1990-11-02

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, a few days ago the House passed a motion regarding the creation of a transport-related committee. There were some errors in that motion. It is necessary for me once again to ask the consent of the House for the motion to replace it. I believe that you will find consent for this motion. I move:
That, further to the Order adopted on Monday, October 29,
1990,
A Special Committee of the House of Commons on Canada-United States air transport services be appointed;
That the Committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee;
That the Committee have the power to travel and adjourn from place to place within Canada and to travel to Washington and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee; and
That the Committee submit its report no later than January 15,
1991,	provided that, if the House is not sitting, the report will be deemed submitted on the day such report is deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is there consent?


Mr. Milliken:: Madam Speaker, we will give consent.


Mr. Edmonston:: Madam Speaker, there is consent.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary has the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk) moved:: That this House urge that in the upcoming GATT negotiations and in over-all economic policies, the government recognize the essential role played by farmers in maintaining the Canadian way of life and urge the government to uphold the principles of supply management, to maintain the "safety nets" to provide a stable and fair return for all sectors involved in food production, to adopt policies encouraging sustainable development in farming practices, and to recognize the vital role played by agricultural communities to the over-all economy and the well-being of all Canadians.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been some discussions in this party about the length of speeches today. As you know, our speeches are normally 20 minutes, with a 10 minute question and comment period. I would ask that, insofar as the Official Opposition is concerned, we would have 10 minute speeches with a 5 minute question and comment period throughout the day, whenever one of our speakers is recognized.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, it is our tradition on this side of the House to allow the opposition parties to do that if they so wish. We would once again offer our consent for that today.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker If any other members wish to avail themselves of the same situation regarding the sharing of time, I would be grateful if they would mention it to the Speaker.

November 2, 1990
Supply


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, there is a serious crisis in our agricultural industry and rural Canada is suffering. At no time in recent history since the Depression have farmers been in such dire straits and Canadians want to know what the government is doing about it.
The production of food has always been a challenge, a challenge which farmers have continually met with adaptability and, I must say, much courage. Farm families have always had to deal with uncertainty, uncertainty caused by weather and by depressed markets.
Wheat farmers have just finished a harvest of bumper crops but with increasingly low prices we continually have reports of producers who will be forced off the land before this fall.
The government continues to talk about a new vision in agriculture in Canada. It is this new vision that has farmers concerned. What does the government mean by this new vision? One of the main corner-stones of this vision, as outlined in the government's Growing Together proposal, is centred around greater self-reliance in the agri-food industry.
Low prices are a result of a number of factors: continued U.S. and European export subsidies, the embargo against Iraq, the likelihood of a record world crop this year, and a stronger Canadian dollar. The farmer has no control over any of these.
In order to prevent financial disaster in rural Ontario and Canada, the federal government must step in now. An announcement of a special grains program to compensate for the effects of the embargo and/or an interim payment of at least $15 to $20 per tonne under the Agricultural Stabilization Act is essential. This government cannot continue to play this wait-and-see game. For too long now, farmers have been put off to face their bankers alone and to try to provide for their families with incomes far below the cost required to put food on the tables of our nation.
The government continually tries to assure farmers that greater self-reliance does not mean eliminating government support. Yet, what are farmers to expect when, in the last budget, the federal government cut down its share of the crop insurance cost-sharing program, terminated the at and east, terminated the branch
line rehabilitation program, removed the interest-free provision on the prairie grains advanced payments, and eliminated the special dairy export? The budget for the Canadian Dairy Commission's skim milk powder marketing costs and CDC operating costs were abolished. The commodity-based program which provided subsidized loans to low-equity Farm Credit Corporation clients in financial difficulty was abolished. The rebate of the excise tax for on-farm fuel was abolished. This is the type of support that this government promises, the policy of abandonment. Or is this, Madam Speaker, the policy of self-reliance?
To make matters worse, farmers like other Canadians are reeling from the government's policies of high interest rates. Increased fuel prices add an additional financial burden to an industry floundering to keep its head above water.
The government fails to realize or even admit the serious financial stress being experienced by our grain, oilseeds, horticultural, and livestock producers. The situation is acute and, although a direct consequence of low prices and actions by foreign governments, the federal government must also bear its share of responsibility for the failure to present proper safety net support programs to correct for the resulting income deprivation experienced by our Canadian farmers.
Producers welcome the opportunity to provide remedies to the safety net committee's reports. However, the report and all the work and effort of the past months will only work and only be worth-while if these proposals are implemented beginning in the 1991-92 crop year and if the costs to producers are held to a maximum of one-third of the total premium cost, in order to assure a high participation rate by our farmers.
It is imperative the gross revenue insurance plan, GRIP, and the Net Income Stabilization Account, NISA, programs proposed by the grain and oilseeds safety net committee, give the same support benefits to on-farm-fed and grain crop silage as with commercially marketed grain. It is also critical that safety net support, whether in the form of GRIP or NISA, or both, be offered to horticultural producers, many of whom are ineligible for any type of stabilization or crop insurance programs at present.

Equally important is that the financial shortfalls experienced in 1989-90 and 1990-91 be addressed if many farmers are going to be around in order to participate in these safety net programs.
I must commend the Minister of Agriculture for backing down from his previous short-sighted decision to eliminate the interest-free cash advances. His recent decision to reinstate interest-free cash advances for the first $50,000 advance for grain, oilseed and horticultural growers for 1990-91 is long overdue. This decision will partially alleviate the cash flow needs this fall, but to impose the same ceiling on the amount of interest-free assistance for multi-farmer units, such as partnerships or family corporations, as they do for individual operations will unfairly penalize those farmers who have chosen to farm collectively.
I hope the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture are listening as this change of heart will only delay and not prevent the financial stresses associated with the low prices of 1990-91. These interest-free cash advances will not negate the need for another ad hoc program in 1990-91.
It is good to see that this government has admitted it was wrong. While they are still at it, perhaps the Minister of Finance will admit that he is wrong about the GST and withdraw it. Speaking of the GST, it is just one more cross that Canadian farmers have to bear.
Farmers can carry a heavier load. They are already bearing more than their share. This is what I mean by the government recognizing the essential role played by our farmers and the vital role played by agricultural communities to the over-all economy and the well-being of all Canadians. This government will try to say it has supported our agricultural industry, but actions speak louder than words. The previous examples clearly do not substantiate these claims.
What about their new vision for agriculture respecting our supply managed sector? Again, they claim to fully support supply management. Their Growing Together paper stated, and I quote: "The national supply-management system is a uniquely Canadian system designed to strengthen farmer bargaining power and stabilize prices. It has been highly successful at reducing producer risk, increasing stability and providing market security". I
Supply
agree. Is that not what we are trying to accomplish in all other sectors?
In the GATT negotiations it appears that all the programs are on the table. We have a trade minister who tells the Minister of Agriculture that he should be ashamed of the amount of money we spend to assist farmers. How can we expect negotiators to stand up for Canadian farmers when the minister they report to thinks farmers are getting too much money? With a trade minister like that on our side at the bargaining table, who needs opponents? It is no wonder we got such a bad deal with the free trade agreement.
To add insult to injury, we have a Minister of Agriculture who gave misleading agricultural subsidy figures to GATT. When supply management was first implemented under GATT, it was understood that subsidies were something that came out of the tax base, but now the U.S. in particular is trying to argue that if consumers pay more than the world price, that is a subsidy. That is economic nonsense and this government seems to be falling for it.
The minister knows that it is inaccurate and unfair to see the price differential between Canadian and world milk prices as a subsidy for dairy farmers. Such a calculation is irrelevant and unfair because the world prices reflect dumping by countries of their subsidized surplus production. The fact is that world prices are far below the actual production costs for most dairy producing countries.
Our supply management system was implemented within the international law under Article XI of GATE We have every right to keep our system as is, but instead of defending our rights to maintain our supply management, they have undermined our own negotiating position. Our system produces a high quality production for our market at a fair and reasonable price to the consumer and provides a fair return to the producer as well. Perhaps equally important is Canada is now nearly self-sufficient in dairy products.
There is so much more I could say about the desperate needs of our agricultural sector, but my time is short. The most important industry in Canada is food production. Farmers are only asking for what other Canadians want; the right to earn a good living and support their families.

Supply
By hard work and struggling, we have built an agricultural industry that is envied the world over. We must not allow it to be destroyed by short sighted policies and short sighted politicians.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for beginning this debate today on a sector of our economy that is vital.
The question that I would like to address to my colleague has to do with the youth who seem to be leaving farms right across the country. In our area in southern Ontario, the attractiveness of large industry is pulling experienced youth away from the farm.
Mothers and fathers who are just about at that age when they would like to take life a little easier are finding that they cannot take it easier because the resources are not there to help continue the life on the farm to help it become productive.
He, being a young farmer, knows well of these problems. I would like to ask him, and I would like to ask other members throughout the day as well, what things we in the national government Chamber could be doing to try to bring some excitement, purpose and vocation back to agriculture and farming in this country.
How do we bring youth back to agriculture in this country?


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for such understanding of agriculture. Many may not know, but my colleague is a farmer. He shows a lot of interest in that area.
That is one of the biggest problems we have in Canadian agricultural communities today: the problem of youth and why youth will continue to farm in the conditions that their parents and their forefathers have farmed before.
My colleague is right when he says that it is difficult for young farmers to get into farming, or to stay in farming. My colleagues across the way know that, without the policies and the programs that governments provide because of the world situation in farming, many young people would not be eligible to farm.
There are a number of new ideas and new thoughts out there. I will give credit where credit is due. A lot of new ideas have come out with this Growing Together paper. A lot of people have got together.
All over the province of Ontario, too, different farm groups have got together to try to come up with new ideas to keep our youth in farming. We in the Liberal Party have formed a group to sit down to talk with farmers to develop these new ideas in new ways that will keep our youth in farming. Obviously, a lot of them have to do with providing the safety nets that are there in order to keep farmers on the land.
A lot of the problems with our youth in farming have to do with the fact that they cannot get proper funding. They deal with the same problems that all Canadians deal with: big businessmen and small businessmen in Canada, in trying to get access to proper funding to farm.
There have to be better ways for governments to signal to our young people that they will have stable supplies of money when they need it for many years down the line.
Unfortunately now, with the rises of interest rates and the volatility of our economic markets, those sorts of programs are not available. Those sorts of assurances to our young farmers are not available, so many of them are not getting into farming because, quite frankly, they do not have the security of moneys.
I thank my colleague for his question. I could go on an on, but I want to hear a question from the other side.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate being allowed a few minutes to consider this opposition motion and emphasize to the government, particularly at this critical time in the GATT negotiations, the need for the government to pursue with a good degree of vigour the fact that there are to be no new deals struck among the 96 or so countries that will be concluding the round of talks in Brussels in a few weeks. No new deals can be struck which will dismantle Canada's supply management programs.
Canadians face many tensions at this time in our history. We all find these very challenging. Sometimes we ask ourselves if anything at all is working any more. Well, I can tell you, Madam Speaker, some things still work and they work well. One of those things that is working well and has worked well for many years is

Canada's supply managed programs which work in the milk industry for milk, milk products, and works in the egg industry for eggs, egg products and poultry.
The result is that since 1970, approximately 20 years now, Canadians have enjoyed a good supply of high quality basic food products at a price that they can afford. No one is being exploited, neither the producer nor the consumer. The system has operated for 20 years with maximum efficiency and maximum effectiveness. It behoves the government of the day on behalf of all to see that no deals are struck at GATT which will see us turning back the clock on the basis on which these primary foods are produced and marketed in this country.
Let us look back and see what advances have been made in the dairy industry for example. We will soon realize the importance of having success in the present managed supply system. I know what used to happen in the dairy industry. The great fluctuations in prices brought people into the industry for short periods of time if prices were favourable, only to see them retreat out of the industry very quickly when prices fell below production costs.
No businessman in any other industry in this country could or would stay in business for very long if he could not count on a projected minimum price for his product, a price that had some relation to the cost of manufacturing the product. He would also want to be sure that there was going to be an ongoing need for his product.
The managed supply system was designed specifically to fill both those needs. A price which was based on production costs and a mechanism to ensure that the product would be needed. Canadians believe it is important for this country to be self-sufficient, particularly in dairy products.
A national survey conducted by Goldfarb Consultants, a reputable firm, in May of this year came up with some very interesting statistics as to the appreciation which Canadians have for dairy farmers and the way they operate.


Mr. Bosley:: It helps if you own the firm, doesn't it?


Jim Jordan: If you are basically honest, it doesn't really matter who owns it.
Supply
Two or three interesting statistics came out of that in summary, I suppose, of all the data that was collected. Seventy per cent of Canadians say that all milk products should be produced in Canada. Thirty-four per cent of Canadians said that they can come from other countries, but they want fresh milk. Some 85 per cent of Canadians thought that the dairy industry in Canada was in excellent shape and that dairy farmers were very efficient. Another interesting statistic is that 76 per cent of Canadians said that they would be willing to pay more for Canadian dairy products to support the Canadian dairy industry.
In summary of this report, the overwhelming majority of Canadians, 94 per cent, believe that it is important for the dairy industry in Canada to remain self-sufficient, without any outside interference from other countries.
Canadians can be supportive of the present marketing systems because they know that for 20 years they have had at their disposal a good supply of excellent products at a bargain price. Only 14 per cent to 17 per cent of disposable income of Canadians is spent on food. It is the lowest in the world when we consider the quality of our food and the fact that we live under some fairly harsh weather conditions which often affect the cost of production.
The target price for industrial milk, which is set by the Canadian Dairy Commission, has increased by only 4.7 per cent over the past four years from July 1986 to July 1990. The Consumer Price Index over the same period increased 19.3 per cent. This is possible because Canadian farmers are among the most efficient in the world and Canadian consumers are benefiting from that efficiency.
A Canadian family of four buys on the average two dozen eggs per week. At $1.50 a dozen, it will cost that family $156 a year for a highly nutritious food in which there is no waste. Eggs come for the most part in their own package and leave very little environmental burden on the community. How can we be so fortunate? It is because Canadian farmers are among the most efficient in the world, and they have become that way under managed marketing systems.
That is why the Canadian negotiators at GATT have to be tough minded when it comes to any tendency to barter away our production and marketing systems which

November 2, 1990
Supply
are working so well for the benefit of all Canadians, both producers and consumers.
Marketing boards have brought order and stability into one of Canada's most basic industries. Canadians who have benefited from these programs are urging the federal government to state unequivocally its commitment to the Canadian supply managed systems. A failure to do so would seriously compromise the trust placed by our farmers into the hands of those speaking on their behalf at the GATT negotiations. Canadians, both producers and consumers, will pay the price if we allow our managed marketing systems to be up for grabs.
I think my time is up by both clocks. I would be delighted to try and answer any questions.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his brilliant speech and his understanding of the Canadian farming situation.
Having a number of dairy farmers in his riding, he too has probably seen the number of editorials that have appeared in Canadian newspapers across Canada attacking our system of supply management, really attacking dairy farmers and calling them leeches on the system. I am wondering if the member would take this opportunity to give a short explanation to all Canadians of why our supply managed systems are so good and really tell Canadians that in fact they are not paying too much for their supply managed products.


Jim Jordan: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague.
Another of my colleagues asked what the young farmer is looking for today. Any youth starting into the dairy industry today is looking for some stability, some future. You cannot have stability if you are living in a fluctuated market. My experience was that when the price of milk was high people jumped in, and then got out of the industry. How could he, for example, plan and buy a tractor which he needs in his industry and finance it over a period of years, as most of them have to do today and as we have all had to do? How could he possibly have that kind of faith when he can see absolutely no future stability in the industry?
Those who would criticize the Milk Marketing Board really do not understand how it works. The only time there is an increase from the man who has his $300,000, $400,000 or $500,000 investment is when there is an increase in his costs. If he wants to make a little more
money just so he will not stifle initiative, he can make more money if he becomes more efficient. That is why it is reflected in those few statistics I gave. The initiative is there to become very efficient. I think this would induce young people into the industry. There is some incentive, stability, and some reason for them to become efficient. They like the challenge, and I think they will come into the industry on that basis.
If we throw it to the wolves as it used to be when the price was up and down and depend on another country, can we imagine a country like Canada depending on a neighbour, even with the best of intentions, to supply some of our basic foods? What a disgrace that would be.
I am using the Milk Marketing Board as an example. I think we have the largest egg producer in North America in my riding. The same applies to the egg industry also. There is a good supply. The quality is excellent and the price is right.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to this motion before the House today.
The member for Haldimand-Norfolk is asking this House, through the GATT negotiations and in over-all economic policies, to recognize the vital and valuable role farmers play in maintaining the Canadian way of life.
I would suggest that this government's record stands as proof that the well-being of Canadian farmers has been a priority in the past and will continue to be a priority in the future.
Between 1984 and 1989, direct and indirect federal expenditures in agriculture totalled almost $22 billion. Again, in 1990, we have undertaken various initiatives, including $500 million in direct cash payments to help with the cash flow assistance. Also, we are providing an interest relief program of up to $95 million for this current crop year for grains and oilseeds producers.
That kind of support for farmers is unprecedented in Canadian history. That kind of support clearly shows our commitment to farmers and our recognition of the importance of maintaining that Canadian way of life we speak of. Our commitment goes beyond dollars and cents. While we have willingly used the federal Treasury to offset farm income problems, we have also undertak-

en two major initiatives to ensure the long-term well-being of the Canadian agricultural sector.
Domestically we are in the midst of a major agrifood policy review. It has brought all the partners in the agrifood sector together to define policy options that will ensure this $50 billion industry can keep pace in this rapidly changing world.
Through that policy review, we are looking at ways to ensure the industry is market responsive, self-reliant, regionally sensitive, and environmentally sustainable. Those four pillars, as they are known, are the foundation of a healthy and durable agrifood industry.
As part of the review, a govemment/industry task force has designed a new safety net system that will give farmers predictability and stability over the long term. This will help to address some of the concerns that the previous speakers have been raising in their speeches. Such a system will allow us to get away from the ad hoc kind of assistance we have had to provide in recent years, ad hoc assistance that has treated the symptoms and not the problem. It is difficult to farm in that type of environment when one cannot predict into the long term. We believe that the safety nets that are being put forward will assist in giving it that stability that is required.
It is hoped that these new safety nets will be in place for the grains and oilseeds sector for the next crop year. If there is a willingness of all members of this House of Commons to put that system into place for the 1991 crop year, I believe we can get that work done and I believe we have an obligation to do that.
It is also hoped that the next crop year will find us well on our way to a fair and equitable world trade environment. It is most important as well that we deal with that world trade environment. To that end, Canada has played a major role in having agriculture included in the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Thriffs and Trade.
This initiative at the international level is also crucial to the long-term well-being of our agrifood sector. We need a new world trading order in agriculture if we are to get away from the foolish subsidy battles that have hurt
Supply
our grains and oilseeds sector so badly. We need a new world trading order that will allow our supply management sectors to operate under clearly defined rules. We need a new world trading order if our rural communities are to grow and to prosper.
The Uruguay round is scheduled to end in December, and Canada has firmly stated its goals in these negotiations. In particular, we are seeking the elimination of export subsidies, a substantial reduction in internal subsidies, improved market access, greater security for supply management through a clarified and strengthened Article XI, and development of rules on health and sanitary measures so they are not misused as disguised barriers to trade, which is so often the case today.
Our offer which we tabled in Geneva on October 15 was developed in close consultation with the agrifood industry and the provincial governments. In fact industry leaders have widely praised our offer.
Jim Caldwell of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association had this to say about it:
It is a well-balanced package. If other countries would agree, it
would be a good start.
Albert Chambers of the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency said:
It's what we expected. Poultry and egg producers would have little
or nothing to complain about.
We believe that we have developed a balanced position in these negotiations: an approach that reflects the fact our agrifood industry is both domestically oriented and also export oriented. If we can bring about an end to the destructive use of export subsidies, Canadian farmers will be able to compete fairly against other farmers and not the treasuries of other governments. If we can get Article XI strengthened and clarified, our farmers can operate supply management programs secure in the knowledge that they are complying with internationally accepted rules.
Clearly a successful agreement on agriculture in the Uruguay round must be of benefit to all Canadian agriculture. We cannot pick and choose. It has to be of benefit to all of the agricultural sector.
As the December deadline for the Uruguay round approaches, we plan to continue our close consultation with the industry. We want what is best for the industry,

November 2, 1990
Supply
and that means a world trade environment that is fair and equitable.
We are disappointed that the Europeans have yet to table their offer. We are extremely disappointed that both the Europeans and the Americans have upped their use of export subsidies. Hopefully both are only flexing their muscles as we head toward the crucial stage of the negotiations.
Canada is committed to seeing this trade war brought to an end. We can only hope that other trading nations share in that commitment.
A successful end to the Uruguay round will help to ensure a bright future for our agrifood sector. This in turn will ensure a bright future for our over-all economy. After all, we cannot forget that our agrifood sector is responsible for about 10 per cent of our gross domestic product and employs more than 14 per cent of Canadians.
This government recognizes the importance of this industry. That is why we are doing our best to ensure the Uruguay round is successful. That is why we are in the midst of a major domestic agrifood policy review. We want to ensure this industry has a stable and predictable future. We want to ensure this industry can grow and prosper, because as this industry grows and prospers, so does Canada.
I hope, with the various speeches from the different parties that will be given in this House, we can come up with some very positive, workable solutions because we know how important the agrifood sector is to this great nation of Canada. It has developed this country in the early production of food.
We have the ability to produce much beyond our domestic requirements and we know that much of the world requires food. We also know that many countries of the world which require that food have an inability to pay. We have to work out some solutions in order to keep a strong viable agriculture sector, while keeping in mind that there are others in this world who are not as fortunate as we are.
I hope when members are turning their thoughts toward agriculture in this country that they keep that in mind. By working together, as we did with our Growing Together task force paper, we will bring together not only the politicians but governments at all levels. It will affect trade in all sectors, right to the grassroots. People were
talking about the well-being of the agrifood sector and their representatives resulting in wonderful co-operation and excellent consultations. We believe that we are developing, not only at GATT, but in this country, a better understanding among all the players. By doing that, everyone will prosper because if agriculture prospers in this country, all of us will prosper.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would like to salute the member for Huron- Bruce. Many of us realize that he is a farmer and he has accomplished a lot in this sector over the years.
I would like to come back to the question that I asked my colleague. He knows that we are at the crossroads right now in this very important sector. He has spent many years and has enjoyed and inspired many others to get involved in this sector. What does he think we should be doing to create the excitement and interest for young people to work and live on farms and for those who have money to invest in farms?
Five or six years ago in this House, if one asked someone if they would be interested in going into environmental studies, 9 out of 10 of our youth would run the other way. They did not recognize the importance of the environment.
Tbday we have a sector, agriculture, that is going to be feeding the world over the next 10 to 15 years. For some unknown reason we cannot seem to get our youth turned on and interested in making the commitment to the vocation of farming. I stress vocation because it really is not like an office tower job on Bay Street or St. Catherines Street where one works nine to five. It is a full and total commitment.
What I would like to hear from this member, who has owned and operated a farm successfully most of his life, are his thoughts as to what we should be doing to bring youth back to farming?


