1990-05-03

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages, the government's response to 35 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



HOUSING


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, between 1949 and 1985 the federal government developed a supply of over 205,000 public housing units which form an important part of our social safety net. Public housing provides low-income individuals and families with decent, safe and affordable shelter. The average family income of residents in this kind of housing is about $11,000 a year.
The federal housing agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in co-operation with the provincial-territorial housing agencies, has recently completed an evaluation of our public housing portfolio. For the first time we have detailed, accurate assessment of the conditions of Canada's public housing stock and the conclusion is that over all this stock is in good condition.
Perhaps more important the evaluation report indicates that the vast majority of the tenants in public
housing are generally satisfied with their residences and that their housing conditions have improved since moving into their current dwellings.

Nevertheless, there is room for improvement in some areas and we must see to it. The public housing stock is a very valuable asset for the country and must be preserved.

The 4,800 projects completed under the public housing program over the past 40 years are home to almost a half million low-income Canadians. Federal and provincial governments currently spend over $800 million a year in subsidies on this important program.

The evaluation report concludes that the housing stock is generally in good condition, but repairs must still be made where necessary.

Some of the projects could benefit from redesign and redevelopment. As well, there is room for improvement in some property management practices to better meet the challenges of an aging portfolio and, finally, the report notes the potential for promoting a greater resident involvement in management of their own housing.
In the months ahead, I will be discussing these and other issues with our provincial and territorial colleagues and other interested parties as part of this consultation process.
This program evaluation is an important tool. It is important to take a step back and take a hard look at the performance of our programs from time to time.
The release of this evaluation report sets the stage for future policy consultation with public housing residents, provincial and territorial housing agencies, municipal and regional housing officials and the public in general.

May 3, 1990
Routine Proceedings

This consultation process will bring out a whole range of opinions and viewpoints and will help ensure that the public housing program continues to meet the needs of low-income people.
The publication of this report is a further example of the federal government's commitment to providing effective management of our resources and ensuring that Canadians are well housed.
We are working to meet the challenges not only of today but that of the 1990s and beyond. Out of this process, I hope that not only will we be able to improve the public housing that we now have, but perhaps, and hopefully, we will be able to utilize these resources to increase the total stock of housing perhaps in some co-operative and joint ventures with the private sector.
I am looking forward to great things from this consultation process. I am sure that all Canadians are as well.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement, but it is becoming quite clear and, frankly, quite boring to listen to this minister make all kinds of flowery pronouncements about housing with absolutely no substance, answers or action.
It is clear that when a government lacks initiative, interest, commitment and vision, it calls for more surveys, studies and evaluation. In short, it wants to consult more. What this country really needs are answers, not more questions.
While an evaluation of this kind is valuable because it examines the concerns and the opinions of the people who use the public housing programs, it is always necessary for the government to listen to feedback from the very people the government is trying to help. An evaluation of the quality of the housing stock is also necessary to know if the program is meeting the needs of Canadians by providing adequate shelter.
What this evaluation lacks, however, is an evaluation of the adequacy of the public housing program itself. For the past year, Canadians have been inundated with
information about the spiralling costs of housing and rents and the appalling lack of affordable housing.
Provincial and municipal governments, public housing authorities, non-profit and co-operative groups, the private sector, not to mention the thousands of Canadians in waiting lines, want action, not more studies.
We have heard the minister's sob stories before about how the finance department and the finance minister have cut his budget and the housing programs. The end result is that we are getting less action on housing today, not more.
What has the government's action been thus far? The elimination of the RRAP program, that very program which assisted our aging stock of housing; less social housing units; less co-operative housing units; a cap on the multiple unit construction prices; and, finally, higher interest rates which will be the death-knell to housing construction totally.
When is this minister and his government going to get off their duffs and stop talking about the housing problems and start acting to solve these problems? Why will the minister not convene a national housing action conference involving all sectors and all governments to deal with this crisis in housing? How can we all work together to solve and meet the challenges of housing for our people today and tomorrow?


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself almost becoming embarrassed for the Minister of Housing. Canada has a growing crisis in affordable housing and the minister is giving hollow, inane platitudes of self-congratulation about what this government has done.
He talks with pride about the development of 205,000 social housing units in nearly 40 years. That amounts to 5,000 units a year. He does not even have the nerve to talk about what has happened since 1985 when this government abandoned its commitment to social housing.
Most industrial countries have 25 per cent of their housing stock in non-market housing. Canada has 4 per cent. Even Hong Kong has 40 per cent. He brags about a family income of $11,000. He brags that this is the family income of people in public housing. He should be ashamed.
May 3, 1990

He talks about promoting greater resident involvement in the management of their own housing. The best way to promote management in housing is make it possible for people to own their own homes. Restore the co-op housing program that has been slashed from 5,000 units down to 17. That is how people would be involved. They would be involved, if they could afford to buy a house or live in a co-op.
The minister states that this report is going to ensure that Canadians are well housed. What garbage. This report is going to do nothing. Unless this minister is willing to stand up and do something about high interest rates which have brought housing construction to a crashing halt in this country, unless he is willing to do something about providing adequate housing on government lands instead of talking about affordability as $175,000, unless he is willing to do something about the speculators in the housing market, which he talked about when he was a back-bencher and has abandoned, and unless he is willing to restore the social housing programs and particularly the co-op housing programs, his statements are totally hollow.
What I think is necessary is the evaluation of this government's commitment to housing Canadians. I think it would be frightened to undertake that kind of an evaluation because I am sure it would show it wanting.
4*	4*



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the first report of the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group.
This is a report of a working visit to Tokyo, Japan, April 8 to April 14, 1990.
[Editor's Note: see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), I have the honour
Routine Proceedings
to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.



STRIKING-THIRTY-EIGHTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirty-eighth report of the Striking Committee. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.
[.Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-298, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Elgin.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ken Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to introduce a private member's bill. The purpose of this bill is to change the name of the Electoral District of Elgin to Elgin-Norfolk.
Should this bill pass, the change would better reflect the make-up of my electoral district, which includes Elgin County and the Township of Norfolk.


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


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees, I move the adoption of the 38th report of the Striking Committee, which was presented earlier today.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
May 3, 1990
Routine Proceedings

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am tabling petitions from Lebel-sur-Quevillon and Chibougamau, further to the recommendations of the Task Force on Tix Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
The signers ask the government to maintain the tax benefits for isolated communities north of the 49th parallel.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have two tax related petitions that I would like to table with the House. They are both certified correct. One concerns the goods and services tax, the grief and suffering tax. Petitioners from all parts of Canada call upon the government to reject this most regressive tax and bring in a fair tax system.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that members of this House were presented with a report last October on the Northern Tax Allowance. These petitioners from the Robson Valley in my part of British Columbia, call upon the government to reject that most unfair report and to bring in positive recommendations regarding a northern and remote tax allowance.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce -Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions with the signatures of 3,236 nurses, doctors, medical staff and concerned citizens from across Canada, united in their belief that nurses should have the right to choose not to participate in abortion for reasons of conscience or religion.
All the petitioners oppose the taking of precious human life through abortion and call upon Parliament to enact legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment, disqualification or coercion of nurses who refuse to participate in abortion for reasons of conscience.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present a number of petitions relating to the government's unfair tax system. The petitioners state that the government has not addressed the unfair tax system currently in place which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax, while forcing lower and middle-income taxpayers to bear more of the national tax burden. They call upon this government to abandon its current goods and services tax proposal and bring in tax reform.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, the subject of which is VIA Rail cut-backs. The petition is signed by a number of Canadians. They call upon Parliament to urge the government of Canada not to cancel, in whole or in part, rail passenger services in Canada, and they cite a number of reasons for that.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon -Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have several petitions relating to the implementation of the goods and services tax from people all the way from Ottawa, Hull, Gloucester, London, Brantford and Kamloops, pointing out that this goods and services tax does not relate to people's ability to pay, that it is regressive, that it has not addressed the unfairness in the present tax system and implies that if that unfairness was addressed the present tax system would go a long way toward curing the financial ills of the government.
The petitioners decry the fact that the government is going to be taxing reading, haircuts, diapers, home heating fuels, many of those things which ordinary Canadians simply are not able to sustain because of their lack of high income. They call upon the government to bring in a tax system that is fair, progressive and not regressive, as the GST is.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
May 3, 1990
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 247, 258 and 264.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	Were there any costs to the government arising from the Open Skies conference held in Ottawa in February, 1990 and, if so, including preparatory costs, in total, what were they?
2.	Were any vehicles bought by the government for the conference and, if so (a) what number (b) at what cost (c) from whom (d) what process was used to choose a supplier (e) are they being used now and, if so (i) for what purpose (ii) by whom?
3.	Were parkas purchased for the conference and, if so (a) what number (b) from whom (c) at what cost (d) in what way was a supplier chosen (e) were any parkas purchased but not given to foreign dignitaries and, if so, were they given to anyone else and, if so, to whom?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport), Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole House):: I am informed by the Department of External Affairs and the Secretary of State as follows:
1.	An amount of $5,240,00 was allocated for the Open Skies conference. Invoice are still being received and the final total of expenditures will not be known until all financial transactions are processed.
2.	No vehicles were bought by the Government for the conference. Please refer to reply to question No. 241 answered March 7, 1990.
3.	Parkas were purchased for the conference (31 parkas @ $397.00). They were purchased from Polar
Routine Proceedings
Parkas (P.O. Box 1385, Yellowknife, N.W.T.) since they were the only supplier that could promise to meet our delivery deadline. Parkas were given only to foreign ministers (and their accompanying spouses). The SSEA bought and paid for a parka for his personal use.


Mr. Laporte: Since 1975, has the government provided funding to any projects on the island of St. Vincent and, if so (a) which projects (b) in each case, at what expense to the government?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport), Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole House):: Yes. I am informed by the International Development Research Centre and the Canadian International Development Agency as follows:
Since 1975, the International Development Research Centre has financed two research projects on the island of St. Vincent.
a)	The first project was funded in 1982 for a period of 9 months. Its objective was to analyze the determinants of migration from St. Vincent, and to assess its social and economic impact at the household level in St. Vincent. The second was funded in 1983 for a period of 24 months. Its objective was to strengthen the socioeconomic information system and documentation centre of the island's Ministry of Finance, Planning and Development, as a member of CARISPLAN. The project's grant was shared between St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
b)	Each project amounted to $39,000 and $81,430 respectively.
Yes, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has provided funding to projects on the island of St-Vincent.
(A)		(B)
PROJECT TITLE	DATE	CIDA BUDGET ($)Kingstown Port Master Plan	1989	50,000Diamond Industrial Estate	1988	3,636,400Fisheries Development -Phase I	1987	4,975,000Forestry Development	1986	4,520,000St. Vincent Forestry-Special Administrative Expenses (SEA)	1985	10,633St. Vincent Fisheries Feasibility-SEA	1985	106,281St. Vincent Canada Fund 89 / 90	1989	125,000St. Vincent Canada Fund 88 / 89	1988	275,558St. Vincent-Mission Administrated Funds (MAF) 87 / 88	1987	299,999
May 3, 1990
Routine Proceedings
(A)		(B)
PROJECT TITLE	DATE	CIDA BUDGET (S)St. Vincent MAF 86 / 87	1986	249,631St. Vincent MAF 85 / 86	1985	189,368MAF 84 / 85	1984	217,409MAF 83 / 84 & Prior Years	1983	957,020Industrial Estates Feasibility Study	1984	164,000Cumberland Hydro	1984	11,400,000Road Materials	1980	249,000Agriculture Revolving Fund Study	1980	11,500Amos Vale Air Terminal Bldg.	1974	698,408Water Spare Parts	1973	61,700Water Development-Phase II	1973	2,400,600Line of Credit-Equipment	1971*	358,000Teachers Education	1971*	193,500Training -Engineering Tech.	1971*	87,000Training-Economics	1971*	87,300Technical / Vocational Education	1971*	217,500Total :	31,540,807* Projects started before 1975 but ended after that time.	N.B. : Funding of activities in the Special Programs Branch is more and more of the	"core funding" variety, ie., that the destin	
monies is recorded in the name of the various organisations and institutions, not individual projects. The same is true for funding to the Multilateral organizations.


Mr. Edmonston: Is the government aware of a sale by Petro-Canada of a division of the company in Montreal, called "Joseph Ellie" and, if so (a) to whom is the division being sold (b) what is the purchase price (c) is the sale on (i) a cash basis (ii) a debt basis (iii) some combination of the two (d) are any other terms and conditions associated with the sale and, if so, what are they (e) has Petro-Canada required any guarantees of the purchasers with regard to job security, benefits and other terms of employment of the employees at Joseph Ellie and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Petro-Canada reports as follows:
The sale of 50.1 per cent of the shares in Joseph Elie Ltee was announced to all Joseph Elie employees on December 29, 1989 and concluded on January 1, 1990.
(a)	The purchasers were ex-employees of Petro-Canada Inc. An appraisal was made of the management capabilities of these individuals.
(b)	-(d) Information concerning the purchase price is private to the parties involved in the transaction. The purchase was not financed by the Government of Canada nor by Petro-Canada. Normal commercial financing was arranged independently by the purchasers.
May 3, 1990

Privilege
(e) Employees have kept their jobs, have continued at the same salary levels and enjoy a similar benefits package to the one in which they previously participated. The only exceptions to this were three existing employees, two of whom accepted positions in Petro-Cana-da and the third who elected to accept an early retirement arrangement.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 196 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 196 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ms. Mitchell: For each year since 1975, has the government provided grants or contributions to the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and, if so, in each case (a) what amount (b) under which programs (c) what proportion of that year's annual operating budget of the committee did the sum represent?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On Monday, February 19, the hon. member for Davenport raised a question of privilege because he had not been recognized in debate the previous Thursday, February 15, when the House was considering the motion of the government on language rights. At the time, the Acting Speaker declined to recognize the hon. member for Davenport because he was not properly dressed.

The hon. member has asked the Chair to reconsider its reliance on the traditional interpretation of the practice of the House that required male members be dressed with jacket and tie. In making his case, the hon. member pointed to the latitude accorded women members who can dress, as he put it, "in a variety of ways according to fashions and changing trends".
The hon. member also quoted the Deputy Speaker who, last December 14, referred to Beauchesne and the practice that members are expected to respect in terms of their appearance. The hon. member stressed, however, that this is a practice and not a rule. This is certainly true, but it is a practice that is well established.
Exceptions have been allowed from time to time, but always within the context of the accepted practice. Clergymen members have requested the right to wear their distinctive collar instead of a tie and members who have sustained an injury have asked to be excused from the wearing of a jacket or a tie for short periods of time when it was not possible because of the injury. In this connection I would point to the recent cases involving the hon. members for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte and for Trois-Rivieres.
Such exceptions, as I have said, have proved the practice. There have been statements from the Chair supporting the usual practice for more than 60 years and I do not feel that as Speaker, I can disregard this practice.

May 3, 1990
Government Orders

If the practice is to be changed and if the hon. member for Davenport wants to see it changed, I would urge him to press his case with the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges. That committee has the power to inquire into the rules and pratices of the House and can make recommendations to change the rules and practices as they think fit. The House can then determine whether or not such recommendations should be adopted. The hon. member may wish to consider this approach.

I regret that I am unable to find that the hon. member has a valid question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to inform the House that because of the minister's statement, the time allowed for Government Orders will be extended by 10 minutes beginning at one o'clock this afternoon.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-15, an act respecting plant breeders' rights, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again to speak to this bill. Plant breeders' rights in Canada has received a lengthy and detailed study by the legislative committee. I understand that the committee has met at least 15 times, talked with representatives of 16 organizations, and received more than 100 written submissions. I believe that the committee has heard all of the significant arguments for and against the legislation.
It is important to note that the organizations which represent the vast majority of those who will be directly affected by plant breeders' rights support this bill. These
include the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, one of Canada's largest farm organizations, and the Canadian Horticultural Council. Several helpful suggestions were made and incorporated into the bill to improve this legislation which already enjoyed wide support. As a result, we feel that Bill C-15 is even more beneficial for Canada.
During second reading it was pointed out that this bill was drafted to conform to the international convention for the protection of new varieties of plants. As amended, the bill still conforms with the convention. Also, at second reading, reference was made to the 18 members of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. While our consideration of this bill continued, Poland has joined and I hope this bill will become law soon so that Canada may become the twentieth member of this union.
The committee hearings re-emphasized the anticipated benefits from this legislation. One important benefit is the stimulation of plant breeding efforts in the public sector which include Agriculture Canada and the universities. As we have heard, this is a high priority for crop and seed producers. It is also important that we encourage the private sector to invest in plant breeding. By allowing reasonable royalties we will give the private breeders incentive to invest in this kind of work.
The Canadian agriculture industry is also expected to benefit from this bill through improved access to foreign varieties. The producers of strawberry plants, seed potatoes and numerous other crops will also be able to choose from these many new varieties. In addition, this legislation will help Canada control the use of our new varieties abroad, generate royalties and increase export opportunities.
There were concerns expressed at the committee hearings that this legislation could have adverse effects. It was suggested that plant breeders' rights could encourage monopoly control of the seed industry and that it would remove or promote the use of chemicals in production, that it would have an adverse effect on the Third World and that it would open the door to patents on life.
I should like to respond to each of these points. As far as monopoly control is concerned, there is already provision in the Competition Act to prevent monopolies. Within the plant breeders' rights bill the compulsory
May 3, 1990

licence provision will prevent restrictive distribution practices. However, there are other major factors that will work against monopoly control in the Canadian seed industry. For one thing, there is the supply of varieties from public plant breeding programs, and there is the production and marketing of seed by farmer co-operatives and hundreds of seed growers.
On the second point, this legislation has no direct impact on agri-chemicals. The trend today is to only use chemicals in specialized situations where there are no alternative production techniques. The move to sustainable agriculture will also encourage the development of varieties which will resist pests and the breeders of such varieties will be rewarded under this legislation.
As to the effects on the Third World, plant breeders' rights in Canada will only impact on our foreign trade with other countries with similar legislation. This does not include Third World countries and furthermore, very few varieties adapted for Canadian conditions would prove useful in Third World countries.
Finally, by choosing to introduce this legislation specially designed for plant varieties, rather than amending the Patent Act, it can be argued that we are actually moving away from life patenting. Future developments in the patents are a separate issue and it has taken many years for plant breeders' rights legislation to come this far. I might say that many other governments have introduced legislation very similar to what we are proposing today.
The legislative committee has studied the technical details of the bill in great depth. They have reviewed the wording and have made some amendments which improve and clarify how the Canadian plant breeders' rights system should function. I congratulate the legislative committee on the thoroughness of its work.
We have heard from producers and their organizations. We feel that they need this legislation and they need it now. I am very hopeful that this House will pass this legislation very quickly and that it will become law in the very near future.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward -Hastings):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and speak on Bill C-15, an act respecting plant breeders' rights.
Government Orders
As many of us know this is a bill that has been in and out of this House in different stages and different times for close to 15 years. I think it is time that it has finally reached third reading stage and I would like to make a few comments on that.
It has been a controversial bill and still is in many peoples' mind. However, as the previous speaker has said, the legislative committee had lengthy discussions. Many groups and individuals appeared before us. We had a good study but, like any bill, even though it is at its final stage, there could be further improvements in order to dispel some concerns that some people might have.
However, as one who has been very actively involved in the agri-food industry at a different level than at the present time, I feel very strongly that this bill is needed by the industry.
We had a good study in committee. I feel we strengthened the bill. We got further interpretation and definition of such terms as reasonable price and distribution. At report stage, we got agreement on the fact that there shall be an advisory committee. Previous to that there was a concern that it should only be may, and some of us felt very strongly about that. We were pleased that the amendment put forward by my colleague from Algoma, that there shall be an advisory committee, was adopted in order to keep the commissioner and the minister up to date on concerns.
Other worth-while information that came out in committee in order to dispel concerns of some people was a memorandum of understanding between Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Agriculture Canada. I would like to read from one part of that memorandum as follows:
1. Ag Can will consult with CCA on all matters related to the administration of the Act which may be of concern to CCA. More particularly, with respect to 1he regulations and procedures to be approved under the Act, Ag Can will consult with the Bureau of Policy Coordination to ensure consistency with other intellectual property legislation and will consult with the Office of the Director of Investigation and Research under the Competition Act on issues related to competition policy.
There are more sections along the same line that I feel will go a long way toward comforting people with concerns.

