reaction of Canada to the shameless tactics of this government in trying to muzzle Canadians. There is no excuse for that type of thing in a democratic society, in a world that is expanding into democracy in eastern Europe. While we are putting up with this government, democracy is being expanded on other sides of the world. It is unbelievable that members of the government can sit there and laugh about it as the minister responsible for privatization is doing, while they carry on shamelessly with their tactics of shutting people in Canada up without giving them the opportunity of speaking up and being heard by the government.
A habit this government got into is one of never listening. It says: "We can hear you". But it does not. It does not know how to listen. It says: "Yes, you can put in your briefs and we will pay attention". But does it? No, it does not. It brings in closure so we do not have the opportunity of ensuring that the people of Canada are heard.
Let us move on to the small business community. Although I do not necessarily agree with every one of these tenets, I think it is fair to set out some of what the Federal Business Development Bank has asked this government to look at with respect to small business. It said that over the last two years there has been a decline in the actual number of new and existing borrowers. There has been a decline in the average dollar value of loans from $163,000 in 1987 to $155,000 in 1988. In 1988, more than 80 per cent of all funds for loans and guarantees were in the over $100,000 category. To put it differently, 3,306 firms or individuals received loans or guarantees in the under $100,000 category, for a grand total of $147 million.
At the same time, those larger firms receiving funds in the $100,000 plus bracket consumed a grand total of $714 million, or more than 80 percent of the $862 million in funds authorized.
In the finance minister's 1989 budget, it is noted, as I have noted before, that he cut $13 million from the Federal Business Development Bank management services. He has cut a further $18.5 million in his new budget from the Federal Business Development Bank budget.
The Federal Business Development Bank is suggesting that it is time to advance from what is all too often a program on interest subsidy for business and a welfare program for the banks to a loan guarantee system funded by users, the banks and government operating at market rates. It further feels that the present loan guarantee system should be changed to eliminate existing distortions by moving to market rates, plus a 1 per cent guarantee fee. The enhanced profitability of the Small Business Loans Act-loans at market rates-would allow banks to end the practice of securing personal collateral in addition to the loan guarantee.

March 20, 1990

The present practice of triple-dipping, which I have spoken about in the past, by securing loans with government, business and personal collateral should be terminated as a result of moving to market rates.
It further states that consideration should be given to a requirement that banks share in the cost of the 1 per cent guarantee fee given that the banks would be the beneficiary of the market rates. I think that is something that definitely should be looked at.
The FBDB states that chartered banks should take on a greater sharing of the risk through an adjustment of the loss ratio, especially in those regions of the country which enjoy economic prosperity and growth.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business recommends that the present 85-15 risk sharing arrangement be adjusted to 80-20 or to 70-30 in areas of economic prosperity. The Small Business Loans Act, it states, could be adjusted to reflect different regional economic circumstances to the risk-sharing ratio by introducing a 90-10 formula. This regional sensitive Small Business Loans Act Program could then be promoted by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Western Diversification Office.
It goes on to tell us that moving away from a system based on grants to one of loan guarantees of government would remove the market-place distortions created by advantaging certain companies in the market area. It states that a system based on loan guarantees would also be less countervailable in the Canada-U.S. free trade context.
Finally, it suggests that the present limit of $100,000 on loan guarantees, which has been in place since 1980, incidentally, should be increased to $250,000. It notes that the guaranteed loan programs available to the independent business community in the U.S. has a $500,000 limit.
I think the last one is a reasonable request, that there be an increase in the lower end from $100,000 to at least $250,000. It is not too bad if we consider the upper limits. Certainly, since 1980 we have seen a substantial increase in the cost of living and interest rates which have fluctuated up and down since that time.
Given those situations over the past 10 years, it seems to me, without doubt, that those limits should be raised.
Government Orders
As suggested by the Federation of Independent Business, $250,000 seems to be reasonable.
Let me move on to some of what the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has suggested for women entrepreneurs. In its 1988 report, it made nine initial recommendations for aiding women entrepreneurs. Although these are not necessarily all adopt-able by my party, we have to look at them in the context of where we want to go in encouraging the small business community under the Small Business Loans Act, the Federal Business Development Act and other legislation.
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women tell us that it should obtain the funding and resources required, the longitudinal research, on female entrepreneurship throughout Canada. There should be set up a national information centre on female entrepreneurship in order to develop and maintain a data bank containing recent, up-to-date information on business women and their activities.
Second, the advisory council urges governments and financial sponsors to produce documents and information designed for aspiring women entrepreneurs and elementary school children. I think that is a route that we should look at, an expansion into areas that perhaps have not been looked at before. It is interesting to note in reading statistics and in reading some of the material on women entrepreneurs that what it appears happens is that in the male-dominated business world men have a tendency to look and decide that they want to get into one particular area. They then move with that idea into trying to create a market. They often use borrowed money in order to do so. Whereas the statistics seem to show us that the woman entrepreneur recognizes a need and moves in to fill that need and because of the difficulty in borrowing money often uses her own money in getting to where she wants to go in the small business field.
Statistics also show us that women are more successful. In other words, they have fewer business failures than do men in the small business field.
If we take that as a given, it seems to me that in moving toward equality in all things in this country that we should be encouraging women entrepreneurs

March 20, 1990
Government Orders
through initiatives such as those set out by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
Their third recommendation is to find a mass means of teaching entrepreneurship other than colleges and universities, another building block, if you will, that fits in with my other discussion.
The fourth recommendation is to allocate budgets to develop teaching materials with greater emphasis on female entrepreneurship, to find ways to encourage the creation of women entrepreneur associations, a method by which women can talk to women about successes and failures and where they want to go in developing equality within the business community.
Fifth, the council suggests encouraging universities, financial institutions and governments to carry out longitudinal research on evolution of women-owned businesses, the rate of return, market share and financial structure.
Sixth, it suggests establishing university chairs mandated to develop women entrepreneurship and business incubator projects.
Seventh, it suggests that ways be found to offer aspiring women entrepreneurs free or subsidized services relating to business incorporation and all other services required to start up their business activity effectively.
Eighth, provincial departments responsible for industry, trade and export should be interested in organizing female entrepreneurship bureaus within their system in order to encourage women to create businesses and to provide them with the support they need to develop then-enterprises.
Finally, the advisory council suggests that we continue to make bankers, accountants, lawyers and consultants aware of the trust women entrepreneurs place in them and to provide them with useful, up-to-date information on female entrepreneurship in Canada.
If we proceed with many of these recommendations I believe that we would have a much more solid base on which to build our small business community into the future, not just depending on the male-oriented sector but with equality, encouragement and education from school time through to adulthood. Through doing this we could harbour the entrepreneurship attitude in our
young. I think we can succeed in getting where we want to go without selling out to multinational corporations and without seeing our resources taken away in dividends and payments to out-of-country corporations.
I would like to turn for a minute to the farmer as a small business person. I think we often forget not only here in this House but in everyday life that the farmer is in fact as much a part of the small business community as is the grocer, the accountant, the small town lawyer, the small manufacturer or retailer. The farmer has the same problems that all business people in concert have.
The farmer must take in inventory, juggle it, sell it and look after everything in between from the purchase of seeds or stock through to the sale of the final product, as does a manufacturer, a wholesaler or a retailer.
The farmer is often forgotten. As we look at some of these suggestions I have set out, in the over-all concept of the successful small business community or entrepreneur in Canada, we have to ensure that what we do in this House to ensure that the small business community is successful is disseminate that information and give encouragement within the farming community. This would give those in that community the same opportunities as all others to have their accounting and computer training, all of the small business training that I spoke about within the one-shop concept.
Farmers, in order to be successful in agriculture, must also be successful in business. It is not good enough, as it was in the past, for farmers to be able to grow products in the field. They must now be effective and efficient. They must have the means in order to do that.
The farmer runs into the same problems that many small business people run into. They do not know where to go to get this information. They do not have the means or the time to get out and find it. The concept again of the one-stop shop would be of benefit to them. If set up across Canada it should be set up in farming communities to give farmers the assistance they require.
In closing, I want to take one last shot at the government for the fact that it is now going to saddle the small business community with the administration of this onerous goods and services tax. The small business community is just rising after the terrible recession of the early 1980s. Although they may have done a little better
March 20, 1990