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It does give us the option to address a particular issue which concerns all of us. It is not a new concern. This is something that has happened over a number of years. All of us in this House who represent rural ridings ask many times how a young person can enter into the farm sector.
There is a new generation of farmers approaching. There is also a generation that is already there. That does not mean there are still not difficult challenges that they must face. These have been difficult and we must

recognize that. Farm incomes have been low and expenses have been high. Many of these people have trimmed their costs to the bare bones as much as possible. Very often they have not had adequate support from their operations to give them the type of living that some other people in the country have and enjoy. We have to start with the problem, and the problem is that there has not been the stability that is required in agriculture. We know ad hoc programs will get one through for today and for a short period but not in the long term. We believe with the Growing Together paper and the work that is evolving from that paper, particularly that which will address the farm finance sector, that we need long-term, predictable programs, such as the safety nets that would be of assistance in making that commitment to the future of agriculture.
I do believe there are many young people in this country who would love to enter into the vocation of farming either on the family farm or young people who are new entrants. We know that at agricultural colleges the enrolment is maintained, and that there is an interest in the agrifood business and so we believe the will is still there. With the safety nets, before one plants a crop one can predict what one's income will be for that year. That makes the borrower feel comfortable and it also makes the lender feel more comfortable. Perhaps a preferred rate could be established if everybody feels comfortable in this situation. That is one of the first steps toward some of the stability that is really needed.
We also have been unable to predict the grains and oilseeds sector because of the lack of a world agreement. I am sure everyone has witnessed what has happened over the last number of years. In 1989, the grain producing nations of the world transferred something like $245 billion U.S. to the farm sector. It is embarrassing when we think of what that is doing; and still, a third of the people in this world are going to bed hungry every night. That is something we have to address as well.
Tb come back to the hon. member's question, I believe that more young people will go into agriculture if we put the right policies in place. We have a task force on farm financing which is addressing new entrants to agriculture, not only youth but new entrants, which I believe is important. If we can come out with the proper programs, that will help.
Supply
There has always been a problem, for as long as I have farmed and that is all my life, of intergenerational transfer of land from one generation to the next. So if we can address that issue, without having to refinance the farm every generation, that would help us greatly as well. But the most important thing is that income should be predictable and be at a level that gives an opportunity for a reasonable living. This would be the most encouraging thing we could have happen for our young people.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to contribute a few comments to this debate on agriculture. Like you, Madam Speaker, I am very concerned about what is happening at the current GATT talks.
We will have to wait until the end of these talks to find out what the impact of agreements will be on Quebec producers, for instance, who share the same type of prosperous farming area, and we hope that will remain so.
For the benefit of hon. members, I want to say that thousands of farmers have written to us to express their concerns. I think it is absolutely vital, especially during this debate, to ensure that hon. members are aware of the legitimate demands of Quebec producers, demands that are summed up in three short paragraphs, Madam Speaker. First, it is clear that properly maintained and operated supply management systems, particularly as they apply to dairy, poultry and egg producers, are essential if we are to maintain balanced production and a measure of security for our farmers.
Of course, we cannot have a management system if we cannot control imports, and obviously, if import controls are replaced by a customs tariff, this would lead to a gradual dismantling of our supply management system.
Finally, Quebec producers are anxious to see their price and income stabilization programs maintained in their present form. As you know, Quebec has a program that is probably the most generous and best adapted to the present situation in agriculture, which means that maintaining crop insurance and farm credit programs must be one of the priorities at the current GATT talks. As we see it, these programs do not cause any distortion in production and marketing.

November 2, 1990
Supply
While the talks are taking place in Geneva, many fanners are very worried. They have substantial investments that are on the line, and the banks are getting nervous. I therefore hope the government will never consider signing an agreement that does not respect existing rights.
I am sure the parliamentary secretary, who is very well informed on this issue, is prepared to give us the assurance that the vested rights of Canadian farmers will not be tampered with.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to once again state our position and support for Article XI which is the basis of our supply management sector, whether it is dairy or poultry.
We tabled our position after consulting fully with both of those industries. We have not wavered in any way from the position that was developed by those two sectors and we will maintain our position. We have no intention of moving from that position.
We have met constantly with the dairy producers and the poultry sector and their support has been very valuable to us in developing the position and maintaining it. It is very clear to the government that that is what we would like to have.
Madam Speaker, I wonder if it would be permissible if I could go back to the hon. member who was talking about young farmers.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will have to interrupt the hon. member. The period for questions and comments has now expired. However, I would be quite prepared, if it is the pleasure of the House, to allow the parliamentary secretary to answer the questions.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Murray Cardiff: I thank you, Madam Speaker, and the House for that co-operation. I just want to say that the age distribution of farmers has been fairly constant since 1931. The proportion of farmers who were under 35 was actually higher in 1986 than in any census year between 1961 and 1976.
Also between 1981 and 1986, just over 28,000 individuals under the age of 35 started new farm businesses. I just thought the House would be interested in those statistics.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments. He knows, as I said, that I believe the papers are going in the right direction and we need more consultations with farmers. Quite frankly, farmers are asking whether or not the money is going to be there to back up all the promises that are coming out of these consultations.
The member is quite aware of what his colleague, the Minister for International Trade said in this House on October 15, as reported at page 14143 of Hansard:
The Minister of Agriculture should be ashamed at the amount of
assistance he is giving Canadian fanners.
I want to give the parliamentary secretary an opportunity to stand in this House today and to refute those statements, and to tell all Canadian farmers that in fact once all the consultations are finished, once all the programs are there and made available, that the money will be there to provide for these programs.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I would just like to state again that this government has been committed to agriculture ever since we took over the governing of this country in 1984. The programs we brought forward and the assistance we have given has been consistent and has always been there when the need was there. That will continue to be there as well.
Regardless of what the future holds, we believe that if we have proper negotiations, it will not require as many tax dollars to assist if we can bring some common sense to the world marketplace.
But I do say, and I will say again, that we will be there to support our agriculture sectors as we have in the past.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 31
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Yesterday, Madam Speaker, the minister responsible for regional development, the hon. Benoit Bouchard, was in Bona-venture in the riding of my colleague Darryl Gray where he announced the federal government's participation in the Atlantic salmon enhancement program in Quebec.
Under this joint federal-provincial agreement the Government of Canada contributes $12 million towards a program to restock Atlantic salmon rivers and develop sports fishing.
Madam Speaker, allow me to welcome this federal government initiative and pay tribute to the Quebec Federation of Atlantic Salmon. For a number of years now it has been playing a leading role in the preparation of this program, and it will continue to ensure that it is properly implemented.


WINNIPEG TAXATION CENTRE
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, Canadians will know that the government since 1984 has increased taxation 32 times. If the goods and services tax were to be implemented, it would be number 33.
The government has shown an immense creativity in raising taxes, but there is a type of tax that we are not talking a great deal about and that is fee for service or charge-back for certain services. For example, there is a new twist now, charging employees for certain particular services.
Here is one example. There is a new parking policy which now requires employees to pay, and pay a lot, at the Winnipeg Taxation Centre. The parking facility there is really quite inadequate. There are not enough parking plugs and they have been requested over a year ago. Of course there are severe winter conditions there and if anyone doubts that I would invite them to come and pay a visit. These plugs were requested last year. To date nothing has been done. There are not enough spaces for
employees. The centre is not centrally located, there is poor bus service, and no viable alternative for parking.
Apparently this is taking place in a number of cities across Canada and in a number of areas of government, not only at the Winnipeg Taxation Centre.

When will the government stop overtaxing Canadians? And when will it treat employees with fairness?


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Madam Speaker, the residents of the riding of Saint-Maurice enthusiastically welcome the Prime Minister's announcement concerning the future of our country, and they intend to participate actively in this great national debate. We will remind our friends in English Canada that Quebec is a distinct society, a fact that will have to be recognized once and for all.
Unlike members of the Bloc quebecois, most Quebec members will answer the Prime Minister's call. Our friends in the Bloc quebecois should also make a positive contribution to this endeavour, if only because the interest of Quebecers-as long as they remain Canadians-is that the systems works.
My message to the member for Shefford and the member for Richelieu is that the role of members in the Canadian Parliament is to seek formulas likely to improve the country, not to plan sterile strategies to destroy it.


DALY BUILDING, OTTAWA
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, according to a report published in The Ottawa Citizen this week, the National Capital Commission seems ready to make some recommendations concerning the Daly Building.
In the past years the project has inspired heated debate on its heritage value and the viability of preserving it without major modifications despite its unsafe structure. Anyone walking by the south side of the building along Rideau Street can see that this eyesore's

zero set-back makes any work being done around it dangerous and inconvenient.
There can be nothing gained in keeping the south side of the building intact. I call upon the NCC to heed the advice of experts presently involved in the project, to remove the dangerously substandard stones, to move the building much further away from the street, and to produce a replica of the original Chicago-style building constructed in 1905. All of this will thereby properly enhance the streetscape at the bottleneck of Confederation Square.


ETHANOL
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Madam Speaker, as grain stocks in western Canada mount and world fuel prices rise due to the situation in the Middle East, it seems timely to consider the economic viability of increasing the production of ethanol, a gas extender produced by the fermentation of biomass feedstocks such as low quality grains.
Contained in the report of the Standing Committee of the Environment of October of this year is a recommendation which states: "Canadian energy policy-making must have as its most immediate focus the more efficient and conserving use of energy."
Ethanol blended fuels offer a wide range of advantages to the motor fuel producer, the marketer, the consumer, and the public at large. Ethanol is capable of dramatically reducing dependence on foreign oil and boosting our farm economy.
I urge fuel producers and the government to give serious consideration to the increasing of our production-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I regret, but the time of the hon. member has expired.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, considering the way it handled the Hibernia project and its opposition to the principle of anti-scab legislation proposed by a former Tory, the hon. member for Richelieu, this government has abandoned Quebec and Canadian workers. The irony and hypocrisy of it all! Francophone Tory members who don't even have the balls to defend the real interests of Quebecers!
I went to the Levis-Lauzon shipyards and I heard and echoed the alarm sounded by Robert Monette, president of the union local at MIL Davie. The government had clearly missed the boat on the Hibernia project, and then we saw Tbry masks drop a few days after Halloween, when they objected to the principle of anti-scab legislation. Today, we see the true face of these Tories, Madam Speaker, a face that is anti-union, anti-worker and anti-Quebec.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, today, the media reported that Quebec Minister Gil Remillard was not satisfied with the federal government's contribution to regional development in Quebec.
The progress report for the 1988 Canada-Quebec agreement on regional economic development, dated September 30, 1990, contains the following information: In the resource regions, the federal government introduced programs with a total of $214.99 million, 75.9 per cent of the $283 million provided for these regions. Of that amount, 23.6 per cent or $66.91 million has already been committed, while the province has invested only $98.66 million, 48.6 per cent of a total of $203 million. Madam Speaker, only 2.6 per cent of this amount or $5.6 million has been committed.
In the central regions, the federal government has already committed $43.75 million, as opposed to the province's $3.52 millions.
Madam Speaker, Minister Remillard's eloquence does not extend to figures, so I think he should learn quickly to give credit where credit is due, for the benefit of Quebecers.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, for the last two years, Prince Edward Island has suffered at the hands of Canada Post. We have seen closures of

rural post offices, reduction in services, and most recently the cancellation of Saturday rural mail delivery.
It has reached the point that a two-tiered system is developing in types of services provided by the corporation. My constituents who live in rural route areas have discovered that not only are they deprived of Saturday rural delivery, but they cannot even pick up their mail from the post office on Saturdays.
Islanders deserve better treatment from Canada Post and the opportunity to voice their dissatisfaction with recent actions taken by the corporation. I urge the minister responsible for Canada Post to respond to my previous request that a committee be struck to examine the recent cuts and discrepancies in the corporation's activities in Prince Edward Island.


LITERACY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Madam Speaker, we must continue our efforts to heighten public awareness and renew our joint commitment to improving the reading and writing skills of Canadian men and women.
According to a recent survey of literacy levels in Canada by Statistics Canada, 38 per cent of Canadian adults lack basic routine reading and mathematical skills.
International Literacy Year has provided opportunities for action, and people have become more aware of the problem. A special effort has been made to raise the literacy levels of Canadian men and women. However, we must not stop there. For 4.5 million Canadians, reading and writing is a daily recurring problem.
Madam Speaker, we cannot let all this human potential go to waste because of lack of skills. Our own development is at stake, both as individuals and as a nation.


THE FRASER RIVER
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, the Fraser River is over 1,200 kilometres long and drains over 230,000 square kilometres of
British Columbia. It is a vital part of the provincial ecosystem.
The lower Fraser is fortunate to have the Fraser River estuary management program to monitor the environmental health of the river as it empties into the lower mainland estuary. No such agency exists to provide a clear and effective plan to safeguard the future of the upper Fraser.
The upper Fraser requires a plan and a process to permit a better balance of economic and environmental considerations, as well as a framework for effective research and monitoring programs. We need to develop an integrated strategy to clean up the entire Fraser River and address critical issues such as water quality and the impact on the upper Fraser of industrial, forestry, and agricultural practices.
An upper Fraser management program could and should provide all agencies and non-governmental organizations interested in the Fraser River, an opportunity for input.
If the government is truly interested in-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has now expired. The hon. member for Portage-Interlake.


CHILDREN
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about a subject that is of importance to all Canadians.
Our children-the children of Canada and, indeed, the children of the earth-need our protection, our support, and our love.
I congratulate our Prime Minister for his efforts at the historic World Summit on Children at the United Nations. This hallmark event has raised children's rights to new heights and expectations.
I would like to thank the many persons in my constituency of Portage-Interlake who continue to drop off at my constituency office donations of children's necessities and cash to be donated to the many orphanages in the country of Romania. Their generosity will help these children and will not be forgotten.

November 2, 1990
Finally, I wish to welcome to this world one new Canadian, Cali Beryl Blank, the bouncing new daughter of Sheldon and Irene Blank of Winnipeg. May she grow up to know a better world for children than exists today.


NORDION INC.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of State for Privatization announced that he was seeking bids for the purchase of the shares of Nordion Inc., a subsidiary of Canada Development Investment Corporation.
The government is in danger of developing a bad habit for cutting bad backroom deals. The sale of Route Canada by CN was just one example of this. In this time of economic uncertainty, concrete steps must be taken to protect taxpayers and employees from unscrupulous purchasers dedicated to an asset strip of Nordion.
I urge the minister responsible to make public his ministry's current market appraisal of Nordion, as well as all bids submitted and not withdrawn, the agreement of purchase and sale, and the remuneration agreement with Wood Gundy, which is the bid manager, so that Canadians are not kept in the dark as this Crown corporation goes on the chopping block.


PARRSBORO FOSSIL MUSEUM
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the House and the people interested in the Parrsboro Fossil Museum that the federal commitment to fund the museum is in place and confirmed. As well, I am pleased to report that Hon. Ron Giffin, Minister of Education for the Province of Nova Scotia, has confirmed the commitment of the province. Further, the private investor has committed to go ahead with the project as soon as possible.
Funding for the museum resulted from a unique agreement by several departments and levels of government and was only made possible by the participation of the private sector partner.
Although some opportunistic individuals have tried to create some negative publicity about the museum, we are all determined to succeed in this genuine historic project in an area of high unemployment. It will be the corner-stone of an economic turnaround for the area and the community is solidly behind the geological society in a very positive way.


CITIZENS' FORUM ON CANADA'S FUTURE
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: I rise today to underline the fundamental importance of having representatives from Canada's northern territories on the recently formed Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future panel.
Surely, if we are to engage in a process of national renewal, it is essential that all regions of the country have a voice. I need not remind the House that the Yukon and Northwest Territories encompass one third of Canada's land mass. The Yukon and Northwest Territories were left out of the Meech Lake process.
The Prime Minister spoke yesterday of consultation from coast to coast. Well, I want to call on the Prime Minister for consultation from coast to coast to coast. I call on the Prime Minister today not to ignore the reality of Canada, to acknowledge Canada's majestic north, and to give the message to Canadians in the north that our views count and that our voice should be heard.
I call on the Prime Minister to ask for nominations from the Yukon and Northwest Territories to serve on this very important panel on national unity.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, Article 19 is an international London based anti-censorship monitoring organization. It has said recently that Canada's protection of freedom of information is too weak. The group in its report to the United Nations Human Rights Commission urged that federal budget cuts in programs to promote the use of aboriginal languages be reconsidered. During the recent Oka crisis, the news media's freedoms were severely diminished.
I would hope that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in its consideration of the events of this past

summer at Kanesatake would take these and other words of censure from the international community into account.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have questions today for the Minister of the Environment on his handling of the Rafferty-Alameda dam project and what it says about his commitment and that of the government to having a sound environment for all Canadians.
Yesterday an affidavit was tabled in the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, sworn under oath by Premier Devine of Saskatchewan, in which the premier said that on September 5 he met with the minister in the minister's office and he and the minister agreed that the dam project would go ahead and there would be no environmental assessment completed until after the dams were completed. Yet the minister in this House on October 12 said and I quote: "There was no such agreement".
How could the minister tell the House that there was no such agreement when the premier of Saskatchewan swore under oath in an affidavit tabled in the Saskatchewan court that there was such an agreement and that he and the minister even shook hands on it?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to repeat for my hon. colleague that my position in this case has always been very straightforward. It has been to say that I wanted the process of a full review to be completed. There were documents that were filed late Wednesday afternoon in Saskatchewan before the court. I asked the court, through our legal counsel, to give me the time to respond to those documents. I intend to do so. I can also say that I maintain the position that I took before my colleagues in this House on October 12, saying that there was no such agreement.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I have the premier's affidavit right here in my
Oral Questions
hand. In it the premier swears under oath that the minister made an agreement with him, which was repeated before officials at a luncheon, that the dam project could go ahead and there would be no assessment until the project was completed.
Will the minister swear his own affidavit under oath, setting out what he said here, and will he go to Saskatchewan immediately to allow himself to be cross-examined under oath about his affidavit?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, I just said very clearly in my answer to the first question that the documents had been tabled before the bench very late Wednesday afternoon. We asked for an adjournment so that I would be in a position to provide the equivalent documents on the federal government's position, and I will do that. Those documents will be sworn and they will be deposited before the court this afternoon.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, if the minister and the government are fully committed to having an environmental review before the project goes ahead and if they want the court to prevent the project from going ahead before this has happened, why has the government, through its lawyers, asked the court for another six days delay before the case is heard?
I am told that earth moving equipment is working on the dam day and night, seven days a week. Even though the minister wants to file his own affidavit, why can the case not begin right now with the material that is already available? Does it not mean that the minister is not serious if the minister, through his lawyers, wants another six days before the case even begins to be heard?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, it is very simple. I have mentioned that twice now. I will mention it a third time to make sure that my hon. colleague opposite understands it.
The Government of Saskatchewan made available new materials to the court on Wednesday afternoon, roughly at four o'clock local time. We were advised of this new material. I think that it is only appropriate that on our side we have the opportunity to file equivalent material so that the court can reach a full and knowledgeable decision. That is what we are doing.

November 2, 1990
Oral Questions


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Madam Speaker, in the affidavit filed by the president of SaskPower, Mr. George Hill, it is alleged that the minister stated that if the Rafferty Environmental Review Panel quit, "So be it".
Did the minister say, and I quote from the affidavit, "If in fact, it did quit, it would probably increase this minister's options". Did the minister say "he did not care" one way or the other.
Is there any limit to this minister's or this government's cynicism. Having said these things, does the minister believe that he will ever again be able to regain the credibility which is required to be the ultimate defender of the nation's environment?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, I will repeat again, it is very clear. I want the process to be completed. That is why we have undertaken the moves that we are undertaking. I will be making a full declaration before the court in the form of an affidavit that will be tabled this afternoon.
Other than that, because the case is before the courts, I have no further answers to give.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Madam Speaker, that is a cop-out, and the minister knows it.
Did the minister say to the premier of Saskatchewan that he should not communicate with this minister through his ministerial office because the minister cannot handle his own bureaucrats?
As a result, was subsequent correspondence between this minister and the premier of Saskatchewan not carried on through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister? Was the Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister involved in this whole scene, as is alleged?
Is the Minister of the Environment, by his denials, not only impugning his own credibility, but impugning the credibility of his department? And now, is he not impugning the credibility of the office of the Prime Minister? Who, in heaven's name, are the Canadian people to believe?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, it is very clear: There was no agreement reached on September 5. We are before the courts. The affidavit will be filed this afternoon, and affidavits
from many of the people that my hon. colleague has mentioned.
There was no agreement and we want the process respected. We want a full environmental review of the project before work is allowed to continue, pursuant to the only agreement that was ever signed between Canada and Saskatchewan which is the January 26, 1990, agreement.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, in the issue of the Rafferty-Alameda dam, what is at stake here is the credibility of this minister and government, the implications for future projects and the seriousness of this government to have a real environmental review process.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: For that reason, Madam Speaker, I believe the Minister of the Environment must clarify his actions for this House.
In the affidavit put forward by Premier Devine, he says that the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, was aware of a deal that had been made.
I ask the Minister of the Environment, would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister not have advised him on September 5 of this deal? Would the Principal Secretary of the Prime Minister not have advised him? Who is in charge here? Is the Minister of the Environment in charge? Can we trust him?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, it is quite clear. The meeting that was held on September 5 was attended by myself, people from Saskatchewan, some of my officials and some of my political staff. There was no agreement. I have made that very clear to this House. I repeat it right now.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary, Madam Speaker, for the Minister of the Environment. Clearly, there are two stories here. Rather than argue about the stories, the minister says he is going to file his own statement, I want to ask the minister about another matter.
The environmental review process to which he is said he is very committed to is very important to all Canadians in his implications for James Bay and his implications for other megaprojects.