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
A concern related to by the previous speaker was the concern that this may narrow the control of plant genetic material to multinational organizations or firms. I would like to make the House aware that the plant gene resources centre under Agriculture Canada has some 90,000 assessions which are genetic pieces of material, plants, varieties, et cetera, that are totally available to anyone in the world at no cost so they can use them if and when they wish in order to develop a new plant variety. There is no possibility of this being withheld from anyone who wishes to use the genetic material for further plant breeding. This is only one in the chain of these types of facilities that are available throughout the world.
While there are some groups and individuals who oppose this bill, there is a long list of supporters. They include the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Horticultural Council, the Canadian Ornamental Plant Foundation, the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council which represents some 20 commodity groups in the province of Ontario, Potatoes Canada, the pulse growers' association, SeCan, the United Grain Growers and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. Some of these organizations have some qualified concerns and most were looked after in committee. The university institutions are in favour of this as well.
When we look at global trade today there is one important way in which we can take part in that trade to the best of our ability, and that is to be competitive. I feel that the passing of this bill will put our primary producers and the total agri-food industry in a much better position to be more competitive throughout the world.
Farmers are concerned that it may increase the cost of seed to individual producers, because of the royalties they might have to pay. I can tell you from experience that, if a certain seed company comes out with a new seed, a hybrid or a variety of horticultural trees or plants, that the bottom right-hand corner of my balance sheet as a producer may not be everything, although in reality, it goes a long way.
If this new variety will allow me to produce more food at a cheaper price per unit so that the consumers, not
only in Canada but throughout the world can have a safe, healthy food product at a lower cost I, and other producers, are prepared to pay a little bit more for that root stock, seed or plant in order to propagate further plants of that variety.
A few years ago, I would have had more concern about the passing of this bill. Today, with the concern being voiced in the agricultural community and in our society in general about the environment, food safety and all these things, I feel that this bill is probably needed more than ever because we must realize how and why plant breeding is done. It is done not only to produce increased yields, but in order to produce safer products, and a more financially sustainable industry as far as the environment is concerned.
Now the market is being driven, and producers are looking for varieties of crops, trees and plants that do not require the use of pesticides as they did in the past. Producers are the first group of people who want to get away from that type of thing. We must have the legislation in place that will encourage plant breeders to develop those types of varieties and species. They need that encouragement. It is not a process that goes through without the expenditure of large amounts of money, and there must be a way for producers to recover at least part of the expenditure. I am not as worried about it as I was in the past. I think it is necessary in order to encourage this type of activity at the present time.
In closing, I believe very firmly that in Canada we want to help other countries of the world so that they can become more self-sufficient in food. We must encourage them to produce for their own people a safe, sufficient quality of food. We cannot do that unless our own agri-food industry is sound environmentally and economically. I feel that this bill definitely will help our agri-food industry to go in that direction, and that, even though there may be a few concerns about something that hypothetically may happen as a result of Bill C-15, the advantages of this bill far outweigh any possible disadvantage that there may be.
I encourage the House, as the previous speaker did, to pass this bill as soon as possible. After 15 years in the House of Commons at one stage or another, at one time or another, I think it is time for us to complete the work that we have to do on this bill.
May 3, 1990


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-15, an act to introduce a form of plant breeders' rights to Canada.
The previous two speakers have indicated that this proposal has come about after a fair length of time, however, I would argue that, just because the proposal has been on the block for 15 years and has been rejected for 15 years, by age alone that does not suddenly make it a good proposition.
I think there are a number of technical, ethical, moral and international considerations to be dealt with here but, for some simplicity, let me simply constrict my remarks today to what I see this bill doing.
To me and I think to a lot of other analysts, it does change the power structure that exists in the market. It is a fairly fundamental shift. The seed industry across the globe is becoming controlled more and more by a very few multinational corporations. The seed industry is fairly big business, even in this country. More than $400 million annually is expended by farmers for seed, seed stock and nursery stock to get the crops that we eat and produce fibre with, and also those crops that we look at and enjoy, such as flowers and shrubs.
There is over $400 million a year expended in our country alone, a very large market. The trade in new varieties has gone on between Canada and the developed world in the past by a simple expedient of contract law. A seed company or an individual in this country would sign a contract with a developer outside of the country, and agree to pay them for the use of their seeds. There is nothing particularly wrong with that system, except that a lot of the other developed countries have an even better deal going. Within their law, they have developed plant breeders' rights or plant patenting in some countries which permits the developer to have a much cheaper way of enforcing the contract.
Essentially, with this particular law coming into effect in Canada, a foreign developer of a seed makes a contract with a seed producer or a seed seller in this country. If the contract is broken and the royalties for the use of the seed are not forwarded out of the country, he does not face an expensive legal process under contract law to collect those fees.
This proposal changes that quite considerably in favour of the developer in that he simply has to go to the
Government Orders
court and ask that the payments be made. The law is much strengthened on his or her behalf and on behalf of the company, and the extraction process is much cheaper from a legal viewpoint. If that was the end of it, the debate would probably have petered out fairly quickly.
However, when we look at other developed countries in western Europe and south of our border in the United States, which has been going this route much further and much faster over a much longer period of time, we find that that is not the end of it. There is always more being demanded, and we are getting very close on the U.S. side to slipping into the whole process of patenting life.
Much has been made by the previous two speakers of the alleged support of the various farm groups and farm organizations. The hon. member for Prince Edward- Hastings pointed out that a lot of those supporters had conditions on the support. I just want to take the most moderate of the various groups that were mentioned, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and go through for just a moment, the conditions that they posed on this legislation to show that the committee met virtually none of their conditions. Yet we are hearing that it was support from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that led to the caving in on the Liberal benches of some, what I perceive to be, anti-C-15 speeches at second reading.
The CFA, I recognize and they recognize, have some problems. The view of plant breeders' rights legislation varies throughout the farming community. The nursery and horticultural side of the industry that is producing flowering plants and items and have to respond very quickly to new colours and new shapes would like to have a freer exchange and access to material from Holland, Europe, and the United States, where a lot of money is expended on this kind of horticulture.
For the reasons I outlined at the beginning of my remarks, there is some hesitancy and reticence on the part of those countries to put material into Canada without having an easy way of collecting the royalties because the user in Canada might not live up to the contractual agreement.
Canada is simply not permitted to have those new varieties which are propagated by Americans and Europeans. They are shipped into Canada for purchase by the

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
consumer who is particularly interested in having the very absolute latest rose and tulip.
There was an effort in the committee to separate those kinds of needs from the food needs of the agricultural industry because there is some hazard in permitting food crops to become subject to a monopoly or patent right under this type of legislation. We are already seeing a tendency to monopolies in the seeds industry and this simply allows large multinational corporations to extract larger and larger profits from the industry.
The CFA provided as one of its conditions that Bill C-15 must continue to exempt farm-saved seed from royalty payments. It is crucial to farmers that this exemption be retained so that they will have secure access to an alternate source of low-cost seed. There was no change to the way the legislation is written. As I recall, it is left to the discretion of the commissioner who administers the bill, but what creates some concern was reiterated by the farmers' union in their brief, and that is seed costs at the farm. They note that there has to be some choice permitted to farmers to use their own farm-saved seed.
I point out two instances where other countries' experience gives them some reason for a certain amount of alarm. In Great Britain, for instance, we were told that such farm-saved seed is exempt as long as it is cleaned on the farm. Elowever, if the cleaning at the farm level is done by a portable seed-cleaning plant- which are used in this country as well-there would have to be another payment of royalties for the cleaning of the particular variety of seed even though it was produced on the farm and was going to be reused on the farm.
There was some hesitancy on the part of farmers to get started in this particular process, knowing that once begun, Great Britain began to put further conditions on their farmers.
I point out that as we move to the goods and services tax, grain cleaning charges for custom use will be something on which we will have to pay GST. There will be bookkeeping done. It will be very easy to monitor those items so the administrative framework for permitting the companies to collect royalties on farm reused seed will be there.
As well, I point out a quotation from Dr. Hans Leenders, the Secretary General of the International Seed Trade Federation based in Switzerland, who in a
speech in May of 1986, quoted in Seedman's Digest a U.S. publication, stated that he was taking the point of view of a seed developer, being a third generation owner of a seed business.
He was pointing out the need by the seed trade to be able to collect royalties on seeds that were grown on the farm and were going to be reseeded on the farm. This is part of what he had to say:
As a matter of fact the freedom to do in one's own house/company is not absolute. Clandestine alcohol, fire arms, drugs production even for one's own need and quite some other things are in most countries prohibited.
Plant reproductive material has increasingly become a technical product in which money has been invested. Even though it has been a tradition in most countries that a farmer can save seed from his own crop, it is under the changing circumstances not equitable that farmers can use this seed and grow a commercial crop out of it without payment of a royalty.
I think it is fairly clear where the international seeds industry is trying to carry us. While this legislation and this commissioner tell us there is no intention of permitting royalties on seeds that are grown on the farm and reused on the farm, the seeds industry is pushing beyond that.
I submit and remind you that it was the seeds industry that pushed Canada and the Department of Agriculture into adopting a plant breeders' rights mode in the past 15 years and are succeeding here today.
This should not in any way be construed to be the final step. It is only the very first of many steps that the seed industry has in mind to take Canada's legal system and its ability to extract royalties and profits from the $400 million worth of seeds that are used in this country.
I said I was going to be going through some of the conditions that the CFA laid down. I pointed out that the first one was that seed saved by farmers must continue to be exempt from royalty payments.
The second condition was that the bill also make provision for compulsory licensing, with the objective of ensuring that a protected variety is made available to the public at reasonable prices. That reasonable price protection is left completely to the judgment of the commissioner. There is no protection in this legislation other than the good judgment of the current and future commissioners, so that can change at any time at the whim of the commissioner and the sitting minister of agriculture. There is no guarantee that compulsory
May 3, 1990

licensing will be available so that producers of basic food will have available varieties at reasonable prices.
Another condition that the Federation of Agriculture had as a requirement of its support was a sunset clause after 5 or 10 years. This is not particularly radical. It is the kind of thing we see in the Canadian Bank Act. We have given the banks an extreme privilege to run the banking system in our country with very little supervision. They have very near monopoly control of the financial institutions. In return this House, and this and all future and past governments, have reviewed the act and privileges granted to financial institutions every 10 years. One of the reviews is to be done this year for the past decade.
Third, the privilege proposed for seed development companies is very similar in that it is a monopoly kind of power granted for up to 17 years. The CFA is well within its rights to suggest that a sunset clause be included so that after 10 years a full review of the activities of seed companies under this act could be conducted by the House of Commons and the Senate and a decision made as to whether to continue those powers, to restrict them, or perhaps to extend them. It was turned down by the government, yet it was one of the requirements of the CFA on its conditional acceptance of Bill C-15.
The fourth condition supported for plant breeders' rights, provided there will be proper examination under the provisions of the Competition Act, is to look at mergers and acquisitions to determine what effect the mergers would have on competition in the seeds industry. We did not get a response to that. What we got was a letter from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to the Department of Agriculture which indicated that they would have an interest in that sort of thing and an apparent agreement that the Department of Agriculture would keep them informed to the best of its ability as to mergers and expansion in the seed industry.
The final condition the CFA placed on conditional support for Bill C-15 was that it wanted a clear expansion of public research into plant breeding programs which would result in an increase in publicly bred varieties available to farmers and in the number of person years and amount of financing in those programs.
Government Orders
This legislation contains no such guarantee. We have no such guarantee required from this minister or any future minister of agriculture, or this government or any future government.
The public breeding program of this country has been extremely useful and helpful in keeping Canadian farmers competitive. In fact, it was the public plant breeding system that made western Canadian agriculture competitive at the turn of the century. It was the central breeding program of the Department of Agriculture at its station in Ottawa that produced the wheat varieties which permitted Canada to become competitive on a quality and quantity basis in world markets.
It is the same public breeding program, through the Department of Agriculture and through assistance from various universities, that keeps us competitive and ahead of the game. I would point out something that I raised in the House a few months ago to show that we are competitive.
In trials in North Dakota, publicly bred varieties from Canada topped all of the test trials. The private plant breeding companies from the United States and Europe could not, and did not, produce varieties that could compete effectively against our own. We will not see a huge improvement to the Canadian plant breeding industry as a result of this legislation. What we will see is some breeders of plants who propagate material either as registered seed growers or as horticulturalists having easier access, they think and hope, to some European and American varieties. I think that contract law would have looked after that quite well and I regret that the government has caved in to international pressure, a form of hijacking by international seed corporations, to propose this law when the existing law protected the producers, the farmers, and consumers much better than this one will.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member who just spoke that he was referring to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. At report stage I read into the record a letter to the Minister of Agriculture dated April 23. I am quoting from the letter again: "We should point out that many of the caveats which our organization has had with respect to plant breeders' rights have already been addressed directly in the bill by the committee amendments or by

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
other means, example Treasury Board, Agriculture Canada agreements".
So those concerns of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have been taken care of.
I would also like to point out that farm-saved seed is not protected under this legislation if it is to be used on the farm. The legislation only applies to seed that is sold, and the farmer can save his own seed without payment of royalty.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I know that. I pointed out in my speech that in both the British and European cases farm-saved seed was exempt and now the seed industry is trying to get it included. In fact Great Britain is moving in that direction. I point out to the minister that once you begin caving in to these series of demands you will never meet all the requirements of the international seed industry. They will ultimately end up continuing to get their way. We have begun a process here that can only be more expensive for farmers and can only reduce the number of choices they have available at the farm level.
I also want to point out that I was very careful in going through the original requirements that the CFA had in its brief to the committee and I think I did a fair and objective analysis. If they changed their mind in a letter afterward that is their business, but I reiterate that the bill and the committee did not meet those five conditions.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert -Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member for Mackenzie did an excellent job of outlining some of the technical impacts of the bill. I wonder if he might expand on his concerns with regard to the monopoly control by seed and chemical companies that might well flow from this particular legislation.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, some of these concerns are not just the United Church and NFU myth that the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster points out, but are also concerns of the Canadian Environmental Law Association and a number of private analysts who look at the way corporate power in the world operates. The way multinational corporations function,
including multinational seed corporations, is to gain full control and reduce the surprises in other national markets. That is what they are trying to do, and succeeding to do, in this country with plant breeders' rights. They are establishing the same kinds of rules that they have in most western European countries and in the United States. Our law to this point in time is not quite as broad as the access in some countries, but it is getting there. They know that once they start, they can broaden it. They have got the door open and now it is just a matter of pushing it all the way.
The way for seed companies to achieve profits has been to be acquired by either pharmaceutical companies or oil and chemical companies. If you do an analysis of the largest seed companies in the world, you will find that they all have those kinds of connecting interlinks and connections. Those are the companies that provide the pesticides and fertilizers for our crops. It is generally seen that the kinds of programs that they are embarked upon for looking for new varieties tend to search for varieties that will tie in the use of their chemicals or their fertilizers as well.
You see a big expenditure in looking for atrazine resistant crops. You see programs to utilize the chemicals that they have so that the farmer is not only going to want to buy the seed, but he will be forced to buy the chemical because the seed will not work without the chemical. There is an interdependency link there. It is simply a good economic and business kind of linkage that is now being reinforced by the laws of this country.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, as you will probably recall, at second reading I made an intervention on this bill quite at length. Today, I will limit my remarks to a brief intervention.
First I would like to explain to those who are watching this debate on TV that what we are debating here today is in essence the rights respecting breeding plants on the part of those who are interested in this particular human activity. Basically, we are discussing whether these rights should remain in the public sector where they have
May 3, 1990