in the Golden Triangle of central Canada, in the regions of Atlantic Canada, western Canada and British Columbia, they are just starting to reach some of the levels reached in eastern Canada a year and one-half or two years ago. Business is starting to pick up a little bit. But interest rates are causing a lot of difficulties. Now, in 1991, with the turnaround appearing on the horizon, fanners have to deal with the goods and services tax.
In going through the various communities of Grand Forks and Midway near Penticton, Summerland, Merritt and Princeton, I spoke to members of the small business community. Unfortunately, there have been a couple who have simply said: "We do not need the hassle of more book work", even though the government has told them it will be simple. They have read through the government publications. A number of them have already said: "We are getting out while the getting is good. We are going to go back and try to find a job working for an hourly wage instead of creating employment within our communities".
I spoke to one restaurateur who owns three restaurants in and around Penticton, British Columbia. That gentleman said that with the amount of taxes through municipal taxes, school taxes, provincial taxes and federal taxes presently levied on him and with the added goods and services tax he has already got rid of one of his restaurants. He said that he is on the edge and may not be able to survive with his catering business and his other restaurants. It is unfortunate. That man creates a lot of employment within the city of Penticton and the region.
Small shops in Grand Forks have told me the same thing. They are having difficulty as a result of the perception of the free trade agreement, and as a result of what is happening with the goods and service tax and the perception of what is going to happen as a result of the goods and service tax. Those communities in my riding that lie along the borders are constantly running into further problems with the leakage of business into the United States.
One of the grocery retailers told me that over the American Thanksgiving weekend approximately 15,000 turkeys were purchased in the United States and brought
Government Orders
back to Canada. Another grocer told me that at Christmas this year, as a result of those sales, his sales dropped. Prior to this, even against the American lower prices, he used to sell something like 1,200 to 1,500 turkeys before Christmas. This past year he sold just under 150 turkeys. This is the type of thing that we are running into.
Although the taxes are not on groceries, as such, under the goods and service tax, there are constantly more and more people turning to the United States for their purchases. They feel that they can buy it cheaper and still pay the taxes as they come across the border. This is something that has to be looked at to protect the small business community, while encouraging entrepreneurship in Canada.
I agree with the concept of increasing the Small Businesses Loans Act for a further three years. As I have suggested over the past few minutes, I think the government should be encouraged by the small business community to look deeper into where we want to go and how we want to encourage the small business community to develop employment opportunities for the future of Canada. I feel strongly that the small business community is the route of the future for Canada. It will keep Canada competitive within itself and on the international markets.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, I must first of all apologize for not being here when the motion was presented; I was at the "marathon" sitting of the finance committee. It is customary to have a few minutes' notice, but unfortunately it was not given soon enough and so I do apologize to the House that I was not here to speak first for the Official Opposition.
This afternoon we have before us a bill to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act. I must make another comment, that on second reading, the minister did not deign to give us new policies to deal with the problems facing small business today. I was not here, but I was told that the government gave no answer on third reading and many organizations are wondering whether there is a minister looking after small business who speaks on behalf of the government, who has a voice in this government, who represents small business in this government. Canada has over a million small businesses.

March 20, 1990
Government Orders
When the GST bill was being considered, we were told that there were 1.2 million enterprises in Canada, of which 90 per cent are small businesses, and the Minister of National Revenue told us that there are now 1.6 million, an increase of 400,000 over the previous estimate.
In the present debate on the GST, when noticing the absence of the Minister of State for Small Businesses, one can not help wondering, Madam Speaker, if this government has ever understood or if it really intends do something for small business. I do not want to dwell on the subjet, but I wish to offer the government, which is apparently bankrupt of ideas, a few positive ideas concerning the modem small business. To prove my point when I say that this govemement does not understand the small business, simply turn to page 8 of the goodlooking brochure entitled "Information for small businesses", which must have cost a lot to produce. There is the proof that the government does not understand the first thing about small business. The cash book shown on that page is confusing because, according to the law, the tax will be payable at the time of billing, while in the brochure the tax is payable at the time of collection. That is to say that the law is stating one thing and the Department of Finance another. We must sympathize with the Canadian entrepreneurs who have to spend a lot of time trying to figure it all out while earning their living and that of their families.
I would like to come back to Bill C-56 which is before us today for third reading, an act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act. Madam Speaker, everybody in Canada agrees to say that small businesses are underfunded. The only real financing program to assist small businesses happens to be the one governed by the law we are amending here this afternoon. Yet, the number and volume of such loans have been reduced by 50 per cent in the past five years. In 1985, the first time this Tory government introduced a Bill to amend this legislation, Madam Speaker, we were really concerned and we mounted a rather virulent attack against it, because we felt rather strongly at the time that the amendments aimed at reducing to 85 per cent the government's guarantee, as well as the 1 per cent cost for obtaining the loan, would proportionally reduce access to the program.
In fact, those are not our figures, but those of the department. The annual report clearly demonstrates a significant reduction the first year this legislation was amended in 1985, that is to say, as soon of the guarantee was reduced and as soon as 1 per cent of the total loan was used to cover the loan registration costs.
Madam Speaker, this is not a figment of my imagination, but data which were confirmed by the department responsible for the operation of this program when I raised the issue in committee, and I should like to quote from the transcript of that meeting.

I have a transcript from the legislative committee on this bill. I asked the person in the government responsible for this program why 50 per cent of the activities of this program have been reduced since the first major amendment proposed by the Conservative government in 1985. Even though we vigorously opposed it, the government went ahead with it. We told them then that it would reduce the activity. This is the only program for small business. When I talk about small business, I mean real small business. Small businesses had access. That program was reduced by 50 per cent, not because people do not need money.
We know, and everyone agrees, that the small business sector is underfunded and the program was not available. We had a guarantee of 100 per cent and it was reduced to 85 per cent. We know the banks are not non-profit organizations. The banks are there, and God knows that for every dollar it gives it wants $2 of guarantees. Therefore, it automatically reduces access to that program for starters; young people, women, anyone who wants to start a small business and did not have enough experience in business or collateral to satisfy the bank. On top of that the small business has to pay 1 per cent of the total loan so the government could have insurance to cover any future loss.
All those amendments reduced the activity of the program today to 50 per cent. What I am saying is not an invention. It was confirmed in the legislative committee when amendments to this bill were discussed. I would like to quote for the record what Mr. Juelich said:
March 20, 1990

-the first time, the registration fee and the loss-sharing per loan of 85-15 and it was stated during discussions of the bill by Minister Bissonnette at the time that it was anticipated that because of those changes-
-and I repeat-
-because of those changes there would be a reduction-
There was an anticipation of a reduction in the numbers of dollars. We saw that for the first time in the first year following the introduction in the fiscal year 1985-86.
It was not an accident. The government did not think it was good and would create more loans and more business. It knew when it presented those amendments that it was depriving Canadians access to this program, which is the only program that really works. It has less bureaucracy, it is being managed by the financial institutions. There is no government bureaucracy involved. It is simple and everybody understands it. But because the government made such fundamental changes, the program is almost useless, because in five years there was 50 per cent less in dollar terms and in the number of loans. I think this is a disgrace. This is a government that gives a lot of lip service to small business but when it comes to doing something, it does the opposite to what small business needs.

At the beginning, Madam Speaker, I said that I was anxious to put forward several positive ideas about what could be done today to help this most important area of our economy which creates the greatest number of jobs. The fact is that over the past five years, I have been looking into small businesses and, as a Member of Parliament, I have carried out several consultations and travelled throughout this country. At the time, following all these consultations, I had divided the role played by the federal government in this area into four main components. First of all, information. We have here in Canada approximately 560 different programs either federal, provincial or municipal to help small businesses. The great number and complexity of these programs are a source of bewilderment for business people who do not know where to go to obtain all the relevant information to apply for and obtain assistance under these programs.
In 1984, the Federal Business Development Bank announced a program called Aide in French and Aim in English. The purpose of this program was to enter in a
Government Orders
computer all the assistance, information and consultation programs directed as small businesses to make them more accessible to people. This was a pilot project, and instead of encouraging this program-of course, this project could have been improved upon by being made more readily available, by making it an information tool for small businesses. The government decided otherwise and completely cut off its assistance to the Federal Bank; although it is still there today it is only for reference purposes and practically speaking, it no longer exists. Therefore, that phase has long disappeared and is now part of the history of the Federal Business Development Bank.
For instance, without really creating a bureaucratic network, the Government could have provided a service. But it would not have been enough, in view of the fact the offices of the Federal Business Development Bank are only located in major centres but the government could have used the services of the various boards of trade. It could have made arrangements with municipal development corporations and other organizations representing small businesses.
Within all these programs, it could have included all markets and statistical data provided by Statistics Canada to provide essential information which small businessmen need to operate a business.
This reminds me of the man who wanted to open a pastry shop and who, while passing through a commercial street, noticed a recently opened pastry shop with a long line of customers waiting to buy cakes and loaves of bread. He said to himself: "This is a fine place where I could open a second pastry shop." Therefore, without investigating whether there were enough potential customers for two identical businesses to survive, the guy went ahead. He found a store close by and opened his shop after spending a huge amount of money. After six months, he realized that both pastry shops could not survive and that one of them would have to close for lack of customers.
If this man have been able to check the federal census and all relevant statistical data, or if he had been able to contact a development board or a chamber of commerce within his community, he would have had access to all the management tools necessary to make the proper decision as to whether this was the right kind of business to get into and the right location.