The Minister of the Environment said the panel quit because they felt they could not work under the circumstances of the dam proceeding. I ask the Minister of the Environment if he has given consideration to appointing another panel. If so, who will be on that panel? Who has agreed to sit on that environmental panel?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, given that the purpose of this exercise is to ensure that we have a process that is carried out fully, certainly the answer to the question of whether or not I am looking at the appointment of another panel is yes, obviously, because that is the only way the process can be allowed to be completed.
I would also like to suggest to the hon. member opposite that, given that we have a guidelines order but no legislation to ensure that all major projects in this country are fully assessed from an environmental point of view before construction begins, I would certainly urge her party to support strongly Bill C-78, which is now before committee.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, a supplementary question. The minister well knows that there are more loopholes and more exemptions allowed under Bill C-78 than even under the current system.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, the Minister of the Environment says he is going to appoint a panel. We have construction continuing 24 hours a day. The project is continuing and the minister has asked for a further delay of six days. When is the Minister of the Environment going to appoint another panel? What is the date? Who has agreed to sit on this panel to review this project?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, the whole purpose of our being in court is to seek an injunction so that the work will cease on the project at the moment and that will allow us, at that point, to appoint the new panel and to move along with the respect that we have, as a government, for the process of environmental review in this country.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns
Oral Questions
the credibility of not only the Minister of the Environment but the whole government on this particular issue.
We have the sworn affidavit from the premier of the province of Saskatchewan who states, and I quote: "He", that is the federal Minister of the Environment, "invited me to shake hands on the agreement we had made, which we did". He further states, under oath, that the agreement was communicated not only to the member of Parliament for Souris-Moose Mountain but also to the Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister on that same day.
Now we have the Minister of the Environment, in the House, claiming no deal was made, and the premier of Saskatchewan stating that not only was a deal struck, it was communicated to the Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister. My question to the Acting Prime Minister is who is lying, the Minister of the Environment or the premier of Saskatchewan? Who is lying?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member may want to rephrase her question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I will rephrase it then, Madam Speaker. My question to the Acting Prime Minister is who is not telling the truth?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, there was a meeting on September 5. We did discuss a number of issues. There was no agreement made to change the agreement that was signed on January 26, 1990. That is still the agreement that is in force. We want that agreement to be respected so that environmental concerns in this country can be met.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, the minister is making a very serious allegation, that the premier of Saskatchewan was lying under oath. The Minister of the Environment continues to state that no such agreement was reached when, in fact, we have a sworn affidavit from the premier of Saskatchewan who states that not only was an agreement-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. member put her question, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. If there is anybody on the government side of the House who cares about the environment, will they tell us who is telling the truth on this particular issue, the

November 2, 1990
Oral Questions
premier of Saskatchewan or the Minister of the Environment?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows the rules of the House better than her questions would suggest she does. She knows what language is unparliamentary. Also she has always had a very keen eye for language that might make the television news. She should subvert her interest in the television news to her interest in this parliamentary process.
The answer has been provided by the Minister of the Environment. There will be affidavits filed later in the day on behalf of the Government of Canada that will make the position of the Government of Canada very clear on the matter. She should not try to seize a momentary deadline because of the natural timetables that are involved in a court process.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Madam Speaker, Manitobans cannot be and are not indifferent to what is going on in Saskatchewan. Manitobans are deeply concerned about what the Rafferty-Alameda dam project might do to water quality and water quantity in the Souris River on the Manitoba side of the border.
However, the environmental review panel has resigned; it is gone. Without the review panel in place, how does the Minister of the Environment plan to proceed with an assessment of any impact on the environment in Manitoba?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, that is the reason we are encouraged. We are encouraged because we want the agreement of January 26, 1990 respected. The reason that we are encouraged is also because the panel resigned once it found out that that agreement was not being respected.
Depending on the court's decision, then we would move very expeditiously to appoint a new panel to make sure that the work is completed and that the process of environmental review is fully respected in this instance.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Manitobans will want the minister to keep his promise on that.
The Rafferty-Alameda project was preceded by an agreement with the Americans. Canada promised to build the dam, to build it very quickly, and in return the Americans promised to kick in $41 million.
Now the federal government has lost control over the project. Besides, the agreement was signed before the environmental impact assessment.
Are we not headed for a possible international mess with the Americans and all because of the negligence of this government?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, it became painfully apparent by late September-early October that the agreement which had been signed between Saskatchewan and Canada under the court order that had been issued for environmental assessment was not being respected.
We immediately moved to seek an injunction in court, and that is what we are proceeding to do, again to ensure that a full process of environmental review be conducted on the project according to the court order that was handed down back in December 1989.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
Today is November 2. According to the affidavit, on September 5, on September 17, on September 28, on October 5, and again on October 10, the Saskatchewan government let the federal government know-either the minister himself, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister or the chief of staff of the Prime Minister-what its position was.
Why did the alarm bells not ring? Why did the federal government not have a position to defend the environment? Why was nothing done to defend the federal government position?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, I just want to tell my hon. colleague that throughout that period there were ongoing discussions between the Government of Saskatchewan and myself to try to reach an agreement that would allow the panel and the process to be followed throughout.
Those conversations took place throughout September and early October. The last conversation was held the day when we had unfortunately to recognize that no accommodation could be reached, that the panel had

resigned, and that we had to take hard action, namely seek an injunction in court.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
If the minister were aware-and he must have been after all those days of communications-that there was such a problem, why was nothing made public? Why was the public kept in the dark? Why were others not in a position to know that the environment was being threatened? Why were others not told that the Saskatchewan government believed it had a deal? Why was everything kept in the dark? Why was everything kept a secret? Why was the public not able to defend the environment, like this minister has refused to do?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, throughout this period the panel was going about its job according to its terms of reference to fulfil an environmental process which we feel is very important for Canadians and for people throughout the country. That panel was working and that work was advancing.
During that time we were trying to discuss with Saskatchewan some of the controversy that had emerged over the last six months. The work was being done and was proceeding.
We would like very much to be able to assure right now that that process be maintained and that work be completed.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
He will know that in paragraph 84 of the affidavit of George Hill he states: "When the meal was concluded, which would have been around 1.35, the minister asked the premier if there was anything further, and when the premier replied that there was not, the hon. Robert de Cotret invited the premier to shake hands on the deal which they had made, and the two of them so shook hands."
For the benefit of all Canadians, would the Minister of the Environment explain why he now denies that there was a secret deal with regard to this matter?
Oral Questions


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, the member is quoting from the affidavit. The case is before the courts. I have indicated clearly to this House that I will be responding on behalf of the Government of Canada to these affidavits by an affidavit of my own this afternoon.
I would only hope that this matter can be resolved by the courts and not resolved in this kind of public discussion.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
I have an affidavit signed by the premier of Saskatchewan. Paragraph 18 reads in part: "On September 5,1990 he telephoned and spoke with the honourable Len Gustafson, MP". He goes on to say, and I have the full extract here for the Acting Prime Minister: "I also kept my appointment with the chief of staff of the Prime Minister and I advised him of the agreement and the terms thereof. He informed me that he was pleased it was all behind us."
Would the Acting Prime Minister clarify the matter for all Canadians and admit to Canadians and to the House that there was a secret back room deal on this project?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Whip on his appointment and on his enthusiasm. It is too bad that his facts are not consistent with his rhetoric.


David Charles Dingwall: You're calling the premier a liar?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, no. I don't use language like that. I leave that to the member for Hamilton East.
The hon. member, with doubtful propriety, has quoted an affidavit that is before a court on a matter that is also before the courts.
As my colleague, the Minister of the Environment has said, there was no deal. As he also said, there will be further affidavits filed this afternoon. Rather than seeking Andy Warhol's 15 seconds of fame on television at noon, the hon. member should let the court process carry forward.

Oral Questions


MANDATE OF THE SPICER COMMISSION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
The terms of reference of the Spicer Commission are not clear, not by a long shot. Canadians have many questions concerning either the make-up of the commission or its work mandate.
I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Spicer Commission will be a substitute for the promise made by the government or the Prime Minister to appoint a national commission on native peoples affairs? And are we to infer that the Spicer Commission will replace or defer another government promise that Parliament will address the reform of this institution and this country, beginning with the Senate? Can we expect an early start on Senate reform?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we hope to see a reform in current Senate practices, and Canada would be well served if the Liberal senators were to drop their tactics aimed at stalling the proceedings of the Senate.
But of course the government and Parliament will have to take other measures to reform our institutions, not only the Senate but the Commons as well where changes are necessary, as they are with respect to other federal-provincial and Canadian practices.
We believe that such a great national debate should not be the exclusive preserve of parliamentarians. As MPs we do have a role to play, but then so do all Canadians. Given yesterday's announcement about the establishment of the Spicer Commission, the Canadian government is now in a good position to participate fully in the decision-making process involving the future of this country.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, the Spicer task force may be good group therapy for the majority, but many of us in this country feel left out. The francophones outside Quebec, the
people who live north of the 60th parallel and the multicultural groups feel left out of this commission.
I want to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister or the Prime Minister-

-"suppleant". I will use the French term. This is not stalling.


An hon. member:: He is the one who is stalled. [English]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Will his government consider enlarging that commission to include the people I have just referred to and, second, will the report of that commission be given to Parliament eventually for analysis and action?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I know that the quality of my French sometimes leaves something to be desired in the country-


Mr.   Timer@Vancouver Quadra: It is better than your English.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is better than my English, the former Primer Minister tells me. It is part of the rich diversity of Canada, and I am sure he would continue to encourage me to be inventive in my vocabulary if not in my response to questions.
The reason that we have established this commission is precisely because thousands, perhaps millions, of Canadians do in fact feel left out of decisions that affect the future of the country. I think that is a matter which has to be of concern to all of us who work within national institutions.
Our national institutions are obviously not working as well as they should. We have to continue to carry out our responsibilities in this place and in other national institutions, but we have to recognize the reality that Canadians feel left out, that they want an opportunity to participate in planning and deciding the future of this extraordinary country. We will all be the beneficiaries of that.
Are there likely to be changes in the composition of the panel that was established? No, there are not. Is there going to be a determined effort to ensure that every Canadian in every region from every background

has the opportunity to participate fully in this process? Yes, there is. That is why we put it in-


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. It is prompted by a report in today's papers that Quebec Government Minister Gil Remillard is not satisfied with the federal performance concerning regional development in Quebec.
Can the minister tell the House the status of discussions on September 30 last concerning the 1988 Canada-Quebec agreement on the regional economic development of resource and central regions?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: First of all, Madam Speaker, Mr. Remillard made a mistake yesterday because he referred to the $240 million forestry agreement when he should have mentioned the regional economic development agreement which has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Second, with respect to the money spent by the federal government in Quebec and concerning the $800 million agreement, the federal government has earmarked about 76 per cent of the funds, and the Quebec government about 40 per cent. The federal government has spent about 25 per cent of the money, as compared to 2 per cent by the Quebec government.
From a federal standpoint the program is right on schedule and it is being implementd on a regular basis. Quebec government officials may choose to take a different approach as they see fit, but that is not our responsibility. Still I think Mr. Remillard ought to get his figures straight before commenting on them.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. This morning's release of the tanker safety report spells out
Oral Questions
an urgent agenda for the protection of Canada's four coasts from tanker spills and dumping.
This morning at the press conference, the minister's talked in vague terms of studying, examining and assessing. The report predicts we can expect one major spill every year and it says we are utterly unprepared now.
Will the minister take immediate steps to obtain the necessary funds and staff to implement as much of the report as possible without having to proceed to legislation?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the government, and I think all Canadians, to thank David Brander-Smith and his panel for the report. It is certainly wide-ranging and very hard hitting and the government takes into account its recommendations. They are excellent.
We have only had the report for a short time, but my hon. friend makes the point that we should move as quickly as possible. Yes, we are. I think there are some things we can do to co-ordinate our responses between various departments to increase our surveillance and inspection. We will undertake to do those immediately. Vis-a-vis things that have been in the works for some time, I am pleased to advise my hon. friend that a $5.3 million installation of vessel traffic services will be made in Placentia Bay. That will be announced this afternoon by my hon. friend, the Minister for International Trade.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, the minister's response is a bit more positive than it was at the press conference this morning. I would encourage him to quickly prepare a plan and table it before Parliament.
I have a separate question for the Minister of Transport, Madam Speaker. On Monday the National Transportation Agency issued a licence to kill VIA Rail services. VIA management can now reduce or eliminate routes without the bothersome process of actually asking the people affected what they think.
Will the minister make good on his government's alleged commitment to consultation? Will this government move to overturn the agency's decision?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I was hoping my friend would return to Brander-Smith so I can improve my answers.

Oral Questions
No, I do not think that the decision will make any difference to the vigilance which the government will show toward all of the VIA routes in this country. The last VIA route cuts were as a result of a determination as to where we could best spend the taxpayers' money. I think the results speak for themselves and I should not be worried if I were the travelling public.


MARINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport and it concerns his government's plan to force Canadian shippers to pay user fees for the services of the Coast Guard.
Given the declining state of our shipping and harbour industry across Canada and the outright condemnation of this plan by the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, how can the minister force Canadian shippers to pay these onerous user fees, knowing full well that this will destroy the competitiveness of the marine industry along the St. Lawrence Seaway, particularly in the province of Quebec which will be the hardest hit?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, the government makes no apologies for looking at how we can best serve the shipping public and the Canadian taxpayer in organizing the Department of Transport. To that end we have looked at cost recovery and my hon. friend makes it sound as though it is a fait accompli. He knows very well that it is a consultation process. It is going on in the marine mode, it is going on in the aviation mode. Furthermore, my hon. friend also knows that the deadline for input to me was extended from November 1, 1990 to February 1, 1991 just last week.


Sergio Marchi: My supplementary is for the same minister. This government, through its ill-conceived policies, also makes no apologies for derailing our trains, grounding our planes and bringing our airlines to a halt, and now they are trying to sink the shipping industry.
Now that it is clear that these user fees will devastate the competitive edge of the marine industry, will he come to his senses and reject and revoke the implementation of these damaging user fees to the marine industry?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, as of now there are no "these user fees". There is a consultation process with the industry under way. I will await the end of that consultation process before I make any decision. That is when the decision will be made, based on consultation, not the way the Liberal Party used to do it.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Employees at Pratt and Whitney were informed yesterday that there would be layoffs because of orders cancelled as a result of the recession created by this government.
Will the government announce policies directed at getting Canada out of this recession, in order to help these employees and thousands of other Canadians who are losing their jobs? Are you going to do something?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, I agree, Pratt and Whitney made those announcements yesterday, but I wish my colleague would consider that since 1984, this company, located in Longueuil near Montreal, has considerably increased its work force and in fact has hired several thousand new workers.
It is a fact that at the present time, the aviation industry, and especially engine construction, is experiencing a slowdown, not just in Canada-because this is not specific to Canada-but throughout the world.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Benoît Bouchard: I find it rather amusing to see members of the Liberal Party so upset, because six years ago, Madam Speaker, in 1982, they cut 2,500 jobs!


Alfonso Gagliano: The Liberal Party isn't upset. Thousands of workers are upset because they are losing their jobs as a result of this government's economic policies.
November 2, 1990

How many jobs do we have to lose before you decide to fire your incompetent minister of Finance?


Benoît Bouchard: During the past six years, the Conservative government's economic policies have had positive results. Millions of jobs have been created. Of course, it is not the opposition's role to focus on the number of businesses that were created in Canada during that time.
We have every confidence in the Minister of Finance, far more than in the series of ministers of Finance we had under the previous Liberal government, Madam Speaker!


FORESTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forestry.
Our forests are in a crisis with the softwood lumber tariff and this government's high dollar, high interest rate policy. Forestry agreements which will help research and reforest our harvested areas expired months ago and we now learn that the minister has less than 30 per cent of the necessary funds to finance an agreement with British Columbia.
Why has the minister failed to sign an agreement, despite his many commitments that he would do so?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, we all know it takes two to tango and two to sign an agreement.
As my hon. friend knows-most Liberals might not know this, but that is a sort of a given.


An hon. member:: Most people understand that.


Frank Oberle: Most people understand that.
The fact of the matter is that we have had a very attractive offer, consistent with the strong commitment to forestry by the federal government, filed with the province of British Columbia and other provinces. I have announced recently that unless the offer is taken up that I would have to consider some other options.
Oral Questions
I can inform my hon. friend that my counterpart in British Columbia has just recently sent me a letter expressing his interest in getting on with signing the agreement.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, it is about time we had some action from this government and the government of British Columbia on the forest agreements.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Brian L. Gardiner: The Auditor General's report states that plans for a national inventory of our forest resources are on hold because of the failure of the minister to sign these agreements with six provinces across the country.
The minister has already gone on the record saying that he would go it alone in British Columbia if an agreement was not signed. Will he go it alone across this country to ensure we get a proper inventory of our forest resource?


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, one of the priorities and the principles that I have dictated be included in the new agreements deals very much with the requirement for longer term planning and for a more accurate data base.
Most provinces agree that this is one of the necessities and we are structuring the agreements to accommodate these kinds of things.
In terms of what the Auditor General said, I do not know what report my hon. friend read, but I could not find any text that would come anywhere close to what he is alleging.


PORT OF HALIFAX
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Recently the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council added its voice to the rising chorus of those concerned about this government's transportation policies. The viability of the port of Halifax is being threatened by the ports in New York and U.S. rail lines. By the way, the port of Halifax contributes over half a billion dollars to the Atlantic economy and is responsible for thousands of jobs.
Will the minister finally address this pending economic disaster, order Canadian National Railways to upgrade its track between Montreal and Toronto, and take steps immediately to ensure that Ontario and Quebec bound container traffic is not being spirited away to the U.S. eastern seaboard ports.

November 2, 1990
Oral Questions


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am fully aware, Madam Speaker, of the concerns of the east coast, especially the port of Halifax, vis-a-vis transportation. I have toured the port of Halifax by helicopter and I have met with the Harbour Port Commission. We discussed their concerns for the future.
We presently have under way an initiative which we think will be helpful vis-a-vis the co-ordination of the two modes, rail and port. I am sure that my hon. friend will be interested in what we are doing. We think we can make some progress down there.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the time for action by this minister is now. He has been made aware of the problem over the last six months on a number of occasions.
If he needs any further evidence that the threat is real, and the threat is today, I have in my possession a document which was presented before the Interstate Commerce Commission by Hapag-Lloyd, who just happens to be the fourth largest shipper into the port of Halifax. Their submission was in support of Canadian Pacific's acquisition of the D & H rail line which runs from the port of New York to the Quebec border. In it, they say:
Hapag-Lloyd is very interested in developing improved and competitive alternatives to the Canadian markets of Montreal and Tbronto-we urge the Commission to grant swift approval to the transaction-
When will the minister start taking his job seriously and start protecting Canadian jobs, instead of transporting Canadian jobs in the marine industry to the ports in New York and New Jersey?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: I want to advise the House, Madam Speaker, that I have been made aware of the concerns of the port of Halifax by colleagues on this side of the House. My hon. friend has never once raised them in this House.
I want to inform my hon. friend that CN is presently upgrading the line between Halifax and Montreal. Those things are already being acted upon.


An hon. member:: That's right.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Earlier today the minister said in answer to a previous question that "the panel on the Rafferty-Alameda dam project was working". If the panel is working so well, can he tell us today why every single one of them quit?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, the panel became increasingly concerned that work was continuing on the Rafferty dam beyond what they understood their terms of reference to be. At that point the panel quit.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
The affidavit by the Premier of Saskatchewan states: "I also kept my appointment with the chief of staff of the Prime Minister". Earlier today the Acting Prime Minister told us that there was no deal that was made and that was confirmed by the Minister of the Environment.
Could the minister please tell us what was the purpose of that meeting between Mr. Spector, the chief of staff of the office of the Prime Minister, and the Premier of Saskatchewan? What else was it for?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I believe that Mr. Spector was at that time the Deputy Minister of Federal-Provincial Relations. It would not be surprising that he would meet a provincial premier.
I think that if the hon. member, and indeed the House, would like to wait for the court process to cany forward in its normal process, they will find affidavits among others by Mr. Spector filed in the court.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Bengt Goransson, Swedish Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I would like to table, in both official languages, the government responses to 19 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-258, an Act respecting the establishment of the Centennial Flame Research Award to publicize the contributions to Canadian public life of persons with disabilities, was reviewed by a legislative committee on October 12, 1990.
As Chairman of this committee, I have the honour to present the Bill to the House, without amendment. I want to thank the hon. members for their diligent and conscientious work. Now that I have completed my job, I also want to thank the Speaker for giving me the honour of chairing this legislative committee.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Northwest Territories Act.


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

Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I submit a petition from a number of petitioners from across Ontario concerning the issue of labelling of food products.
This petition is the result of some very severe allergy reactions that resulted in deaths of young people across Canada, and in particular Robyn Allen, age 15, who passed away as a result of food allergies.
The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada and parliamentarians to amass legislation amending the food and drug regulations in order to require manufacturers to list specific food ingredients and additives used in prepackaged foods in place of the general classification. Also, the petitioners ask that restauranteurs and food retailers be required to provide customers with a list of all food ingredients and additives in prepared foods.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present the first in a whole series of petitions that I hope other members will be presenting. It is from volunteer fire departments in the province of Nova Scotia.
This particular petition is from the volunteer fire department in Bedford, Nova Scotia. This volunteer fire department has been there for a long period of time, as have volunteer fire departments been providing volunteer necessary services across the country.
They are asking the government to review its position whereby volunteer fire departments and other emergency services are now having to pay full licensing fees for all radio equipment that they have. The petitioners humbly ask the government to reconsider this policy. As volunteer fire services, they are finding that this increased fee, which they see as a tax, will take away from their effectiveness in providing safe and reliable service to their communities.

November 2, 1990
Routine Proceedings AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY MANAGEMENT


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to present a petition to the House on behalf of several constituents of Stormont-Dundas who share in the concern of dairy and poultry fanners across Canada that their marketing systems may be in jeopardy due to the implementation of the free trade agreement and the current round of GATT negotiations.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to instruct the government to hold the Canadian supply-management system up as a sound method of agriculture to the rest of the world and for the federal government to protect the system in its entirety during the current round of GATT talks.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Madam Speaker, I have another petition I would like to table, pursuant to Standing Order 36. It is a privilege also to table this petition on behalf of my colleague from Mount Royal.
These petitioners from Toronto are very concerned about the tax on books and other publications. When we are trying to develop more literacy across the country, these petitioners are asking the government to reconsider applying a GST to reading materials.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 372 and 373.


Mr. Lee: In 1989, for the High Commission in (a) Islamabad, Pakistan (b)
New Delhi, India, how many visitors' visa applications were (i)
received (ii) rejected (iii) approved (iv) issued?


Charles Joseph Clark: a) During 1989 the High Commission in Islamabad, Pakistan received 8274 visitor visa
applications. During the same period, 4277 applicants were refused, and 7065 visas were issued.
b) In New Delhi during 1989, 29,241 visitor visa applications were received; 11,209 applicants were rejected, and 26,482 visas were issued.
Please note that statistics maintained do not identify "applications approved" as distinct from "visas issued".


Mr. Lee: In 1989, for the High Commission in (a) Hongkong (b) New Delhi,
India, how many student visa applications were (i) received (ii)
rejected (iii) approved (iv) issued?


Charles Joseph Clark: Following are statistics for students as requested:
	Applications		Visas
Received	Rejected	Issued(a) Hong Kong	8,475	1,423	7,267(b) New Delhi	645	67	457
Please note that statistics maintained do not identify "applications approved" as distinct from "visas issued".


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


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, it is with deep regret that I must raise another point of order following a verbal commitment by the Chair relating to the oral question period. Yesterday, my colleague, the hon. member for Richelieu, was allowed to ask a short

question out of charity. Today you did the same thing for me.
My colleagues and myself met with the Speaker to ensure we are treated fairly in this House and allowed to ask real questions to the government. Again today, after you let us ask a short question, the Minister was allowed to go on and on while we could not even reply.
Madam Speaker, there was a formal agreement to give my colleagues and myself permission to ask questions, including a supplementary, like any other member of the opposition. After the Speaker ruled yesterday that we had the right to sit as full members of this House, I do not understand your attitude at all. It is strange but the same thing happens every time you are in the Chair.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-C. Lapierre: I would like to know, Madam Speaker, what is your own policy regarding the oral question period?