mainly been in the past or whether these rights should be circumscribed, restricted and be given in the form of a monopoly to mostly multinational companies that have a particular interest in this matter.
We are dealing here with something that nature has given to humanity to deal with and how these plants, which have become the object of economic activities, mostly for the production of food throughout the world, ought to be managed. The meaning of the bill, although "plant breeders' rights" sounds very technical, is one that addresses a very broad, human activity in all parts of the world and which so far has been the domain of mixed enterprise activities, both in the public and private sectors.
It is regrettable that the number of those supporting this bill is increasing between second and third readings. It is regrettable also that this is taking place within the context of a broader debate, namely that of sustainable development which is now more and more at the centre of policy discussions throughout the world, particularly in the northern hemisphere. This government has, theoretically at least, embraced the notion of sustainable development by way of high sounding declarations. When it comes to the crunch and the practical application of sustainable development, it falls flat and regresses to a role of preaching highly, but acting with no regard to its own preaching. That is unfortunate and highly regrettable.
I must say that the Minister of Agriculture is a great disappointment in this respect. He has in a number of statements expressed himself in favour of sustainable agriculture but when it comes to the crunch, as in the case of Bill C-15, he was not able to deliver. On the contrary, he is now embracing an activity and moving a measure through this House which will contribute to corporate concentration in agriculture which is opposed by most, if not all, NGOs active in international development aid. It is a measure which would also contribute to the gradual increase in seed prices and possibly eliminate certain breeders on a small scale. It would increase the profits on the part of multinational corporations, particularly those interested in pesticides, and I will come to that in a moment. It is a measure that is likely to give, but we do not know yet, a monopoly for certain forms of genetic life.
Government Orders
This is a trend that I must object to once again and express regret that this measure will go through this House. I had hoped that the government would reconsider. While regrettable, it is no wonder that the Conservative Party supports this measure. It believes in reducing the public sector interest, it believes in increasing private sector activities and it does not seem to be worried in the least about further concentration of multinational corporate power. It seems to be blissfully oblivious of that very important aspect in contemporary economic trends.
The bill, as I mentioned already, goes to the heart of the concept of sustainable development. It is a bill that probably can be defended on the terms of enhancing agri-business but it certainly does not enhance the activity of farmers, particularly the small ones, when it comes to their specific interest in relation to their agricultural life. I will be more specific on that in a moment.
I must stress the fact that from my understanding of the world picture, genetic resources essential to world agriculture are increasingly controlled by multinational corporations and new crops are being developed for economic reasons. This includes higher yields, uniformity, stability and needs of transportation. This includes Third World development which is interested in the protection and preservation of smaller-scale farming and becomes shifted as a background or as a secondary preoccupation.
What this bill does is reinforce the trend in favour of monocultures with all the inherent consequences in terms of insect devastation which accompany intensified monocultures. It will reinforce chemical agriculture and will reinforce private control of this precious and, I would think, very public resource which is called the seed or which is called the plant for purely economic and profit reasons. With this legislation, the knowledge shifts to become an industrial secret and the research then no longer becomes accountable to the public but to corporate interests and to considerations related to profit making. The Economist, which cannot be accused of being a socialist, wide-eyed publication states: "Chemical companies have spent $10 billion or so in as many years buying up seed companies world-wide."

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
The companies listed in that 1988 issue of The Economist are, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Sandoz, Dekalb-Pfizer, Upjohn, Limagrain, Shell Oil, ICI, Ciba-Geigy, Orson and Cargill, to mention the world's largest companies in the business of seeds. Seven of these 10 companies, it must be stressed, are also involved in crop chemicals. That is an important linkage and it must be seen, if the government is there to protect the public interest. It is a linkage which must be kept in mind to understand the implication of this measure that privatizes plant breeders' views and rights.
With this measure, the trend in privatization will escalate because I am told that more than 50 per cent of seed research and development, within private industry, is focused on building the tolerance of new seed varieties to higher and higher concentrations of agricultural chemicals, produced by the very same companies and that is where the link emerges. Canadian farmers, most likely, in the long term will be asked to pay the cost of these royalties which they do not pay right now.
The second impact of this legislation is that it would have the impact of limiting sustainable agriculture. Here I am referring to the fact that, increasingly, organic farming is being seen as one way to reduce the effects of the current financial and environmental crisis in agriculture. Farmers feel, and the public also shares this view, that the health of consumers, the environment, the health of livestock and the family farm members is better protected through organic rather than through chemical farming.
Once this bill becomes accepted and, unfortunately, I can see now that this is going to be inevitable, organic farmers and converting farmers will not be able to get the seed varieties they need because these varieties are likely to be reduced by the decisions made by this monopoly that will emerge in the long term. We have no assurance and no guarantee at all that the varieties will not be reduced. What will be the determining factor will be the resistance and the capacity of seeds to thrive and produce on the basis of pesticides and chemical fertilizers.
Another important argument which must be stressed again is that of equity for the developing world. With this measure, we notice that the Third World will have to buy
seeds from the north. A number of countries have already adopted this type of legislation, so we are just following, at the tail end, a trend which is regrettable.
The Third World consumer of seed will buy seeds from the north since the genetic resources on which the seeds are based have been taken, for the most part, from the Third World without compensation. That trend flies in the face of what sustainable development also implies, namely, introducing some basic fundamental and major elements of equity between the north and the south.
These are the main reasons on which the arguments rest in opposing this particular measure. It is regrettable that it has been brought so far. Yes, there were amendments in committee; there were also five motions, at the report stage, of which one was adopted. But, these changes did not change the main thrust of the bill itself.
They were marginal and of very limited consequence and impact. For these reasons I indicate my opposition to this measure because the committee process did not come to grips with the main thrust, particularly the one that will give to large monopolies and multinational corporations a much greater power on this natural resource than has been had so far.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment about sustainable agriculture and the hon. member's remarks toward the Minister of Agriculture.
I want to remind the hon. member that in his government in 1982 the Hon. Eugene Whelan introduced legislation almost the same as what we are dealing with today. I know he supported the legislation and it was unfortunate that it did not pass at that time because we would have been much further ahead today.
I want to point out that Bill C-15 supports sustainable agriculture. For example, I refer back to the speech I gave about breeding programs on about the last sitting day of the House last June. I was very involved in this because I was chairman of a marketing board at that time dealing with the matter.
There was an outbreak of anthracnose in white beans in 1977. You can control anthracnose but there are many, many strains. This was a delta strain that we happened to
May 3, 1990

get. Where it came from, I do not know, but we had it. You can breed resistance to these different strains.
There are up to 24 different strains of anthracnose in white beans. It can be controlled with a chemical. At that time we worked together with Agriculture Canada and were able to use a chemical in the interim to keep seed production and export markets which were very, very necessary. We used the chemical for two years so we would have seed to plant. We could not obtain seed which was clear and free from the delta strain of anthracnose.
Within two years of working with the public and private sector and the plant breeding programs we developed a strain resistant to the delta strain of anthracnose. That has happened many times in the white bean industry.
I believe that Bill C-15 does support sustainable agriculture. I give that example because it has worked extremely well in the past and I am sure will work well in the future.
Something similar has happened to canuck wheat where resistance has been developed in breeding programs rather than using chemicals. The mood in the agricultural community is to move away from the use of chemicals as much as possible. I do not believe it is something which can be legislated totally, but we have to reduce the amount of chemicals in use. The will is there for that to happen.
We talk as well about the developing world and Third World countries. Many seeds produced in this country would not be available or would not grow in Third World countries. We can still assist them in many other ways with available programs.
I would love to take the member to visit the gene resource centre in Ottawa, not only to look at the seeds stored there but to meet with the people who operate the centre. I am sure he would feel differently about what we are doing for Third World development and the storage and preservation of seeds from all over the world. We store them here and in other places. I have visited the centre and it certainly gave me the assurance that we can do more for Third World countries by doing things like that. I invite the member to visit that gene
Government Orders
resource centre and would be veiy happy to go there with him if he would care to do so.
We also hear about increased cost. Since 1953 the cost of living index in West Germany has risen by 122 per cent. The wheat seed in that country and for the same time has risen 29 per cent. That is not inflationary. Why should it be any different here?


Mr. Caccia:: Madam Speaker, the hon. member invites me to visit the gene resource centre. I would be glad to do that but this is exactly the point that concerns me, because the passage of this legislation and the role of the public sector through Agriculture Canada will be limited and eroded over time.
It will be this type of activity to maintain the gene pool that will become more and more the domain of the private sector.
The hon. member is basing his argument on the reassurance that he gets from visiting this centre, and I am glad that he does, but he does not seem to look at the future and as to what will happen once this legislation is in place and becomes implemented over time. It will mean a reduction of the public sector and the promotion of the interest from a public perspective, rather than from the perspective of multinationals.
Coming to the other point the hon. member made, it is distressing to learn that most of the multinationals which will benefit from this measure are in the chemical fertilizing business. I recited their names to him. I would like him to focus on the fact that that is the major activity of some of these multinationals today.
Why would they be interested in the seed business, if not for the promotion of products which they are manufacturing at the present time? Evidently, there is an obvious link. That cannot be denied. I wish that the hon. member would have addressed that particular linkage.
As to the legislation introduced by a former Minister of Agriculture, what the hon. members says is true. Nobody claims that governments are perfect. It was a measure that was introduced long before-and this is my main point-sustainable development became an agreed upon policy focus for the global community. To be precise, it dates back to April, 1987. It was only thereafter that the concerns of sustainable development and how to apply the concept-not just to agriculture, but

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
also to energy, and not just to waste management, but to broader environmental issues-has become in some cases, as in the case of the Government of Canada, the embraced theology.
We are not the ones who have embraced sustainable development. It is the government to which the hon. member belongs that has embraced that theme, and quite rightly so. But it does so only in theoretical terms. When it comes to the crunch and to the practice on energy measures, it ignores sustainable development and efficiency. When it comes to agriculture, as in the case of this bill, it ignores its own declarations.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to what my colleague from the Liberal party said.
I am sure he is aware that with this legislation 60 per cent of the royalties that are collected will be returned to the public research domain for agriculture. It is a very unique step taken on behalf of this government, and supported by Treasury Board, to allow that form of return to take place in public research and development. I think he would probably like to applaud the government for that.
His concern about sustainable development is well understood. With this legislation, those varieties and those seeds that will allow agricultural development to take place without the use of agricultural chemicals will be further enhanced. But this myth about a chemical company or a seed company that is continually referred to by the hon. member and his colleagues in the New Democratic Party and some outside sources has yet to be proved as fact.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: It has yet to be proved as a fact that there is a commercial product available which, when combined with the seed, is the only way that the product will grow, or the only gene variety that can be assumed to be used by a chemical. That is a myth. It has not been done by research yet.
The second myth has to cjq ^vith there being a correlation between plant breeders' rights and monopoly control. If the hon. member and members of the House will look to the Netherlands, which has had plant breeders'
rights since 1941-almost 50 years-they will see that there are 983 companies in the Netherlands involved in seed trade and research and development. That could hardly be called a monopoly after 50 years.
The other thing that the hon. member should be aware of is that in the United States, after 50 years, over 40 per cent of the seed trade is done by small independent businesses. It is not done by the large multinationals which purportedly have a monopoly, but by small independent businesses. Again, the multinationals are in competition with one another after 50 years. There is not one that has taken over, or two. There are still seven or eight involved. I do not understand this fear.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Read a paper on monopoly sometime.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The hon. member refers to reading a paper. His source is a weed farmer by the name of Moody who has been around this since 1979-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Go to any economics library and read about oligopoly.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Prior to 1979 when the Hon. Eugene Whelan brought forward, on behalf of the Liberal government of the day, plant breeders' legislation. The Hon. John Wise in 1979 brought it forward. Now we have it here, finally. I am very pleased to have it finally concluded for the benefit of agriculture, for the benefit of the environment and for the benefit of the people of Canada.


Charles L. Caccia: I would applaud the government on the question of royalties if the percentage were 95 per cent. That would show real concern for the public interest. When it is divided in the manner that the Minister of National Defence just outlined, it reinforces the notion that something is happening here at the expense of the public interest. Otherwise, the public interest would be better reflected in the distribution of royalties.
As to the frequent reference on our part to multinationals which are in the area of chemical fertilizers, something the minister calls a myth, The Economist analysed the situation in an article printed in one of its publication. The source is a pretty solid one. It is where the names of these companies were brought to the attention of the public. I am sure this does not come as a surprise to the minister. I am sure that he knows that in the past so many years chemical companies have spent
May 3, 1990

$10 billion, as reported by The Economist, in buying up seed companies world-wide.
Therefore, I would ask him to give us a better explanation of that trend. Are they doing it because all of a sudden they have become benefactors of humanity?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I see the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising. The time for questions and comments has expired.
I realize that both sides are now engaged in quite an interesting debate, which is what debate should always be in this House. I am quite prepared to let it go sometime longer, if I have unanimous consent.
I saw that the minister was rising and was prepared to answer. I am also prepared to recognize the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, if the hon. member for Davenport agrees as well.


An hon. member:: No!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate at the third reading stage having participated in it at second reading.
I realize that there have been a few changes made to the proposed legislation as a result of the committee study. Essentially, we are still talking about the same fundamental issues that we were involved in then. That has really not changed.
I find it somewhat ironic, however, that something that has changed is the position of the Liberal party. That is not surprising since it was the original intention of the Liberal party to introduce this legislation under the Hon. Eugene Whelan about 10 years ago. At second reading we had the distinct impression that speakers for the Liberal party were in fact opposing this legislation for some very good reasons. Then, in committee, there seemed to be a softening of that position. Today, we have had speakers from the Liberal party speak on both sides of the issue.
Government Orders
Therefore it is somewhat confusing for the public and hon. members to determine what in fact the position of the Liberal party might be on some of these very fundamental questions.
I think it is impossible to separate the question of plant breeders' rights from the general trends which we see in agriculture, in rural Canada and in this government's approach to those issues.
Over the last number of years-certainly since the election of this government-we have seen a strong tilting away from involvement of the public sector in all aspects of the economy. Certainly, agriculture has not escaped that trend.
We saw it in large measure in large initiatives such as the free trade agreement, which represents a massive retreat on many fronts from public sector involvement. We also saw it in smaller instances, for example, the removal of oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. We saw a backing away from support for rural communities through the cuts of the government to the branch-line abandonment program. There are many other kinds of initiatives which this government has taken which really represent a fundamental shift away from public involvement in the economy.
In fact, that was a stated goal of this government when it was elected. In spite of its attempt to make it look like an incremental kind of movement it has been a steady movement, one which I think has started to present us with some trends that are clearly identifiable, trends which I think all Canadians can recognize.
I think part of those trends has been to make us more subject to pressure from international corporations, the whole multinational corporation structure that is more and more dominating the economy of the world. It is certainly dominating the agricultural economy.
Where have we seen that lead us in the province of Saskatchewan, my home province? We have seen an agriculture economy that has literally dived into the tank in the last number of years. We see farm foreclosures in record numbers. We see despair in the farm community, something that in my years of experience in the farm community I certainly have never seen before.

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
I had the opportunity to visit a farm community in southern Saskatchewan over the weekend. The people there were telling me that in the whole trading area for a town of about 500 people there were only three young families that have taken over farms in the last five or six years in that community. There is no way that three families on farms will be able to support a rural population in a community like that.
Right now we have seen a triple whammy, if you will, that has been directed at the farm community in Saskatchewan and, indeed, western Canada. We have seen the initial prices for grain come out at a drop of 12 per cent over what were already unacceptably low price. These are prices at which farmers can no longer afford to produce grain. These prices are no accident. They are part of the same trend that we see here in the plant breeders' rights legislation. They are part of the abandonment of the farm sector to control by corporations like Cargill and its equivalents around the world.
The second aspect of what has hit the farm community in the last very short period of time has been the rise in interest rates. In conjunction with that, the government has used its own lending agency, the Farm Credit Corporation, to inflict those same unacceptably high interest rates on farm families. It is ironical that an arm of the government that was originally intended, as I understand it, to provide long-term financial security to the farm sector by allowing farmers to borrow money at rates that could be sustained by farm operations should itself become a leader in increasing interest costs to farmers. This is making it more and more impossible for them to conceive of any future for themselves. It certainly discourages any young families from starting farming.
There is a story going around the farm community about a farm family being convicted of child abuse because it turned over the family farm to its children.
The third in this series of blows that has been inflicted on the farm community is the ping-pong game, the game of chicken that is being played between the federal government and provincial governments with respect to the payment which was promised to farmers to help them with their spring seeding. Clearly, we in the House have heard a whole series of announcements, a whole series of commitments and promises.
First, we were told by the Minister of Agriculture that there would be money in the hands of farmers before seeding time. As we got through January and February there was some backing away from that position. Then there was a definite promise that there would be a formal announcement of what kind of a program there would be, including who would get money and so on, before seeding time, certainly by the middle of April. Then we got into a very unseemly pushing match between the federal and the provincial governments. In spite of all those commitments we still do not have an announcement.
Piled on top of the high interest rates and the lower initial prices, we have federal and provincial governments still at odds over who shall pick up the cost of this program. This leaves farmers in the same vulnerable position vis-a-vis their financial situation as they were before. In fact, it might be even worse because with the passage of time decisions that need to be made are being increasingly delayed. The longer those decisions are delayed, of course, the harder it is to plan a farming operation for the future.
In this context I might add that the federal government says it cannot afford to compete with the treasuries of Europe and the United States. The provincial governments say they cannot afford to compete with the treasuries of Europe and the United States. Who is left competing with the treasuries of Europe and the United States? The farm families of Canada. Surely, their depleted bank accounts are the last place we can expect to find the financial muscle to compete with the treasuries of Europe and the United States.
Turning to the legislation before us, what is clearly at issue is that this particular legislation continues a trend that we have seen toward increasing control of the agriculture sector through the corporatization of the agriculture sector both now and into the future. There is a rapid increase in that kind of trend. I think we are on an exponential kind of curve where things that might now look fairly innocuous could very rapidly turn into much larger problems in the near future.
Some of the fundamental issues that remain at stake when we look at plant breeders' rights involve the concentration of corporate power and the relationship of that corporate power to the seed breeding and seed production industry.
May 3, 1990