March 20, 1990
Government Orders
Therefore, an information centre-

Madam Speaker, I called it in my small business task force report a one-stop shopping centre for small business. You have everything in one place.
I had the pleasure and the honour of travelling across Canada. For example, I went to British Columbia and spoke to small chambers of commerce. For them that program would have been beautiful, just a small PC computer. They could have been hooked up very easily and it would not have been expensive. It is not an expensive program. The chamber of commerce would have contributed to the development of small business and the economic development of the region they serve.
Even though the FBDB started the program AIM, a pilot project which I said from the beginning was not the answer, but at least that was going in the right direction. The program went down the drain because of lack of funds.
Small businesses need information and commercialization. Today, we see a minimal number of small businesses involved with exporting to other countries. It is a sector that creates a lot of jobs. It is a sector that is easy to adjust. It can change very easily because it is small. It does not make boardroom decisions. Usually you make decisions on the spot. It can adjust easily and be competitive in the market.
In order to export products, we need good marketing. We have offices all over the world, in our embassies and so on. But no one looks after small business. Therefore, that sector is missing a big part of the action. We need programs to help.
There again, we do not have to create new things. We have embassies and consulates. We should have people who just look after small business, people who understand the problems of small business. Small business cannot have just one product with big orders. We have to service products and have different small business groups to try to compete in a foreign market. Any Canadian embassy or consulate can talk to big business. When it comes to small businesses, they are lost because they have nothing.
I understand that it is easy to deal with a big contract worth millions of dollars. It looks good in the books and the annual report. Perhaps we should take more time for
small businesses. The big million dollar amount will not be there in the beginning, but in the long run it will be.
Think about how many jobs we would create if we encouraged the small business sector to export service and goods. We do not have to take lessons from anyone when it comes to products. We have good Canadian products. We need some marketing. We should help our Canadian small businesses in marketing, giving assistance, help and information on the foreign markets. If we had such a program specifically for small business, I think we could create more businesses by young people coming out of university with new ideas. They would create new products and services and be there to challenge the new markets of tomorrow.
Year after year, the government has cut those vital programs, those few programs that exist. The government might think that small business has a lot of help but really the only federal program is the Small Businesses Loans Act. It has been reduced by 50 per cent in the past five years. There is nothing left. The budget of the FBDB has been cut practically every year and the orientation is moving toward medium sized business. What do we do for small business? Imagine when January 1 comes and the government applies this madness of the GST. What will happen to them? Already John Bulloch has predicted that 50 per cent of small business in the food sector is at risk of closing because of the complexity of the GST.
The government has in small business loans a maximum of $100,000. Today, if you want to open a store, what do you do? Just think of the fact that $100,000 is the maximum allowed, and one has to put up 20 per cent. The rule is that the government will finance a small business for 80 per cent. In certain cases, it is 90 per cent, but they are veiy few. The majority is 80 per cent. In order to get $100,000, one has to have a project worth $120,000. That is the maximum. Where can you go with that? Most people have nowhere to go.
Small business is asking that instead of having changing monthly payments which fluctuate with the interest rate, why not have an option? It might cost a little extra because it has to have a fixed interest rate and, therefore, the fluctuation might be different. The small business may be ready to pay that little extra in its cash flow planning. Sometimes they do not know how to manage their cash flow, but we are not helping them to manage their cash flow with this program. They do not have the option of saying: "Look, this is my loan. I started with $600 a month and I want to finish with $600.
March 20, 1990

I know that every month I have a payment of $600 until the end in five or seven years."

I see, Madam Speaker, that my time is up. I still have so much to say. I am sorry because if I had been here and if I had been told in advance, I would have had illimited time to address this issue. However you are giving me the signal that my time is up but I do think tradition has been lost here today.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I think if we really want to help small businesses, now is the time to put partisanship aside and to stop talking and start acting.
Nowadays, I like to express my ideas. Of course, if we had been elected in 1988, we would already be enjoying all this because it was part of our platform. Instead of increasing the tax burden and the redtape, as the GST will do, thus creating a nightmare for our small businesses, the govemement could make the fiscal system much simpler and easier for them with financing programs, for example. There could be loans, but also capital stock to help young people, not to mention women who play quite a part in our economy. So, you will forgive me if I focus on this, but there is so much to be said and I hope we have the opportunity to come back to this issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Before proceeding to the question and comment period, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-Child care; the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Proposed Goods and Services Ihx; the hon. member for Papi-neau-Saint-Michel-Lay-offs.
I simply want to make sure that, in his comments, the hon. member for Saint-Leonard did not question the way the chair recognized members. When the motion was put forward, the only person to rise was the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and I had to recognize him according to the rules. It was not a
Government Orders
matter of changing the usual practices and procedures of the House.
Questions and comments.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Saint-Leonard on a point of order.


Alfonso Gagliano: I only want to say that I have total faith in the Chair who gave me all the time I needed, even a little more than the rules allow, and I thank you for it. I just wanted to tell the government that we get used to things being done a certain way. Since I was at the Finance Committee, with five minutes notice I could have got here in time.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the presentation of the hon. member. I would like to make a comment and ask him to reply.
The comment is interesting. It came from a constituent, in this modem day of parliamentary following and input, by a telephone call and then a fax. The fax today from the constituent reads as follows:
Mr. Prime Minister,
Many happy returns on your birthday, a time to celebrate, reflect and enjoy your accomplishments of the last year. One such accomplishment is the-nuisance regulation-against demonstrating within 50 metres of the Parliament Buildings. Let's enforce it to more than just Kealey-and keep our capital free of demonstrators of all kinds. With this in mind I would ask the Sgt at Arms to arrest and remove you from the House for demonstrating-not only your ignorance of fundamental rights for freedom of expression and peaceful assembly but fiscal responsibility-In Canada -


John Horton McDermid: Relevancy.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, order! The Chair has very much difficulty relating the comments of the hon. member to the speech the hon. member for Saint-Leonard just ended.
We will go to someone who has a relevant comment.


Raymond John Skelly: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.

March 20, 1990
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the hon. member just going to finish reading whatever he was reading?


Raymond John Skelly: No, Madam Speaker, my comment relates to the lack of relevancy to the small businesses bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It will come to that one line? The hon. member.


Raymond John Skelly: The individual involved is, of course, a small business person in the community of Courtenay, British Columbia, one Mr. Lance Vrabek. He puts the question-


An hon. member:: I know Lance, he's an NDPer.


An hon. member:: No, he was a Conservative up until this year.


Raymond John Skelly: -in terms of government expenditures on items such as the small business development bond are the topic of conversation in many places today. The reason that such concern is expressed is that they see how responsible the government is being with the money that is raised by small businesses and consultants such as Mr. Vrabek. He asks why the Prime Minister is continuing to expend tax dollars to pass and enforce nuisance regulations that will be challenged in the courts and cost further money.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I will not reply to the first part of the question because I do not think it has anything to do with small businesses. There will be other places and other times to discuss that. As to the money the government is spending while cutting programs for small businesses, as I said in my speech, that is precisely what is happening since this government has cut almost all programs that existed before it came into office without replacing them with new ones. So this government is cutting, and we are seeing almost the end of those programs since the only one remaining has already been reduced by 50 per cent. I hope a copy of my speech will help him inform his constituent.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I congratulate hon. members for their good and positive
speeches and suggestions. The hon. member spoke about co-operation between the various levels of government: provincial, municipal and federal. I praise him particularly for his comments on the one-stop shop. In the end, what is missing, Madam Speaker? What we could call a Small Business Protection Act, something to protect small businesses, specially in economic matters over which they have no control.