Mr. Coopen Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate to the Chamber that we on this side believe in justice in Question Period as well.
I hope that in any ruling the Chair may make, it may take into account the fact that there are about 100 back-benchers on this side who would love nothing more than their fair share of questions every Question Period.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am startled, to say the least, by the hon. member for Shefford's comments, who refers both to today's events and to events that took place yesterday, when someone else was in the Chair. In any event, I will gladly discuss the issue with the hon. member in my chambers, which is the proper place for that. I think that the Canadian citizens and the members of this House will understand how sorry I am that the hon. member for Shefford chose not to ask a question when given the floor. That is his choice, not that of the Chair.
Routine Proceedings


[Stage Direction]
Madam Deputy Speaker A request having been made pursuant to Standing Order 52, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton East.
Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I am rising to ask you to consider the possibility of an emergency debate on the issue of the construction of the Rafferty-Alameda dam.
In light of the revelations by way of sworn affidavit not only of the premier of Saskatchewan, but also in light of other affidavits, there appears to be a tremendous contradiction, and I am being charitable, between the position taken by the Minister of the Environment federally, and the premier of Saskatchewan on the issue of the Rafferty-Alameda.
One could argue that this matter will be dealt with in the course of the jurisprudence over the next few days. We heard from the Leader of the Opposition today that, as we speak, the equipment is continuing to work 24 hours a day seeking to complete construction of the Rafferty portion of the dam prior to the federal government taking any court action.
Not less than about 10 days ago in the House, we heard the Minister of the Environment state categorically that he was going to do everything in his power to immediately halt construction of the Rafferty-Alameda dam. Since that time, we have had a series of contradictory and confusing statements emanating directly from the minister and stall tactics on the part of the government. In particular, we have a situation where the federal Minister of the Environment, having promised in the House, that he personally was going to move to-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have heard what the hon. member for Hamilton East was telling me and wanted to go on telling me. I think that all the members of this House as well as all Canadians are well aware of the importance of the environmental problems, especially as regards the Rafferty-Alameda dam right now. We have

November 2, 1990
Supply
been discussing this issue for almost an hour and we discussed it for a full day very recently. This is no doubt an important question. I simply wanted to provide the hon. member with an explanation, even though I was not required to. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate to set aside the matters before the House today in order to have an emergency debate. Maybe some other time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Speller (p. 15039)
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to respond on behalf of my party to the motion placed before the House by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk.
It is a very timely motion to be debating in the House as we witness the unfolding of the GATT negotiations on the one hand, and the extremely tough times which Canadian farm families are facing on the other.
Farming has never been easy in this country. The vagaries of weather and markets, and the mechanization of the farm industry and its effect on the farm community have all contributed to a great deal of uncertainty over the years and never made farming an easy way of life. However, the current crisis bears more serious attention than it has been getting. Part of the problem is that as the farm population dwindles, it becomes less and less significant, politically. Therefore, the issues pertaining to agriculture have received much less attention than they should have because of the very significant role of agriculture, not only in our national economy but particularly because of rural Canada where one-third of Canadians still live.
This decline goes all the way back to 1981. That is why I would like to put a few figures before the House that we, as members, might look at as we contemplate what is happening to the farm community.
For example, in 1989 farmers received only 80 per cent of the income for livestock and grains that they produced that they received in 1981. In other words, from 1981 to 1989, the amount that they received in cash for their production was only 80 per cent of the original figure. At the same time, production costs went up 150 per cent. So you can see that the gap between what farmers receive for their products, through the marketplace, as compared to what they have to pay in expenses has opened up very, very significantly.
This year alone we are looking at a 37 per cent drop in net farm income and a 60 per cent cut in the province of Saskatchewan, the province from which I come and where my father still farms and where I still live, a proud mortgage payer on a half section of land which I have at this point rented out.
This is not merely a statistical problem. This is very much a human problem. Obviously, when you go that long with such a big gap between income and expenses, the debt load piles up, particularly with the high interest rate policies which first Liberal governments and then Conservative governments have consistently pursued, ensuring that farmers who got into the industry, in the sixties to the mid-seventies, have continually been paying very high charges on the money that they have borrowed.
This has not only created uncertainty in the farm community, but it has now come to the point where the debt the younger generation is taking on is even dragging down their parents. Parents offer collateral for loans that the younger generation has taken on, never dreaming that their retirement incomes would suddenly be wiped out as creditors come calling. This is happening repeatedly throughout rural Canada.
As well, there is an increase in stress for farm families as income earners need to go to other provinces to bring home income to keep the farms going. This creates all kinds of stress, not only on the farm families but it also robs the community of its base of people who can keep community activities going. Furthermore, we have a real sense of hopelessness. Young people do not want to farm

and are looking for the first opportunity to get off the farm if only they could get their money out. This is certainly not the kind of scenario where a vibrant, rural community can evolve.
Part of our problem is that we have always looked exclusively at agriculture and not looked at what is happening to the population. We have accepted this decline because we have not looked at the population and made the maintenance of a rural and farm population one of our goals and priorities as a society.
Part of the problem is that the real crisis with regard to the rural population has been masked somewhat by the phenomenon around urban centres where there has been a great deal of acreage development and a moving of people from the cities to the rural areas around cities. I certainly have no opposition to that. There are a lot of people who have done that around the city of Prince Albert. The community of Spruce Home, where I live, has a lot of people who have moved out from the city. Nevertheless, this inflates the rural numbers which show up in census figures while the actual fact is that the genuine rural community that is not influenced by an urban centre close by has been in deep trouble. For example, in Saskatchewan between 1981 and 1989 we have had a decrease of 1,000 farmers a year, down to 60,000, in spite of all the claims previous governments made to support the farming sector.
Currently, of those 60,000 farmers, 10,000 are living with the daily threat of foreclosure. They have received notice of foreclosure and are currently at some stage in the process of losing some or all of their farm assets. Those 10,000 farmers could well be gone in the very near future, given the cash flow situation on the prairies. It is a very cruel joke that there are wonderful crops of grain but there is no market for it and no money for it when it is sold.
This spills over into small-town Canada. If you look again at my home province of Saskatchewan, of the 701 communities there 303, almost half the communities in the province, the population has diminished since 1986. That represents failed businesses, closed schools, and a lack of services right across rural Saskatchewan. In many
Supply
ways, this same situation pertains to many other parts of the country.
When we look at the whole process of what has happened to agriculture, we can look back to the year 1969 and the task force report on agriculture. That report essentially said that two out of three farmers were inefficient and had to go. The report was roundly condemned by all sectors of the farm community. It was never fully adopted by any government. Certainly, the Liberal government of the day did not embrace it with open arms and the Conservative government since then has not embraced it.
However, in my mind the policies included in that, the acceptance of the notion that two out of three farmers were inefficient and had to go, has served as the underpinning of agricultural policy in this country. The trend outlined in that task force report has clearly been operative since that time.
The rural community has finally recognized what is happening and is saying: "We have retreated long enough. We fought enough rear-guard actions. We have to draw the line". There will be no more retreat by rural Canadians when it comes to their way of life, their population and their future.
The motion deals with a number of underpinnings which have made it possible to maintain what we have now by way of a rural community, as well as in the future. Certainly, orderly marketing and supply management have worked in most respects very well. That is why I find it very distressing that they are under attack.
They are under attack by editorialists in this country. It is an ill-informed and virulent attack, reminiscent in many ways of the attack by Mrs. Beryl Plumptre and others during the late 1970s who were supposedly fighting inflation and were using that as a platform to attack farm incomes. Many Canadians believe that marketing boards never recovered from the attacks launched on it.
At the same time we have the waffling of a government that says on one hand it fully supports supply management, but on the other hand introduced a free trade agreement which allows much greater access of American exports into the Canadian market. That goes along with an equivalent producer subsidy analysis of farm subsidies at GATT which end up greatly distorting the true picture of subsidies in Canadian agriculture,

Supply
because that formula includes the prices farmers get under supply-management as a subsidy. That is not correct at all. That is a price that is coming out of the marketplace and is not a subsidy. However, with the way we have allowed the GATT negotiations to proceed, that is considered a subsidy and something we are prepared to put on the table. When it comes to supply management and subsequent discussions, what we have to get away from, not only in this country but internationally is the whole beggar thy neighbor approach to world trade and agriculture where the multinational corporations are allowed to control the price of agriculture production around the world. They ratchet down the prices to farmers and ratchet up the input costs, leaving farmers poorer and competing with each other for a shrinking over-all farm dollar.
We do not want to make farmers in Europe, the United States or the Third World any poorer. I am worried that the so-called liberalization of trade that we see is essentially an abandonment of the world trade system to the multinational corporate sector and will do nothing but further depress farm incomes around the world.
Something that affects farmers in my part of the country very much is the whole question of the Crow benefit. The Crow rate was an historic agreement in this country. In my mind it was a part of the west's constitutional deal with Canada. It allowed us to move our product to export markets as part of a deal we had with the rest of Canada to make it viable to produce grain on the prairies. That was undermined by preceding Liberal governments which chipped away at it through the Western Grain Transportation Act.
The Crow benefit is under attack again. This is an attack that the farm community has almost unanimously resisted through their farm organizations. It is under attack through the transportation task force which very much distorted the whole grain transportation picture and its analysis. It came out with a very tilted kind of analysis in favour of a pay-the-producer type of regime. At the same time, our government bureaucrats and people making these decisions are continuing the undermining of the Crow benefit by using GATT as an excuse to get rid of the benefit to prairie farmers.
The point is that the U.S. or any of the other trading partners have never said that the Crow benefit is a problem to them. That is a problem we are imposing on ourselves.
The government argues that it has provided all kinds of money to agriculture over the last number of years and indeed it has. A lot of that money has been ad hoc. A lot of that money that has been given to the farming community shows that the government is essentially schizophrenic in its approach to agriculture. On the one hand there is a supposed commitment to supply management and orderly marketing. On the other hand, oats are removed from the Wheat Board and the free trade deal very soon will allow competition with the Wheat Board in our Canadian markets.
When it comes to grain, one sees the elimination of the fuel rebate, new costs to crop insurance and the flip-flop on grain cash advances which undermines orderly marketing. Then the government comes forward with task force reports. The farm community looks forward to these task force reports with some openness of mind and with some hope that a more coherent approach to agriculture will result.
To give credit to the government, the whole picture has not fully come into focus as yet. The Gross Revenue Income Plan, GRIP, reminds me very much of the plan that we proposed in the last federal election whereby grain producers would be assured the cost of production on their first $8,000 of production. That would be a guaranteed price on a guaranteed amount of production. It would give farmers certainty and it would be simple to administer. It was something the NDP proposed in the election and was very well received. The closer the GRIP program comes to that kind of concept, the better it will work.
The NISP, the Net Income Stabilization Plan, I fear is going to help only those farmers who already have a substantial net income. This would apply to the older farmers and leave the younger farmers in the situation where they are virtually as high and dry as they are now. If we look at what is happening in my own province of Saskatchewan, the average family income of the Saskatchewan farmer from agriculture this year will be $5,000. There is no family in Canada that can live on $5,000. Some immediate help is needed and also some long-term income insurance.
While I am speaking of the net farm income picture with regard to farm families, however, I would like to make note of another issue that is not often addressed in this House. That is the situation confronting the combined income farmers in this country. At least 50 per

cent of the farmers by now rely to some degree or other on off-farm income to maintain their family income. This is hardly surprising when the income from farming averages $5,000.
What happens to these farmers is that they are subject to the Income Tkx Act which does nothing but creates uncertainty for them through something called section 31 of the Income Thx Act. This section makes very uncertain whether farmers who have off-farm income can write off their farm losses against that income, something that every other business in this country can do. Farmers, however, are subject to section 31 of the Income Tax Act which allows Revenue Canada to determine whether that is a bona fide loss or not. It can adjust a farmer's taxation in accordance with its rulings which are very vague, which are very general, and which are very hard to apply in advance. In fact, Revenue Canada is able to go after a farmer for as long as four years after the last tax filing and reassess that farmer's income.
While farmers are putting their own money into their own income insurance plans and their own investment into their farms, they are doing so with the threat that the tax man can come along and lop off their heads in one fell swoop with application of section 31 of the Income Tkx Act. I plead with this government to look at that act. As the farm income situation has worsened more and more farmers are vulnerable to that kind of situation, and it needs to be dealt with.
In the last minutes that I have left I would like to indicate briefly some of the policies that our party would like to advocate to ensure that there are no more retreats for rural Canada, that we do not have to turn around and fight any more rear guard actions.
First, we need to plough ahead with the whole safety net concept. We have to make sure that we recognize that this industry cannot be solely market driven, that there needs to be intervention by the public sector, that we need to work together co-operatively, and that the orderly marketing system is what is going to keep us afloat in the future.
These programs will not be in effect until next year, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture said. This year in Saskatchewan alone we need $1.1
Supply
billion to maintain the farmers there at their current very poor net income level. We need an immediate injection of cash into the farm community.
We need lower interest rates in the farm community. No sector has suffered more from high interest rates than the farm sector. We need reform of the Farm Credit Corporation so that it is not just acting like another lender out there in the marketplace and that in fact it uses its potential role to set up new farmers, to keep farmers in business, to provide long-term leasing provisions and to provide low interest rates so that farmers are not continually caught, generation after generation, paying interest on the farm debt, buying the farm from each other, and keeping each other at a low income level and in uncertainty generation after generation.
We need to make sure that our rural infrastructure does not deteriorate any further. We have to stop the closure of post offices which undermines rural communities. We have to make sure that rural services by VIA Rail and the rural highway system are maintained. We have to make sure that the co-operative sector is not sunk by the GST being applied to investments and to co-operative dividends so that rural communities and farmers can keep organizing co-operatives, as they have so successfully in the past to help themselves.
In conclusion, I am very happy that we have been able to address question. In this country people still want to farm. We have the land to farm on. The world still needs our food. All we lack is the vision or the political will to make sure that we maintain a vibrant farm community in the future.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I salute the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. When the member talked about a vision toward the end of his speech, I thought immediately of a saying of John F. Kennedy. When he decided to take on the space project in 1961 he said: "We are going to put a man on the moon". Nobody really knew the various technical ramifications and complexities involved in putting a man on the moon. But, because he had a vision, he was able to rally the people of the United States of America. People from all walks of life, professionals and school kids worked toward that common cause.

Supply
When I listened to the member today I heard about the various things we in this country have been doing for agriculture. He talked about the various aspects of life affected by agriculture. It seems that we have to develop a whole new equation, not unlike the equation that John F. Kennedy developed when he put a man on the moon.
Traditionally we have been a country where our thought process has been measuring strength by bankers we know and armaments we build, but maybe we should be shifting our thought process to becoming a nation that measures its strength by the mouths we feed and the environment we protect. When we get into a thought process where we measure our nation's strength by how many people we feed and how much environment we protect, we are talking about a totally new language.
The member was bom, raised, and is now involved in this field. My question to him is: Is it not time that we should develop totally new approaches to measuring the strength of agriculture in our country, its role in our country and its relationships with other countries around the world and to measuring true strength in terms of a country?


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood very much for his very thoughtful question.
He captured in some ways where I believe we need to be heading. As I tried to outline in my speech, part of our problem has been that we lack that kind of a vision. We had it when we originally settled this country. John A. Macdonald's national policy was one of filling up the countryside. Nowadays we would apply an EARP process to the whole matter of cutting down trees, developing roads, and so on. Nevertheless, at that time we had a broad vision of the development of this country which really excited the imagination not only of the country but of the whole world as immigrants poured into this country. We developed rail networks and other infrastructure around the development of the rural community in its capacity to produce food not only for Canada but for the world.
Gradually we have lost that. It is hard to say whether it was the chicken or egg first in this case, whether we lost the vision and thus became vulnerable to death by a thousand wounds of the farm or rural community as one program and another were developed which undermined
not only the economics and the population base but the broader vision of the rural community.
It is a very sound approach to analysing the future. I am glad in the sense that the government has included sustainability as part of the four pillars to which it wants to address itself. I have some skepticism about that, given the fact that the government's over-all approach is clearly one of having a more market driven economy and of letting the chips fall where they may, a kind of approach which many of us feel in no way will lead us toward a more sustainable future.
Nevertheless, it is on the table and part of that certainly has to be a new sense that we are protecting a large environment as well. We are not only producers of food. We are custodians of a vast percentage of the earth's land service. We have a trust. It is to look after this land not only for our own future populations but for the world at large so that it stays productive in future generations.
We can encompass that kind of vision. We can come to terms with what that really means and set some firm, concrete objective for ourselves in terms of no more rural depopulation, maintenance of rural services, or what we want to do as a society. I think we can make great progress.
Two very specific things need to be done right now to start that process along. First, I am very concerned that the task forces, as good as they are, have no unifying theme. No analysis is to be done or is available or nothing else is envisioned that will tie all those task forces together into a comprehensive view of where all this takes us. It is still going to be a fragmented approach as each task force reports in each sector.
We will not know whether we stay in retreat or whether in fact we move forward on a comprehensive basis, at least not on the basis of what is being done through the task forces.
The global view has to be included as part of the process, and that is not part of it. We need to tie together our thinking on rural development as well. There are a lot of very creative thinkers around this country, both in the academic community and in farm organizations such as the wheat pools, the Farmers' Union and a vast number of other farm organizations. Also there are some very creative thinkers at the community level.
November 2, 1990

People do not want to see these communities decline. They have good ideas.
We need to develop a mechanism to tie together rural development thinking and take it forward on a sustained basis, in a manner that we as parliamentarians can have input and show some national leadership to achieve what the member so eloquently suggested, a new vision whereby we measure ourselves by the mouths we feed and the environment we protect.


Philip Edmonston: Madam Speaker, I just want to comment briefly on the hon. member's speech.
I was struck by the frankness and especially the depth of the hon. member's speech. I can say that as the member for Chambly, a riding next door to that of Madam Speaker, and in fact after actually living in Madam Speaker's riding, in the small town of Saint-Bar-nabe-Sud, I have known for a long time that farmers are extremely worried about- The Tories on the other side seem to think this is funny. I don't think it is funny at all.
The people in my riding and the town where I live, the farmers, are very worried. You can smile all you want. You can smile while you are the government, but you won't be there much longer!
What I was saying, Madam Speaker, is that the farmers are worried for two reasons: first, they see a government that poses a daily threat, with programs like the GST, with interest rates so high they can't even survive, and free trade, Madam Speaker. They already have a problem with the GATT talks, which according to Department of Agriculture are expected to cause general farm income to drop 25 percent this year. Madam Speaker, this is sickening.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but I must interrupt the hon. member. The period for questions and comments has expired.

There is no time for a rebuttal. Debate, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
Supply


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to participate in this debate on the motion proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk.
We are talking today about the worry that Canadian farmers have concerning these negotiations on the GATT. Canadian farmers want us to be speaking in the House of Commons on the policies of this government with regard to agriculture. And, of course, as I said previously, they are extremely concerned.

Canadian dairy farmers, and especially those in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, as I said earlier, feel threatened. There are about 1,000 dairy farmers in my riding. I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs across the way, and I know he is very familiar with the electoral district of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I have good reason to believe he visits my riding at least once a week, in fact just a few kilometres from my home.
He is familiar with farming in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. He has a chance to see farming firsthand, since it is the main industry in my riding.
Madam Speaker, Canadian farmers are worried about the message being sent by the government opposite. On October 15 in the House of Commons, the Minister for International Trade said, and I quote verbatim from Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, on October 1, we had to file at Geneva, together
with other countries involved in this negotiation, an estimate of the
costs of various programs in effect in Canada to assist agriculture.
The total was $8.8 billion. The Minister of Agriculture should be
ashamed at the amount of assistance he is giving Canadian farmers.
It is a huge amount of assistance.
Madam Speaker, the Minister for International Trade may have said this jokingly, but I can assure you his comments are disturbing. I hope no one in this country shares the minister's view that we have $8.8 billion worth of farm subsidies, that we should be ashamed of the amount of assistance being given to Canadian farmers and that it is a huge amount. That is not true.
First of all, if we talk about Canadian dairy farmers and the net worth of the supply management systems in this country, the fact that the price paid to farmers or, if you prefer, the fact that farmers have a guaranteed income for their products, that is, a guaranteed income per unit, the more efficient they are, the bigger their

Supply
profits. So what is guaranteed is not the farmer's profits but the price he gets for his milk, and that is calculated according to a formula based on production costs.
Some people have put a value of $2.2 billion on this. However, Madam Speaker, this is merely an assumption, because the federal government's grants to dairy farmers total $266 millions, which is only 10 per cent of that amount. There are those who would see this as a subsidy. I say it is a non-existent subsidy.
I have in front of me an article which appeared recently in The Ottawa Citizen. It is about a farmer by the name Nathan Harris from Renfrew county. Mr. Harris was complaining to The Ottawa Citizen about a story that had been written concerning subsidies to agriculture. He had been complaining with reason. I will read the article:
Specifically, he was worried-not to say fuming just a bit-about an Oct. 17 column by Citizen columnist John Hay on the subject of farm subsidies.
"This sort of report," said Harris, "is totally unacceptable."
What particularly irked him was Hay's statement that Canadian dairy farmers "cream off" $2.2 billion a year in government subsidies. (Harris also wasn't very happy at Hay's description of Canada's dairy supply management program: "price-fixing and supply-rigging by marketing boards.")
That subsidy figure was wildly inflated, said Harris. After all, there are about 36,000 dairy farmers in Canada and $2.2 billion would average out to something like $60,000 per farmer-
Obviously, Mr. Harris is quite correct in pointing out that dairy farmers do not get anything like that from the federal government. The article states further:
Still, when I asked columnist Hay the source of his figures, his answer was immediate: "The government of Canada." The federal trade department-
That is the same department that is led by the Minister for International Trade who is telling us that the Minister of Agriculture should be ashamed of giving, according to him, so much help to the farming community. Jane Huntley of Dairy Farmers of Canada explained the facts. She stated:
The $2.2. billion-is not a government payment to dairy fanners.
In fact, about 85 per cent of it-$ 1.87 billion-is accounted for by the
difference between the Canadian domestic price and the prevailing
world price for dairy products.
This so-called prevailing world price for dairy products includes producer subsidies that other countries give to their producers. This has an effect of lowering the price artificially in those countries. The difference between our price and the artificially lowered price is deemed to be a subsidy.
It does not take an economic genius to know that that does not make sense. If their prices are artificially deflated, then surely we should not take the difference between them and our price in order to arrive at what is the so-called rightful price.
In any case, what difference does it make when our supply management system is designed to sustain our Canadian consumers and not for export. In other words, supply management is not a trade distortion measure. Because it is not, the whole point of what the Minister for International Tbade said in reply to that question on October 15, 1990 in the House of Commons is wrong.
Those from other countries who are telling us that our dairy farmers are getting these kinds of subsidies are wrong. As I said previously, the dairy farmers of Canada get only about 10 to 15 per cent of the amount that some have claimed our farmers are getting.

Madam Speaker, let us not misread public opinion in this country. I have here a document prepared by the Dairy Farmers of Canada concerning a poll carried out earlier this year by Goldfarb Consultants.
The findings by Goldfarb Consultants were as follows: 85 per cent of the people who responded to this poll described the job done by Canadian dairy farmers as either good or excellent; 77 per cent felt that Canadian dairy farmers did a job as good or better than their counterparts in other countries; 79 per cent felt that the lives of dairy farmers are very hard; and 94 per cent that dairy producers scrupulously meet the standards of the industry.
If I were a Tory member, Madam Speaker, I would envy these findings.