We have heard about how seven out of ten of the major companies that are producing seed in the world are pharmaceutical and chemical companies. This is no accident. It is clear that these companies see a link between the chemical business and the seed production business. There is no reason for those links to develop without some expectation that they will be profitable to these companies.
We have seen a rapidly increasing concentration of power among those chemical and pharmaceutical companies. In the 1970s, there used to be 30 companies in the business of producing crop chemicals. We are now down to 12. The industry itself expects that by the turn of the century there will be only six of those kinds of companies left.
As the Minister of National Defence indicated, six or seven companies in a business does not represent a monopoly. Surely, that represents an oligopoly which amounts to much the same thing. It makes them vulnerable to the same kind of activities we see in the oil and gas business where there are regularly allegations of price fixing and so on.
Having only six or seven companies in a particular type of enterprise, especially when they are operating worldwide, leaves the whole business open to abuse, price-fixing and the development of trends which clearly will not benefit the thousands and thousands of small producers, especially the seed distribution companies that are relying on those companies for plant breeding.
Another issue is the access to seed varieties and the cost of seed to farmers. The hon. member pointed out that the pressure for this particular development has come from the large seed companies. Certainly, part of the agenda of those seed companies is to gain a larger share of control of the seed business. It is not hard to extrapolate that the day is rapidly coming when they will want to extend the need to pay royalties for the grain that farmers raise on their own farms which they hope to use for seed.
Those kinds of trends are already evident, for example, in Great Britain and other countries that have brought in this type of legislation. That would take away a very important source of seed for farmers across this country.
Government Orders
When it comes to cost, it erodes the contribution of the public at large to the costs of breeding and developing seeds in this country. The Minister of National Defence pointed out that as part of this legislation 60 per cent of the royalty payments will be returned to public plant breeding. However, it should be noted that that 60 per cent will no doubt replace money that is then cut in subsequent budgets from the general revenues of the government.
What will end up happening is that the rapidly diminishing number of farmers in this country will bear more and more of the cost of seed breeding and genetic development, while the public carries less of the burden. Surely, if we look at the income projections for farmers and farm families in this country, there is no good reason why those costs should be shifted so massively from the public sector to that very narrow base of financing which they provide. After all, the public at large benefits from the ongoing development of a healthy agricultural economy.
A second point that should be made with respect to plant breeding in this country is to remind the government of the old adage that if it ain't broke, why fix it?. We have had a very successful record of plant breeding. Plant breeding in Canada is held up world-wide as one of the most successful plant breeding systems in the world. The wheat and canola varieties that we have developed over the years have been world leaders in productivity and resistance to disease. It is clear that public plant breeding has more than demonstrated its worth. I found it interesting that the parliamentary secretary, who I believe is from Huron-Bruce, pointed out an example of successful plant breeding with regard to beans. That breeding was carried out under a public plant breeding program, which demonstrates again the relevance and the utility of a public plant breeding program in this country.
I think it is interesting to note as well that when major trials were undertaken in the state of North Dakota, whose growing, soil and economic conditions are very similar to the province of Saskatchewan, the publicly-bred varieties from Canada consistently out-performed those bred by private breeders from south of the border and from Europe. What we should be doing is giving a strong endorsement to that public plant breeding system,

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
rather than undermining it by introducing this legislation at this time.
The whole concern about where we are heading in the area of sustainable development is intensely relevant when it comes to this debate. We have seen the number of varieties of many types of crops around the world shrinking consistently. I refer to varieties that have been used on a large scale commercial basis. Corn and barley varieties are much smaller in number than they used to be.
It is quite clear that a healthy ecosystem requires many varieties of seeds to be used that are relevant to particular areas of the world and particular areas of the country. If we do not have that, we can become much more susceptible to different types of diseases and insect infestations and so on, which can wipe out large areas of our agriculture. This could have a large scale impact on major crops. The only way to avoid that is to ensure that there are large numbers of varieties that keep on being bred for particular conditions.
Placing more and more control in the hands of large multinational corporations which have only an interest in cutting down dramatically on the number of varieties is not good. The efficiencies of scale which make it possible for those companies to operate and which give them any kind of advantage at all requires that we limit the number of varieties that are available to as small a number as possible.
I would like to conclude by saying that I am concerned about the fundamental issues involved here. This legislation is another step on the road to corporate concentration in the whole agricultural field. The fundamental issues as I see them include the access and cost of seed to farmers, the impact on sustainable development and the undermining of the public sector involvement in the whole field of agriculture.
We in this party certainly believe that a modern, efficient farm sector based on the family farm model requires that we support public sector involvement, especially in an area as sensitive as the genetic strains that produce our seeds, which in turn produces our food-the life forms that we have in this country.
Therefore I urge the government to reconsider this legislation, even at this late stage. I urge Canadians to recognize the impact and to turn back the clock to a time when we were looking at agriculture as something that
required a significant commitment from the public sector. We must not abandon the family farm and the future of agriculture to the private sector and large multinational corporations.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there questions or comments? The hon. member for Mackenzie.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I note that the cost of enforcement of this particular piece of legislation has been raised once or twice today, rather obliquely. It occurs to me that perhaps the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River might want to comment on the assertion from the government benches that this is a much more equitable way and that there was no other means of permitting the trade of plant varieties from one country to the other.
I point out to him something that I am sure he realizes. About two-thirds of the field crops which are sold in this country are sold as certified seed. Under our Seeds Act this requires that they be field inspected and subjected to an inspection at cleaning and bagging when they have a seal put on them. For most of the field crops that were grown in this country, there was really no big problem in getting contractual arrangements to test American or European-developed seeds. He has already pointed out that they do not do particularly well in western Canada, at least with his reference to the results in North Dakota.
Perhaps he could expand on his comments about the nature of international oligopolies where only a few very large firms control the trade from one country to another. They did not seem to think that this sort of contractual arrangement which, because of the power and requirement of the Seeds Act to have field and seed plant inspections, verifying how much seed of a variety was grown, made it vety easy for the original developer to collect its royalty. Why are we abandoning that perfectly workable system for international purposes to go beyond? Does he think that these companies have much more at stake than just making it easier to shift varieties from one country to the other?


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He points out an element of this whole question of "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" The person here is only speculating, but I think that one of the reasons is that we are looking at trends here and so on.
May 3, 1990

The companies that are now pushing us down this road of plant breeders' rights and taking control of the seed industry also see some profitable aspects for themselves in controlling the inspection and contracting the inspection process. It makes it much easier for them to do some of this on an internal basis than it would otherwise be.
As we move farther down the road, the cost will increase rapidly for the kind of inspection and monitoring processes that we are going to have to put in place. As there becomes a larger and larger financial stake which these companies have in what particular seed is grown on what particular kind of farm, we will have to look at new compliance kinds of measures because the pressure will increase to implement measures that will ensure that every last dollar is wrung from the farmers when it comes to production of their crops and the provision of that seed.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would care to comment on some testimony that was presented at committee stage from the Canadian Council for International Co-operation in a brief prepared on their behalf. They point out on page 2 of that brief dealing with plant patenting that in a few decades we have moved from intellectual property over plants to the patenting of micro-organisms and animals. Eluman cell lines and foetal tissue are not patentable in some countries. Recent European Economic Community and U.S. proposals either propose no upper limit to the patenting of life forms or draw the line only at the point of slavery. He spoke a little bit about trends. Some of those countries have moved very strongly in that direction.
I would close my comments by pointing out that in 1987 this particular group stated in its brief: "The U.S. and Japan proposed in 1987 that failure to provide patents be regarded as a non-tariff barrier to trade in the GATT round." This is the GATT round that we are currently in. "The U.S. went so far as to call upon countries to patent everything, including food, in their diplomatic note on this issue."
I wonder if he would care to comment on the assertions from other corners of this House that such things are simply guesses at the future when we have these
Government Orders
kinds of proposals before international bodies by countries at the international fora.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, I would like to again thank the hon. member for his question.
As I said in the summation of my speech, what should concern us more than any other aspect of the legislation before us is the whole trend toward the patenting of life forms and the type of road that that takes us down. Surely there has to be some line drawn between where the community and public interests are clearly dominant, and not to be tampered with, and where activities that are carried on for private profit and private decision are made.
When we start extending those kinds of lines farther and farther in the patenting of different kinds of life forms, genes and so on, we are on a very slippery slope. The member is quite right to point out just how far on that slope we are has been clearly demonstrated at the GATT negotiations where the United States and Japan tried to lump in the patenting of life forms, food and so on with things like copyrights, television shows, intellectual property, the patenting of bicycles and automobile parts.
There is a line that needs to be drawn between life forms that we all depend on that are part of our ongoing existence and what is engaged in for private gain. The kinds of demands that have been made at the GATT negotiations are an indication of how far some countries have gone down this path. With the introduction of this legislation here and the closeness to which we are at passing it, we are just capitulating to a trend that we should be most actively resisting. The trend raises all kinds of moral and ethical questions besides the ones that we have raised in the context of agriculture and so on.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 1.10 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.10 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
May 3, 1990

Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate today to speak of schizophrenia during National Mental Health Week. Schizophrenia strikes 1 per cent of the population and is a major illness in Canada. It takes up 6 per cent of hospital beds and costs over $3 billion annually in health care costs. Federal funds for research for this dreadful disease are less than $3 million annually-
Recent research in Canada has shown that schizophrenia is a biochemical brain disease in part caused by a genetic disorder. The quality of the research in Canada is outstanding, in spite of the low funding. Based on the progress that has been made in recent years, the chances of breakthrough are very good.
Because there is such a stigma attached to this illness, relatives and friends have provided support mostly in silence, hoping that a cure could be found. Now that this possibility appears achievable in our lifetime, this government should begin to make more of a commitment to research of this terrible disease.


COLLEGE MONTMORENCY IN LAVAL
Mr. Jacques Tetreault (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, ten years ago, a group of students at the College Montmorency, which is in my riding, were made aware by their teacher, Serge Masse, of the widespread poverty in Haiti, aggravated by the aftermath of Hurricane Allen.
The students spontaneously took up an initial collection, followed by several more, which finally led to the students Haiti project. As part of this project, a group of students from the college went to Port-au-Prince, to work in two aid centres in 1982 and 1984-85, for periods of respectively three and four weeks.
In 1986, three students founded the organization Jeunes sans frontieres.
This year, thanks to substantial assistance from CIDA and the participants' own financial contribution, eight students will spend eight weeks in Burkina Faso, in Africa, to become familiar with social, cultural, political and economical realities in developing countries in the Third World.
Mr. Speaker, I say three cheers for the students at College Montmorency in Laval!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, largely because of this government's mean-spirited and persistent refusal to deal justly and fairly with a small Cree community in a remote settlement in northwestern Alberta, Canada now stands dishonoured before the world.
For more than 50 years the Lubicon Cree have been seeking a treaty settlement from the Canadian government sufficient simply to allow them, to the degree possible, to continue with their traditional way of life and, to the degree necessary, to build the required community infrastructure that may enable them to cope with technological culture we have thrust upon them.
For more than 50 years they have received nothing but delay, denial, deceit, and destruction.
Now the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations has determined the Canadian government's treatment of this small, embattled band to be unacceptable.
There is only one solution: the government must immediately resume negotiations with the Lubicon people, in good faith and without preconditions. Only the conclusion of a fair and just settlement will end this sordid chapter in our history and restore Canada's good name.


DUCK LAKE MUSEUM
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Duck Lake, Saskatchewan, have been keeping the history of the Northwest Rebellion alive for decades. In 1959, the Duck Lake Museum was founded to preserve the historical record of the events of 1885. It
May 3, 1990

is only the dedication and the commitment of the people of Duck Lake that has allowed this important heritage to be saved.
Now, with the help of the Western Diversification Fund, a new interpretive centre will be built. This will allow the people of Duck Lake to showcase an important part of Canadian history to many more people.
I think all Canadians owe the people of Duck Lake, Saskatchewan, a debt of gratitude for their efforts in protecting and giving new life to our Canadian past.


SOVIET JEWRY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, Saturday, May 5, is a very difficult date for Soviet Jews in Leningrad. The ultra-nationalist group Pamyat is threatening a pogrom against the Jews of this city on Saturday.
As we know from the famous musical "Fiddler on the Roof" such threats have materialized in the past. This is a very frightening situation for the Jewish residents of Leningrad, as well as for their friends and relatives in Canada.
The Government of Canada has a moral responsibility to come to the aid of all Soviet Jews. We must use all diplomatic powers at our disposal to pressure President Gorbachev to control Pamyat and its anti-Semitic activities.
This government has a moral responsibility and indeed an administrative responsibility to process as quickly as possible all the immigration requests from the Soviet Union. I would ask this government not to wait to see what happens, but to do what it can while it can.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Government of Canada, the Dutch government has tackled the environment head on. The Dutch environmental plan sets out targets and schedules, as well as the funds needed to achieve these goals.
The plan includes large reductions in pollution, be it sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides or carbon dioxide;
energy conservation; efficiency in residential heating and appliances; funds for energy efficiency and conservation; incentives for renewable energy generation; shifts to less polluting transportation modes; significant reductions in pesticides and fertilizers used in agriculture; and recycling of ozone-depleting gases.
In The Netherlands, there is political will to act. They did not stall, they did not shy away. They did not say, as Canada's energy minister did, that theirs is a small part of the global problem. The Dutch are giving leadership. When will the Government of Canada muster enough courage to at least emulate The Netherlands?


ROYAL PARDON
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, today, Annette Proulx is 75 years old. Mrs. Proulx is an elderly lady who has been an inmate of Maison Gomin, a prison in my riding, for eleven years.
Once again, I want to ask all members of this House, irrespective of their political affiliation, to give their support for a royal pardon to be granted by members of the Privy Council.
Both the trial judge and Crown counsel agree that she has paid her debt to society, is unlikely to repeat her offence and, because of her advanced age, deserves to be released on compassionate grounds.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that with the help of all members of this House, Mrs. Proulx will be able to celebrate subsequent birthdays outside prison walls.

[English ]


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to compliment this government for its ongoing efforts on behalf of farmers in Canada.
With the implementation of the goods and services tax, farmers across Canada will benefit significantly. Under the current federal sales tax, farmers pay $240 million of hidden federal sales tax on their farm inputs each year.

May 3, 1990
Under the GST, the vast majority of farm products will be completely free of tax. This includes farm livestock, cash crops, seed, hay and straw, among others. Farmers will neither pay GST on their purchases nor charge GST on sales of these items.
With savings to farmers of up to $240 million under the GST, I would like to take this opportunity to salute the efforts of this government on behalf of Canada's farmers.
i


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of 1,400 students at Vancouver Community College who have had their unemployment insurance training benefits cut off by this government.
These students, including those who are paying their own fees, are caught in a labour dispute which has interrupted their training. This dispute could be settled at any time, but these students are being forced to abandon their training right now.
Why is this government unilaterally punishing students for attempting to improve their skills and qualifications? It is the same government which has cut transfer payments to the province for higher education which is preventing Vancouver Community College from offering a reasonable settlement to employees. It is the same government which has cut the summer employment program for students which has cost another 17,000 students a chance to work. It is the same government which keeps cutting back on the disadvantaged, the poor, the unemployed and students.
These Canadians deserve more than a policy of "buts" and "cuts".


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is deceiving Canadians about the GST. It wants them to believe it is a new tax, not a tax that will replace another tax that has been hidden for 60 years.
It is false to claim that the GST will hurt the poor, since they will actually be better off with the GST credit.


Mr. Young (Gloucester):: Nobody believes you!


Guy St-Julien: The opposition says that all prices will increase 7 per cent. However, the average increase will be 1.25 per cent, and many prices will go down.
The opposition says the GST will be hidden, when in fact it will be far more visible than the present tax.
Mr. Speaker, maybe the opposition prefers to keep the present hidden tax so it can later secretly raise it to 15,16 or 17 per cent.


AKWESASNE MOHAWK RESERVE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont -Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, the evacuation of women, children and elderly from the Akwesasne reserve to Cornwall involved over 500 people. I wish to take this opportunity to thank Mayor Poirier and the various municipal officials and agencies in Cornwall, including the many local businesses and volunteers who came forward to assist those people who had to leave their homes as a result of the situation on the reserve.
As a resident of Cornwall, I saw first hand the amount of work and co-operation required. The project demanded considerable effort and resources. I was heartened by the willingness to help that was demonstrated by all parties. Grand Chief Mike Mitchell has already expressed his deep appreciation to the people of Cornwall.
I also wish to thank officials from Indian and Northern Affairs for their work and the management of the Transport Canada Training Institute in Cornwall for their part in the housing and feeding of the evacuees.
We all hope a permanent solution to the problem will be found soon and that this will enable the community of Akwesasne to live in peace.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT	*


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the Interparliamentary Conference on the Global Environment concluded four days of delibera-
May 3, 1990

tions. It was organized by members of the United States, including Senator Albert Gore.
There were interparliamentary delegations from 42 nations representing all continents and we adopted this marvellous report by consensus. It makes a number of important and internationally recognized recommendations.
On global climate change, there must be an immediate call to action for a 50 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases. We must reduce the deforestation of the planet, including all countries such as Canada, by 50 per cent. We must carry this message to our constituents and to our provinces. We must start replanting more than 30 million acres a year by the year 2000. There must be a total elimination of CFCs, methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride and halons. The ozone layer is getting severely debilitated, as we learned at the conference.
Before the environment committee here in Canada this morning we heard from Dr. Bill Rees of the University of British Columbia that there are steps that we can take in terms of energy and reforestation that are practical and available now.
The DPA report pointed out that for a $74 billion investment there are $150 billion in net energy savings to be had. We can have our cake and eat it too.