For example, the small business community needs protection and the proper environment to grow. It does not need hand-outs as much as it needs that kind of protection.
I want to ask the hon. member about his comments in term of the goods and services tax affecting the small business community. Can he tell the House what the introduction of the goods and services tax will mean to a small business that pays $1,000 a month in rent for a shop? Can the hon. member also elaborate a little about the question of the interest rate and what the impact on the small business would be in light of the high interest rate at this point in time?
In conclusion, I really enjoyed his presentation.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.
In my experience as a parliamentarian, as a critic for small business and as an accountant before for small business, I want to make it clear that no small business wants a hand-out. That sector is proud and works very hard for the community. When one looks at community organizations, who is there to do the job, contribute and give money, goods and service? It is always the small business sector.
Members of the small business sector want programs that can help them, not by way of giving money but by direction, assistance and knowledge about what markets they can have access to or some financial protection in terms of program assisting or a matching program. Really, we have nothing to help them. I am glad in the House today that we have the new Minister of Science, Industry and Technology who is responsible even though he is a junior minister. I hope he pushes a little as a junior minister to be more active in the small business role in terms of advocacy and programs.
March 20, 1990

Concerning the GST, I think we all agree it is a nightmare and the small business-


John Horton McDermid: No, we don't all agree.


Alfonso Gagliano: Maybe members on the other side do not all agree. When I say that they all agree, I am talking about Canadians.


John Horton McDermid: No, they don't all agree either.


Alfonso Gagliano: I might remind the hon. minister that last week in Small Business magazine 51 per cent of Canadians said scrap the GST, 45 said change it, and only 4 per cent agreed. Only 4 per cent agreed.
When you say you represent small businesses I say shame on you, you do not even listen to them. You know how we feel about the GST. Interest rates are another mess that this government is creating by keeping interest rates very high.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is a minute left on questions. The hon. member.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member for Saint-Leonard on his speech. It was a very constructive one. It showed that he is in touch with the small business community and knows what is going on out there. That is why his speech was so valuable to the House at this time. He gave some very basic examples of what was going on. He talked about the one-stop shopping centre, which is very popular. He even got the front-benchers of the Conservative Party enthralled with his remarks. They just cannot get over it.
He talked about interest rates. We hear from members on the government benches every day about high interest rates and what a terrible problem they inherited with interest rates when they took over government. I want to remind the House today that when this government took over in September 1984 interest rates in Canada stood at 13 per cent. Today interest rates in Canada stand at 14.25 per cent, higher than when they took office. Yet we hear all this screaming over there.
I want to ask a question of the hon. member for Saint-Leonard, who is obviously very well informed on these things. How will 14.25 per cent interest rates, which may go even higher, affect the legislation before us today? Indeed, how will it affect loans for business
Government Orders
improvements for small businesses, combined as they will be with the GST problem they will have to face? Let us keep reminding these people that they took over a 13 per cent interest rate in 1984 and they have succeeded in putting it up to 14.25 per cent and still going higher.


John Horton McDermid: We remember when it was 23 per cent, and so do you. We got them down. You didn't.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: A very short comment from the hon. member for Saint-Leonard.


Alfonso Gagliano: Even if the members are screaming about what the situation was before they came in, I want to remind them that the real interest rate has never been so high in Canadian history.
I mentioned in my speech that every time the interest rate goes up, the payments on small business loans change. They pay it almost on a daily basis, every Monday, and that is why they do not like it and why they are asking for a fixed payment. This government had a chance to fix that in this amendment and it did not do the fair thing, because it does not understand anything about small business.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is as follows: Mr. Hockin, seconded by Mr. Clark (Yellowhead), moved that Bill C-56, an act to amend the Small-


Lynn Hunter: On debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I did ask if
there was anyone for debate and nobody rose.


Lynn Hunter: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There cannot be a point of order once the question is being put. I am sorry.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, a point of order.


Lynn Hunter: Point of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Once the question is being put to the House, which was done, there can be no point of order, there can be no point of privilege. The question has been put to the House.

March 20, 1990
Government Orders


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Over our objections. We did not hear you call "question". We want debate, and you know it.


An hon. member:: Respect the Chair and sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. I did ask for debate. Nobody rose. I said: "Is the House ready for the question", and no one said no; people said yes.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: We said no.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. I started putting the question to the House, then the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands rose. I had already started to put the question. Then the hon. member who rose after could not be recognized because he had already spoken on the bill.
I had started to put the question, therefore there can be no points of order or points of privilege.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Nonsense.


John Horton McDermid: Read the rules.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do not like this remark from the hon. member, because it is not nonsense but the rules of this place, which I did not make and which I try to follow.
I am quite prepared, should there be unanimous consent in this place, to revert to debate and recognize the hon. member if there is unanimous consent of this House, but there has to be unanimous consent.


Some hon. members:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: This is a partisan Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: Stand up and say that. That is contempt of the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You guys are not going to get away with this. You can't ramrod legislation by having a partisan Speaker in the chair.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Fretz:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like it recorded that I was in the House for the vote. I did not vote because I chaired the legislative committee on Bill C-56.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I think there is unanimous consent in the House for the approval of a resolution which I would be honoured to move, seconded by the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel and the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands:
Be it resolved that this House, at this moment of Namibia's long-awaited independence, extend to its members now in Windhoek its warmest congratulations to the National Assembly and people of the Republic of Namibia on their attainment of sovereignty and on their new constitution.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent for the minister to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
*	sic *

Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that at the next sitting of the House immediately before the Order of the Day is called for resuming debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-48, an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act and on any amendment thereto, I will move that the debate be not further adjourned.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Nelson Andrew Riis: I have a very short point of order about House business, Madam Speaker. Just prior to coming in I was informed that tomorrow would not be an allotted day. I did not quite understand the point he was making. I think he was giving notice of closure on the crop insurance bill. Could he confirm that tomorrow will or will not be an allotted day?


Harvie Andre: No, it will not be an allotted day, Madam Speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have received advice to the contrary, but I am looking at today's Order Paper and it says in fact that the commitment was that Wednesday, March 21, the seventh of eight allotted days for the Supply period ending March 26, 1990, would be tomorrow. Is the minister saying that he is withdrawing this particular commitment?


Harvie Andre: Last week, at the usual time when the question of House business was asked of me, I gave my best intentions.
That was based on certain assumptions as to what would occur between then and now. One of those assumptions was that this crop insurance bill, which is so vitally important to western farmers in particular and farmers right across this country, would be passed.
Since that has not happened, I am forced to bring that in tomorrow and to apply closure to ensure that this is in place for the benefit of farmers.
If in fact there was a disposition not to see the clock and deal with Bill C-48 now, which I understand all parties are in favour of, then tomorrow could be an allotted day as was originally planned; we would be able

March 20, 1990
Private Members' Business
to follow our plans much more closely. If there is that disposition we are ready to proceed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, this is an interesting way to do the business of the House in terms of debate.
Our concern, of course, has been that we have been participating in the debate on the crop insurance legislation. It is an important government initiative. We have some deep concerns in terms of the implications, but I am still perplexed that when I read today's Order Paper it says that tomorrow will be an allotted day.


An hon. member:: Proposed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It does not say proposed. It says it will be an allotted day.
I guess, at the whim of the government House Leader, the government can curtail that commitment.
I just want to make sure we understand that the government had made a commitment that this would be the business of the day. It has now reneged on that commitment in saying that this will not be the business of the day.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, let me make it clear that the decision I announced to the House after the House Leaders' meeting last Thursday was based on certain commitments given by the New Democratic Party.
Since those commitments were not honoured, I am not able to carry through with the commitments that we made. In fact, had the NDP honoured the commitments it made, I would have been able to honour the commitments I made. Since they did not, I am not able to. I regret that that happened.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret that we are interrupting my hon. colleague's private member's business.
The government House Leader indicates that somehow a commitment has been broken. I have had consultations about what the commitment was. It was that if there was a commitment by the government for an adequate length of debate on the borrowing authority, we could see fit to restricting debate on the Small Businesses Loans Act as well as on crop insurance. That commitment was never forthcoming from this government. For the reason that the government had broken its
commitment, we felt no compulsion to fulfil any agreement that the government had.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House leaders of all parties may want to continue discussing this point, but I think we should proceed with the Private Members' Business.
I may also in trying to help the House, remind all members that in reading the Projected Order of Business we can all see when there is projection of business for subsequent days that the projection is subject to change without notice.
I am sure that all House Leaders can get together and find a way to resolve that situation.
In the meantime, we will turn to the Private Members' Business with the hon. member for Western Arctic.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   ABORIGINAL PEOPLES NEEDS OF YOUTH
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thesday, February 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Anawak:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider developing special initiatives, in consultation with aboriginal peoples, to respond to the serious employment, education and health needs of aboriginal youth.
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, last week more than 1,000 athletes from the Soviet Union, Greenland, Alaska, northern Alberta, and the Northwest Territories came together to compete in all kinds of sports and games in the Twentieth Arctic Winter Games.
The symbol of unity and friendship was a message to governments all around the world that young people are models in the practice and demonstration of peace and friendship. That is why this motion is very important. It promotes youth, our future leaders.
The peace makers and this government need to strengthen their investment in the youth of our country. We have many young people who have demonstrated a quest for excellence in this over-all activity that took place in Yellowknife last week. We want to work to
March 20, 1990