I can assure you that the level of trust which Canadian consumers have in our agricultural industry is far greater than their level of trust in the government opposite.
Madam Speaker, some may feel that it is not important for our industry to be self-reliant. Again, you know, the same poll revealed other interesting facts. To wit: 94 per cent of Canadians feel that it is important for the Canadian dairy industry to be self-reliant. The following question brought to light some interesting facts: What importance should the dairy industry have in Canada? One choice was: important enough to meet our own needs with surpluses to export. Seventy-five per cent of Canadians agreed with this statement. Madam Speaker, this demonstrates the Canadians' trust in the system.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, I should like to quote a statement which the Minister of Finance made on October 15 in this House, as reported on page 14138 in Hansard: "But you cannot go to heaven without dying." Madam Speaker, I can tell you that my colleagues and I will not allow Canadian farmers to die a slow death.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I too am very pleased to be speaking in the House today in support my colleague's motion "that in the upcoming GATT negotiations and in over-all economic policies, the government recognize the essential role played by farmers in maintaining the Canadian way of life".
I believe it is essential that the government be given a strong message. The message is that Canada's farmers deserve our loyalty and our support, that the principles on which these people built their livelihoods must be maintained.
The GATT negotiations are on the minds of all Canadian farmers today. Agricultural subsidies are seen by many observers to be at the centre of the current round of GATT negotiations. Many questions still remain as to the possible outcome of these talks.
These questions, as we all know, have an enormous impact on our agricultural sector in Canada. There could be major repercussions for the farmers in my community of Nepean as an example.
Supply
Let me briefly outline the Canadian government's proposal that it took to the GATT negotiation table. The position is as follows. First, 100 per cent elimination of all existing export subsidies over a ten-year period; second, all non-tariff barriers, other than supply management will be converted to their tariff equivalents; third, new tariff equivalents will be reduced by 50 per cent over a ten-year period and at the end of the ten-year period no tariff will be greater than 20 per cent; fourth, eliminate meat import laws and replace them with the safeguard measures provided in Article XIX of the GATT, fifth, reduce by 50 per cent all trade distorting internal support programs over a ten-year period; sixth, double all allowable amounts of supply managed imports entering Canada to 5 per cent, subject to U.S. and EEC participation.
Madam Speaker, let me speak specifically to the issue of supply management. Let me preface it by saying that this position represents the minimum requirement for Canadian fanners.
The Canadian government has made the fundamental mistake, right from the outset, of offering 5 per cent on imports as their opening bid. According to the dairy industry, this is the bottom line position. I had occasion to sit at a meeting with half a dozen of the dairy farmers from my particular area of Ottawa-Carleton and they are very concerned about this. We will have to wait and see what will result from this blunder. I am standing here in the House today in order to encourage the government to hold to this bare minimum. There is no room for movement on this issue.
Canada's challenge at this point is to develop an economically viable agricultural industry that can compete successfully in a competitive and liberalized international trading environment. Canadian negotiators must keep this most basic goal in mind throughout the ongoing negotiating process.
Within this framework, Canada must work within the GATT, first, to create a fair and clear set of international trading rules for agriculture and, second, build a system where access to markets around the world would be increased through the reduction of world tariff and non-tariff barriers.

November 2, 1990
Supply
We, in the Liberal Party, feel it is through international trading arrangements that liberalization should occur, with less of a direct focus on the bilateral relationship with the United States. This is why the current Uruguay round of negotiations is so important. So far, the federal government has proven itself unable to get the backing for its Article XI proposal; far too willing to slash internal programs, including dairy programs by 50 per cent; and too agreeable in undermining supply management in Canada by negotiating the elimination of tariffs of all agricultural goods in the FTA.
It is essential for Canada to maintain its long held principles of supply management. In a country of this size, with pressures from all round, it is necessary to ensure the existence of safety nets. These safety nets are an essential part of the agricultural industry in Canada. Without them, the industry would be in quite dire circumstances. In order that a stable and secure agriculture industry be maintained in Canada, management must be sustained.
I also want to point out that it has not gone unnoticed that the federal government appears to be trying to play farm interests in the east against those in the west, in hopes of recovering western support. This is a very dangerous game. The federal government is not going to gain the support of one community at the expense of another community. This would fracture the Canadian farming community, and I consider this to be unacceptable and unprincipled. It is time for the federal government to adopt the role of a national, not regional, advocate.
The Canadian farmer deserves our support and a fair return on his investment of labour and love for farming. We should be refocusing our attention back towards self-sufficiency in food. This motion is an important symbol of our support for the Canadian farmers' efforts to feed Canadians in the years to come.
Canada has relied on its farmers in the past, and I believe that we will need to rely on them more in the future. It is up to us, here in this place, to show that we are on their side and that we want them to succeed.
In closing, I want to say that agriculture is an integral cog in the Canadian economy. Even more important, the Canadian farmer is of fundamental importance to the
Canadian way of life and the well being of the Canadian nation.
It has been a real honour and a privilege to speak on this agricultural issue in the House today and to indicate my support to the farming industry here in Canada.
[Translation\


Denis Pronovost: Madam Speaker, earlier today I paid very close attention to the speeches of my two opposition colleagues, the one made by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and what was intended to be a speech by the member for Chambly. Mr. Speaker, what little hair I have on the head stood straight up.
I was very surprised to hear the hon. member for Chambly speak on agriculture in the House. I suspect he may never have seen a cow in his life and, in light of his remarks about farmers being against the GST, I would guess he knows precious little about the subject. Mr. Speaker, if anybody stands to benefit from the implementation of the GST, it has to be the farming community, and so far they have been enthusiastic about it.
As to my colleague the hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell, for whom I have a lot of respect and esteem, he at least-unlike the member for Chambly who just had the floor-knows what he is talking about because his riding is home to a good many agricultural producers. But that is as far as I can go in terms of congratulations to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. A moment ago he began preaching as he is wont to do, trying to tell us how considerate the Liberals are with farmers, how they see things, and how they have now discovered the pressing needs of the agricultural community in Quebec and in Canada.
Strange that we should hear that from the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I can still remember back in 1983 when Jean Chretien was the member for Saint-Maurice. Fed up because local farmers had demonstrated in front of his Shawinigan riding office he said to the newspapermen: "Farmers are a bunch of cry babies, and there is nothing we can do for them. The more they get, the more they want". That was Jean Chretien's position in 1983-84. All of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, we find out that the Liberals are fascinated by agricultural issues.
November 2, 1990

I would suggest that the member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell review his speech, and while he is at it he should give a few pointers on agriculture to the member for Chambly who is in the House and who earlier made the worst speech on agriculture that I have heard so far in this session. I urge him to get together with his colleague in the agricultural caucus and ask for a few hints. Then he could come back to see me because back home we are familiar with the problems experienced by the farming community. In Saint-Maurice I have producers from practically all the farm specialties you are likely to see in Quebec.
The member for Chambly was making comparisons and concluded that agriculture is on the brink of disaster. He was referring to the riding of our Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, which happens to be next to his. Now and then he would be well advised to look around when he goes to Saint-Hyacinthe.
Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of people who are unaware of this fact I can tell you that Saint-Hyacinthe agricultural producers are the richest and most highly rated. They are Quebec's producers who live in total prosperity and, in terms of agriculture, the riding stands second to none. That is a fact. We know these people have managed to rationalize their operations over the years, with the result that the Saint-Hyacinthe region has become extremely prosperous indeed. This should be obvious to anyone who visits the town of Saint-Hyacinthe the surrounding area, Mr. Speaker.
Next time, I suggest that before the hon. member for Chambly, rises in the House to speak to a subject he is totally unfamiliar with, he should at least do his homework. I realize members cannot be expected to know everything, Mr. Speaker. However, when a member takes the trouble to rise in the House to speak in debate as the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell did earlier, although I do not agree with the hon. member, at least he knows about farming. And I wish the hon. member for Chambly would get this straight. A member does not take the floor just to provide window dressing, because he happens to be the only member from Quebec in his caucus. A member rises in the House when he has something worthwhile to say.
Supply
Mr. Speaker, today, I would like the House to consider for a moment the position being defended by Canadian negotiators in the last stretch of the Uruguay Round which is drawing to a close after four years of intense discussions by 98 GATT member states.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, although agriculture represents only of 15 negotiating groups in this GATT round, it has become the focus of attention because of its efforts to get out of the present impasse. The problem is due mainly to the failure of major farm product exporting and importing countries to establish some order in a market that is characterized by anarchy. The situation is also due to a lack of clearcut rules applying to all partners in the agricultural sector.
In accordance with the instructions issued by the president of the negotiating group on agriculture, on October 15 our country tabled its detailed proposal for use in the multilateral talks on agricultural trade. I may recall that this is merely an initial proposal, conditional on the commitment of other trading partners to clean up their agricultural trading practices.
Canada's proposal consists of four main components, to be implemented over a period of ten years. Mr. Speaker, I noticed the hon. member for Chambly was listening carefully to what I was saying. I may add, for his benefit, that what is important for Quebec farmers is that negotiations are taking place, and Canada is not the only country involved. Ninety-eight other countries are involved in the talks. So why the defeatist attitude? Why these cries of gloom and doom about the future of agriculture in Quebec and Canada?
When he came to Saint-Tite, in the Champlain riding, he said that as far as farming was concerned, within six months of the implementation of the Free Hade Agreement, Saint-Tite would become a ghost town. Well, today, in Saint-Tite and everywhere else in the Quebec heart land, farmers are living well; granted, they may be worried, but they trust us and know for sure that the government of Canada will stand steadfast in supporting them.
Having briefly described where I stand on this issue, Mr. Speaker, I thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Hudon):: Does the hon. member for Chambly wish to comment?

November 2, 1990
Supply


M. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Canadian public in general must have been enlightened when they heard my friend the hon. member for Saint-Maurice. The way he took me to task is quite revealing about himself and his government. I must say that I understand, for I realize that my hon. colleague is very busy, having a great many things to do. He is very fond of his colleagues, and that is the reason why he spoke constantly while I was on my feet.


Denis Pronovost: We indulge in psychology!


Philip Edmonston: I am not sure he heard me. I am not sure either of his open mindedness. When dealing with the farm industry, I would say he demonstrated a certain narrow mindedness, if not out-right arrogance. Let me show you. He said: "The hon. member for Chambly is talking through his hat, but as representative of the Saint-Maurice riding, I do, and things are just fine". Frankly, Mr. Speaker, things are going badly! If I could only catch my hon. colleague's attention for one minute, I should like him to answer a question: Would you deny, in the House today, that the Minister of Agriculture has already predicted a 25 per cent loss of revenues in the farm industry? Hventy-five per cent! This information does not come from an Edmonston's report but a government's report. Find out for yourself! That is a fact. Of course there are farms in Saint-Hyacinthe which are doing well. But there are others, in Chambly and elsewhere, where the situation is bad, as the people will tell the hon. member for Saint-Maurice. Mr. Speaker, Jacques Proulx, of the UPA, will tell him that the situation is bad. Mr. and Mrs. Lareau are working a farm in my riding with their two sons, David and Martin.
This may seems strange to my hon. friend who will certainly refuse to believe me, but I spent a whole day working on Mr. and Mrs. Lareau's farm to find out what it meant to work on a dairy farm. Mr. Speaker, I had never worked on a farm. I am a newspaperman, a city boy. It is true. I am not trying to hide it.


Felix Holtmann: Milk comes from cows!


Philip Edmonston: That is right. But once elected, I decided that if ever I had to talk about the farm industry and other related problems, I should have a certain knowledge of the subject. Today, however, I don't think that the farmers both in Saint-Hyacinthe and Chambly
deserved my colleague's remarks which were full of arrogance and showed a complete lack of information.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Hudon):: The hon. member for Saint-Maurice. A short reply please.


Denis Pronovost: Yes, Mr. Speaker, even though I would have liked to give a more complete answer.
First of all, he accused me of attacking him. The hon. member for Chambly was the first one to rise in this House to unfairly attack government policies without valid arguments by talking about the GST, which will in fact benefit the agricultural sector in general, as the Quebec farmers union publicly recognizes. It is the kind of thing the hon. member for Chambly said to us.
Since he is a lemon expert, he should stick to his specialty and only take part in debates on the subject of defective cars. But, if he does not know anything about agricultural issues, he should leave the floor to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, to my colleague, the hon. member for Drummond, or to other knowledgeable members of this House instead of talking nonsense as he is doing today. It is quite regrettable, and he is misleading Quebec farmers.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to state that it is admirable that my hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party would even enter the debate on agriculture. He recognizes that agriculture and agricultural issues are important to all Canadians. I welcome his intervention, but it is too bad that sometimes we have to get on a personality debate. I do not think that really adds to what we are trying to achieve here.
With respect to safety nets in the agricultural sector, I think the real safety net that Canadian farmers have today are the ministers responsible for agriculture, and the Minister for International Hade and the Prime Minister who made agriculture the subject of the GATT debate today under the Uruguay round. That is a safety net that no one opposite mentioned. In fact, it was the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds who came up with some very imaginative programs to assist Canadian farmers under terms that they would not be addressed under the present safety net systems or Western Grain Stabilization.
November 2, 1990

We have to remind Canadians that it was running deep in the hole financially and we as a government bailed it out. That was money that-


Raymond John Funk: The farmers bailed it out.


Felix Holtmann: And the government of Canada through the taxpayers of Canada bailed out the Western Grain Stabilization program. It was not an insignificant amount; hundreds of millions of dollars went into this.
Let us look at some of the other programs to deal with difficult times. It was the safety net thinking of the Minister of Agriculture that led him, with the approval of the Prime Minister, to spend $2.1 billion on special grains programs. That program alone probably saved more western farmers than almost any other program since World War II. That was a very, very significant program, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. We admit it was ad hoc. Ad hoc programs are not the ones easily dealt with. It takes a tremendous amount of cash from the treasury. Clearly, we cannot forget that the safety net this country has does lie in the hands of a few men in control of our Department of Agriculture.
There can be criticism. I was in the House in the previous Parliament when, after announcing the few hundreds of millions of dollars in this program, the people in the opposition shouted that we should spend more. They were not even thinking that it does come from the taxpayers.
Earlier I heard the member from Saskatchewan saying that we need lots of low credit and lots of programs. Everything is "government will save the day for all the farmers". That is the sound of the old farmer's union group. There were a lot of people who knew how to become efficient farmers without first crying to the government.


Raymond John Funk: A lot of them were farmer's union members.


Felix Holtmann: Farmers do not like to cry to the government. They like to make their own money and they like to be able to be in the free market system. This government is trying everything to get them back to the
Supply
free market system and fair trade, to bring some sense to agricultural trade under GATT.
We have had to put some subsidization out. Let us not forget that the provinces were there, too, subsidizing, countering each other within this country. They are not innocent in putting money out to farmers. Maybe they have to, but we do not within our own country have a level playing field with regard to agricultural subsidies. I think that has to be addressed. I believe the first ministers of this country should get together from time to time and try to put in an equal program, not one that encourages artificial production at times, but something that gives us a level playing field.
When it comes to the politics of agriculture and what we should do in the future, we all know there is a new, you might say, right-wing party in western Canada called the Reform Party. It wants to make great inroads. Just south of my constituency, the leader, Mr. Preston Manning, asks the public to help him form an agricultural policy. It was reported on October 27 that at two meetings he is reported as having "stressed the importance of reducing government spending".
This is quite unique because some of the farming community would like to support this new initiative of the Reform Party, but if it looked at it very closely, it is actually the total opposite of what the New Democrats want to do, which would probably be to double expenditures in agriculture. We have the Reform Party which is going to start cutting what we have.
Look at some of the programs which we did put into place, such as the agri-food programs to assist agricultural production and innovation or the drought assistance program. We had a terrible drought. The hon. member from Saskatchewan knows how severe the drought was. The Government of Canada came in with $500 million or $850 million and then another $500 million this spring to assist those in those particular areas. The Reform Party would have reduced that amount and, I suppose, members sitting in the seats opposite would have doubled that amount and just run the deficit wild.


Mr. Fisher:: We'll speak for ourselves. You tell us your policy.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will have a time to get up and reflect on the agricultural

Supply
policy and I am sure he would want to do so. But these are some of the facts that we have to look at.
We have a tremendous crop this year and low world prices. But where is the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds? I tell you, he is out selling the crop for us. I mean, he has done so much to sell the grain of this country. In fact, yesterday-


Ron Fisher: Caused by the free market.


Felix Holtmann: Well, there you have it, the New Democrats are going to be the next salesmen of our grain, in some market that is artificial as can be. They are going to find people to double the price of grain when it is at maybe $150 a tonne; they will find markets for it at $300 a tonne. That is the kind of logic we get from across the way. A free market is just that. It is there and you have to be competitive in it. Obviously, the subsidies of the Europeans do not exactly help us in this particular case.
The minister, knowing full well the difficulties, has been out there and yesterday made the suggestion that it looks like we are going to have a very good grain movement right into the new year. The hon. member should know the board has taken up all its options. I guess they cannot reveal the exact nature of the sale but I want to tell you, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, by the way, has a farm of his own and if anybody can understand the plight of the farmer, it is our Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. He has his fingers right down in the soil. He knows about the potatoes grown and the grain grown and the problems faced, because he has faced them himself.
Earlier on we heard an allegation that the goods and services tax is going to cost the farmers a lot of money. Here is something that ought to be considered. In fact, the Minister of Finance very clearly said, and this has been accepted by farmers, that the farmers would reduce their costs of production by $250 million with the goods and services tax. I can assure you that his predictions have been almost always right on while he has been the finance minister of this House of Commons for the last six years, not like the projections from across the way; not the absolutely ridiculous statements that came from across the way. He has been right on. Farmers will
welcome this tax to reduce their input costs, as they should.
Certainly they will deny that this is likely going to happen, but the facts bear it out. Go to your farm dealers and find out what is going to happen to machine costs. They are going to go down. Input costs for fertilizers and chemicals will all go down, but I do not hear anybody speaking about that.


Raymond John Funk: How about the Minister of Agriculture?


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I see you motioning that my time is up. In closing, let me say that farmers do face some difficult times, but it is this administration which in the past was able to make and assess programs to the benefit of farmers, and they know it.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Portage-Interlake, the place where they closed the base. The officials from that town are writing all the members of Parliament to help the member's town get some business going. They must wonder what their own member has done on their own behalf if they are having to recruit all 295 of us to intervene.


Felix Holtmann: We'll take all the help we can get.


Raymond John Funk: This is about as contradictory as the member's remarks were. I think he got carried away in a flight of rhetoric and accused the members opposite of advocating a position where the government is going to run everything, pay everything and where there is going to be an unlimited amount of taxpayers' money sloshing through the farm sector and somehow or other tied in with some ancient sins of the National Farmers Union.
If the hon. member wants to attack the National Farmers Union and the wheat pools of this country and the orderly marketing system that those organizations have advocated through the years, he should come out and do so directly.
What this debate is all about today is whether or not we are going to maintain an orderly marketing system based on the Wheat Board, the marketing boards and those kinds of institutions which make sure that we do not have to come in constantly with government money, that the market works for the farmer, not against the farmer, that the farmer is not the total victim of weather and international situations, and so on.

It used to be that governments in this country were good at working the international market to Canada's benefit, something we seem to have lost over the last 10 years.
At the same time the member pledges firm allegiance to the free market system, saying that this is going to solve all our problems, he turns around and brags about the billions of dollars increasing adherence to the free market system has cost us. Certainly it is not only our adherence to the free market system, it is the free market system that the United States of America is supposedly engaging in. The greatest free marketer in the world was supposed to be Ronald Reagan. He was supposed to have introduced the idea.


An hon. member:: Right. Right. It ain't working.


Raymond John Funk: But where did export subsidies come from? Who has increased their export subsidies 40 per cent in the last year, starting to subsidize into their own market, and even into Canada? This is the model that the hon. member is suggesting for Canadian agriculture. At the same time, he is attacking the traditional pillars of Canadian agriculture, the orderly marketing system which has made it unique and has allowed more Canadian farmers to survive.
I would like to ask the hon. member on which side of the fence he is actually on. Is he advocating that the orderly marketing system give away to the free market system, or is he not?


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member brought me back to orderly marketing. Before I enter that discussion, let me assure him that I come from a farm where we sell pigs without a marketing board, but we have a dairy for which we have a marketing board, and those things are pretty much to stay intact, as they are.
He would advocate that we would even have a marketing board for hogs, but I do not think that is going to fly. But let me get back to something that is very fundamental. When I indicated to this Chamber that in fact we have brought in programs to spend money to assist with the needs of agriculture at certain times, like a safety net program, it was his party that voted against the supply bill that put all the money in the hands of farmers. Have him explain that to his farmers back home. When we brought in the supply bill to put money into western grain stabilization and to put money into the Canadian
Supply
Wheat Board overrun, it was his government that voted against it. Explain that to the people of Canada. If you support the farming and the agricultural policies of your own government, why do you vote against them? It makes no sense. Talking about being on both sides of the fence. Why wouldn't he and his party have supported those very things which he demands this government to do?


Raymond John Funk: Because the government spending plans are a bunch of garbage.


Felix Holtmann: There you go, Mr. Speaker. There you have the answer; just a little more rhetoric.
I am not on both sides of the fence. We have supported orderly marketing. We have done that. It has been stated again and again by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Agriculture that in fact orderly marketing is one of our criteria. We have the right to have it within our own country.
We are debating the GATT. Naturally we think we are totally and unfairly treated by our trading partners. We are demanding that some orderly marketing be brought there because it assists all Canadian farmers, especially the ones that he represents.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, before I had the privilege of sitting in this House, I was, as you may recall, a member of the National Assembly, and at the time I represented a rural riding.
Back in the early 70s, I quickly became acquainted with the problems and concerns of farmers. At the time, there had been a major development in the agricultural sector, in Quebec and across Canada, and I am referring to the introduction of milk quotas, which turned out to be a very important and very profitable decision for our dairy farmers.
Recently, five representatives of the Union des produc-teurs agricoles du Quebec came to see me in my office. In the past, when they met at various locations in the riding I represent, in the Petite Nation valley or in Thurso, for instance, I often attended their meetings. That is when I gradually came to understand-and when I say understand, I should say I merely scratched the surface-the real problems of farmers.