WESTERN PREMIERS
Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, next week the premiers of the four western provinces will meet for two days in my constituency in Portage La Prairie.
It will interest this House to learn that the two-day agenda has been set by the federal government. How can this be, you ask?
According to the agenda as released by Chairman Filmon of Manitoba, the issues to be raised at the meeting are all knee-jerk reactionary responses to the federal government's policies and positions varying from offered federal farm aid, the GST, interest rates, and a described federal budget off-loading.
Shame on the premiers for showing no leadership in policy-making for their own provinces. Shame on the premiers for ignoring positive co-operative development
Oral Questions
and opting instead to gang up on the federal government. Shame on the premiers for abdicating their duty to deliver good government to their own provinces.
The premiers of western Canada who are seeking re-election will get elected on positive action they have delivered instead of crying at the federal government.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Tory free trade deal has brought about another tragedy in Kingston and the Islands. A small family firm, K.D. Manufacturing, owned by one Kingston family for over 60 years, has closed and moved to the United States; 70 people have lost their jobs, many of them long-time employees.
Why has the government pursued a policy that encourages these businesses to relocate elsewhere? Why has the government traded away Canada's future? What steps will the government take to help the employees who have lost their jobs, who cannot support their families and will have to retrain in order to find alternative employment after so many years?
The indifference of this government is appalling.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I will address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister will know that exporters across the country of agricultural products, fishing products, the mining sector and the pulp and paper industry are suggesting that they are going to have a very hard time with exports through the rest of this year, if the high interest rate policy and the high dollar is maintained.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, when is it the intention of the government to indicate clearly to the export sector of our economy that the Canadian dollar will be allowed to fall and that something is going to be done about the high interest rate policy?

May 3, 1990
Oral Questions


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that we share his concern about high interest rates and their effects. We have to understand at the same time why these interest rates are there.
We are at the end of a long cycle of six years of growth. There are pressures in our economy which are very real and which are creating inflation. If we do not deal with that, interest rates will keep going higher all the time. We need to tackle inflation, and this is what the monetary policy is all about.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. The Minister of Finance and now the Minister of State for Finance have both talked about the business cycle and that it is important to recognize that we are at the end of the business cycle.
My question to the minister is very plain. When is the cycle going to end for high interest rates and a highly valued Canadian dollar so that both domestic products as well as products made for export are going to be able to move on the domestic market as well as the international market? When is this cycle of high interest rates and a highly valued Canadian dollar going to come to an end? That is the question.


Gilles Loiselle: can underline the the fact that we are as concerned and as interested as the hon. member in seeing this cycle come to an end. We are doing what needs to be done to make sure that it comes to an end.
Were we not to accept our responsibility now, we would get involved in the cycle that the Liberal Party took this country some 10 years ago where we had interest rates above 20 per cent and a high inflation rate. This we will not allow to happen.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of State (Finance). Since he prefers not to talk about the problems of Canada's exporters, I will ask him a question about the number of bankruptcies in his own province of Quebec. Does the Minister believe it is acceptable to maintain the government's monetary policy keeping of very high interest rates high and the Canadian dollar at 86 or 87 cents? Will his government pursue this policy which has caused a dramatic increase in bankruptcies in Quebec?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, it is of course tragic and unfortunate whenever a business closes its doors and jobs are lost. Because of the reasons I mentioned earlier, there has lately been an increase in the number of bankruptcies. I may point out to the hon. member, however, that since 1982, the number of businesses has doubled and that we are still experiencing only half of what the situation was when the government, under the Liberal Party, let inflation get out of control. Of course, we must continue to be watchful and do whatever is necessary, and at the same time act on our tax policy. However, whenever we we want to reduce spending and reduce the deficit, every spending cut is challenged by an opposition that wants us to spend more and more, thus preventing us from attaining the very objectives we all support.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton - Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, last February, I called on this government to acknowledge the disaster unfolding in rural Canada. To date, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have not been able to match funds announced recently by this government to enable farmers to plant their crops.
Yesterday, the Saskatchewan legislature passed a resolution condemning the government of Canada for failing to provide adequate financial assistance for Saskatchewan farmers and asking for cash immediately to help plant their crops. Copies of this resolution were sent to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture.
Will this government proceed now to break this impasse and make these funds available so that planting can proceed?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the hon. member the discussions are ongoing. I discussed this issue with Premier Devine, who is the Minister of Agriculture for the Province of Saskatchewan. I have also had further discussions with the Minister of Agriculture for Manitoba. I can advise the member that progress is being made. Hopefully, we will be able to arrive at a satisfactory
May 3, 1990

conclusion with at least those two provinces in the very near future.
As I indicated before committee yesterday, it is clearly our desire to be as flexible and as accommodating as we possibly can. However, we are also asking the provinces to become involved. The federal government has been sharing the largest burden and, because of the fiscal constraints that we have imposed upon us, we are asking them to assist in this time of need.
The bottom line is to get as much money into the hands of the farmers as we possibly can as soon as we can.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, extremely low initial payments for western grain were announced this week by the Minister of State for Grain and Oilseeds, in spite of low world grain supplies. In fact, world wheat prices have risen since the announcements.
Will the Minister of State for Grain and Oilseeds inform this House and the farmers of Canada what mechanisms are used to determine these lower initial payments for wheat? When he believes that world wheat prices will decline, why is he dragging his heels to give assistance to Canadian agriculture to compete for these world markets?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, we are not dragging our heels. What we are trying to do is be realistic to assess the market as it presently exists.
As I told the hon. member this morning at committee, we review initial payments on a regular basis and our record of adjusting them in the past has been pretty good. In fact, last year we made the first ever adjustment in a price after the pooling period had closed, the whole purpose being to get as much money into producers' hands as we possibly can as quickly as we can.
I want to assure the member and farmers who rely on these prices that we monitor them on a regular basis and we look at everything. However, I ask the member to understand that the price we set on Tuesday was an initial payment against a final realized price for a crop that has not yet been seeded, harvested or begun to be marketed.
Oral Questions
Therefore, bear in mind that these are minimum prices that we expect, and we set these prices fully expecting there will be a final payment. Producers should understand that we will be looking at them very carefully as the year goes on to do whatever we can to adjust them upward just as quickly as we see signals there that enable us to do that.


THE ECONOMY
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada keep claiming that they will do nothing about interest rates until inflation is under control. If one looks at the research and we look at Statistics Canada, for 16 months since 1988, Statistics Canada reports that in fact high mortgage costs have fuelled the consumer price index and are contributing to inflation.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, will he not admit that the government's high interest rate is directly contributing to inflation, and in this case the medicine is worse than the disease?


Gilles Loiselle: I would like to tell the hon. Leader of the NDP that there are, of course, various measures that a government can take to deal with high inflation rates which are destructive to wage earners because their salaries stop meaning anything, and they are destructive to our economy which becomes uncompetitive.
One of the central actions that the government can take is to put order in its own finances by reducing the use it makes of the capital which is not available for other industries. This is what we have been doing. In so doing, we have been opposed every step of the way by the opposition. We will continue to do this.
The intervention of the Bank of Canada, which is fully supported by this government, is based on the need to remove this threat to the performance of the Canadian economy. This threat is very real and is not only, as some have said, in southern Ontario but spread all over.
Within the system, there are presently very great pressures for wage settlements in the public sector in certain provinces, which is worrying. If we let this run away, we will be running after our tail. There is no way one can artificially act on this without accepting the

May 3, 1990
Oral Questions
reality. There are inflationary pressures. They are slowing beginning to come down.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I wish to ask the
Deputy Prime Minister a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

I would remind the hon. minister that it is small business, farmers and economists who are saying that it is the inflation rate that is bringing this economy down.

Mr. Speaker, the government is contributing to inflation not only through high mortgage rates. John Crow says so himself in the latest Bank of Canada annual report, and I quote: "The indirect tax increases imposed by the federal and provincial governments contributed again this year to higher consumer prices."
Will the government finally admit that it, and not working people, is responsible for inflation?


Gilles Loiselle: The
hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party was no doubt mistaken when she said that all companies and small businesses blame interest rates for high inflation. I suppose that she was referring to interest rates.
She talks about mortgage rates and capital which is scarce for small businesses that need access to it. That is exactly it. The government must put its own finances in order and withdraw from the capital market, which it has taken over. Next year, we will pay $41 billion in interest on our debt. That gives an idea of how much space we take and we must get out of the way so that our people and companies can grow because they will have to compete with a government that looms less large and does not occupy the whole field.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that, as the interest rate increases, so does the debt, and that increasing the interest rate is increasing the debt. It is the economic policies of this government that are bringing this economy down.
I would suggest to the minister that he look at the facts and listen to Statistics Canada and to economists in this country.
Yesterday, the Canadian Labour Congress reported that 105,000 jobs have been lost because of free trade.
Now another company, Croydon Furniture of Cambridge, Ontario has stated that free trade and high interest rates are forcing it to close, putting another 360 Canadians out of work.
Will the minister admit that the economic policies of his government, free trade and high interest rates are not working, and neither are Canadians under this policy.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I think this government is very proud of its performance as far as job creation goes.
It is true that high interest rates are not making the management of public finance easier. I would fully agree with that. That is why we need to bring them down, and bring them down in a way that will cause them to stay down and not go up after a few months so that we will not have solved anything.
As far as job creation and the free trade agreement is concerned, the hon. member fails to quote statistics from Statistics Canada which indicate that there has been an increase of 413,000 full time jobs since the trade deal came into effect. What about that?


FISHERIES
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. During his visit to the Acadian peninsula yesterday, the Prime Minister was met by hundreds of fishermen and plant workers who were very upset about the government's failure to act.
Once again, the Prime Minister failed to understand the situation. With incredible arrogance, he made jokes at the expense of these people when he said: "They look pretty happy everybody seems to be doing fine".
Do these rude comments mean the Prime Minister still thinks there is no crisis in the fisheries?

May 3, 1990

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's comments were arrogant in the extreme, and people find it veiy difficult to accept that. My question is this: Does the Prime Minister's arrogant statement that people looked happy and seemed to be doing fine, in the present circumstances, that the Prime Minister is going back on the promise made by his ministers that there would be a billion-dollar support program for the fisheries? And will the program to be announced next week be new money or just money from existing programs?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, if I might answer my colleague opposite, with respect, he is placing a very biased interpretation on the reaction.
I have not spoken to the Prime Minister, but I would suggest that he was simply reflecting the cordial reception that he and his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, received from the people.
In terms of what is happening in Atlantic Canada, the recognition that this government has placed on the need to find a solution for the fisheries crisis will be more fully realized early next week, when a comprehensive announcement will be made. Already, $130 million has been allocated to the problem, a good percentage of what the previous government spent on economic development for all of Atlantic Canada.
Furthermore, I would suggest to my colleague opposite that in the province of New Brunswick generally, there are 40,000 more New Brunswickers working than there were when this government came into office.
The Prime Minister went to New Brunswick with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to emphasize the concern that our government has with the very real problems in the Atlantic fishery. When the announcement is made early next week, my colleague will see the nature and extent of the assistance offered. I am sure he will be very well satisfied with it.
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General and it concerns the Mohawk community of Akwesasne.
According to a wire service report, three chiefs at Akwesasne have now released a list that they believe to be a hit list of anti-gambling members of the reserve on which the name of Mr. Matthew Pyke appears. Has the minister been made aware of this allegation, and can he apprise the House as to what action he intends to take?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question about the list, I was made aware that there was a statement made by three chiefs earlier today.
I have requested a copy of the list which apparently was made public with their statement. I will, of course, refer that list to the appropriate police forces for investigation. I assume they already have it, but I will personally transmit that with respect to the list, and also draw their attention to more specifically the fact that the name of one of the deceased persons was on that list.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, despite these recent developments, we all hope for a lasting peace in Akwesasne.
I would like to ask the Solicitor General about the following: Earlier this morning, the New York State Troopers announced they had no intention of disarming the Akwesasne community on the U.S. side. Considering what the U.S. state troopers said, could the minister tell the House how this statement will affect the way he intends to make Akwesasne a more peaceful community, and how are we going to try and collect the weapons without their co-operation?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, personally, I was not aware of this statement. Obviously, it may not be veiy helpful in the circumstances. However, as I said before, we are now proceeding to take concerted action. This has consisted in entering the Indian reserve to restore peace and order and to enforce the law according to the jurisdiction

May 3, 1990
Oral Questions
where the police forces happen to be. On the Canadian side, Canadian law will prevail. I assume the same policy will apply on the U.S. side.
As for disarming the entire reserve, I am sure that is one of the issues being discussed right now in Montreal by the various authorities, an issue that concerns the entire reserve and all the jurisdictions involved.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Solicitor General. Information has been available to the Solicitor General and to the RCMP for a number of years now that gambling and organized crime are behind the violence, not only on the Akwesasne Reserve, but also on the Kahnawake Reserve, south of Montreal, which is entirely within Canadian territory.
Has the minister any specific proposals which he is willing to share with the House that he and his department is putting to this meeting in Montreal. Will he continue to press, not only in Canada but with the American government, to deal with the organized crime and gambling as part of this endemic violence or is he going to continue to maintain that this is simply an American problem?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House perhaps to the last part of the question or statement of my hon. colleague, that I pretend that it is strictly an American problem. I believe that my colleague is referring to what I have said today in answer to a question from my hon. colleague when he was referring to the operation of the gambling casinos on the American side, so I think this has to be put back into context.
The entire question of Akwesasne, the violence and perhaps the causes that have brought about this violence is exactly what is being discussed at that committee in Montreal right now.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question deals with the alternatives to gambling. The national native leadership, as well as the leadership from the reserve, have come to the government repeatedly and asked for assistance to develop
economic alternatives to gambling on the reserve as a way of earning a living.
Is the government, at its meeting in Montreal, putting forward specific proposals in this regard to provide assistance, not just Canadian assistance but urging the Americans as well, so that a long-term solution can be found and the people on the reserves are not simply going to be left at the mercy of organized crime.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member and other members of this House understand the unique circumstances of the situation at the Akwesasne Mohawk Indian Reserve involving five government jurisdictions.
The meetings in Montreal this morning and continuing at the present time are designed to co-ordinate the approaches of these five government jurisdictions with a view to seeking a lasting way of bringing peace to the Akwesasne people. I am sure they are exploring a wide range of alternatives. It is not the place of this House to begin to anticipate matters which will first be discussed with the leadership of the Mohawk people before they are discussed with anyone else.


ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and concerns the Hibernia oil field development.
All Canadians and in particular, Canadians in Newfoundland who are currently suffering from a collapse of the east coast cod stocks, are anxious to see this project start without delay. Two weeks ago, the vice-president of Petro-Canada, Mr. Jim Stanford said and I quote: "I believe we are very close to finalizing agreements with Ottawa and Newfoundland."
Will the minister indicate to the House today whether or not a formal signing leading to a start-up of this project is going to occur in the weeks ahead and whether or not Canadians can expect to see a start-up of construction during 1990.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question he will recall to mind the date of June 30 that we are working toward. What we are negotiating and what Mr. Stanford probably was referring to as a member
May 3, 1990

of the consortia is on the matter of industrial benefits. The hon. member will know that I refer to industrial benefits. There was a change from the manner in which the top sides were going to be configured and how that would affect work in Newfoundland and possibly other eastern Canadian yards. That work is almost complete.
We still have financial issues to deal with which are known as the LRS, the lender risk sharing, as well as completion of the operating agreements within the consortia. Those are the issues being discussed now and my mandate has been to move toward the June 30 date.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his very thorough answer. It is clear from the sentiments he expressed- from the sentiments of representatives of the government of Newfoundland, and from the views of members of the consortia-that this project is progressing quite well.
I think what Canadians residing in Newfoundland want to hear today from the minister is an assurance that there is absolutely no linkage between the negotiations and discussions on this important Canadian energy project, other affiliated offshore energy projects off the east coast, and any other unrelated-maybe important but unrelated-outstanding issues with which Ottawa and Newfoundland or other provinces may have disagreements.
Can the minister give the House that assurance to Newfoundland and I suggest to Manitoba, the minister's own province, and to New Brunswick?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, with respect to my responsibilities relating to the Hibernia project, the Prime Minister has been a proponent of the Hibernia agreement.
It was the Prime Minister who came forward with the Atlantic Accord. It was the Prime Minister who gave a mandate to my predecessors to complete the Atlantic Accord. I simply recall to mind for the hon. member that the premier of Newfoundland at one time was a constitutional lawyer who argued that Newfoundland should not have rights of offshore development and royalties which are part of the Hibernia development.
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If the member wants to drag in some other issues they can be, but I do not think that is helpful. The point I am making with respect to Hibernia is very clear. My mandate is the one I described in the first answer and that is the mandate the Prime Minister has given me.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday the minister told the House that Petro-Canada International withdrew from Myanmar because of "deteriorating human rights".
If that is the case, why does the minister not cancel Petro-Canada's $22 million deal with the same dictatorship?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct with reference to the work that Petro-Canada International has with Myanmar.
There is a second issue relating to Petro-Canada and the work that they have in Myanmar. I have not asked Petro-Canada to withdraw from that contract.
We have very clearly told Petro-Canada to operate both in the domestic and the international market. I appreciate that it is difficult in view of the changes that have taken place in the government in Myanmar, but I think we also have to keep in mind that those agreements were signed with previous governments.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the minister. No answer represents better the hypocrisy of this government than this one.
It is quite clear the government can instruct Petro-Canada, according to Mr. Hopper, the chairman of the board. I quote what he said when he came to the House of Commons committee in 1986: "Controlling interest is clearly with the shareholder" and that is the government, "and she can order me to do what the government wishes me to do by Order in Council any time she wishes".

May 3, 1990
Oral Questions
Therefore, will the minister do the right thing and bring forth today an Order in Council instructing Petro-Canada to suspend its activity with this dictatorship?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is very helpful when the hon. member uses the word hypocrisy concerning these kinds of issues.