enhance the capabilities of young people to be able to relate to and deal with the challenges that face them in the future.
Without the support of the community leaders such as the mayor, Pat McMahon and the chairpeople Don Cooper and Don Sian this would not have been accomplished. These individuals give support to our young people and have made it possible for these young people to participate in an activity that challenges and gives them the opportunity to excel, not only physically but mentally and psychologically. It equips them and does something for their integrity to be able to excel.
I would like those from all over Canada to support our youth and to enhance and strengthen our commitment to the youth of this country. These are going to be the true environmentalists, the true conservationists. We do not have to change their minds. Their minds are made up that they want a clean environment and they want the proper education. They want to care for the older people and the youth in this country and they also have a commitment to peace. These are not things that have to be taught, these are things they know. These are things that have been demonstrated to them over the last 20 years. An activity such as this and the people who co-operated and helped to put forth this opportunity for our youth are to be congratulated.


Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: I rise today in the House to deal with this motion concerning the education, employment and health needs of aboriginal youths in this country.
Considered individually or all together, these issues are of vital importance. They reflect the very essence of what we, as Canadians, could probably define as our basic right, namely, the possibility to learn and develop our intelligence, to work in an area of our choice and to have access to the essential health services which greatly contribute to our quality of life.
Clearly, Madam Speaker, when dealing with the living conditions of our aboriginal youths, these issues are of particular significance because several of the benefits which a great many Canadians enjoy in the area of
Private Members' Business
education, employment and health services remain inaccessible to our aboriginal people, both young and old.
Over the years, a lot of effort was spent trying to rectify this imbalance. Our Governments have spent billions of dollars to help our aboriginal people with programs and services, more specifically in the key areas of education, employment and health services.
Nevertheless, our aboriginal people still face tremendous problems. It is especially true of our aboriginal youths whose plans for the future were repeatedly crushed because of poverty, inability to attend schools of higher learning and a lack of decent jobs.
Madam Speaker, past experience has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no point attempting to deal with these problems on the superface.
Yet, have we not learned from the errors of the past which direction we should follow?
This government has set definite objectives in its policy on aboriginal self-government; first of all, within the limits of the Canadian Constitution, to increase the powers and make sure that more decisions are made at the local level; then, demonstrate more flexibility while acknowledging the various needs, traditions and cultures of the aboriginal people; and finally, make local administrators more responsive to their respective communities.
As I said, Madam Speaker, those are definite objectives. History, however, has shown that to reach these goals, we must overcome a great many obstacles. The fact that the right of Aboriginal people to self-government was not included in the Consitutional Act either in 1985 or in 1987, makes the path to progress beset with obstacles. To achieve progress, we must resume this dialogue.
It is imperative that take we a totally new approach conducive to more productive understanding, trust and consultation. We are now concentrating our efforts on the development of this new climate of understanding, communication and progress.
This calls for leadership, and that is what this government has shown so far. When last on the hustings the Prime Minister restated the government position when he said that Canada cannot be complete unless we solve the problems related to native rights. Indeed, finding a solution to these problems and granting self-government

March 20, 1990
Private Members' Business
status to native people is the only way to make progress in education, employment and health.
On a number of occasions the Prime Minister indicated that the government is quite prepared to call another First Ministers' Conference on native self-government and rights as soon as the chances of success are encouraging.
Hon. members are certainly aware that in the last Speech from the Throne the government did commit itself to give priority to native rights the moment the Meech Lake Accord has been ratified.
Our position is clear and unequivocal: we are trying to foster closer co-operation with native people, establish a consensus and turn the self-government concept into reality. This is why federal ministers recently met with leaders of national native organizations, and they are looking forward to other such meetings in the near future.
Anxious though we are to make progress at the constitutional level, Madam Speaker, we are not ignoring the issue of self-government at the community level. As a matter of fact, if we are going to deal with education, employment and health we must not lose sight of the fact that the priorities of native people may vary according to their political structure, their economic base and their culture.
Fully aware of these differences the federal government has taken a number of non-constitutional initiatives concerning self-government so as to follow up on propositions made by various groups seeking to set up self-government systems which go beyond the confines of the Indian Act provisions. We do have strong evidence which allows us to state that this flexible community-oriented approach is producing positive results.
For instance, over 200 Canadian bands have submitted 134 proposals to the Self-Government Negotiations Branch. Even though most of them are only at the initial stage, the Whitefish Bay band, the Mississauga and Chippewa Nations United Councils in Ontario, the Gitskan Wet'Suwet'en bands in British Columbia, the Alexander and Sawridge bands in Alberta and three First Nations in the Yukon are currently taking part in negotiations to establish new community systems of self-government. Many other communities have made
significant progress and are expected to initiate negotiations in the next few months.
The global claims settlement process is also designed to increase the Indian communities local autonomy.
Agreements in principle have been signed with the Council of Yukon Indians, the Denes and Metis in the Northwest Territories and in Quebec. The government has also ratified an umbrella agreement with the Conseil Attikamek-Montagnais and the provincial government. An agreement in principle is currently under negotiation.
An umbrella agreement with the Labrador Inuit Association and the Newfoundland provincial government should be settled soon. Finally, in Eastern Arctic, the government hopes to sign an agreement in principle with the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut.
The Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, passed in 1986, is a prime example of the success of these negotiations. It allowed the British Columbia Sechelts to gain control not only over their own lands and resources but also over social, health and education services as well as local taxation.
Madam Speaker, all these efforts to ensure self-government are major accomplishments but they don't stop there. The government has also made alternative funding arrangements in response to the native communities' desire to increase their financial autonomy and self-sufficiency under the Indian Act. These alternative funding arrangements enable band governments and tribal councils to assume greater responsibilities and more financial authority for program delivery, while maintaining good quality of service and financial accountability.
The Government of Canada continues to work in close co-operation with the provinces to advance the negotiations on land claims and to define and implement self-government plans for native people living off reserves.
These examples show this government's commitment to achieve tangible, progressive change in the area of self-government. They also show that progress is possible. The benefits of these agreements go beyond the communities concerned. These agreements are a major step forward in improving relations between the government and Canada's native peoples. They reduce these peoples' economic and political dependence on the
March 20, 1990

federal government. They give Indians the power to take charge of their own communities, their own lives and their own future.


Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak today on the motion of my colleague from Nunatsiaq regarding aboriginal youth. The problem facing these young Canadians is serious and a thoughtful discussion is necessary in order to begin eliminating the problems that affect them. It is no secret to anyone that the aboriginal people of this country are living below the living standards that most Canadians enjoy.
The way we treat our minorities and our young people is a good way of judging our society. The aboriginal people of this country need the help of the Canadian government to develop policies and programs that will enable them to mature and become self-confident in their culture and their language.
The problems they face are enormous and there are some alarming statistics to demonstrate that. The life expectancy of an aboriginal person is 10 years less than a non-aboriginal. The mortality rate of Indian infants is twice as high as the Canadian average. The rate of infant mortality among the Inuit is three times as high. The rate of suicide among Inuit of the Northwest Territories is four times that of the national average. In the Northwest Territories 63 per cent of the population have less than a grade 9 education. Of Indians living in urban areas 66 per cent attain a grade 9 education and of Indians living in rural areas, 51 per cent attain a grade 9 education. Among the general Canadian population 80 per cent have attained a grade 9 education. The difference is enormous.
I think many Canadians would be surprised to hear that half of the aboriginal population in this country is under the age of 25. The socio-economic disparities between aboriginal youth and non-aboriginals is unacceptable. Their health level is lower. Unemployment is much higher. The education level is much lower and substance abuse, of course, is more prevalent.
Private Members' Business
As a government we have to develop programs and services that will cater to the needs of aboriginal youth. Obviously the programs we have now are either not effective or not as extensive as they should be.
The motion of my hon. friend from Nunatsiaq calls for the development of policies in consultation with the aboriginal people. It is imperative that we increase consultation with the aboriginal people and include them in the decision-making process in order to develop policies and programs that better serve their needs. They are in an advantageous position to understand the socio-economic problems facing the aboriginal people.
The state of health among the aboriginal is well below that of the Canadian average. I know that this problem was identified many, many years ago. Maybe Canadians will have to think twice before saying that we have the best health care system in the world, because our health care system is not reaching the aboriginal population.
There are numerous examples of the poor health level within the aboriginal population. The infant mortality rate is twice that of the Canadian average and the rate of tuberculosis among aboriginals is seven to ten times that of the national average.
Chris McCormick of the Native Council of Canada has said that perhaps the most urgent message voiced by our youth is their alcohol and drug abuse which causes 70 per cent of their deaths.
This is alarming. The problem is grave. Most of the substance abuse cases are due to the erosion of traditional values and the stress due to cultural transition.
Before I go further, I want to address the effects of the last budget on native programs and demonstrate this government's lack of understanding of the aboriginal people. One of the hardest hit programs will be the 99 Native Friendship Centres across the country. These centres, based in urban areas, assist aboriginal people with information such as housing availability, education, substance abuse and employment. This is exactly the type of program that helps young aboriginals to adapt and to cope with a new environment. It is administered by natives and it is for natives. It is a service that the federal government does not provide and it addresses problems of cultural transition and alienation.

March 20, 1990
Private Members' Business
Yesterday I received a letter from the Union of Ontario Indians. That letter addresses in part budgetary cuts to aboriginal programs in the last budget of the Minister of Finance. It says that the Government of Canada, through the recent budgetary cuts, has all but eliminated core funding in this organization. They have been notified that the union will only receive the first quarter funding of $45,548 for the 1990-91 fiscal year. This is a reduction of 75 per cent from $181,863 and it is a net loss of $136,646.
Core funding was designed to enable Indian political organizations to consult with their membership and the government. It was initiated as a way to create dialogue and inspire democratic political participation for the First Nation of Canada.
This organization can be an extremely useful tool for policy makers. I have to wonder about this government's commitment to the native people of this country. Why is it eliminating the voice of our aboriginal people?
Another problem that we must address is the level of education. The statistics that I gave earlier show how far behind the level of education is among aboriginal people compared with the national average. Part of the reason why the level of education among natives is well below that of the national average is due to accessibility and the stress due to cultural transition.
Youth must often leave home at an early age and move to a bigger centre in order to pursue their education after grade 9. They are away from home without the family as a support mechanism and they are living in a different world. The culture is alien and sometimes communication is difficult. A young person has to adapt to the cultural changes on his own, and this is not always easy. The statistics show that the level of substance abuse and the high rate of suicide is often an alternative to the cold reality.
I spoke earlier of the Friendship Centres and this is a perfect example of how these centres could provide support for youths attending school away from home. The centres would provide support to the young person in order for him or her to adapt to his new environment. We must, as a government, provide all the possible support to young aboriginals who want to pursue their
education if we want to increase the level of education and start eliminating unemployment.
The alternative for these youths to going to school is to stay at home and face the problems of unemployment and a clouded future. The unemployment rate among aboriginals ranges from 35 per cent to 53 per cent depending on the region of the country. Unemployment is a pressing problem, especially because of the population growth of the Inuit and the Indians.
As my colleague from Nunatsiaq said in his speech, the population growth now stands at 3 per cent a year among the native population, which is well above the national average. In the Northwest Territories, this translates into 600 potential entrants into the labour force every year for the next decade. The government needs to stimulate the northern economy in order to find work for these young people before they fall into desperation.
I hope that in the few minutes that I have had I have been able to shed some light on some of the problems the young aboriginal people face in this country. The young people of our country are the future and we have to make sure that all the youth of this country have the same chance to contribute to that future. As a government, we have to include the aboriginal peoples in the decision-making process if we really want to address their concerns.
Last night on the news I saw our Prime Minister announce that the Canadian government will be forgiving debts of hundreds of millions of dollars owed to us by the Caribbean countries. As I watched that I was reminded that, in our own country, some people have a living standard which is comparable to some Third World countries.
I challenge this government to reconsider the cuts to native programs and to actually increase funding. I am pleased to support the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq, and I call upon all members of this House, regardless of political affiliation, to support this motion.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to be able to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq which reads:
March 20, 1990

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider developing special initiatives, in consultation with aboriginal peoples, to respond to the serious employment, education and health needs of aboriginal youth.
I am also very pleased that the committee which oversees these things saw fit to make this a votable motion because I think it is very important that every member of this House reflect on this situation and vote on it in order to put clearly on the record how they feel about this question.
I am very proud to speak in this debate because in my constituency of Prince Albert-Churchill River there are
12.000	Indian and Metis children and young people growing up whose hopes are to develop a life in that part of the country, people whom I represent in this House.
When I reflect upon my duties I do not think there is anything more key to how that part of the country develops and what the future society of northern Saskatchewan is going to be than what happens to those
12.000	young Indian and Metis people. Therefore, I compliment the hon. member again for putting this motion forward and causing me and all other members to reflect on the situation.
It is very easy, because of the statistics involved in health issues, employment issues, and the different social problems which exist, to view this as something that is steeped in hopelessness, on which there is not a sense in the community that progress is possible and that the whole thing is sinking into some kind of an abyss. That is a record that needs to be corrected.
When I travel around to the schools throughout my constituency, because there are Indian and Metis people living in rural areas and the cities and towns as well, I find a lot of pride in Indian young people in who they are and in who they want to become. I find that families have a lot of pride in their children. There are a lot of hopes for those children, and a lot of vision for what they can become.
I find a lot of very dedicated teachers, social workers and other professionals, and now many of these are of Indian and Metis background. The training programs which have been instituted over the last 10 or 15 years are actually starting to work and as the Indian and Metis people who have been trained in these professions get into the classrooms and the different professions, we are really starting to see a difference.
Private Members' Business
We see a reassertion of the role of the elders in these communities and a new willingness on behalf of the young people in those communities to listen to the elders. I see a leadership which is very much aware of the young people in their communities and the very important role those young people will play. When I go to band council meetings and other types of community meetings, a very great part of the time that people spend discussing these issues is in fact spent on discussing the schools and the programs available to their youth. That is probably the biggest priority they have.
Then there are the young people who see themselves playing an exciting role in a future society. They see the same statistics we do. They see the health problems. They have grown up with them first-hand. It comes as a surprise to them sometimes when they hear us bandy those figures about in here. To them it is part of their daily experience.
The problems with pneumonia and tuberculosis have a much higher incidence in those communities than anywhere else. They see rates of suicide among their peers which, depending on the communities, range as high as seven times those of the average population. That is very depressing for communities and families to have to live with. They see employment prospects that are often very dismal.
I note that even in the federal civil service only seven-tenths of 1 per cent of the employees are of native Indian ancestry. If it was not for the Department of Indian Affairs, there would be virtually none at all. This is in spite of the fact that there has supposedly been an ongoing employment equity program in place and that Indian, Metis and Inuit people form about 3 to 3.5 per cent of the population. We are way short in that particular regard.
There is unemployment in many of the Indian communities of 70 and 80 per cent. With regard to the off-reserve employment situation, to our shame, in spite of the fact that the economy has been growing in this country, private sector employment among Indians has actually been falling. Part of that is due to the fact that the policies of this government have focused employment growth on the large urban centres and when Indian people move into those centres they have all kinds of barriers to overcome. Whereas the areas they have lived in, the traditional native communities in the north and isolated areas, are those that have been hammered by