November 2, 1990
Supply
Lately, our farmers have become increasingly concerned, because of the GATT talks and especially because of free trade. The decision on imports of yogurt and dairy products including ice cream from the United States brought things to a head, when Quebec saw its milk quotas drop by 5 per cent, in other words, producers of industrial milk in Quebec will have to cut production by 5 per cent.
So obviously they are concerned. But they are also concerned for a number of other reasons. When we look at the motion, we see the words: "safety nets". As others said earlier, the safety net is there to ensure stable incomes that cover our farmers' production costs. However, I feel that this particular safety net has mainly benefited the general public, because for years our farm producers have been very efficient in their operations.
If we look at the past 20 years, and these are the facts, these are not figures out of a hat, if we look at the facts, the agri-food sector has been extremely efficient, with the cheapest products on the market, compared with the textile industry, auto manufacturers, and so forth. Farm producers have been very efficient since costs have not increased that much, compared with all other products on the market. So we can't say that they have failed to keep their operations up to date. In fact, they have been extremely efficient.
Will present benefits, such as the quota system for commercial milk producers or the stabalization program, be at stake in the negociations? Will the assistance we provide our farmers have to be cut?
I have always said, Madam Speaker, that agriculture has become as important as national defence in this world. If were to depend on outside sources for our food supplies, we would be putting ourselves in an extremely precarious situation. It is therefore essential-it is one of the most fundamental policies of our country-to ensure our self-sufficiency. There is no other choice. Otherwise, we would be in their hands.
So, we need well-established policies and the capacity to apply them, for the benefit of the Canadian farmers. As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, the present policies are effective. We would of course have to call upon people from the industry, the UPA for example, which represents our farm producers in Quebec. They have expressed their concerns during the meetings I had with them. They insisted that the government should not reduce at all the assistance it is providing them. That, of course, is their main request.
Since the commercial dairy farmers are already getting 5 per cent less for their milk, the slightest cutback will make farm relief even harder to find. As you know, the level of farm relief in Quebec-I cannot talk for the rest of the country-is extremely low. How do you expect the sons of farmers to follow in their fathers' steps if it means getting $250,000; $300,000 and up to $600,000 into dept? There is a provincial farmers assistance program I dealt with for many years. Generally speaking however, it is a heavy burden very few people are willing to support. Therefore, it is important to think about the future.
I do not want to do a historic retrospective but it is interesting to note that, 20 years ago, continuity was not a problem. Farmers' sons succeeded their fathers, which led to a very stable local economy. Farmers might have enjoyed stability but they had to work very hard to maintain their standard of living.
At the turn of the century, almost 70 per cent of our population lived in rural areas and over 25 per cent of our labour force worked the land. It is a high proportion. However, after the rapid industrialization that followed the First World War, this percentage fell to 15 per cent. Today, after World War II and the mechanization of agriculture, only 3 per cent of our labour force work the land. They have become very efficient and, with the new machinery and technology, it is obvious that our needs are enormous. But there are a lot more indirect jobs today me must take into account. For instance, in Ontario and Quebec, one out of seven jobs is directly or indirectly related to the agri-food industry.
To get to the point, Madam Speaker, if we cannot ensure the future, it is because present-day farmers did not get the help they so desperately need. We have lost some ground in the GATT negotiations and the Free Trade Agreement. It is very important that the government realizes there is a limit to what our farmers can handle.
If we loose our would-be farmers at that rate, you will see multinationals step in and take over the food-production industry, and that will spell the end of price stabilization. You can rest assured, Madam Speaker, that food prices will go up because, with those big multinationals, it is what the market can bear that counts, so to speak. But it is important for the government and the producers, UPA especially, who are watching closely the GATT negotiations and free trade. There is a potential danger for Canada to give in to American demands, especially when it comes to reducing the support given to our producers. It is extremely important that we maintain our security net for our farmers. If we do not, not

only will our farmers suffer, but it may also give rise to a social problem. Even if the population is concentrated in big cities, there are still people who want to farm. We must not take for granted that we can reduce the importance of farmers in our economy.
On the whole, I am sure that the government knows that UPA is watching it, and it is extremely important that it contacts the people concerned to make sure that the well-being of our farmers and of our food-producing industry is considered on the same footing as our National Defence.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Any questions or comments? Resuming debate. The hon. member for Stormont- Dundas.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on this very important motion which concerns the integrity and future stability of the Canadian agricultural industry.
I wish to commend my colleague, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, for bringing this motion forward. I believe it is a timely motion in view of the impending deadline of the GATT negotiations in Geneva and also for its support in maintaining an economically viable and productive Canadian agricultural industry in which both our farmers and the Canadian consumers are the beneficiaries.
The motion urges the federal government within the GATT talks and its domestic economic policies to recognize the vital role of farmers in maintaining the Canadian way of life. It specifically calls upon the government to uphold the principles of Canada's supply management system and maintain agricultural safety net programs which provide stability and an equitable return for every sector involved in food production.
Supply
The motion also urges the government to adopt policies which promote sustainable development in farming as well as recognize the essential role of agricultural communities in our economy and the well-being of Canadians from coast to coast.
Canadians are aware of the importance of agriculture to our economy. A decline in productivity and stability of our agricultural sector would certainly have a negative impact on the country. The government must realize that a failure to adequately protect Canadian agriculture at GATT and within its own agricultural policies would be detrimental to every Canadian and have serious consequences for Canada's over-all economy.
For 15 years Canadian farmers have relied upon the supply management system to promote stability within agriculture and to obtain a reasonable return for their business. One sector of Canadian agriculture with a considerable interest in the GATT negotiations and which is dependent upon supply management is the dairy industry. There are over 34,000 dairy farms in Canada with some 70,000 farm families deriving their livelihood from this industry. For these people, marketing boards have to remain strong.
In addition, there are roughly 25,000 Canadians employed in the dairy processing industry working in 400 plants across Canada. The total figure of those involved in this one agricultural industry is close to 100,000 and represents approximately 14 per cent of the total Canadian agribusiness employment. When these figures are incorporated into figures for the other agricultural sector, one can see the importance of agriculture to our economy and to employment in Canada. Jobs are scarce in rural Canada and agriculture is the backbone of our rural communities.
The dairy farmers of Canada desire to retain the marketing boards and the supply management system in order to earn a living from the price they can charge for milk. Farmers do not take advantage of the consumer by inflating the cost of milk and other dairy products. They simply obtain a fair price for their products based on their input costs. Supply management accomplishes just that. Without such a system Canadian dairy, chicken and egg producers would not be able to continue in operation. Very few businesses could if it cost more to produce a product than what it sold for in the marketplace.

November 2, 1990
Supply
Canadians witness every day the quality of agricultural products our fanners produce. Most Canadians agree that Canada has established in a relatively short period of time an agricultural system that is envied by the rest of the world.
In my riding of Stormont-Dundas I have over 2,600 constituents involved in agriculture and related services industry. Among them are, in my unbiased opinion, some of the finest dairy, egg and chicken producers in the country. I also take great pleasure in the fact that at the Ault Foods plant in Winchester some of the finest cheese in the world is manufactured and they are recognized internationally for their products.
Our agricultural sector must continue to meet the high standards of quality we have in Canada today. It must also be able to continue in meeting the needs of our farmers and all Canadians.
A recent public opinion poll found that 94 per cent of Canadians believe it is important for the dairy industry to be self-sufficient. Eight-six per cent of respondents thought our dairy farmers were doing an excellent job and 70 per cent said that all the dairy products consumed in Canada can and should be produced in our country. Only 3 per cent thought that dairy farmers were overpaid, while 45 per cent believed they were underpaid. Consumers who were aware of milk marketing boards viewed them positively and said that they were beneficial to both the consumer and the producer.
Canadians also recognize the valuable contribution farmers have made to Canada's cultural and historical heritage. Farmers have worked the rural landscape for generations and the rural way of life is an integral component in our country's traditions. Our diverse climate affords farmers a shorter growing season, but they have nonetheless succeeded in providing the food needs of our country.
Today, however, high interest rates, rising input costs and uncertainty over the future of agriculture in Canada are combining to place increasing pressures on the ability of our farmers to survive. The concerns about supply management and the various safety net programs have added to these burdens. The federal government for its
part has yet to provide the kind of reassurances our agriculture community deserves.
The uncertainty over the outcome of the GATT talks in December has already caused problems for farmers in terms of their ability to obtain bank loans. Mr. Cyrille Parent, who chaired the annual conference on banking and agriculture held this month in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, has stated that banks "are advising farmers not to take out loans for the next month". Banks themselves are quite concerned as well about the future of Canadian agriculture. They have a vested interest in the agricultural sector and its future viability.
In the last five years Canadian banks have written off over $560 million in bad loans and currently have $7.4 billion in outstanding loans to farmers. Obviously, our banks support the maintenance of supply management and the quota system in Canadian agriculture. They want to see this government take the appropriate action to support our farmers. They want to see Canadian farmers survive and continue their business relationship with the banking community.
Canadian farmers are not afraid of competing with the major agricultural nations of the world. What they simply want, however, is a fighting chance. They need the ability to compete and survive. Farmers realize the world is changing. They know that the agricultural trade issue is a major aspect of success of the GATT talks. No Canadian farmer wants to see a global war in agriculture, nor increased protectionist measures. Farmers recognize that if, for example, farm subsidies are to be phased out, then it must be done so in every country.
A level playing field must, however, exist in agriculture on the international scene. The United States is calling for the elimination of agricultural subsidies at the GATT. Yet the U.S. dairy producers are subsidized with U.S. government tax dollars. The U.S. farmer clearly admires the Canadian supply management system, so much so, that 11 of the major milk-producing states in the United States, which account for 80 per cent of production, implemented a system of production management on November 1 of this year. One therefore questions the actual commitment the U.S. government has to eliminating agricultural subsidies.

Canadian farmers are already at a disadvantage with their U.S. counterparts. Interest rates are lower in the U.S., and fuel costs, fertilizer costs, feed prices, and machinery parts are also lower in the U.S. than in Canada. There is little chance that our farmers would be able to compete with supply management if our safety net programs were entirely dismantled at the GATT.
Therefore, the federal government must stand steadfast in supporting our farmers. Prices for commodities have to reflect the costs Canadian farmers incur to produce their goods. Supply management has consistently provided a sufficient supply with a reasonable return for the farmer. The system works to protect the farmer and the consumer by tying prices to the average costs incurred by the most efficient producers and limiting production to estimates of domestic consumption. Thus, Canadians obtain a stable supply at fair prices. Without supply management, this relationship would end and so would Canadian agriculture.
In an editorial on October 30, 1990, The Ottawa Citizen discussed the need for international agricultural reform and the elimination of inefficiency in agriculture. However, it is also said that Canada should not give away the farm. The article pointed out that the Canadian consumer may well rejoice if, as a result of marketing boards being eliminated, the price of chicken fell. The article quickly noted, however, that the consumer would be less satisfied if market forces pushed the price of a drumstick beyond the budget of an average income family.
In conclusion, I have concentrated my remarks on the issue of supply management. I did so because I believe its future is interconnected to the future of agriculture in Canada. The federal government has both a moral duty and a responsibility to preserve the Canadian family farm and the rural landscape of Canada. It has the even greater task of protecting our economy and the welfare of Canadians. In the final analysis, whatever happens at GATT, Canadians will not forgive this government, should it relegate Canadian agriculture to a shadow of its historical past, and its present contribution to the wellbeing of our economy, our farmers, and our country.
Supply


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the hon. member made his speech largely on the subject of supply management. However, I would like to ask him a question pertaining to some of the other aspects of the GATT negotiation process and Canadian agriculture.
It is no secret that the Liberal Party, which he represents, has had trouble winning seats in western Canada through the years, and there are lots of reasons for that. One reason given by the farm community was that the Liberal Party was seen as one of the forces which undermined the historic Crow rate for the movement of Canadian grain.
With the changes that were made under the Western Grain Transportation Act, the system was somewhat changed, but the principle of paying the railroads rather than paying the producers was maintained. However, now we see a situation, both in the GATT negotiations and in the task force report, where a process is under way to dramatically change the regime by which the Crow benefit is distributed and farmers fear it will be eliminated completely. This clearly seems to be the long-term agenda of the bureaucrats of the Departments of Transport and Agriculture and supported by two successive governments.
I appreciate that the hon. member is not a westerner, but I was wondering what the position of the Liberal Party is on this very important question, arising from the GATT and the task force. Does the Liberal Party support a continuation of paying the railways under the Crow or would the Liberal Party go along with the government's agenda to make some dramatic changes to that?


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party for his question. I am glad that he also recognized that being a member from eastern Ontario, I will not pretend to my colleagues in this Chamber, or to Canadian farmers whom we are discussing today, that the issue of the Crow rate, which you mentioned as being a western issue, is something on which I would say I am an expert.
I certainly think it merits a close review, but I think it is another of those issues which across the country has created a tremendous amount of anxiety in the farming community.

Supply
Although I welcome the question I certainly recognize I cannot answer it to your satisfaction. Farming is a serious issue, and I know all members taking part today recognize that fact. I will not speak to it, not being well versed on it, but certainly I recognize it is an issue of great concern to people in western Canada and the farming community. It is one of those items that is causing a tremendous amount of anxiety for our farming community. I certainly would hope that the government and all members would look at it very closely.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International TYade):: Madam Speaker, I am in a statesmanlike mood today.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Are you? That's nice.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am very pleased to see that the subject of the MTN negotiations of the Uruguay round is being debated in the House. The Liberal opposition, I believe, introduced this motion and they should be congratulated on at last, after four years, showing some interest in this subject.
I am happy to be able to say that I can find nothing offensive in this resolution that we are debating. This is most unusual. This is the first time I have ever looked at a Liberal resolution and found nothing offensive in it.


Mr. Dionne:: Time for you to sit down then.


John Carnell Crosbie: What the House urges is that in the GATT negotiations and in our economic policies, we recognize the essential role played by farmers in maintaining the Canadian way of life. There's certainly no question about that. It is a central feature of our policy.
It urges the government to uphold the principles of supply management. Madam Speaker, ever since we assumed office, we have been assuring and reassuring the Canadian farmer who is involved in the supply management farming industries that we intend to uphold the principles of supply management. This is exactly what we have done in our offer tabled in the first half of October at Geneva in complying with our obligations in the MTN negotiations. We are doing that.
Then it urges us to maintain the safety nets to provide a stable and fair return for till sectors involved in food production, another central feature of our policy. As a matter of fact the Minister of Agriculture at present has
a major study under way in co-operation with all facets of the farming industry to ensure policies and principles to provide for a stable and fair return in all of those sectors.
It urges us to adopt policies encouraging sustainable development of farming practices-that is a given-and to recognize the vital role played by agricultural communities in the over-all economy and the well-being of all Canadians, which is another well-recognized principle to which we subscribe.
This is a resolution which we can support without any difficulty.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the Uruguay round of the multilateral trade negotiations is the most important single economic decision-making event that will take place in the 1990s-or at least as far as one can see ahead in the 1990s. There is no more important set of economic events being decided than the Uruguay round, which is going to conclude in the first week of December in Brussels, after a four-year period of intensive negotiation on 15 subjects.
I have not the time to go into all 15 subjects of course today, and we are mainly interested in agriculture this afternoon. But one of the most important sectors of the 15 being discussed-the most important I think it is fair to say-is the agricultural sector.
It is widely agreed by those participating in the negotiations that, unless there is a satisfactory resolution of the agricultural issues, there will be no satisfactory ending to the Uruguay round in December in Brussels. In other words, some of the more important trading nations involved in these discussions, including the United States and all members of the Cairns Group and I think most of the representatives of developing world, are determined that agriculture is to be brought under the system of GATT rules so that some principles of fairness and equity apply in the world agricultural trading sector, which is not now the case.
There have been efforts in the past to deal with agricultural trade, but they have been largely unsuccessful in dealing with non-tariff import barriers and the question of subsidies, and in particular export subsidies.
Many areas of agriculture are not subject to effective GATT rules at all.
As we all know, the United States has had a waiver in many of these areas since 1954 or 1955. The offer we have made in the GATT negotiations, of course, is subject to all of this being removed. We will not sustain our offer, for example, if there was any suggestion that the waiver the United States now has is to continue in the future. Our offer is made subject to certain conditions being met.
What is our offer? It is an initial and conditional offer, conditional on other countries agreeing to negotiate a substantial agricultural trade reform package with concrete benefits for our own agriculture. It is designed to achieve, over a 10-year period, an end to the international subsidy war through total elimination and prohibition of export subsidies. That is the first objective.
It is sad to report that as of today, November 2, the European Community has found itself unable to agree on any proposal to table at Geneva with reference to agriculture, despite the agreement of all the countries involved in these negotiations that by October 15 every country should table its offer on agriculture. As at November 2, the European Community is unable to table any offer.
An offer that was proposed by Mr. MacSharry, Commissioner of Agriculture for the European Community, I think about two months ago and was found to be totally inadequate by the United States, ourselves, and other members of the Cairns Group. It amounted to perhaps a 30 per cent reduction in trade distorting support for agriculture over a base period that started in 1986. In effect, they were only proposing a 13 per cent to 17 per cent reduction in subsidies for agriculture.
Everyone involved, except the European Community, agreed that that offer was totally unsatisfactory and it has not been agreed to by even the 12 members of the European Community. Germany and France, in particular, have refused to approve even that kind of an inadequate offer by the European Community,. The result is that the result that the European Community is going to meet again on Monday to decide whether they will approve an offer at all.
Supply
It is quite obvious, if the European Community does not come up with an offer shortly, at least something that can be discussed, that the whole structure of these MTN discussions may collapse. The European Community, if not the most powerful economic block in the world, is certainly one the of the two leading economic powers of the world. If the EC does not produce some kind of an offer shortly, then this is affecting negotiations in the other 14 sectors.
I presume the morale of the people involved is starting to disappear because they all know what I and anyone who studies this subject knows that, if there is not some kind of progress in agriculture, there will be no progress in any of those areas. If there is a failure of this round, I envisage that the 1990s are going to be much more difficult for every country involved in the world trading system than may already be projected.
A failure of these negotiations will result in trade chaos, the formation of trade blocs, in hurricane-like increases, and protectionist devices. We have already seen all kinds of resort to protectionist devices in various parts of the world, including the United States, the world's most important market. There will be a hurricane-like increase if these talks fail. There will be a tremendous increase in unilateral action or unilateralism as it is known in the MTN.
There will be a tremendous increase in bully-boy tactics by the giants of the world economic and trading system who, of course, if unrestrained by rules, are going to exert their influence through raw economic power. That is why, Madam Speaker, it is so important to us that we have a successful conclusion to this round. When the battle that depends simply on raw economic power commences, then we are not among the leading nations of the world in that respect. We are a middle-ranking nation. We are an importing trading nation, far beyond our size. One-third of our GNP is dependent upon trade, so we are very dependent for our prosperity on a properly functioning world trading system with clearly recognized rules that we can appeal to when the giants attempt to bully us around. That is the importance of the new rule-making system which we are having great success with and with the new system that would apply if this round is successful with reference to the acceptance and enforcement of panels. A lot of progress has been

Supply
made in those areas which is why we must settle this thorny issue of agriculture.
With respect to our own agricultural offer which I referred to, one objective is the question of export subsidies. One of the difficulties with the European Community is that the European Community appears determined not to agree to any restrictions with respect to export subsidies. If the European Community is not going to agree to any restriction on its right to give the tremendous export subsidies it is now giving its grain and other farmers, then Canada is going to continue to be savaged in the competition between the EC, the U.S., and others through the use of export subsidies. That is one objective.
The second objective is greater market orientation through a reduction of up to 50 per cent in trade distorting, internal subsidies, combined with clearer rules on what is to constitute non-countervailable or non-trade distorting support for agriculture. This is most important.
It is not all internal subsidies, Madam Speaker. It is trade distorting internal subsidies and clear rules. What kind of support can you give which will not be subject to countervail and will be non-trade distorting? That is to be decided in this round, some clear rules on those subjects.
Our third objective is improved market access through a one-third reduction of normal tariffs, resulting on bound rates no higher than 20 per cent.
The final, major objective is greater security for supply management through a strengthened and clarified Article XI of the GATT, in accordance with the proposal we made in March of this year, and which would include minimum market access levels pursuant to our international obligations.
A strengthened and clarified Article XI is needed if our dairy farmers are to be properly protected with the supply management system we now have. They know and understand that. The status quo will not adequately protect Canadian dairy farmers today. That is why it is so important that we reach success in these negotiations. That is an additional reason. Without a strengthened and clarified Article XI, a GATT panel has already indicated that dairy farmers are going to be in difficulty as a result of an interpretation of the present rules of the GATT.
With respect to minimum market access levels, all that has been suggested is that, over a 10-year period, the minimum market access levels with respect to supply management programs would increase to 5 per cent of the domestic market. I do not have the time to go into detail and I think all members are familiar with it. It has had a good reception.
The hon. member referred to the The Ottawa Citizen editorial of October 30. It states:
As such, the Canadian government's bargaining position on
agricultural trade in the multilateral trade talks now underway makes
good sense.
That is the opinion of the editorial writers of The Ottawa Citizen.
There has been criticism from some of the representatives of the dairy industry, although they have been muted in their criticism compared to the kind of protest they can make when they are really upset about a particular issue. Naturally, in their public statements, they are going to put forward what appears to be a perfect position for the dairy farmers, just as the brewery workers would put forward what would be a perfect position for them, or the beef cattle farmers for them, or the fishermen for them. They would like perfection, but they know that perfection is not possible in the world that we live in. One must accept trade-offs and compromises so long as they are ones that leave fundamental principles still protected.
There is widespread support of the fact that we have been able to put in an offer which is good for both of the main sectors of our farming industry: the farm exporting interests in grain, beef cattle, pork, and the like, which are very badly damaged at the present time by export subsidies; and the supply management sector, such as dairy and poultry products in particular, which are the beneficiaries of our supply management system and who want it to be continued in the future, just as the government wants it to be continued in the future.
I can quote the October 23, 1990 release of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association which states that our offer is "a good start to a more balanced world in which to trade". It has stated that it is a well balanced offer.
Mr. Albert Chambers of the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency, on October 16, 1990 said:
November 2, 1990

Poultry and egg producers would have little or nothing to complain
about.
Mr. Knoerr of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, on October 16, 1990, said the national farm group "strongly supports the main thrust of the proposals" in an article in The Ottawa Citizen.
On October 16, 1990, a press release from Dairy Farmers of Canada, with regard to Article XI stated:
-the position tabled by the federal government is fully supportive of the recommendation of Dairy Farmers of Canada.
The Quebec government issued a press release quite supportive of our position. Even the UPA and the Co-op Federee de Quebec thought that our offer was a positive evolution. They have areas of concern but generally speaking, they have been positive and the Quebec government has been supportive.
We are off to a good start insofar as our position is concerned. The United States has made a proposal which would go further than ours with reference to export subsidies. As I say, the European Community does not even want to discuss the elimination or any reduction in import subsidy levels at all. One can see that there is still a tremendous gap in the positions of those who have to reach an agreement within five weeks.
The government is providing unprecedented support to our farmers. Between 1984 and 1989, direct and indirect federal expenditures in the agricultural sector totalled about $22 billion. Some $12 billion has gone to hard-pressed grain, that is, the grain and oilseed sectors, to compensate for the low prices caused by the subsidy war. That was one of the main items, but $22 billion altogether. This is certainly more than adequate proof that the principles expressed in this resolution had been accepted and acted on by the government.
The price tag of this trade war is tremendously high world-wide. The OECD showed in 1989 the member countries of the OECD spent $245 billion U.S. in transfers to agriculture. In the European Community it was $90 billion just about; in the U.S., $66.6 billion; Japan, $59 billion and in that same year in Canada we spent $7 billion.
As a trading nation, we cannot afford to have this kind of war continuing. It is not a war that we can win. Fifty
Supply
per cent of our total agriculture receipts come from export trade. That dependence is most crucial in the grains and oilseeds sector where 70 to 80 per cent of receipts come from their exports. That is why in our offer we have tried to be balanced and comprehensive, to achieve both long term benefits for our export industries and long term benefits for our farming industries that come under supply management.
If we can have this position of ours accepted in the next five weeks, there will have been a major step forward for Canada both respect to our economic health generally and the economic health of the Canadian farming community. I would certainly be glad of any support that members of the House on all sides can give to our success in trying to get the fundamentals of this offer accepted by the other countries involved.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the Minister when he referred to a letter from the Quebec farmers union supporting the Canadian government's representations on their behalf.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he quoted exactly what the President of the Quebec farmers union said in his letter. I had the opportunity, in the last few days, to meet him at the Belanger-Campeau Commission in Quebec and he was absolutely furious and insulted at having been misquoted in this House by the Minister of State for Agriculture, the hon. member for Montmagny. In reply to harsh criticism by opposition members, the Minister defended himself by saying that Mr. Proulx, the President of the Quebec farmers union, wrote in a letter that the union approved the government's action when, in fact, he repeated their concerns about the representations made by the Canadian government at the GATT which, if they do not succeed, can threaten the future of Quebec agriculture. The union has often wondered whether the government was acting in good faith at the GATT talks.
At other times, it questioned the objectivity and even the strategy of the Canadian negotiating team at the GATT, which it believes is clearly doomed to failure. Even if the Minister tries, in his report today in this House, to make us believe his representations will

Supply
succeed, the harsh reality is that they probably will not bring about the protection demanded by the farmers.
So it is one thing to tell the minister, yes, we hope you will succeed and that farm support programs will remain. But it is something else again to see the government really get ahead at the GATT negotiations in ensuring the protection farmers want and we wish on this side of the House of Commons.
So when the minister quotes a letter from the Quebec association, UPA, I would appreciate it if he would report exactly what was said and not leave the impression he got a blank cheque from the Union, when in fact they express strong reservations about the Canadian government's initiative at the GATT negotiations.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker I have not quoted any letter from the UPA. If the hon. gentleman had listened to me attentively as he should have, he would have heard me say that the joint press release by Mr. Prolix and Mr. Pelletier was generally positive. I said that the two presidents saw our Canadian offer as a positive evolution. I went on to say, of course they did not approve the total offer. There were some areas of criticism by them. I explained how, even if your offer was perfect, it would never be perfect enough to get the full support of the group in question because they are looking for perfection and they want 100 per cent in a world where you are never going to get 100 per cent.
I do not want to repeat all of that, but generally speaking their reaction has been moderate and positive. That is my interpretation. There are certain things they do not like as well. They do not like the 5 per cent minimal access level proposed for the dairy sector over 10 years. If all our other objectives are achieved and the rest of the world does away with the inequitable situation that now exists and the United States does away with its waiver and we are successful over 10 years, we would give a 5 per cent minimal access level for the dairy sector. They do not like that.
How are we to achieve any of these objectives if we are not prepared to give anywhere? They are not the negotiators. The do not have the responsibility, so they can be out there representing their pressure group as
lobbyists and, of course, demand perfection, knowing that if they were in our shoes they would have to do exactly the same. You have to give something to get something.
We cannot say to the rest of the world: "Recognize supply management, strengthen the wording as we want it strengthened in article XI(2)(1) and do what we want in that area, but we are not going to give you any increased access at all, even over the next 10 years, no matter what you do with respect to the dairy sector". No one in the rest of the world is going to buy that. Our provision here is reasonable, but they say they do not agree with it. I cannot criticize them for taking the absolute position on behalf of their clients. What else would you expect them to take? I have nothing to apologize for. I think I have described quite correctly the situation.
There is a negotiation on, and unless Canada is not to participate, unless we are to say that we, as one of the 100 nations that belong to GATT, are not going to engage in this negotiation, then we have got to take risks. Those who are worried about what the results may be will just have to wait and see.
We already have a position in agriculture, supported right across this country despite the many conflicting interests in the agricultural and farming community across this country, and we have a couple of very brilliant negotiators in charge of this, Mr. Germain Denis, who is in charge of our MTN negotiations under the supervision of Gerry Shannon, the former deputy minister, Mr. Mike Gifford, and others from the Department of Agriculture.
We have the assistance of the Minister of Agriculture, whom I hope to have in Brussels with me during the final week, as well as the Minister of State for Agriculture who is very attentive on behalf of the Quebec farmer.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Oh, let me hold your hand.