Mr. Kaplan:: It is the right word.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, it is not the right word. I have been very up front, with him on this issue, both in the House and in private conversations. I think members opposite also have been supporting energy and development projects for governments whose lack of democratic and human rights we do not support.
To answer the hon. member, I have not given that order and at the moment have not considered the matter of removing the order as he says I should. I think the point has to be made very clearly that we have asked Petro-Canada to function in that market.
In terms of the hon. member's representation, this matter will be examined jointly by a number of my colleagues and myself but I will not go any further today.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, of which I have given him notice.
On March 13, I wrote to the government about the safety of the new open border system for meat imports into Canada. Now an incident has occurred which underlines my concerns.
Would the Minister of Agriculture confirm that on April 26 a truckload of 29,000 pounds of dried meat products already approved by the United States Department of Agriculture had to be turned back at the border crossing at Windsor. Would he also give us the results of tests on that product which has taken place since?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice. I can confirm that there were defective meat product packages found in the shipment to which the hon. member has referred. The shipment has been held and samples have been sent to the Guelph laboratory for analysis. The results are pending. I can also advise the hon. member that the importer refused to accept the shipment and consequently it has been shipped back to the exporter.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have certainly heard some preliminary reports on the consequences of this testing from those people who carried out the testing. These tests suggest that we may have a serious problem.
I want to ask the minister if this incident, which involves one of the larger and more important companies in the country, does not demonstrate clearly that we should step up and improve our border inspection process for meat instead of increasing the gaps in the process as in the new system?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member and other members of his party may want to get their position straight, because just a couple or three months ago a member of his party raised that very issue in the opposite context. He said there was harassment as a result of the inspection practices which affected the operation of a plant in the hon. member's riding. I believe it was the hon. member for Moose Jaw.
I say to the hon. member and to you, Mr. Speaker, that the systems for inspection of meat are virtually identical in the United States and Canada. Once a shipment crosses our border we treat it as a domestic product. We can inspect it at any time as the Americans do our shipments. The fact of the matter is that the system has worked veiy well in the past and continues to work well. There will always be occasions like this. The shipment was caught, it is being dealt with, and I think it simply demonstrates that the process works very well.
May 3, 1990

[ Translation ]


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance.
6 Quebecers are wondering whether Hydro-Quebec, a Crown corporation, will really shift to consumers the difference between the currently hidden 13.5 per cent tax and the future 7 per cent GST.
My question is this: Can the Minister tell Quebecers whether or not this 6.5 per cent reduction from the current hidden tax will have a real impact on Hydro-Quebec bills as of January 1, 1991?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. Obviously, the sales tax reform will translate into a substantial reduction in Hydro-Quebec's operating costs.
I was reassured to read this morning that Hydro-Quebec was reviewing its figures in order to assess exactly what this positive impact would be. I am confident that Hydro-Quebec and all other businesses, will work with unions to ensure a responsible transition in everybody's best interest.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Transport. Northumberland Ferries Limited is impatiently waiting for the much-needed ferry for the Wood's Island-Cariboo ferry service. The design for the new ferry was to have been chosen by March, 1990. It is now May and there still no design has been chosen. Will the minister indicate to the people of Prince Edward Island why this design has not been chosen?


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that everything is being considered, but the decisions have not been made as yet. The minister is well aware of the hon. member's concern about this ferry.
Oral Questions


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same parliamentary secretary.
Will he give the House an assurance that the ferry service between Wood's Island and Cariboo will not be negatively affected by the fixed link? Any decision to build a fixed link does not take away the need for a ferry service between Wood's Island and Cariboo.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the hon. member is that each of the matters he has brought forward will be considered. The fixed link is also an ongoing consideration in the transportation issues raised by the hon. member.


JUSTICE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. On April 27,1 asked the government for some assurances about a secret hearing and judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada last February. I asked if the government was party to the proceeding. The Solicitor General replied that the government had no knowledge of the matter.
An Ottawa Citizen report suggests that this answer was wrong and the government was a party to the proceeding. The minister will understand that such a proceeding may be justified but it is contrary to our tradition. Is the government a party to the proceeding and does the government agree with the need for secrecy in this matter?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, the proceeding before the Supreme Court of Canada has a press ban on it. I will neither confirm nor deny whether the government is involved. I do not believe in the face of that press ban it is appropriate to disclose any information relating to the case.
The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that it will make the dossier public. I think the date is May 11. It is subject to representations made by parties in the case. I think it is appropriate under those circumstances not to say anything about it in this House and to await the decision of the court on whether they will or will not release the case.

May 3, 1990
Oral Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, without knowing the nature of the proceeding before the Supreme Court of Canada, it is impossible and I would not presume to take a position that secrecy is not justified.
I want to ask the minister if the proceeding develops in such a way that there is no disclosure on May 11, will she undertake to keep an eye on the matter and disclose to the House and to the Canadian people as she can and as soon as she can?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's question is asked in all sincerity. Certainly, as Minister of Justice, I have a strong interest in ensuring that Canadians have confidence in the judicial process. I believe that members of this House have confidence in the integrity of the Supreme Court of Canada which has a process under way to determine whether this case should continue to be kept in camera. If a decision is made to keep the information in camera, I will make a decision at that time as to what is the appropriate role of myself in the context of Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.


CANADA POST
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords -Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canada Post announced a plan to change significantly the national mail sorting system which is expected to cost the jobs of close to 1,000 postal workers and, I suspect, continue the decline in services.
My question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canada Post, who I assume is responsible for this latest drive to increase profits at the expense of service. Was this decision, which includes putting two collection boxes on every street corner in Canada, his idea and how many more stupid ideas will Canadians have to endure before this government decides that we have to have service instead of profit?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Stupid is a pretty good adjective for the question.
Mr. Speaker, the changes announced yesterday were part of a continuing program of changes under way for
several years now which have resulted in the postal service of Canada being among the best in the world.


An hon. member:: It used to be, Harvie.


Harvie Andre: It means the mail will be delivered faster, more efficiently and cheaper. It will enable the post office to keep the cost of first class stamps lower. The dual postal pick-up boxes are being put only in those communities where it is appropriate, so the local mail can be sorted locally and the other mail sent to where it can be sorted mechanically and automatically. It is through the use of this modem equipment that the people of Canada are better served.
The New Democratic Party continues to think that if it was good enough 50 years ago, it is good enough today. Well, things are changing.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister who continues to claim that Canada Post is meeting the delivery standards they set for themselves.
How can the minister justify the reduction of another 1,000 jobs from this Crown Corporation, when mail volumes are continuing to increase across the country? When will he listen to the wishes of the Canadian people and set up a full time postal commission to keep Canada Post in check?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there is no loss of 1,000 jobs that the hon. member is talking about. That is why I did not answer the question in the first instance.
There is a continued improvement in the efficiency of the Post Office-


An hon. member:: Get serious.


Ross Harvey: When are you going to sell it, John?


Harvie Andre: -through the continued use of modern computer sorting equipment. It is necessary to deploy this modern equipment to meet the standards Canadians expect. It is regrettable that the New Democratic Party feels that if it was good enough for their great grandfathers it is good enough for them. We have to change with the times.
May 3, 1990


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
As members will know, the Lubicon Band has had a case in front of the United Nations Human Rights Committee for several years. Can the minister now inform the House as to the decision, and more importantly what is the government planning to do in view of the decision?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations has rendered a decision in the matter of the grievance raised by the Lubicon Lake Band of northern Alberta under the human rights provisions of the covenant. That decision acknowledges that an injustice to the Lubicon Lake Band must be remedied. That is the basis on which this government has proceeded with negotiations for some years-


An hon. member:: Nonsense!


Thomas Edward Siddon: -to find a just, fair and comprehensive settlement of this claim. On the basis of that, we have offered a $45 million settlement package which will affect some 400 residents on a 95 square mile reservation.
If I might just quote from the United Nations Human Rights Commission report. I hope the opposition members would be interested in this finding. On page 29 of the report the committee found that "sweeping allegations made by the Lubicon Lake band have not been substantiated to the extent that they would deserve serious consideration." Furthermore, the committee found that "the state party", that is Canada, "proposes to rectify the situation by a remedy that the committee deems appropriate within the meaning of Article 2 of the covenant."
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if he could share with us his plans for the coming days in terms of House business and what he has for us tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday and possibly Wednesday.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention to continue this afternoon with Bill C-15 which is third reading for the plant breeders' rights.
Tomorrow, it would be my intention to call for report stage and, if possible, third reading of Bill C-53 dealing with arson, Bill C-59 dealing with B.C. courts, Bill C-60 with the Ontario courts and Bill C-61 dealing with the matter of divorce.
On Monday, it would be my intention to call consideration of a motion for a message back to the other place in respect of Bill C-21, the unemployment insurance amendments, for which the country is waiting so anxiously. It would be my intention to continue that on Tuesday. I will have to get back to the hon. member and the member for the New Democratic Party in terms of the rest of next week.


Mr. Speaker:: Further question. I see the hon. member and I will come to him in a moment. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On the matters before the House, the minister has given notice that on Monday we will be taking up the message from the Senate. That message usually requires a motion to be put before the House in answer to the message but no notice is given to members prior to the speech of the minister. I asked the last time that notice be given, but did not get it. I wonder if the minister could co-operate with us this time, in the interest of brevity of debate and possibly more camaraderie and congeniality, and if he would be ready to give us the motion that he intends to put on Monday in relation to the message so that we can prepare for the debate.


Harvie Andre: As I say to my six-year old son, he didn't say the magic word: "please."

May 3, 1990
Business of the House
Mr. Speaker, I will be providing a copy of the message just as soon as it is finished the final editing, which should be later this afternoon, and certainly tomorrow morning if not this afternoon.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like to say "please" this time, Mr. Speaker. We are getting somewhere in this place.
Relating to Private Members' Hour and relating to the fact that we have no items in the order of precedence presently on notice on the Order Paper but we do have a motion to deal with a reorganization of that hour, I wonder if the minister could give us his plans or his undertakings to deal with this matter in the veiy near future since, at this time, all members of this House, on all sides of the House, are indeed being, how will I say-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Disadvantaged.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -disadvantaged to a certain extent in not having their motions and their bills discussed in Private Members' Hour and the government gets that time. We would rather have Private Members' Hour for the members of this House than give it to the government.


Harvie Andre: Judging by the statistics the government is getting substantially less than the Chair on time now anyway. As the hon. member knows, there has been much discussion on the proposed change in the Standing Orders in terms of how we treat private members' bills and resolutions. It is, of course, the tradition around here that this has worked out among the parties and two out of three of us agree. The third is perhaps in need of a little persuasion. If both of us say please, maybe we will get the third group to co-operate.
At some point in time, we will have to take action. I am still hopeful that friendly persuasion of the hon. member and myself, and with use of the magic word, we may be able to do this by consent rather than through a full blown debate, and all that that involves in terms of government time.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I have another magic word on that last point. It is "soriy".
I have a point flowing from the normal question on Thursday. I wonder if the government House leader can indicate, since it is National Forestry Week next week,
whether or not we can expect a statement on that from the Minister of Forestry.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should ask the minister about that.
Certainly I have no objections to such a move. It would seem that the hon. member from the New Democratic Party has a speech he is anxious to give, and we will see if the Minister of Forestry can accommodate it.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It may be that you can answer this or that the government House leader can.
More than a month ago I raised a question of privilege regarding the possible abuse of the privileges of all members of this House and possibly of the procedures of the House. I provided, because of the delicate nature of some of the documents, copies of those to both the government and opposition House leader so that they could review them and see whether or not they wanted to come back either with more material or whatever.
Since more than a month has passed, I understand some decision has been made by the government side which does not involve either the documents or further debate, I would like to know when the privilege might be proceeded with. In my view, it has very serious ramifications for all members in this House, not just myself.


Mr. Speaker:: Without getting into any particular detail, I want to assure members in the House that the matter is under consideration in my office at the present time.
There will be, of necessity, some extra conversations needed with representatives of the government. Some things were discussed earlier this morning and that will continue. I will try to report back to the hon. member as soon as possible.


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order a few moments ago when I was asking the Minister of Indian Affairs a question, he was referring to and reading from a document.
I am wondering if you might ask the minister if he will table that document as the rules provide.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am in possession of a copy of the decision of the Human Rights committee on the matter of the Lubicon Lake Band and their
May 3, 1990

grievance under the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. It is footnoted: "Made public by decision of the Human Rights Committee".
This is a personal, marked copy. I could have a clean copy available and presented to the House later today or first thing tomorrow morning, if that is acceptable to members.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked that the document be tabled. Under the rules, it should be.
I think the minister's request is reasonable, and I would expect him to table a copy at his earliest convenience.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, since I was the member who stood on the point of order originally, resulting from the fact that there is now no private members' business on the order of precedence, and suggested the order that was made on Wednesday, January 30, 1990. I felt, in light of the question posed by my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier, that I should indicate to the government House leader our willingness to co-operate with the resolution now before the House. Also, I would like to indicate our view that the New Democratic Party is handing over time to the government by refusing its consent to this motion on private members' business.
It is simply giving the time up for no good reason. Instead of proceeding with legitimate bills and motions that we and they have put on the order paper, they are refusing to honour this and proceed with this motion.
I suggest that, under the circumstances, since there was agreement between the government and opposition, with which the NDP agreed to suspend the operation of the draw, we now have a resolution for it. I would hope that the government could work with the members of the New Democratic Party to achieve agreement so that this resolution could be dealt with in the House in an expeditious way. Surely a reasonable solution might be for the government to use the time that is otherwise devoted to private members' business for this purpose.
I note that on Friday last the House adjourned early rather than continue to deal with government business until three o'clock as it could have done. It could have
Government Orders
dealt with this motion then. I noticed also that on Monday afternoon, the House suspended its sitting from about five-thirty until seven o'clock when again this motion could have been called and dealt with.
If members of the New Democratic Party had concerns about the motion, I am sure they would have put those points before the House during those times. We might then have usefully dealt with the matter and wrapped it up. I know that we on this side are happy to vote for it, and I am sure that many of the members in the New Democratic Party are also happy to vote for it.
If we can just get a discussion going, we would probably wrap it up in no time. I invite the government House leader to do so.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, that was certainly an eloquent representation that will not go unheeded.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-15, an act respecting plant breeders' rights, be read the third time and passed.
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in this third reading debate on Bill C-15 respecting plant breeders' rights.
I know that some members of the public are a bit puzzled by the name of this bill and some find it quite humorous. When you actually see the intent of this bill, Madam Speaker, you find that there is very little humour involved.
The reason I am so pleased to rise today is to once again express our unabated opposition to Bill C-15 and give a little history behind this. At the legislative committee stage, my colleague from Mackenzie tried to amend the legislation to be certain that there would be a check to ensure that all stakeholders in the plant breeders industry be consulted by the minister. We wanted reports each year so that the plant breeding community in

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
Canada, which is a large industry, would have some sort of government monitoring.
Curiously, the Liberals would not support our amendment so we in the New Democratic Party are alone in this. The Liberals have consented to go along with the government in support of Bill C-15 and we in the New Democratic Party are alone in our opposition. Our reasons for doing so are numerous.
Several developments have occurred in the plant breeders' rights area. A research study by North Dakota State University found that Canadian commercial varieties of grain tended to out-perform most American varieties across the state. My colleague from Mackenzie spoke about this in February in a statement in the House. According to the study, Canadian commercial varieties of wheat, oats, durum, rye, barley and flax tended to out-perform most American varieties across that state.
My colleague's analysis is that Bill C-15, introduced by this government and now supported by the Liberals, will mean that Canadian farmers who farm under unique soil conditions in the north will lose the advantage they now enjoy with public plant breeding. They will now be forced to depend on the same so-called world scale profit-oriented research that was proven so inadequate in the Dakotas. Our hesitation about supporting this bill has already been proven to have great credibility. That is on the domestic market.
We also have reasons on the international scene to oppose this bill. I would like to focus on those. I would like to outline the four principal reasons why we are opposing this bill. They are: one, the intellectual property rights question; two, the concern for the community of intellectual property rights, otherwise known as the informal innovation system, a north-south question; three, the whole trade question; and four, the concept of genetic erosion. In the time that is left to me I would like to expand on those four categories that outline our concern.
On the intellectual property rights, that is a very insidious element to this bill and although plant breeders' rights sounds like a science fiction creation, perhaps an "R" rated one, we see that it is in that whole domain. While it may still seem like science fiction, we are moving rapidly into a world where transgenetic species are becoming common. That is that you cannot distinguish between what is a plant and what is an animal. The technical or scientific distinctions between plants and animals have always been blurry. UPOV, the Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, has conceded this point. There is no clear, well-defined borderline between plants and animals so there is an economic hesitation about getting involved with patenting life forms. There is also a moral consideration, and it is this moral consideration that leads the number of church organizations to withhold their approval of such initiatives.
The second of my principal reasons for opposing this bill is the concern for the community, the concern for the Third World farmer. This is the north-south argument against Bill C-15. The intellectual property rights which we see intrinsic in this bill are of the philosophical framework of the north. This bill does not recognize that southern farmers-those plant geneticists I met with when I went to Africa and Eritrea in northern Ethiopia, the bread basket of the world, where a number of life forms which we have benefited from in the developing world, but they were developed there-those farmers should be paid in some way for their resources, their centuries of developing the plant species. We just come in, pillage what they have, bring it back and make a profit from it. It does not hold true, if we are going to use our philosophical framework, that it should be a market organization that should be determining that we have a responsibility to reimburse those farmers for all those centuries of labour and skill in developing those plant species. In effect, what we should be doing is demanding that the north recognize farmers' rights through a tax-based payment to the FAO international fund for plant genetic resources.
Bill C-15 does nothing to do that. My colleague, the hon. member for Mackenzie, tried very hard to bring about an amendment at the committee stage on this very issue. Our concern is about the plundering of Third World germ plasm and the possibility, as was raised by Patrick Mooney, one of the world-recognized experts in this field, that the union for the protection of new varieties convention should render germ plasm subject to biotechnology patents in the north. That is the second major area of our concern.
The third area of concern is under a heading that is very familiar to this House as it is very much within our own philosophical framework and will be recurring over
May 3, 1990