March 20, 1990
Adjournment Debate
government policies affecting them more than anybody else.
There is also the rate of incarceration. The Human Rights Commissioner says, to our shame, that a native young person in this country has a better chance of ending up in jail than graduating with a university degree. In spite of that, we see a highly motivated contingent of young people coming out of our native communities across this country.
I was pleased to note the report of the National Aboriginal Youth Conference that was held last year here in Ottawa. There was a very strong vision of the future emerging from that. As I think about the young people who attended that conference, I am also reminded of the post-secondary education debates that we had on this Hill last spring. Indian young people from across this country rallied on this Hill and, in the strongest of terms, drew the attention of this House and Canadians generally to the fact that post-secondary education, gaining the tools to determine their own destiny and run their own institutions are what they see as the key and they are prepared to fight for that.
We as people involved in government have fallen far short of our part of the bargain. I do not think we have recognized, as the Indian communities have, the burgeoning labour force that is growing up in those communities. The birth rate is more than double that of society as a whole. The average age in native communities is 23 while the average age of the larger society is 32. Almost 50 per cent are under age 20.
As the member for Nunatsiaq, who proposed this motion, said in his presentation, there will be 140,000 aboriginal young people coming into the labour market between 1987 and 1997, a period we are part way through. The consequences of that large a number of new entrants coming into the labour force is truly staggering.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, on November 22, 1989, I posed a question to the Deputy Prime Minister with regard to child care. At that time I reminded the Deputy Prime Minister that the United Nations General Assembly had approved a comprehensive convention regarding the rights of the child.
Furthermore, I went on to share with the House that Canadian governments, both past and present, had spoken out very strongly and enthusiastically with regard to the rights of the child. However, when it comes to the issue of child care, that seems to be another issue as far as this particular government is concerned.
In 1984 and again in 1988, the present administration made promises while in opposition and thereafter while in government with regard to bringing in comprehensive legislation regarding child care in this country. It was reaffirmed in two Throne Speeches. Canadians from coast to coast felt some comfort in the fact that perhaps the long-awaited program for child care would be finally legislated by the Government of Canada.
However, that was not the case. As a result, today as we had in those early years of 1985, 1986,1987, 1988 and now in 1990, a major crisis is evolving regarding child care in this country.
We lack thousands of spaces for young Canadians in need. The need is well documented. Committees have been struck by this House. Members have raised this issue on the floor of the House of Commons. More important, journalists, as well as those who work in the child care field, have been announcing this crisis all across the country.
The crisis is of particular importance to natives. It should be noted that there are only 70 child care centres
March 20, 1990

for approximately 1,000 native communities. This is a shocking statistic even for government members.
In addition to that, the native communities were promised $60 million by the present administration which has since been gutted by the administration across the way.
The child care initiatives fund was cut in the recent budget from $15 million to $13.25 million. The child care initiatives fund was set up some time ago. I wish to repeat that while it is not the panacea in terms of the difficulties of the child care movement, it is at least some attempt to provide research dollars for those organizations, and non-profit organizations in particular, to do some research regarding child care in this country.
Now, the great promise of the child care initiatives fund is being reduced by the Minister of Finance, aided and abetted by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and, of course, the Prime Minister.
The be all and end all of the Government of Canada's initiatives toward child care in this country has centred around the Canada Assistance Plan. For those of us in this Chamber who have some familiarity with the contents of the Canada Assistance Plan, we recognize first and foremost that it does not provide the poorer provinces or, indeed, the poorer regions in this country, with the same equitable opportunities as it does other regions of the country. As example would be Ontario. That economy, which is generating sufficient dollars to maintain a balanced budget for this particular fiscal year, can readily afford 50 cents on the dollar, unlike the province of Newfoundland under the Canada Assistance Plan, which cannot afford 50 cents on the dollar for the creation of new child care spaces in that province. This government chooses to do nothing to address the real crisis with regard to creating new spaces in this country.
Second, this government chooses to do nothing with regard to ensuring and enhancing quality child care across the country. More recently in the province of Nova Scotia we have had child care givers go on strike for a fair and equitable wage. Unfortunately, their demands have not been met as of yet. I urge them to continue on in their struggle to get a fair and equitable wage for their services.
Adjournment Debate
It must be understood that the essence of a quality child care program in this country, even in the province of Nova Scotia, will centre around the qualifications and the abilities of those care givers. Therefore, they ought to receive fair and equitable compensation. I am certain that if the national government assumed its responsibilities in terms of putting in place a comprehensive program, it would be able to address this particular program.
In conclusion, I am dismayed at a government which, at one time, echoed the sentiment that it was supportive of a comprehensive child care program, only to find that it has been able to secure billions of dollars for its friends, such as the Reichmann brothers in Toronto. It has been able to write off the debt of other countries and provide untold millions of dollars to its corporate friends. Yet when it comes to child care, there has been no comprehensive legislative program put in place. There have been no substantial dollars being directed toward creating new child care spaces, establishing national standards or providing equitable and fair compensation for those people who work as care givers in the child care movement.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the concerns expressed by the hon. member for Cape-Breton-Richmond East. When we hear the hon. members opposite, we cannot help thinking that if we had not inherited this incredible fiscal burden in 1984, just imagine what we could have done if we had only 50 per cent of what we now spend on servicing the debt, which we could then spend on child care. Imagine what we could have done with all that money! There is a problem, and it is that this country has a serious budget deficit. However, I would like to remind the hon. member that some components of the national strategy on child care have been put in place, and I will repeat what they are, for his benefit.
I may recall that today, the deduction for child care expenses allows working parents to deduct up to $4,000 from their income per pre-school child. There is also the $200 supplement to the refundable child tax credit, per pre-school child, for low-and middle-income families. There is the Child Care Special Initiatives Fund. The hon. member referred to a problem with child care on Indian reserves. A national study is now being conducted

March 20, 1990
Adjournment Debate
on the subject. Two hundred projects have been approved so far. There are several feasibility studies for setting up new child care services.
Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest the hon. member go and meet businessmen in his riding, as I did in mine. We are about to set up a unique daycare facility in the workplace.
These businessmen realized it was no longer just the government's responsibility to set up daycare services for their employees. If the hon. member is interested, I would be glad to provide details on this new bill.
Finally, Madam Speaker, we must not forget that during the 33rd Parliament, the Liberal senators blocked a bill that was before the Senate. If this bill had been adopted, perhaps our discussion would not be the same today.
The government also transfers money to the provinces, and in 1989-90, nearly $240 million was paid to the provinces for child care under the Canada Assistance Plan. Finally, Madam Speaker, we are firmly resolved to act on our commitments. I think the government has shown fiscal responsability. We are convinced that, thanks to the latest budget brought down by the Minister of Finance, by the end of our term at the very least we will be able to come back with a more detailed national strategy on child care, and that will undoubtedly be the response the hon. member is waiting for.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, on October 27 last year I rose in my place during Question Period to ask the Minister of Finance about the goods and services tax and the government's advertising and promotion campaign surrounding the tax.
I found the minister's response at the time totally unacceptable. You will recall, Madam Speaker, that as far back as May 23 of last year, the New Democratic Party's research office filed a request through the Access to Information Act to find out how much money the government was budgeting to spend to advertise the unpopular GST.
It was not until September 12 that the government responded by saying that it would spend $6.6 million on advertising. We took it at its word. Although $6 million to advertise a program for which no legislation had yet been drafted, let alone passed, was excessive, we were pleased to get the information.
Then, one month later, officials in the Department of Finance revealed to the members of the finance committee that actually $9.1 million worth of taxpayers' money would be spent in trying to sell this flawed and ill-conceived program to a reluctant and angry population. I was astounded.
The Minister of Finance had taken four months to provide us with the original figures and then one month later his department tells us those figures are 40 per cent higher.
This tell us two things. First, the Minister of Finance has no respect for the access to information laws of Canada. You will recall, Madam Speaker, just one month before in response to a local newspaper's request for information, the minister provided only a part of what was required in the answer.
Second, it tells us that the minister is not to be trusted. He has demonstrated that while he might say one thing, he does another. He tries to tell us that things change, and that his preliminary $6.6 million figure was accurate. If that is correct, then Canadians know something else about the minister-he cannot manage his department.
How can a budget for something like advertising jump 40 per cent in less than one month? How can the minister expect us to believe that he has control of his department or its programs if this sort of thing goes on? I find it hard to believe. That is why I think this is more a case of the minister saying one thing and doing another.
The Minister of Finance is doing what the Prime Minister told him to do when the first polls on the GST came out and the government discovered that more 75 per cent of Canadians opposed the idea of a goods and services tax. The Prime Minister likened his government's approach to that during the free trade agreement when he said to Canadians: "If they do not like it now, we will just sell it to them". The finance minister has taken his boss, the Prime Minister, literally. The more
March 20, 1990