John Carnell Crosbie: I was going to say with cows you might hold something else.
We also have the Minister of State for Agriculture, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. I am going to have lots of help. I have no doubt I will be under intense surveillance.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: As you should.


John Carnell Crosbie: As should rightly be the case.

We are aware that Mr. Proulx does not approve 100 per cent of what we are doing. I think we would be hearing a lot more from him if basically they did not think we were on the right track.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the tone of statesmanship which the minister has adopted here, and recognized that we do have a common interest in reducing the very vicious export subsidy war which has been going on.
However, the supply management sector in this country, I think, really is starting to feel like the black knight in the Monty Python movie that is losing one limb at a time and keeps trying to dance on the road as his limbs disappear.
Certainly, the effect of free trade and the opening up of the imports into the supply management sector is becoming more and more clear.
Right up front, we are offering to increase imports under the GATT. This is creating pressure from our own processors in this country as well letting loose a real howl in the media: an attack on the supply management system.
I would like to ask the minister specifically why the Canadian government agreed to adopt a producers subsidy equivalent system of evaluating subsidies, because what it has done is to include the benefits of supply management, which are actually derived from the marketplace, and instead portray them as a subsidy not only in the trade negotiations but to our own public which is examining this and following this debate.
Why has the Canadian government taken that approach which very much distorts the picture? Second, why is the government putting the accrual benefit on the table at the GATT when in fact nobody is asking us to get rid of it, or to seriously alter it?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, of course at the GATT, all measures of assistance in the agricultural field are being examined.
It was determined by the negotiating group on agriculture and its chairman that by October 1 each country would table its base line data on agriculture. The answer had to be prepared following guidelines that the chairman defined. Of course, that is what we did. That is
Supply
without prejudice as to whether or not we agree with these particular guidelines. We do not, and we have made that clear, of them we agree with. Some of them we do not agree with. That was clearly stated when we submitted the data, and I quote: "It is without prejudice to the negotiating positions of the participants or to the outcome of the negotiations." There will be a whole negotiation on qualifications, conditions, what is a trade distorting subsidy, what is not, what is a green measure and what is a non-green measure.
We are not at all prejudiced in our approach by responding with the information requested by the chairman of the negotiating committee.
On the Crow benefit, that will have to be examined like every other program of assistance in the agricultural field to see if it is a green measure or a non-green measure. Some of it might be green and some of it might be non-green.
If it has to be changed in any way, the benefit will continue. We are committed to the Crow benefit as a historic benefit to the agri-food industry on the prairies. We are committed that the benefit will continue, but how the benefit is delivered is open for discussion here and in Geneva. If one way of delivering it is agreed to be trade distorting, we will find another way to deliver it. The benefit itself is going to be continued, although the method of delivering it might have to be changed, depending on the outcome of these negotiations. I think that is clear enough.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, in part the motion before the House reads:
Thai this House urge that in the upcoming GATT negotiations and in over-all economic policies, the government recognize the essential role played by farmers in maintaining the Canadian way of life-
I think that it is an excellent motion and that the tenor of debate in support of the motion in the House today from all parties, I might add, is heartening indeed.
At the outset I want to say that my colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party opposition certainly give our full support to the Minister of Agriculture and to the

Supply
Minister for International Trade in the very difficult role they have to play in these upcoming GATT negotiations.
We recognize the fact that we are playing in many respects in a global agricultural marketplace and that certain concessions have to be made. It is a difficult role. I understand that there are many pressures from all sectors of the agricultural community in terms of preserving what they perceive to be necessaiy structures and necessary supports in order to ensure the continued vitality of the industry.
However, we do have some concerns with regard to perhaps matters of interpretation and matters of definition and what constitutes an unfair trade subsidy or a distorting trade subsidy. We have some concerns, quite frankly, about the fact that Canada in many ways seems to be between a rock and a hard place with respect to the negotiations going on in GATT, the severe pressure put upon Canada by its U.S. neighbour, and the situation that we face with countervailable sanctions through the free trade agreement.
I would like to go into some of those arguments and try as best I can to put into perspective some of those concerns. However, before I do, I would like to give a brief perspective in terms of the nature of the industry that we are actually dealing with in Canada. Many Canadians do not really recognize the importance of the agricultural industry to our economy and to our way of life.
Today there are about 35,000 dairy farms in Canada, with each farm supporting at least two families. There are about 25,000 Canadians working in the dairy industry in about 400 plants right across the country. Speaking specifically of the dairy industry, we produce about 7.6 billion litres of milk annually. Dairy farming in Canada, as only one sector of our agricultural community, represents close to $3.8 billion in farm sales and contributes a significant portion to our Gross Domestic Product, about $7 billion.
That is only one sector of our agricultural community, a very important sector and a sector which I submit may be significantly affected by the decisions made either through GATT or by the bilateral panel on negotiations through the free trade agreement.
One thing that is very clear to all members of the House is that we do have a growing crisis in agriculture. We can talk about the grain lying in the field in Saskatchewan, because although we have record harvests we cannot sell it. This is a direct result of the devastating export subsidy warfare that has been promulgated by the United States and the European Community. Quite frankly Canadian agriculture has been left in tatters as a result of that warfare.
There is no question. I totally agree with the minister that we have to try to eliminate those unfair export subsidy concessions. Frankly we cannot play in that kind of ball game. We do not have the productive capacity or the economic capacity to be able to sustain that kind of an economic onslaught.
We have a problem in agriculture in Canada. It is a crisis that has been deepening since 1984. In one year alone, 1987-1988, we lost 24,000 jobs in our agricultural community. The farm debt in Canada now exceeds some $22 billion according to 1989 figures. Independent of what sector of the agricultural community they work in, about one-third of all farmers are facing very serious debt and the possibility of bankruptcy. Many of them are on the verge of bankruptcy or have gone bankrupt. One out of five farmers on family farms in Canada are living in virtual poverty.
Those are very sobering figures which certainly bring into question the kinds of policies followed over the last eight or ten years in terms of the commitment this institution must make to our agricultural community.
In 1961, just about 30 years ago, we had 480,000 farms in Canada. But, as of 1986, that number was reduced to less than 293,000 viable farms. That is a staggering loss in that economic sector. As a result, our rural communities are losing a very important economic base. They are losing a way of life. That is most disturbing.
We have seen an alarming trend developing as a result of the policies of this administration, a trend that favours the free market agenda, the corporate agenda, bowing to the shrine of the global free marketplace. We have seen the cancellation of farm subsidies; the abolition of interest-free loans; an increase in the federal surtax on agricultural goods; and high interest rates, which of
November 2, 1990

course have been most devastating to our farmers, particularly younger farmers who have had to carry a high debt load getting into the business and trying to expand their operations.
We have seen the impact of outrageous exchange rates between Canada and the U.S. and the difficulties that has created, not only in agriculture but in virtually all export sectors. With the 7 per cent goods and services tax, all of these things are adding up to some very difficult times indeed for our agricultural communities.
We have seen a slow capitulation of this government to repeated U.S. demands to reduce market support mechanisms in agriculture. That was enshrined in the free trade agreement that is now into its second year.
I just want to read Article 701 of the free trade agreement signed by both countries, regarding agricultural subsidies:
The Parlies agree that their primary goal with respect to agricultural subsidies is to achieve, on a global basis, the elimination of all subsidies which distort agricultural trade, and the Parties agree to work together to achieve this goal,
That sounds very honourable. On the surface I do not think most people would find much to object to, except when you try to determine what this definition of a "market distorting subsidy" actually implies. We get into difficulty there because we see that Canada's marketing board structure has been fingered by the United States agribusiness sector as a trade distorting subsidy. That is a challenge they submitted previous to this. If that means that Canada is committed through this agreement to eliminating that kind of a "trade distorting subsidy", it spells real problems for our farmers and particularly for our dairy farmers.
If the United States fails to secure the reductions in terms of internal subsidies through the current Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the GATT negotiations we have been talking about, it will likely continue to go after Canadian marketing boards through the bilateral dispute settlement mechanism under the free trade agreement. If it does not get us in GATT, it will likely attempt to get us through the FTA.
Supply
I want to read from another article in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. This section is Article 703, "Market Access for Agriculture". It reads:
In order to facilitate trade in agricultural goods, the Parties shall
work together to improve access to each other's markets through the
elimination or reduction of import barriers.
We are looking at a statement which basically says to open up the process to give opportunity for improved access to each other's markets.
When we think of it in terms of the capacity of the U.S. agricultural industry and the small capacity of the Canadian industry in perspective, what that may very well lead to is a virtual swamping of our Canadian markets with cheap U.S. agricultural goods.
We have already seen a virtual exodus on a daily basis of consumers in border towns across Canada leaving Canada to go shopping down in the United States to pick up dairy products, cheap gasoline and then come back into Canada. We cannot blame people for trying to find the best value for their dollar, but I am sure that when Canadian shoppers go down to the United States to spend their millions of dollars daily in its markets picking up those cheaper products, they are not thinking about the impact it has on our own agricultural industry and dairy sector, how it affects the jobs in that sector or how it affects our tax base. I certainly do not blame them for trying to find good value, but it is having a devastating effect on our own domestic economies.
If we open up our borders in that respect and guarantee a freer access, we are going to be running into some very difficult times in terms of the restructuring of the agricultural industry in Canada because of competition with U.S. products.
We could well become, I submit, a dumping ground for the excess U.S. capacity because the system down there is a little different. They do not control production. They subsidize the cost of production and can run into very large excesses of dairy products, for example butter which has to be dumped somewhere. What a convenient dumping ground it would be to have Canadian borders open and free to accept those products.
The Macdonald Commission which was struck sometime ago, before the free trade agreement was brought into effect, recommended that agriculture as an economic sector be excluded from the free trade agreement. As a matter of fact, as we all know, history has written that

Supply
this government ignored that recommendation and included agriculture as an important component in the FTA.
Through that, the United States won some major concessions. It won the reduction of the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. It won the removal of transportation subsidies in Canada. It won the phase-out of tariffs. It won on a number of fronts.
To give a good example of the almost immediate overnight impact of the free trade agreement in terms of Canadian agriculture, it was the grape growing industry, particularly in British Columbia, involving virtually thousands of acres of prime agricultural grape growing. Virtually the grapes were tom out of the ground and the land was left to lay fallow because the industry could not compete with the changes brought about by the free trade agreement. It is true that there has been somewhat of a comeback in certain grape varieties, but certainly it is not the vibrant industry it was before the free trade agreement came into effect.
In many ways our agricultural markets may simply become niche markets that will supply specialty products but will not have the capacity that they should have to supply the Canadian consumer with Canadian products.
Having won those concessions through the free trade agreement, I submit that the U.S. is now intent on including the dairy industry in future negotiations. It essentially said that in the FTA, although dairy sort of escaped the first round of negotiations, they intend to include the dairy industry in any future rounds of negotiations. I ask, Madam Speaker, whether the inclusion of the Canadian dairy industry in future negotiations may be a possible precedent for Canada's participation in the trilateral negotiations that are now going on between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, which has indicated that it wishes to participate. Is this going to be one of the concessions we have to make?
I want to point out, Madam Speaker, that the American farm bureau concluded that, with regard to the free trade agreement, once tariffs were removed American grains, bakery goods, poultry, eggs and milk products will gain substantial access to Canadian markets and undermine the marketing board system.
There is no question that our way of doing business in terms of Canadian agriculture is being jeopardized, not only by the free trade agreement, but also by the current negotiations that are taking place right now in the General Agreement on Thriffs and Trades.
I can recall back before I was elected, listening to one of the free trade policy advisers for the current minister of trade when they were out in the Okanagan. This gentleman was a specialist in agricultural negotiations and he was being pressed by the farmers pretty strongly as to why this government was committing agriculture to the free trade discussions. He said, and I wrote it down at the time: "When it comes right down to it, some things are more important politically than they are economically".
Madam Speaker, to me that says that this government at that time was willing to sacrifice the Canadian agricultural industry for political expediency. I think that is proving itself to be the case.
We have seen the phase-out of many of the controls and protections for our agricultural industry. If it continues unabated through GATT or through the FTA it could very well spell the demise of the industry. The truth of the matter is that-and we often hear this phrase touted-there has to be a level playing field, but there is no level playing field when it comes to agriculture.
There are a number of reasons. We are a northern climate and have a shorter growing season. It is more difficult and more costly for us to produce on a per-unit basis than, for example, a farmer in Florida or California. We have higher labour rates. The geography of the country and the fact that we are such a massive country with such a small population means that transportation costs are higher.
These factors mitigate against the concept of a level playing field, and make essential the necessity for certain market structures to continue to exist in the Canadian agricultural industry if it in fact wishes to survive.
The United States has basically been calling for free trade in agriculture. As I mentioned before, we have seen the devastating trade wars that are taking place between the United States and the European community. They have to stop. There is no question about it. We
November 2, 1990

support any measures that the government can implement in order to eliminate those trade wars.
At the same time I have to caution that in doing so, we cannot be entrapped into capitulating the future of our marketing boards in order to secure a negotiation.
The United States has been most vociferous in calling for the elimination of subsidization in the agriculture community. When we look at the U.S. system, we find that it is virtually awash in subsidies at the producer level. I would suggest to the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture that if the United States wants to play ball in terms of eliminating international warfare in trade subsidies, they call upon the United States to remove the kind of market subsidies that are rampant in the U.S. industry.
Madam Speaker, I am going to skip over some of the other points that I had wanted to make, and in summary say that the members on this side of the House sympathize with the difficult position of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for International Trade when it comes to these international negotiations. We wish to see a successful conclusion of the negotiations, but we do not wish to see those negotiations meaning a capitulation of Canada's historical perspective in terms of its commitment to agriculture and its commitment to maintaining the market structures that are now in place.


Jean-Guy Guilbault: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap said-and I did check his remarks-that the goods and services tax would apply to the agricultural sector when in fact it will be exempted. Everybody knows that. He also said that the structures must remain in the agricultural sector.
I must say that the Minister of Agriculture met with Mr. Proulx of the Union des producteurs agricoles in Montreal and these people are satisfied with the way Canadian government officials are handling the negotiations. They are giving priority to GATT multilateral trade negotiations because they provide greater security for the supply management system by strengthening and clarifying GATT Article XI which covers minimum access to the Canadian market.
Supply
Unless I am mistaken, my colleague also spoke in favour of these GATT negotiations, so I have a question for him. Considering that for years now the Canadian agricultural sector has been one of the major beneficiaries of the export trade, and assuming he wants to maintain the markets we have with other countries, where does he think the Canadian government ought to put its priorities in the GATT negotiations?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I think the member raises some valid points. I am concerned with Canada's position in the GATT negotiations, because it is basically offering to open the door essentially to a phase-out of trade distorting subsidies. The essence of the problem is how do we define those trade distorting subsidies. Who is going to make that determination? In fact, as I have said earlier on, the United States has already fingered the concept of our marketing board structures as being such a subsidy.
We say that we are going to open the door, we are going to make these concessions by phasing out these kinds of structures, and at the same time, through Article XI we are trying to beef up the security for the marketing board structures. We are in a philosophical catch 22. On the one hand we are capitulating, and on the other hand we are saying that we need greater security through Article XI for our marketing boards.
The question is, how can we open it up on the one hand and then strengthen it on the other. That is the kind of philosophical quandary that this government finds itself in. There is no question that Canadian agriculture should be seeking to expand its markets, as the member had asked.
For example, when I was in South Korea last fall as part of an interparliamentary trade delegation, I found there were many opportunities, not only in the agricultural sector but also in our softwood lumber sector. These were opportunities for development of niche markets in the Pacific-Asia market area. This applies to Korea, in particular, because its economy is changing rapidly and very dynamically. We need an aggressive marketing presence for our agricultural commodities. We still have some difficulties with South Korea having its own tariff structures and, quite naturally, wanting to

November 2, 1990
Private Members' Business
protect its own industries. There are certainly opportunities there.
We must certainly look abroad. One of the difficulties I have with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is that it focuses on commerce between the two nations. We have no argument with the concept of freer trade, whether it be on a sectoral basis or on a general basis. The reduction of exposed tariff structures should be accommodated. At the same time, we should be looking at reducing those barriers as we are trying to do through GATT on a multilateral basis, so that we can expand our agricultural markets into those other areas rather than just focusing on the U.S. market.
When one looks at the capacity of the United States agricultural industry and looks at the capacity of the Canadian industry, it does not require a rocket scientist to figure out who is going to be the winner and who is going to be the loser.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify the New Democratic Party's position on this subject. I felt they would always be supportive of the GATT as a body to help us establish world trading order. Is that the position of the New Democratic Party?
Also, do they not agree that if we could reduce, over a period of time, the trade distorting subsidies that are prevailing in many other countries of this world, then we could take part in the world marketplace much easier and much more successfully.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, there is no argument from me on that account.
What does concern us is the definition of what constitutes a trade distorting subsidy. If the concept of our marketing board structures is inclusive in that definition, then I say we have gone too far. I do not think that we can dismantle the protective mechanisms that are necessary for controlled and efficient market system that we have developed in Canada. If our marketing board structures are part of that definition as a trade distorting subsidy, then we do not support that. But we do support the elimination of other trade distorting subsidies such as the production subsidies that are given to the U.S. market. When one looks at the U.S. market, many of their subsidies are hidden but they are there. The agriculture community in the United States is awash in subsidies. Those are trade distorting subsidies.
The export subsidy warfare that has been ongoing between the U.S. and the European Common Market has left Canadian agriculture, particularly our grains and oilseeds, in absolute tatters. Those subsidies have to be eliminated.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   THE ECONOMY SOCIAL OWNERSHIP
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of protecting and extending the important role of social ownership in the economy, in order to achieve the social goals of full employment, regional equity, technological development and equality among Canadians.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a very great pleasure to move this motion to protect and extend the important role of social ownership in the economy which we certainly see in our party as something that is critical to achieving broader social goals of full employment, regional equity, technological development, and equality among Canadians.
Traditionally, when people consider the question of social ownership, they may think that we are hearkening back to the past ideological debates of the 1930s, 1940s and the 1950s; ideological debates which equated social ownership with what we usually call Crown corporations or public ownership. That is an interesting ideological debate. One can certainly make the case, and I would not try to undercut it, that historically Crown corporations have been extremely crucial to our development as a nation. We can see that with respect to everything from the railways back in the 1800s to Petro-Canada in the present day.
It is not that notion or view of social ownership that I want to talk about in the context of this motion. Instead, I want to talk about social ownership as community-based ownership. I want to talk particularly about institutions such as co-operatives and credit unions, and some of the new developments in co-operatives which are not just consumer purchasing co-operatives which have been so important for instance in the west in the past. As I
November 2, 1990

discuss this motion, I want to talk particularly about producer co-operatives, and, within that context, especially worker co-operatives.
If we take the context of co-operatives as a whole, there are perhaps as many as 12 million Canadians who are members of a co-operative or a credit union, or a caisse populaire in Quebec. That is nearly 43 per cent of adult Canadians. More than 60,000 people in fact are directly involved in directing a co-operative system through their activities as volunteer board members.
For instance, I am a member of a credit union and, partly because of my work here, I am not able to be a board member, but I count on the volunteer work of people whom I elect to direct that credit union. The same thing is true of producer co-operatives. The same thing is true of producer co-operatives. The same thing is true of consumer co-operatives right across the country. It is a tremendous area of economic activity which is, in fact, largely ignored in our economic debates.
When we consider that there are 43 per cent of Canadians who are part of this co-operative movement, it seems to me unfortunate that there is not more consideration given to the potential role which co-operatives and credit unions could play.
The total assets of Canadian co-operatives, including financial co-operatives, are $68 billion, so we are not talking about something marginal. We are not talking about something which is playing a very limited role in our economy. We are talking about important institutions which can be so much more important in the future.
For instance, credit unions and caisses populaires each year lend approximately $37 billion to their members. The annual revenues of non-financial co-operatives in fact are close to $15 billion. We have co-operatives in marketing. We have co-operatives in food, housing, day care, health care, communication, even funeral services, manufacturing, processing, and so forth.
These co-operatives have a long history in our country. What is exciting are the new challenges which have now been presented to our co-operative movement, which represent the new role that exists for this form of social ownership within our country.
Private Members' Business
For instance, Laird Hunter from the Canadian Co-operative Association testified last year to a parliamentary committee on Bill C-21. He indicated-this is an especially important point-that increasingly those interested in worker co-operative development are concerning themselves with the contribution that worker co-operative buy-outs might be able to make in plant shutdown situations. He went on to say: "Given the uncertain future of many sectors, Canada's manufacturing base, the Canadian Co-operative Association strongly believes that, as amendments are considered to legislation relevant to worker co-operative development, provisions facilitating the growth of worker co-operative sectors should be considered."
That is the thrust of my argument today. In the context of a recession and wide-spread plant shutdowns throughout the country, we have to recognize that there is a potential for workers if the legislation helps them and if the financial support is provided through institutions and through government to make it possible. It is not in all cases, and probably not even in most cases, but in a significant number of cases. There is the capacity for workers to be able to provide a response to the problems that plant shutdowns bring, not just to them personally, but to their communities.
Mr. Laird, in some of his comments went on to note that in looking at worker co-operatives at the present time, there are a great number of such initiatives in the Province of Quebec.

Many co-operatives in the province of Quebec exist to establish the feasibility of continuing to operate factories that are in trouble. In fact, the same principle can be applied in other sectors of our economy.

Mr. Laird suggested that one can see these initiatives in the delivery business. On the west coast, there are a number of instances in manufacturing. He said that, increasingly, the co-operative system as a whole is being asked for assistance with this kind of endeavour.