and over again in the days to come and that is international trade.
We have many reservations about becoming involved in this global economy because we feel it is not to our advantage. Nowhere is that more evident than in this bill. We are not the big players. We are the ones that are being made the Third World.
Bill C-15 is the first step toward full compliance with the proposed system of international trade under the GATT. What Canada decides to do with this bill will influence how developing countries judge their legal options. So, as the critic for international development, I can see that Canada is capitulating to the dominant economic forces.
We have given away our moral leadership in defending the developing countries and we are going along with those countries that really believe that the more money you have, the more power you have, the better you are. I had hoped that Canada would resist that dynamic.
The final area of opposition is one that I hold very close to me and that is the whole area of genetic erosion. As a member of this Parliament's Environment Committee we are constantly being given evidence of the kind of global environmental crisis which we face. Bill C-15 is only just going along with that trend and not addressing it in any way that helps us toward a solution.
Our farmers are being pushed very, very hard by economic circumstance to make choices they would otherwise not like to make. Those problems are all the more dramatic in the developing world. We are being pushed, both here and internationally, to erode our environmental capital.
We are being pushed by the dynamics that I cited in previous portions of this address to do mono-cropping, to do cash cropping, to get involved in the global economy, and we are using up our environmental capital.
The genetic erosion that is of concern to me is no more evident than in Africa. The people who I saw in northern Africa managed quite well over the centuries until we got our sticky fingers in there and decided that they should grow cash crops. We now see the kind of social erosion which results in war, which causes more social erosion, which runs into "Well, you have to get into the
Government Orders
global economy; you are going to have to put in structural adjustment; we are going to help you poor folks but you are going to be playing by our rules". The result is mono-cropping and the deterioration of the genetic resource.
One of the most passionate opponents to plant breeders' rights legislation has been Sir Otto Frankel of Australia, a scientist long involved in genetic conservation. He has decried the genetic provisions in this bill. Just as I have said, it is the commercial, hence the biological monopolies, which stifle genetic diversity. By encouraging the developing world to buy into the market system, we are encouraging them to use their environmental capital.
We have done it to our own native peoples here in Canada. We have somehow come with a great deal of ego, thinking that we know best how the native people of our land should be running their economies. Only now are we adopted some humility, to admit we have really messed up. I think that same degree of humility should be adopted with regard to the Third World because we are messing up there too with mono-cropping and the elimination of biological diversity.
We believe that the passage of plant breeders' rights legislation contributes directly to genetic erosion.
Of course, I care what is happening on the the farms of Canada. 1 am concerned about the farmers who feel that their options are limited by the economic circumstance in which they find themselves and by the trade policies which this government has imposed on them by adoption of the free trade deal.
I am also concerned about our world. It is not just Canada that we should be worried about. I have said repeatedly that we are seeing the very beginnings of a global consciousness environmentally, but we have not quite reached that consciousness politically and socially.
If this government adopts this Bill C-15 then I think it will only make the lives of Third World farmers more miserable. It will only increase the devastation to the environment of the developing countries. How can we expect the Third World to participate as equal partners in the crisis that is facing us if we do not give them the assistance to become that full partner. The adoption of this bill would be a repudiation of the Third World. It would mean that we are willing to go along with the

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
process and many other such initiatives of this government.
Our opposition is firm. It is with extreme disappointment that I see that the Liberal party has capitulated to the market philosophy that this bill is necessary. Even if Third World countries do not have plant breeders' rights legislation, they are not immune from the pressures our Canadian farmers have felt. Dr. James Thomas, formerly with Agriculture Canada and now with a consortium for international development notes that Bolivia is already feeling the effects of reduced source of seed competition because the multinationals have already purchased a number of smaller suppliers and then only provide one most profitable line from among those purchased.
This bill is just a blank cheque to the multinationals to come in and take the resources and make lots of money without giving any to the people who developed those resources originally. It is very much, as my colleague, the member for Mackenzie has pointed out, the plundering of Third World resources.
In conclusion I would like to reiterate that we in the New Democratic Party are strongly opposed to this bill for economic reasons, moral reasons and international development reasons.
The four points I have made throughout this address were: first, intellectual property; second, the farmer's rights in the developing world to have recompense for their development of seed varieties that we have used to our profit; third, the whole trade dynamic and the globalization of trade; and fourth, the genetic erosion.
Madam Speaker, this will be a sad day if Bill C-15 is passed. I know that the amount of mail that I have received on this issue has been disproportionate to the amount of knowledge that exists out there in the community. The people who know about this know the consequences of this legislation, and the are very active in their communities. They will continue to make the Liberal party very uncomfprtable in supporting this legislation. Our position in our party is clear. We think this is a bad bill. It is a bad bill for Canada and it is a bad bill for the world.


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for an excellent speech on a subject that is not only of grave importance to this country, but to the world as well, as she so ably pointed out.
I was wondering if the hon. member could pursue how deeply we are indebted to the agriculturalists of the Third World for having protected over the centuries, quite literally, the gene pool?


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I am only too pleased to speak from personal experience on that question.
When I was in Africa in 1986 working for OXFAM Canada, I went to northern Ethiopia, to what Ethiopians call the country of Eritrea. It was a country at war, a country devastated by famine. What I saw there in a number of places were agricultural experimental farms doing miraculous things under very, very hard circumstances.
Madam Speaker, you have seen the television images of that country that has been devastated by famine. I am sure that your imagination can go on from there.
Those agricultural experimental farms were the product of centuries of knowledge. The people of Eritrea in northern Ethiopia have, through their skill and through their knowledge, developed seed varieties that are particularly successful in that area. It was like a garden of Eden in northern Ethiopia. Those people are the ones to whom we should be very grateful.
Ethiopia was the breadbasket of the world, as I said in my address. Now that we are encouraging the developing world to become part of the global economy, we are forcing that knowledge away from them. We are taking it. We are stealing it. We are using it and not paying for it.
As I said, this plant breeders' rights legislation forces the Third World into a weakened position. Hundreds and thousands of people were dependent upon the seed varieties that were used at the little experimental farm I saw in northern Ethiopia.
This is where the morality of this bill comes in. If we are willing not to pay them for their resources, then we have a responsibility to assist them with food aid, with increased development assistance and other options. We
May 3, 1990

are doing none of that, because we do not want to get involved with the political complications of that country.
When we try to get the interlink going, as I have done in both the external affairs committee and the environment committee, it is met with a great deal of frustration.
I thank the member for his question. It is a very good one. We always feel very good about the kind of assistance we give overseas, but we have to look at the big picture. We have done very well from their resources. We have profited from them, and we are not paying for them.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I would like to pursue this matter further with the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands. She made it very clear where the varieties of wheat, in particular, originated, as well as some of the other cereals. Northern Ethiopia and the general area of northeast Africa is the centre for much of the genetic diversity in those cereals, particularly wheat.
Just as an aside, the opening of western Canada was made possible by the introduction of a variety from northern Kenya, not too far from that area. It has been fairly successfully economically in turning that area into a breadbasket as well.
She made it quite clear how the farmers through selective breeding have continued to keep a wide diversity of varieties and a big genetic pool of material available for everyone on the globe to use.
I did not finish hearing the story about how the northern countries are now changing the law so that they can patent the plants that they develop from these varieties and then force the Ethiopians and Eritreans to pay a royalty if they decide to use the results from those plants for their commercial farms. The same thing is happening in Peru and Bolivia, which is also a centre for diversity for other types of plants.
This is the point that we have been trying to make, and the hon. member has made it veiy well. Would she tell us what she thinks of making the north-south split even stronger by changing the rules for the northern countries, giving them a very big advantage economically over those countries that have been so forthcoming and giving of their thousands of years of looking after those plants and that genetic material?
Government Orders


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Mackenzie for that question. He was veiy forceful in the legislative committee to try to get accepted an amendment that would have prevented this from happening, an amendment that would have recognized the very large gift that we have received, or that there is a reciprocal arrangement. It is a gift, if we pay for it. It is theft if we do not. That is exactly what is happening.
Dr. Otto Frankel, the Australian geneticist, has been, as I said in my address, very passionate in his opposition to this legislation for that very reason.
Environment Canada says a lot of nice words about genetic diversity. Why can Agriculture Canada not see the same thing? There is a sort of contradiction here. One wonders whether the left hand knows what the right hand is doing.
If we are going to be environmentally sensitive we have to understand that that must extend beyond our borders, and that the kind of economic advantage that we have in Canada carries with it a large degree of responsibility. The adoption of this bill is the abrogation of that responsibility.


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, it seems to make very little difference what government bill we rise to speak on in this House. The reasons given by the government for having to bring them in essentially boil down to a matter of economics. In many instances that is one of the major rationales that the government has mentioned for bringing forward legislation.
The plant breeders' rights bill is no different. I would suggest that in addition to the pleas for fiscal responsibility that it is also merely a way of furthering the Conservative agenda which is a matter of privatization. Bill C-15, if nothing else, is precisely that. It is the privatization of the genetic furtherance of plants in this country. Of course the government is so fond of saying that it goes beyond that, as it does with the GST. It says: "There are 40 countries that have brought in a GST so we have to do it".
It is not able to say that there are that many countries around the world which have brought in plant breeders' rights legislation. There are 18. Even so, the small number of 18 is a sufficient number for the government to use as the reason for bringing in plant breeders' rights. I would say that the me, too, issue is just another part of the smoke and mirrors which is an excuse for the government to do what it wants to do, which is to

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
privatize and deregulate. Certainly, deregulation is part of it as well.
If this government thinks that it is going to be able to have as much control over the breeding, proliferation and even the transportation of plants, cereal grains and so on across the border as it has now, then it is certainly very much mistaken.
As has already been mentioned by other hon. members, it was shown by the United States agricultural people that plants and cereal grains developed in the United States under this privatized system of raising plants in trying to help cereal grain growers come to grips with problems, whether environmental or bacterial, is not as efficient. The United States agriculturalists found that Canadian-bred cereals were superior to those which were developed in the United States. My party and I have maintained, and a good many other organizations which I shall mention subsequently have verified, that cereal grains developed in Canada are superior.
During the course of some of the speeches by government members at a previous debate in the Elouse, I was not surprised that the idea of the budget was mentioned. As I said, there does not seem to be any area where they do not seem to be able to work in the need to cut costs. I would suggest that this is one more case where it can be demonstrably shown that this government is penny wise and pound foolish, as the saying goes, and I will get to that a little bit later.
There is ample evidence to show that the way plants have been developed is cost-effective for Canada, as well as for other people around the world, whether it is matter of being able to grow the crops, or because Canada is a rather large supplier of cereals to the world.
I suggest that there are other instances where the government has demonstrated that it is penny wise and pound foolish. One such instance relates primarily to the concept of research. In spite of all the fine-sounding rhetoric that we have heard from the government in relation to scientific development, and in particular, references to its Centres of Excellence, it really does not have much of an idea what really constitutes research. It certainly does not recognize it when it occurs.
I would like to refer quickly to something all together out of the field of agriculture, for a moment. In retrospect, I do not see how Canadians can help but realize- although this government does not-that what really occurred with the aircraft companies Canadair and de Havilland was really investment in research by the people of Canada. For the government to have sold off and privatized the production of aircraft in Canada was nothing more than the giving away of a tremendous amount of research done and paid for by Canadians. It was done with the marvellous expertise that we have developed. I cite those as examples to show that this government really does not know what on earth research is.
However, there is an even better example of this, which illustrates that the whole concept is endemic within the Conservative party and that it goes back a long way. That is precisely what happened to the Arrow aircraft. A previous Conservative government did pretty much the same thing with it as it did with Canadair and de Havilland. It gave away Canadian expertise. Actually, in that case it did not give it away, it burned it and cut it up with a cutting torch. Those very expert Canadians who had developed that magnificent flying machine then went to the United States and, in good measure, assisted in putting the Americans on the moon.
I will get into some of the specifics of what I see has happened with respect to research in agriculture in Canada in a moment in a context similar to the one I just referred to involving the aircraft industry.
We have predictions that this measure is going to be a panacea for Canadian agriculture. It is going to make Canadian agriculture more efficient and more productive. We have heard these kind of predictions before. We have heard these kind of predictions in relation to our forestry, and look what is happening there. Our forests are being depleted at a rate from which it will be impossible to recover.
Even more obviously-and in relation to incidents which happened in the maritimes as recently as yesterday-we are hearing the same kinds of glowing predictions in relation to the fishery. These are predictions which we have received from this government in previous years-certainly ever since it came to power in 1984 and while the Conservatives sat in opposition. We
May 3, 1990

heard all the things that they would be doing if they were in government.
We have seen as a result of government actions that it has devastated the forestries and the fisheries. I would suggest that there is no reason in the world why we should in any way assume that its predictions in so far as what will happen if plant breeders' rights are instituted in this country that the results will be any different.
The assurances that we are going to become productive and efficient are just not anything that we can take any stock in at all, as was the case with other programs which the government brought in since the last election. I have a particular specific interest in unemployment insurance. We have seen, again, that the government claims in the most glowing of terms that Canadian workers are going to benefit enormously because of the changes to the unemployment insurance program. The results are precisely the opposite. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are not going to be eligible to receive unemployment insurance at all. Thousands and thousands more than that are going to find that their benefits will be reduced as a result of this government's changes.
This brings me back again to the idea of cuts, cuts, cuts. Considering all the references to the budgetary problems of the government in relation to this particular debate which have been made, one of the main reasons that it is bringing in plant breeders' rights legislation at this time is that it does not like to see public money going into a marvellous Canadian government department, that of Agriculture Canada.
Something that we western Canadians appreciate is that 88 per cent of the grain and oilseed stocks in western Canada are a result of the development of those stocks within Agriculture Canada. I come from Saskatoon. I know very well that the past history of the development of these varieties and the diversification of varieties in Canada is in no small measure a direct result of the research which has gone on at the University of Saskatchewan which is in the city, part of which I represent.
I would like to point out in another context how enormously beneficial for all of Canada is public participation in the furtherance of scientific development in our community. We are all very well aware-and sometimes we have slightly differing views-of the oil sands projects in Alberta. Should we develop megaprojects or should we not? Most Canadians are probably not aware that the technology for the extraction of oil from the tar sands was not developed by Shell Oil, or Imperial Oil, and certainly not by Petro-Canada, which was not in existence at the time, or by Sun Oil, which is one of the
Government Orders
major operators in northern Alberta around the city of McMurray, but by the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. Public money is what developed the ability of the Canadian oil industry to be doing what it is in the tar sands of northern Alberta.
We have a similar example in the Department of Agriculture. It was the Canadian public agricultural research institutions in Canada which led to the worldwide use of canola as feed and as an oil product. The crop now known as canola, and formerly called rape, was used for its oil. That oil was poisonous and was used as an industrial lubricant particularly during the war when there were problems with the availability of petrochemical substances usually used for lubrication.
It was technology from these public research institutions that led to the modification of that crop from the point where it was poisonous as an oil to people and livestock, as was the meal, to the point where it is now sought as both a meal and as a consumable oil for livestock and people on a world-wide basis.
What the government is proposing through this legislation is a move away from that concept. I would not say that it is a uniquely Canadian concept. I would say that it is a concept within our country solely consistent with our nature as Canadians to develop these kinds of things not only for our own benefit-and certainly not with the prime requisite that it be profitable-but for the benefit of the community in which the research is done, and that it serve the world-wide community. That has been demonstrably the case whether we are talking about the development of insulin or about the modification of rape into canola, from a poisonous substance into an entirely edible substance by animals and humans in the form of oil or meal.
As well the evidence is that multinational corporations are not something with which we as Canadians have had a tremendous amount of positive experience. The fact of the matter is that when this bill goes through, what we are going to be looking at is a concentration in the hands of multinational corporations whose primary interest is the development of seeds and crops, along with the development of fertilizers and pesticides to go along with them. It comes down to a question of why would we turn our source of food supply over to some organizations over whom we have so little control?

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
There is no evidence that the multinational corporations which are so involved in the grain industry and in the chemical and pesticide industry have the interests of the Canadian public as their primary interest. In fact, there is evidence which will indicate-and we will get closer and closer to the threshold-that even human genes are being introduced into some plant and animal varieties.
This morning I heard some questioning from the government side with respect to the veracity of this type of scenario. If there is anyone on either side of the House who thinks that the introduction of cereal grains, oilseeds and other plants as well into our agricultural industry, whereby the companies will not be able to breed them in such way that they are specifically resistant to only their chemicals-whether they be fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides-then I suggest that such a person certainly does not have a very good grasp of the kinds of mentality, the kinds of thinking, the kinds of imagination, if you will, within the laboratories of the companies involved in pesticides, plant breeding and fertilizing within this nation.
I would like to refer to some of the organizations. This morning one of the members opposite disparaged the remarks of a Mr. Mooney. Mr. Mooney was speaking on behalf of several organizations. I would just like to read off a few of them, if I may. The inference was that he was only one person speaking for one person. This is who Mr. Mooney was speaking for.
He was speaking for the National Farmers' Union, the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Council of Canadians, Ecology Action Centre, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the Rainforest, GATT-Fly, Inter Pares, the Manitoba Council for International Co-operation, the Marquis Project, Mouvement Agriculture Biologique au Quebec, Ecological Agriculture Projects of MacDonald College, McGill University, One Sky, Oxfam-Canada, Saskatchewan Council for International Co-operation, Ten Days for World Development, the United Church of Canada, Wild West Organic Harvest Co-op and World Inter-Action.
My concern is the same as the concern of those people. I thank you very much for your attention, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, I know very little about plant breeders' rights, just as my hon. colleague knows nothing about lamprey eels. So we are on a similar plane.
I am certainly glad that I spent the 20 minutes here to listen to his speech, because I have learned a great deal. I think that the members across the way have also learned a great deal. My hon. colleague is very convincing and persuasive. I am just wondering why we are alone in opposing this particular bill and why the Liberals are not with us. It is very mindful of the GST.
What is the rationale for the government putting forward this bill? Why are they for it? In just a few words, tell us why it is for this bill?