that Canadians protest the GST, the more money the government is pumping into advertising.
Let us also remember what happened with advertising around that free trade agreement. Even though we do not know all the details yet, because the information is not being made available to us, we know that the recent election victory of the Prime Minister was secured by a massive $2.1 million advertising campaign paid for by North America's big business. We know that that advertising blitz was instrumental in gaining support for a deal that otherwise would not have been supported by Canadians in their hearts, or at the polls.
But who paid for that advertising and what was its purpose? We are now finding out that advertising was paid for by Canadian subsidiaries of giant U.S. corporations, and by some Canadian companies which have since demonstrated very little interest in the well-being of the Canadian economy as they move their operations south of the border. The advertising dollars were invested so that these companies could exploit the Canadian market-place or make deals which were in their interests, in the interests of the American corporations, and not the Canadian people.
The government is selling out the Canadian people, selling us out against our instincts by using advertising and propaganda instead of facts. It is a public relations game that the government is engaged in and it has to stop.
The GST is only the latest example, but it is perhaps the best example. Tike the delivery process that we are watching, the delivery process that is in force now as we see the government try to implement the GST at 7 per cent instead of 9 per cent. Has the government backed down? No. It is just an example of the expensive plan to convince us that we have to accept something that is bad for us and bad for Canada. It is all a part of this public relations game.
The GST was a bad tax at 9 per cent. Everyone said that before the finance committee and the government accepted that it was a bad tax at 9 per cent. So what makes it any better at 7 per cent? We know it is a push button tax and within one year of its introduction the government will push that button and the 7 per cent will
Adjournment Debate
be a 9 per cent tax. That 9 per cent tax which was bad in the first place will be back and we are supposed to be benefiting from it.
What will we have gained? We as Canadians, as taxpayers, as farmers, as business people, as wage earners or pensioners will have gained nothing from this tax. No amount of government advertising will prove otherwise. So we are well advised not to trust the Minister of Finance, the person whom I now call the minister of propaganda.


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, on September 12, 1989, in response to a request under the Access to Information Act, the Minister of Finance described the mandate and operation of the goods and services tax communications working group.
With respect to operations, Treasury Board has approved a budget of $5,138 million for fiscal year 1989-90 and $2,523 million for 1990-91. These figures include expenditures for salaries, travel, supplies, materials and so on.
When salaries are excluded, the working group's operating budget is about $4.6 million for fiscal year 1989-90, and $2 million for 1990-91. In other words, the project total is $6.6 million-precisely the amount specified in the minister's response to the access to information request.
As the hon. member will note, there is no advertising component in this figure. A separate budget of about $4.5 million has been established for such items as advertising the GST 1-800 hotline and publishing public information inserts in newspapers.
The advertising budget was not included in the minister's response because information for the access to information request was based on expenditures up to and including August 8, 1989, the date on which the GST technical paper was released. The 1-800 hotline was started on August 9 and the two-page public information insert only began appearing on August 26.
Recently, the advertising budget has been increased through supplemental by $760,000 for fiscal year 1989-90. This reflects the increased demand by Canadians for information on the GST as evidenced by hotline requests.

March 20, 1990
Adjournment Debate
The government has an obligation and a responsibility to ensure that individual Canadians and businesses are informed as to how the GST will operate.
The importance of public understanding is a key lesson from other countries where similar tax systems have been introduced. Where business people and consumers have been well informed, implementation has gone smoothly.


LAY-OFFS
André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, on January 26, 1990 I asked the Minister of Labour what steps he had and would be taking to convince the Canadian General Electric Corporation not to close their light bulb manufacturing plant in east Montreal on July 13, 1990 as planned as that closing would mean the loss of some 200 jobs, involving mostly women with more than 20 years' seniority who would have next to no chance of retraining for the labour market.
All I got from the minister was that he would make sure provisions in the Canada Labour Code would be adhered to, that those responsible for the plant closing would take steps to apply under the POWA Program for older workers. Madam Speaker, that answer was of course not good enough and I said so to the minister, insisting that he contact General Electric to urge them not to put their employees on UI benefits or on retirement, but to keep their plant in operation.
I was not the only one to do so because at a round table of elective representatives in Villeray to the three levels of government, namely Mr. Berthelet, Mr. Biello, Mr. Goyer and Mrs. Martine Blanc of the Montreal City Council, Mrs. Violette Trepanier and Mr. Christos Sir-ros, two MLA's whose constituencies comprise that plant in Montreal and who are also members of the Bourassa Cabinet in Quebec, as well as my colleague from Saint-Denis and myself, we talked with labour representatives from General Electric who told us about their problems. After that round table in Villeray and a number of consultations, all attendants at that meeting decided to support the employees in their attempt to
save the plant. The Montreal councillors and the Quebec MLAs contacted their respective bodies.
I raised the matter here in the House of Commons and urged the Minister of Labour to intervene personally because he is responsible for the Montreal region.
Here we are, two months later on March 20, so I hope the response I get tonight from the parliamentary secretary is a lot more encouraging that what I heard last January. Hopefully the parliamentary secretary will tell me that the minister did get in touch with the company president and made representations to General Electric management to convince them to keep their Montreal plant operating. And I hope he did let General Electric management know that as spokesman for the Canadian government he is not going to stand still while jobs which are important to Montreal disappear because the company has chosen to relocate the plant in the United States.
In light of the fact that General Electric has reported profits of hundreds of millions of dollars for the last financial year, I would suggest this is quite a reasonable request. Nor are we talking about a run-down plant manufacturing nearly useless products, these are halogen or special lamps of the type used by Quebec Hydro and the city of Montreal, state-of-the-art products for which world-wide demand is very strong indeed. This is why we think it is utterly ridiculous that General Electric should decide to rationalize its operations in the United States and in eastern Europe rather than keep this plant running in Montreal.
This is a plant with no labour conflict. If General Electric could say that there had been strikes every year or two, that the labour climate was bad, we could understand that they want to go somewhere else. But I cannot remember the last time there was a strike or conflict at that plant. Labour relations have been very good there for a long time and therefore we cannot accept General Electric closing it down with no consideration for its employees who, I repeat, are mostly women with about 20 years of good service to this company. Overnight, they will find themselves with no alternative unless the economic situation in eastern Montreal changes substantially. I need not remind the parliamentary secretary that in the past fifteen months or so, there have been many layoffs affecting some 6,000 workers in the Montreal area.
March 20, 1990

These grim answers to the economic situation are absolutely frightening. If I were not short of time, I could give a whole list of companies that have decided to go to the United States or to rationalize their operations in Canada as a result of this free trade agreement. I cannot do so for lack of time, but I hope that the parliamentary secretary has a good answer for me.


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Eton. Member for Papineau-Saint-Michel for giving me this opportunity to inform him of what the Government is doing to help Montreal East.
The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel mentioned of course the many plant closures, but he could not, for lack of time probably, mention also the great many jobs created in Montreal. I could talk about that for a long time.
I should like to re-assure the hon. member that the Federal Government is fully committed to the economic development of the Montreal area. I can also tell him that my colleagues of the Conservative caucus who represent the Montreal area are doing a tremedous job and that at every caucus meeting, they are eager to inform us of their success, and we are well aware of the problems occurring in Montreal, its poverty, and I can assure you that you will hear more about this in the future.
Together with the Quebec government and the city of Montreal, Madam Speaker, the federal government has sponsored the establishment of a committee responsible for the economic recovery and job creation programs in Montreal east. It is made up of four components:
A new Montreal east industrial recovery program for which the Department of Industry, Science and Technology will allocate a budget of $35 million over the next five years. Of that amount $13.4 million have already been committed.
Adjournment Debate
There is an allocation of $115 million, including $19.5 million spent in 1988-89 by the CEIC, for the recycling and training of Montreal east workers; a $125 million reserve made available over a five year period through the Federal Business Development Bank and earmarked for specific projects in Montreal east, including $50 million already in loans already granted; and finally the participation with other Quebec departments in the financing and operation of a discussion and promotion panel on Montreal East.
Of course, the Hon. Member also referred to older workers.
As you know, the government and the provinces have agreed on a single package, the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, and should the workers laid-off by General Electric qualify for POWA, they will get financial aid to meet their needs between the end of their unemployment insurance benefits and the start of their old age pensions.
Madam Speaker, the government is, needless to say, very disappointed to hear that General Electric will close its light bulb plant in Montreal due to a decreasing demand for products made there. It is not true, as the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel claims, that most of the jobs in this plant will be transferred to the United States. We're talking about a responsible company that has been here since 1888.
This company has an extensive employee assistance program which is rather special and could serve as a model for other corporations.
I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to speak on this, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 21,1990