Private Members' Business
If we look at worker co-operatives as a whole, there are approximately, at this time in Canada, 15,000 workers who are members of such worker co-operatives, with about $300 million in annual sales. That means that we have approximately 400 worker co-operatives across the country.
These have been in Canada since the 1940s and they can be seen in such areas as heavy equipment repairs, textiles and furs, industry and wood-cutting, market gardening, building trades, and maintenance. There are actors, musicians, people in the consulting field, computer programmers, people in the print and electronic media, school bus contractors, people in towing, people in blueberry picking, cedar shingle production, restaurants, graphic art, food processing, bakeries, warehousing, and, of course, retail activities, to mention just a few.
Across the country we have a great many examples of social ownership developing. This motion suggests that it is important to protect and to extend this important role of social ownership. In the time I have left, I want to explain how it can be possible to extend this important role.
A special committee of federal and provincial officials has been meeting during over recent years. I give credit to the federal government for responding in a positive way to the suggestions of the Canadian co-operative movement for such activities. It has not moved as fast as I would have liked it to, but it has taken the issue seriously.
A special committee of federal and provincial officials has recommended three ways by which to improve, preserve, and extend this kind of social ownership. This special committee first has called on governments to provide equality of treatment so that worker co-operatives get the same kind of treatment from our financial institutions that small or medium-sized businesses receive. This would require the amending of some current legislation, some regulations that specifically limit the development of worker co-operatives.
Second, this committee has suggested that government should provide equality of opportunity. In other words, it should ensure that co-operatives are considered in the development and implementation of new programs which the government is putting into effect.
The co-operative movement, for instance, testified when the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act were being discussed, and I notice my colleague across the aisle, from Burlington, who was part of this discussion with respect to C-21. At that time the co-operative movement said: "Look, as originally drafted, these changes to the unemployment insurance regulations were not going to make it possible". At least it left it ambiguous whether it would be possible for members of worker co-operatives to use their UIC entitlement, as would be possible for those who were trying to start small enterprises to use that same entitlement to start worker co-operatives.
It has now proven to be the case that it will be possible in some of the regulatory changes which were made as a consequence of the presentations put forward by the Canadian co-operative movement. That is the kind of thing which has to take place to see that we do not have discrimination in regulations, that we have instead equality of opportunity.
Finally, this committee has suggested that governments have to overtly encourage the formation of worker co-ops. It seems to me that this requires what we as a party suggested five years ago in a report which came from an action group, which I co-chaired, called "Jobs Action Group", which aimed to provide some new bottom-up ways to increase employment opportunities, especially in some of the poorer regions of this country. To do that, however, will require some financial commitments on the part of government.
I want to finish my comments today by noting some of the suggestions which have come from the Worker-Ownership Foundation in Toronto which has set out a policy agenda direction in which government should move to provide this kind of financial support. It is something which we in this party certainly endorse very strongly.
I should say, of course, my colleague who is our spokesperson on co-operatives is here. I have to be especially careful that I do not make any mistakes in what I am saying as I carry this argument further.
The suggestion from the Worker-Ownership Foundation is that we need the implementation of a program that provides short term seed financing for specialized technical assistance people to come and work with newly establishing worker co-operatives. We also need the development of a tax credit that will partially offset the

capital gains payable by existing shareholders who sell significant blocks of shares to qualified worker-ownership groups.
We also need the development of a package of flexible debt financing instruments, loan guarantees, low interest loans, et cetera. I think if we move in this direction, the direction of encouraging this kind of social ownership, we will actually establish in this country some new innovations and some new initiatives in terms of bottom-up community development. It will give us new jobs in many parts of the country. It will preserve jobs in many parts of the country. It will give us fairer potential opportunities in many poorer regions of this country. It will, finally, and most important, give a greater sense of worker self-direction in many of the enterprises established through this form of social ownership throughout Canada.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address the hon. member's motion. The context of my remarks have mainly to do with the broader question of social ownership. I did not realize the hon. member would address a specific aspect, that being co-operatives. But he has, and I would like to respond specifically to some of his remarks.
I believe that his goals are laudable, that is to have people control their own destinies through taking over companies which fail, and so on. He talked about equality of treatment, equality of opportunity and, third, that the government should overtly encourage worker co-operatives or production co-operatives by means of tax credits, flexible debt financing, loan guarantees and so on.
I believe the government could perhaps give them equality of treatment and equality of opportunity through some legislative measures if there is in fact discrimination. It is my belief that there probably is not discrimination. For example, if it means doing something along the lines of the way we fund housing co-ops, then it is just another market distortion means of interfering in the economy.
I would like to take an example of one housing co-op, the Sundance housing co-op in Edmonton. It was built in 1977. It receives no less than four government subsidies. This is fine if we are to provide housing for low and
Private Members' Business
modest income people, but it distorts the housing market when we are providing housing accommodation for those high income people who are earning over $50,000. The four subsidies are a $280,000 outright grant, which is 10 per cent of the mortgage; a preferential 9.5 per cent mortgage, which was given for 50 years; a special, one time only, 1.5 per cent mortgage reduction subsidy for 50 years, which brought the mortgage rate down to 8 per cent; and the fourth subsidy, a $30,000 a year subsidy to the whole project. That is fine. Low income people and modest income people receive a subsidy. Of this $30,000 a year subsidy, people earning over whatever the cut-off rate is, I believe around $22,000, pay a modest surcharge of $72 a month.
A recent study done by CMHC said that 9 per cent of Canadians who live in these housing co-ops earn over $50,000. This is a terrible distortion of the housing market if they are taking advantage of up to four subsidies like are offered in the case of the Sundance housing co-op. If the hon. member is speaking of these types of subsidies when he talks about flexible debt financing, loan guarantees, tax credits and so on, I do not think we want anything.
Further on the matter of the Sundance housing co-op, it is my belief that the high income people should, after a period of time, when their incomes reach 50,000, move on to allow low income people or modest income people to have affordable housing. Thirty-four per cent of the people living in the Sundance housing co-op can afford a mortgage on a modest home. Why is the Government of Canada subsidizing them?
We cannot, with a $30 billion deficit each year on a debt approaching $350 billion, afford to keep subsidizing this and that and everything else. For your information, Mr. Speaker, there is a member of Parliament living in the Sundance housing co-op, the member for Edmonton East. He lives with four other people there, pays as his share less than $200 a month rent. I estimate the rent money that is paid on each unit is one-half of what it would cost in the private sector.
What happens is sometimes a clique develops which really distorts. There is a committee. They pick who comes into the co-op and once again, that is distorting the market. They are laudable goals that the co-operative movement can achieve, but sometimes by perpetuating some of these distortions and abuses of government

November 2, 1990
Private Members' Business
programs, people are discrediting the whole co-operative movement.
I would argue that social ownership is no longer the route to go. If a group of workers wants to take over a plant that is closing, they can get together and put together a business plan. They can approach a bank. The bank can lend them money. They can put a management team in place, and that is fine. The government should in no way be involved in giving them preferential treatment to distort the market in order to favour a select group of people.
I was invited two weeks ago today to address the Co-operative Council of Edmonton, Alberta. They have an annual meeting that is made up of 15 members, two of which are housing co-operatives. There are other members, which the hon. member listed. There are credit unions, farm co-operatives, workers co-operatives, consumer co-operatives and so on. T\vo hours before I was to address them, I received a phone call. I was told I could not address them because I had spoken out against housing co-operatives and they felt it was not appropriate.
In this case, a few members of housing co-operatives who are earning over $50,000 a year were offended that I suggested that they should no longer take advantage of massive government subsidies. They were really offended and said: "No, we do not want you to speak here", even though they were only two out of 15. They were discrediting the whole co-operative movement by such a petty way of approaching what would have been a very rational and reasonable discussion.
I personally support housing co-operatives and other co-operatives. Housing co-operatives are a very good way of providing housing for low and moderate income Canadians, and the Government of Canada should continue to do that. But we should in no way subsidize high income Canadians, including two members of this Chamber, to be the recipient of massive housing co-operatives.
Social ownership has distorted what we want to achieve and we no longer should be involved in this manner. If we want to provide housing support, we should have housing support that is targeted at those in need. There are growing numbers of homeless people
and low and moderate income people who need affordable housing.
The co-operative movement should look seriously at what the hon. member is talking about, getting involved and becoming more active, but he should not be asking for government subsidies or loan guarantees or for taxpayers to support them in this manner. We support them in other manners through the unemployment insurance program and so on.
In closing, I would say that social ownership is not what we as Canadians want to achieve. We want the free enterprise system to continue. It has provided a lot of growth. Individual initiative has spurred growth and economic activity.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise and speak on this issue. As the member for Essex-Windsor is probably well aware, there are many worker co-operatives in my riding of Broadview-Greenwood. Carrot Common is one of them, and there are many others. I salute the work of these co-operatives. As the member mentioned, there is opportunity for more growth in the co-operative movement where all Canadians can be affected in a positive way.
First, I want to say that I am concerned about a couple of the tendencies that seem to creep forward from time to time where they try to put on an air of exclusivity. In other words, there are times when, if I go into the store and I do not have my co-op card with me, I do not tend to get the graciousness that one would normally get when one goes to any other store in the riding. In the area of public relations, the whole co-op movement would be much better served if those people who know it well and who practise it would be a little more approachable in the service they provide.
The member is missing a tremendous opportunity in the neighbourhood of financial services. He mentioned in his speech that the co-op movement had millions and millions of members across Canada. It would seem to me, if these members could be marshalled and organized in one or two of our principal financial institutions, that they could then use a very special kind of leverage because they were part of a co-operative financial institution. This could have dramatic effect on interest
November 2, 1990

rates, on mortgage rates, and on entrepreneurial loans to small and medium sized businesses.
One of the problems we have with the co-operative movement today is that no one has taken the time to marshal the forces of the various membership. I remember a lawyer friend of mine, Joe Pomerant, spent about three years of his life working with various aspects of the co-operative movement. He showed that if he could amalgamate the various co-operative clubs which existed in Ontario and use that buying power, he could lower vacation travel costs by as much as 30 per cent or 40 per cent. Those are substantial numbers.
That same spirit could be applied to the workforce. We are dealing in a world where we have to show world-class competitiveness. It just cannot be at the negotiating table when we are redoing our union contract. It also has to be in the quality of our work and the level of productivity in our work.
If the co-operative movement were to factor this noble objective which I support into its negotiations, its wages might be a lot lower, thereby making us much more competitive and thereby making opportunity for job creation and growth a lot easier.
In the marshalling of the co-op movement the available spin-off resources are limitless. We have never really put a tight focus on how we can use this, especially during times of recession. However, as the member from Edmonton mentioned earlier, if these co-operatives are to be organized, if they are going to be like bridge points for exclusive clubs, if they are to be used to get preferential financing and once the financing is in place, people develop, grow and move beyond the basic objective of the system, to the exclusion of others, that is not a very sound or logical way to go.
The co-operative movement, time and time again throughout history, has pulled us through some very tough times. In any riding across Canada where there is difficulty, it is only when all of us get together and pitch in that we actually pull ourselves out of some of the severe crises that we get ourselves in.
The member from Essex-Windsor, the man who is the driving force behind this motion, he should perhaps start with a large financial institution to see if by marshalling the forces of all members of the credit union movement across Canada he could consolidate that resource and, having consolidated that resource, perhaps
Private Members' Business
he could start a whole new trend in banking and interest rates. That would give credibility and trust to his objective more quickly than anything.
[Translation\


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the hon. member for Essex- Windsor for presenting this motion, because it provides an ideal opportunity for showing how the government lived up to its promise of regional equity and justice for all Canadians, and especially how much has been done by Conservative members in Ottawa and especially by the tireless member for Roberval, the hon. Benoit Bouchard.
When this government came to power in 1984, it saw that despite the efforts of the previous Liberal government and the considerable sums of money it had spent on regional economic expansion, serious regional disparities still existed across the country. That is why our government embarked on an in-depth analysis of regional economic needs and decided to provide a framework for meeting those needs, something which had not been done before.
This new-framework approach, which was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne in the fall of 1986, was intended to correct regional imbalances and under-development, while concentrating on the most disadvantaged regions. In line with this approach, new regional development initiatives were introduced, based on the specific needs of target regions.
That is how the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Department of Western Economic Diversification were created while Industry, Science and Technology Canada was given the job of looking after Quebec and Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, let me explain for the information of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor how Industry, Science and Technology Canada has obviously succeeded in focusing its new economic development initiatives in the most disadvantaged areas of Quebec and Ontario by providing them too with promising opportunities.
In Quebec, on regional development, this government has developed an action program specifically aimed at achieving the goals hoped for by the hon. member for Essex-Windsor, that is job creation and lowering unem-

Private Members' Business
ployment, reduction of regional disparities between regions and technological development of businesses.
When we came into office in 1984, we agreed to pursue the industrial and regional development program, the IRDP, established in 1983 by the previous government. This program was to promote industrial and regional expansion by supporting private sector initiatives that offered the most opportunities for profitability, sustained growth and competitiveness in the international arena.
Even if the program was of national scope, the degree of assistance given to businesses varied depending on the level of social and economical development in the region where the projects were. So, the more a region was disadvantaged in terms of unemployment and income, among other things, the more assistance it might receive. So, the IRDP was taking into account the economic disparities, not only from region to region nationally, but also between different parts of the same province like Quebec.
The IRDP, by promoting the establishment of new plants and the modernization of existing ones, helped create and maintain thousand of jobs throughout Quebec. The program also had an "innovation" facet which helped promote technological innovation and development in a number of Quebec industries.
Anxious to adapt our regional development policies to the specific needs of the various regions, our government signed with the Quebec government, in 1988, a multisectorial and multiregional agreement for economic development. With a view toward harmonizing the actions of both levels of government and maximizing their impact, the agreement's main objectives were to speed the economic growth of the various regions of Quebec and increase the participation of local populations in the work force.
The five-year agreement has a budget of $820 million, $440 million of which, that is 54 per cent, coming from the federal government. I must emphasize, that the major part of the funds, $486 million, will be allocated to areas with a resource-based economy, as their industrial base is not very diversified and often fragile, and also because these areas are far from the main urban centres and have a much higher rate of unemployment. This is
particularly true of my own riding of Abitibi, and the riding of Temiscamingue, in Northern Quebec.
In areas where the economy is resource-based, initiatives come under five distinct headings: Business development, Technological development, Natural resources development, Strengthening of economic infrastructures and Human resources development.
That is why specific initiatives have been put in place in the agri-food industry, fisheries and aquaculture, as well as for the enhancement of the industrial and tourist sector. Also, we have just announced an innovations assistance program.
As for the central regions, we have established a manufacturing productivity strenghtening program, and we support seven initiatives for the development of the Montreal area. We have announced recently two programs, a depressed areas assistance program and an innovations assistance program. And the hon. member for Essex-Windsor could read in the record the statement I made in this House about the state of progress of this agreement with the province of Quebec. The hon. member will see that it is the member for Roberval, the hon. Benoit Bouchard who has done his homework and not minister Gil Remillard.
Furthermore, the federal government promotes regional development in Quebec through subsidiary development agreements within specific sectors or areas. As early as 1985, our government and that of Quebec agreed upon a set of subsidiary development agreements in forestry and mining, the agri-food industry, fisheries, tourism, home entertainment products, transportation, communications as well as science and technology.
A total of $1.4 billion has been earmarked for those various sectoral agreements. The money was divided equally between Canada and Quebec. It includes an amount of $150 million that was covered by a draft agreement and was distributed in March 1990 into seven sectoral agreements.
By the same token, we prolonged most of the sectoral agreements until March 1991. Needless to say many measures and initiatives put into place under those agreements will contribute considerably to the development of Quebec regions.

As to the Montreal region, our government recognizes it faces particular problems. The unemployment and poverty problem in the central districts of the city of Montreal is particularly worrying. We know the east and southwest districts were the most affected by plant closings and massive lay-offs in the last few years. This is why the Canadian government has been actively promoting the economic renewal of that urban district for over two years.
The Industrial Recovery Program for East End Montreal, set up in June 1988, and PRISOM, launched in September of this year, both aim at re-inforcing and diversifying local industrial structures, attracting new investments, and furthering the creation and growth of new concerns, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses. The aggregate budget for these five-year programs is $50 million.
Mr. Speaker, a word now about the positive and constructive efforts of the government in northern Ontario through FEDNOR which was established in 1987 to make sure that this region gets all the help it needs to achieve its full economic development potential. The $55 million earmarked for this five-year project represented a major commitment, as a result of which a number of businesses were set up and jobs created in the whole region.
Under FEDNOR, over $26 million in federal funds were allocated to finance some 311 projects. I must emphasize the fact that they also created and maintained nearly 2,225 jobs. The FEDNOR advisory council which is responsible for ensuring the relevance of all the FEDNOR programs to the local needs was totally involved in these contributions.
This government, in response to the very favourable reaction of the public towards FEDNOR, and in spite of budget cuts, made sure that businessmen in Northern Ontario received the assistance they needed so very much. That is the reason why an additional amount of $14 million has just been allocated to FEDNOR.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, before blaming the government for its so-called disregard for regional equity, the hon. member for Essex-Windsor should have talked to the business people in Northern Ontario
Private Members' Business
who appreciate in particular what the federal government has done so far for them through FEDNOR.
Mr. Speaker, FEDNOR has greatly helped business people in Northern areas meet the challenge and achieve their full potential. Under a special provision dealing with acquisition, FEDNOR is helping a whole series of Northern Ontario businesses sell their wares to the federal government.
Hardly a few weeks ago, representatives from over 80 businesses in 25 Northern Ontario communities came on a trade mission to the National Capital to present a sort of vista of Northern Ontario. This mission, sponsored and organized by FEDNOR, in co-operation with Supply and Services Canada, was intended to help Northern suppliers do business with the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, government activities in Northeastern Ontario, which is going through a difficult period, are worthy of note. In the Temiscamingue area, for instance, FEDNOR representatives have helped speed up processing of applications for regional assistance. Thanks to FEDNOR, investments by Pyrok and Dymond Clay will make a major contribution to the region's economy. We could name several programs, including agriculture, but above all, Mr. Speaker, this government has played a major role in recognizing the importance of the economy of Northern Ontario and Northern Quebec. My point is, Madam Speaker, that our approach has been successful. In fact, we are nearing our goal, which is equality for all Canadians. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the hon. member for Essex- Windsor is interesting and intriguing and I must just read it again so that we will see where we are going.
The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of protecting and extending the important role of social ownership in the economy, in order to achieve the social goals of full employment, regional equity, technological development and equality among Canadians.
I appreciate the hon. member's desire for full employment in Canada, and I understand and respect the hon. member's wish to invest in Canadian men and women

Private Members' Business
and provide them with training and retraining opportunities that will allow them to participate fully in a thriving economy.
I know that he is sincere in putting forward his motion and his ambition to build a strong and competitive future for our country through full employment.
I would like to point out to him that laudable though his intentions may be, the motion he has placed before the House displays a lack of understanding about what is feasible in a land as diverse and complex as Canada. It shows a disturbing inability to grasp the complexities of our labour market.
I would like also to remind the hon. member that this government has always understood the importance of investing in our citizens. Indeed, we are at this moment making the very types of social investment he advocates in his motion. These investments come in the form of training and retraining Canadian workers in programs offered through the Canadian Jobs Strategy and our Labour Force Development Strategy.
We have always maintained that the failure to preserve a competitive workforce would have dire consequences not only for the individuals who lost their jobs but for Canada's economic prospects as well. That is why we have dedicated more dollars to job training and skill enhancement than any government in the history of Canada.
I noticed that the hon. member's motion did not define "full employment". This is understandable. Our organizations such as the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council which is also keen to see full employment has stated: "It would be impossible to come up with a definition of full employment with which everyone would agree."
In effect, the Advisory Council acknowledged that defining full employment would be as complicated as Rubic's cube. In its recent report on unemployment, the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council suggested that the figure of 4 per cent unemployment might be considered full employment.
It is our view that the selection of a single unemployment target such as 4 per cent is not feasible nor is it realistic, because Canada remains a country of great regional diversity. Governments cannot push a button to replenish the cod stocks in the Atlantic nor force
automobile plants to the Gaspe coast where unemployment in particularly severe.
On top of that, Canada like the rest of the industrialized world, is facing rapid economic changes as international trading and manufacturing patterns evolve to adjust to a much more dynamic and unpredictable global market.
The choice of targets such as 4 per cent for full employment can also be very misleading. In fact, the unemployment rate of 4 per cent or less can even mask great disparities.
When the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood was making his remarks in this debate, he made reference to financial institutions that may be able to present programs and have loans, mortgages and other financial transactions at a lesser rate than some of our banks and trust companies today.
I might say that my son is employed with Van City Savings and Loans in Vancouver, which I believe is the largest credit union in the world. It competes very well in that vibrant financial market in Vancouver with some pretty large numbers. It has done very well, but I might also note that most of the chief executive officers have come from some pretty large corporations to direct it and to give it good advice as it carries on down the road.
There are good areas for it. But it is not the workers' nirvana. Co-operatives have many forms.
At one time in business I formed a company where I had all the shareholders, who were mainly the employees, with the same amount of common stock. My investment differential was in the preferred shares. They said as long as the company made a profit and paid a dividend out of current earnings, that is the way it would run. But if the company lost money for two consecutive years, then the preferred shares would have voting power and the direction of the company could be changed. There are many forms that a co-operative can take. It is not the answer to all things in business, but it does have a place to play.
Let us compare the year 1967 in Canada, when the unemployment rate was 3.8 per cent to 1988, when the unemployment rate was 7.8 per cent. A single comparison of the two numbers would suggest that Canadians were better off in 1967 than they were in 1988.
November 2, 1990

After all, if we stick to the Advisory Council's definition of full employment in 1967, we were actually within the unemployment rate of 3.8 per cent. However, a closer look at the numbers suggests that everything is not quite so rosy, particularly when we compare the two years to the numbers of people who held full time, year-round jobs.
In 1967, the year with apparent full employment, 39 per cent of the population 15 years of age and older worked full time all year. But in 1988, a full 5 per cent more, or 44 per cent of the population held full time jobs year-round.
Let us compare what this has meant in dollars and cents for Canadians. And let's adjust the comparison to 1988 dollars so there will be no confusion.
In 1967, the year that meets the Advisory Council's definition of full employment, 14 per cent of the Canadian population enjoyed adjusted annual earnings of $25,000 or more. But in 1988, when we had an unemployment rate of 7.8 per cent, more than 25 per cent of the youth and adult population earned that much. Now, were we closer to full employment in 1967 or in 1988? Which would you choose?
What I am pointing out to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, is that full employment is much more complicated than his motion suggests.
This government believes that increased employment is possible and that the federal government has a significant role in achieving this goal. The government has recently authorized a new ceiling of $346 million for training measures in 1990. That is more money than we have ever before set aside for training in the past.
Private Members' Business
Because of these allocations, people who would otherwise have been looking for work now have the opportunity to increase their skills to find the work they want. This emphasis on active intervention such as training and re-employment, rather than passive income support, is endorsed by all member countries of the OECD. Our goal is to apportion even a greater amount of our labour market programming towards this end.
This change in emphasis, Mr. Speaker, lies at the heart of the Labour Force Development Strategy. The Labour Force Development Strategy will dedicate more dollars to job training and skill enhancement than ever before. A total of $800 million is being reallocated to expand the developmental use of unemployment insurance. The increased expenditures on active programs will raise our active mix of labour market programming from 25 per cent to 40 per cent.
The expanded developmental use of unemployment insurance funds will allow for more training, mobility, self-employment and other re-employment strategies, practical measures that will provide long-term benefit to unemployed Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbett):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being four o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at one o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 5,1990