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, the answer is rather obvious. We come back to the same motivation which fuels the engine of the government opposite, privatize. A good portion of development has been exemplary worldwide by Canadians in many different fields.
The reason I went far afield from agriculture was to emphasize the contribution that Canadians have made, sometimes a little more specifically to our own society, in relation to some of the smaller aircraft companies which I did not mention. We did just toss them away for a pittance, after having spent enormous sums of money on them. It is a matter of privatization. This government cannot stand the public sector being so obviously successful as it has been in the development of agricultural crops and so on within this country.
I really have no explanation why the government cannot stand this, except that I suppose it sees a potential for profit because it is obvious that once this bill passes, the profit motive will become the engine which fuels the development of agricultural crops within this country. The fact that Agriculture Canada will receive 60 per cent royalty on crops which it develops does not come anywhere near to ameliorating the devastation that is going to occur as a result of this
May 3, 1990

deregulation. This is another reason for the government doing this. It is not only privatization, it is deregulation.
Then you get companies such as Cargill. It is unbelievable the amount of money the government of Saskatchewan is guaranteeing to this company, a company which last year made a $35 billion profit. I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that this is about seven times larger than the provincial debt and is sufficient to be able to buy out the province of Saskatchewan along with its debt.
Not coincidentally, the money going to the Cargill corporation is for the development of a fertilizer plant. Although if you were to simply look at the commodity markets around the world, you would think it was a mere trader in grain. Of course, it goes far beyond that. It is a matter of privatization and deregulation and getting the government out of involvement in this. Profit for the private sector, that is what it is all about.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, when the history of this Parliament is written, I would not be surprised if this bill that the House is poised to adopt today will prove to be one of the most important pieces of legislation and one which stands to its great discredit.
The fact is it is going to be adopted because both the Conservative government and the Liberals are determined that it should go through. It is only the New Democratic Party that is standing in this House to oppose this Draconian piece of legislation. It is very interesting to me that, perhaps because of all the furore over issues like the GST, free trade, UI, and Meech Lake which have dominated the news, it is a bill like this which may, in the end, have the most profound effect on the lives of future generations of Canadians and of millions of people around the world.
Bill C-15 has the effect of causing Canada to join with other predominantly western countries to privatize a very key area of life on the planet, the development and control of seed and plant genes. If this bill passes it will set conditions on the sale of what is bred and of what is discovered. It will provide an effective subsidy to trans-
Government Orders
national corporations and it will apply effectively an industrial patent system to living things.
It has been interesting to me that the bill, notwithstanding the lack of general attention given, has nonetheless generated very considerable concern across the country. From my own constituency of Victoria, I have received many, many letters from people expressing their grave concern about this bill and I would like to put some of them on the record. I hope I am not embarrassing anyone by including them in the record of Hansard. I have a letter from Mary Lanceley who writes:
I understand that Bill C-15, which relates to the patenting of seeds is about to be pushed through the Commons while nobody is looking. It will put the control of the sale and the development of seeds into the hands of a few large companies. Most of these companies also are related to petrochemical and pharmaceutical branches. It stands to reason that the seeds developed and sold by these companies will be those which require increased use of fertilizers and pesticides. Old reliable seeds will no longer be available. This poses an increased threat of chemical pollution in our environment and further toxicity of the food we eat.
The letter concludes:
Many people are alarmed, and rightly so, at the threat of extinction of various kinds of animals; we should be equally concerned about seeds. We will lose some irreplaceable plant stock if this horrendously wrong bill is allowed to pass.
I have a letter from Richard Johnston and Esther Muirhead from Victoria which reads:
I strongly oppose Bill C-15 and I want you to stop its passage.
The Plant Breeders' Rights Bill will allow a few international corporations involved in plant breeding to control privately, research and decision-making regarding the genetic material upon which we all rely. These corporations are closely linked to the petrochemical fertilizer industry.
The Third World is at risk of losing ancient seed strains in the push toward cash production of food crops for urban populations. Locally rich and diverse and often undocumented varieties of seeds that resist certain local pests and diseases will be threatened by the freedom of corporations to patent new seed varieties they develop or discover.
And, in effect, I may add, to control the release of those varieties. The writers go on:
The extinction of genetic material on this planet is increasing daily; control of the preservation of genetic diversity needs to remain in the hands of public institutions.

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
One more letter from M. Johnson who writes:
I have just heard about a disturbing bill and am told it is rapidly approaching its third and final reading while most Canadians remain ignorant of it. I wish to direct your attention to Bill C-15 and express concern about the failure to inform Canadians about this bill. It has enormous ramifications for us all in terms of health and environmental concerns both locally and globally. As such it deserves a fair and public hearing across Canada. This bill, although it seems non-threatening on the surface is a very dangerous one in reality. As it will only be a benefit financially to a small number of chemically based multinational corporations it clearly is not in the best interests of the Canadian public. I do not understand how a government that openly declares a genuine concern for the fate of our environment can then offer this invitation to chemically based corporations to further monopoly of our food supply.
I want to deal with a number of specific concerns about the plant breeders' rights bill. The first is the effect of the patent on life forms. I simply cannot believe that the government and the Liberals understand the precedent that this bill creates. We are told there is no scientifically detectable difference between the genetic material of plants and those of animals. Transgenetic technologies are already in place and already being used. The legal definition of plants will begin to blur into the legal definition of life forms. The precedent which this bill creates imposes a challenge and a threat in the long run to the very existence of life itself because it offers the first legal step toward the ownership of a key form of life, a form of life which is not distinguishable from that of animals.
I put the question to the Elouse: the world's plant resources are a common heritage; should one segment of our society have private control over this precious and vital resource through the use of patents? That is the issue in this bill and that is why we are opposing it with all the force that we can muster in this House.
A second concern is that of corporate concentration which this bill encourages and on which Canada has now folded in front of a multinational corporate drive to control plants and seeds on the planet. Of 10 major international seed companies, eight are incorporated with transnational petrochemical and pharmaceutical companies. They are the Royal Dutch Shell, Union Carbide, Monsanto, Ciba-Geigy, Upjohn and other big business conglomerates which have been acquiring hundreds of seed companies over the past 20 years. When they get the power in Canada that this bill gives them, they will join that with the power they have
acquired in other countries to completely control the development of seed life in the planet.
Conglomerate food processing corporations are already dabbling in the seed business indicating the push toward corporate control from seed to table. In 1970 in Britain when they adopted the equivalent of this legislation, within a week 84 small seed companies were bought out by one multinational giant.
The European Economic Community, which has similar legislation, recently issued a catalogue of what was permitted in terms of seeds. The effect of that catalogue was to make illegal over 2,000 vegetable varieties in England and Europe. To sell them would be violating a patent owned by one of the corporate seed merchants.
The Liberals and Conservatives who are supporting this bill simply cannot understand the impact it will have on the environment and the effect on the extinction of genetic material. Already the diversity of crops on this planet is threatened in the same way that other industrial developments are threatening animal and bird life on the planet.
This bill is a companion to the impact of the industrial revolution on the global planet. If we step back from the monster that science has created and ask what we are doing to control those developments, we find that with this bill we are not only accelerating the development of the control and reduction of seed and plant variety, we are turning it over to private multinational conglomerates. We are taking out of democratic public control the need to ensure a diversity of genetic pool on the planet.
In 1978 Great Britain lost 700 non-traditional synonyms, which are varieties very much alike. Since then Britain has lost 874 varieties which prior to the adoption of their legislation were distinct, stable and uniform and had a quality of value to gardeners in Britain. Erna Bennett, a former staff member of the Food and Agricultural Organization in the United States, estimates that 75 per cent of vegetable varieties currently planted in Europe will be extinct by 1991 if current policy is continued.
By the year 2000, which is only a decade away, the FAO estimates that two-thirds of all plant seeds planted in the Third World will be of uniform strains. We are losing our genetic reservoirs which are our built-in production against changes in climate or the ecology of the world's food-growing lands. We have already heard in this debate the connection that this bill sets up with the
May 3, 1990

chemical industry and the direction that this goes. Presently there are 4,000 registered pesticides in Canada. With this bill we will add to the danger that by some chemical fluke we will suddenly wipe out a whole food strain or a whole plant strain. The sale of chemicals to control pests and disease has increased 32-fold in 35 years and is now a major threat to the plant life in North America.
My colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands added yet another point which was critical to the consideration in this debate, and that is the effect on people in the Third World. We are really joining a consortium of already rich countries to further choke off the potential for self-sustainable agricultural development in the Third World and to further build a monopoly that will cause increased poverty and economic degradation in the Third World. Ninety-five percent of all global human nutrition is derived from only 30 plants, all of which originate in the Third World.
Over the century, the knowledge and skill needed to carefully select individual seeds for the next planting have been the specialized domain of subsistence farmers-mostly women, I may say. This heritage is simply not recognized by this bill and its companion pieces in other countries. It is the heritage that has given the world its basic genetic material for most of the food which is grown around the world today.
Bill C-15 would give the right to private companies to patent, not only seeds which they develop, but the seeds which they discover. If this bill is allowed, the valuable natural resources located in the world's poorer nations will become wide open for exploitation by these private multinational corporations, based primarily in the rich north. Most of the fruits, vegetables, crop plants grown in the world have come to us from hundreds of generations of careful selection and cultivation which has been carried on by agriculturalists all around the world. This bill seeks to use the sovereign power of this legislature to turn over into private hands the control of that development in the generations ahead.
There is little wonder that this bill has generated opposition, not only in Canada, but from around the world. Organizations within the UN system, the UNEP, FEW, UNESCO, UNCTAD, WHO, the World Food
Government Orders
Council and the Brundtland Commission, all of these international organizations oppose this development. This House should listen to the agricultural organizations throughout Canada and around the world.
My friend from Saskatoon-Dundurn outlined the number of international development organizations in Canada, including OXFAM Canada, that have opposed this bill. It is opposed by universities, and by individuals who have been reading the provisions of this bill, listening to the discussion, and understanding that this bill must not pass this Parliament. It has not received the attention it deserves across this country.
In conclusion, I say that when the history of this Parliament is written, it will be the vote of those members who support this bill who will be remembered by future generations as one of the great mistakes they have made in this Parliament.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear!


John F. Brewin: It is a bad bill. It ought not to be passed. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Before proceeding with questions and comments, I would like to make the usual statement. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for New Westminster- Burnaby (Ms. Black)-REAL Women; the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons)-Air Canada; the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur (Mr. Arse-neault)-Forestry development.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, I was amazed at some of the information that the hon. member from Victoria included in his remarks.
The information regarding the number of varieties that have literally been declared illegal in countries where similar legislation was introduced previously is very useful. Many varieties of vegetables and so on were simply no longer available to people because, presumably, the companies that held the patents for these seeds decided that they would no longer be on the market.

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
I am wondering if the member could expand on the process that is in place in those countries that would literally take existing plant varieties off the market. Would he remind the House of the dangers of that kind of activity happening here?


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the member asked me the question, but I have to confess a certain nervousness as he begins to plumb the depths of my knowledge of some of the details of this bill.
I will take a shot at it. I am learning that in this place-particularly associated, as I am, with members from Saskatchewan-that it is possible to talk for at least 20 minutes on a subject that one does not know as much about as one might like. I am fully persuaded of the importance of this bill, and that represents my independent judgment. I certainly do not back off any of the remarks that I made in my speech.
As well, the process that has been operating here and that gives effect to the development to which my hon. friend refers is very clear. Quite simply, when a bill like this passes, the large multinational corporations that are already in the field, particularly the seed companies, get the advantage of this, acquire a patent and ownership of the particular seed and its relatives, and then control the market. These are primarily seed companies but also other companies that are getting into the business and that are part of the consumer food chain, or in the business of selling fertilizers and related products. These corporations control the market. It is only these seeds which can be legally sold under European law.
When this kind of legislation was adopted in every country in Europe, only a relatively few seeds could be legally sold. All the rest were effectively banned by the impact of the patents acquired by the multinationals.
The particular risk that we now face is that not only will the patents be made available effectively into private hands, the number of companies operating will decline. The companies get bigger and bigger, and are harder to control by national legislatures and parliaments. This results in increasing narrow control of this very vital area of human existence.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Victoria opened a new element in this debate with his closing remarks just now.
I wonder if he, who is learned in the law, could explain to me and to this House how it is that a government that claims that it is trying to open the world to freer trade, access to business, individual enterprise and so on, could possibly put forward a bill like this? It closed off access to plant genetic material and permits it to be monopolized by a few multinational corporations. How is the government's philosophy of free enterprise consistent with a bill that, in fact, restricts the ownership and control of most of the globe's genetic resources to a few multinational corporations, resident in the developed countries?


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Mackenzie. It almost invites me to launch into a discussion of how we got into free trade, into the GST and all the other issues which this government has foisted upon the Canadian people.
Let me, without extending this discussion too far off the subject, just simply say that this bill is entirely consistent with the philosophy of this government, that is to say, it will serve, in the final analysis, the interests of big business and of the large corporate power in this countiy and in other countries, particularly the United States.
When the crunch comes, that is the way this government operates on every single issue that comes before it. This is not a free enterprise government, this is a capitalist government. This is a government that responds to power in our society, power that is primarily resident in large corporations. When the big corporations came forward and said they wanted this bill, they got it. That is what has happened.


Mr. Gustafson:: The hon. member, speaking on plant breeders' rights, in my opinion has misrepresented the bill in the sense that this bill does not preclude the government or any organization from competing in plant breeding.
In fact, this bill will enhance and encourage this. If one wants to talk about the political philosophy of the NDP, we can look at some examples of 75 years of socialism in eastern Europe which has fallen flat and which is an example of the kind of thing that the NDP is recommending here in the House.
This does not preclude, in any way, the government from competing, whether it is at Swift Current, Saskatchewan, or whether it is at Indian Head or any of the areas
May 3, 1990

where plant breeding takes place and from where we have received some of our varieties.
Also, there is misrepresentation on the European situation. Some of these varieties were catalogued and, in fact, duplicated, as was raised earlier. We are really talking here about the NDP philosophy versus any private opportunity to enhance plant breeders' rights for the farmers and for better varieties of grain of which we have seen example after example.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, before this bill goes through, the current situation is that anyone who wants to get into the business of breeding plants can do so. What they cannot do now is control, for commercial purposes, and sell the effect of their discovery in the same fashion that will be possible after this bill. On the surface it seems that after this bill passes everybody will think they can develop a new plant and become rich. The fact is, if I put the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain on the same rink with Wayne Gretzky, I do not think the comparison would be very easy.
You are putting everyone who is in the business of breeding plants in the same field with huge multinational corporations who will quickly buy up the developments that have taken place. My friend may think that that is a good system but I can assure him that the effect of that system will be that the economy, and particularly the economy in this area, will be increasingly controlled by the few at the expense of the people as a whole.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I would like to deposit the report of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, as was promised during Question Period today.
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-15, an act respecting plant breeders' rights, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments is over. Resuming debate with the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen- Merritt.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, since I was elected to this place I have watched the plant breeders' rights legislation go through its various stages, first and second reading, report stage and now into third reading. I am from an agricultural area that deals in ground crops and fruits. I have received substantial correspondence from various constituents, and I can say that all of the correspondence was against the plant breeders' rights. They set out a number of reasons why. I would like to bring to the attention of the House some of what was said in some of those letters and petitions that were presented to me.
I became curious about the contents of this bill, exactly why my party opposes it, and why it was so upsetting to so many people within the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. Why is there a a diversity of views from one area to the other?
Let us review the legislation in simple terms. First, the legislation governs only the varieties produced after the passage of the Plant Breeders' Rights Bill and the breeder of any new variety will hold exclusive rights to sell reproductive material of the variety for up to 18 years. On the surface, that appears to be desirable for an individual who establishes or breeds a new variety to get some benefit from that. If that was the purpose of this bill, perhaps it would be a laudable and agreeable piece of legislation.
However, if we look at what has happened in all of the other countries that have plant breeders' rights legisla-

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
tion, unfortunately that does not appear to be the case, as has been set out time and again by many of the debaters here today. It will increase the control of larger corporations in the area of plant breeding, seed stock et cetera. This, I would suggest, is not a desirable thing for Canada or for the world market, for that matter.
If someone wishes to sell a variety, they must have the breeder's permission and the breeder will have the right to receive royalties. As I said, this would not be so bad if it was the individual who was going to profit by it without being hurt.
Further, anyone can use a protected variety for plant breeding. To be granted a right, a variety must be new, distinct, uniform and stable. To protect the public interest, the breeder will not be able to restrict the supply of the variety to boost prices.
It has been suggested that a advisory committee with representatives from all sectors, including farmers, seed growers, plant breeders and seed merchants will be established to advise in the administration of the legislation.
It will be several years before all major Canadian crops are covered since each species will be researched before regulations are established for it. What are the objectives and expected benefits of this? We are told the legislation will stimulate investment in plant breeding in Canada. It is further argued that more improved varieties, both domestic and foreign, will be available for Canadian producers.
We are told the bill will permit the collection of royalties on Canadian varieties sold both in Canada and abroad, and the production in regions such as the maritimes will benefit from access to European cereal and potato varieties, that export sales will increase because of increased promotion of proprietary varieties, and that Canada will have a system compatible with other countries that have similar legislation, increasing the opportunity for export of Canadian varieties.
There are, admittedly, some major supporters of plant breeders' rights within Canada. In my mind, looking at the background and what has happened in other countries, the crux of the whole argument is who will control the seed stocks for our various plant varieties and how it will affect the majority of us as Canadians.
In researching this issue, it has been predicted that price of seed stocks will increase substantially. In one study in Manitoba, the prediction was that seed stocks would increase some three times. That causes some difficulty for farmers who already have their backs against the wall.
The major concern is the monopoly control that is apparent when we look at the history of plant breeders' rights throughout the world. There have been over 1,000 corporate takeovers of seed companies since 1969. There is a tie-in with the seed companies and the fertilizer and chemical companies. It appears that one ensures that there is control over the other. Many of the purchasers of these companies sell fertilizers and chemicals. In the 1970's, there were 30 companies that produced crop chemicals. Now there are about a dozen. Within a decade, the industry itself says that only six will remain.
It is interesting to note that under the European and United States plant breeders' rights legislation, 90 per cent of all seed patents are held by a handful of multinationals. That is the key, they are held by a handful of multinationals. It has been predicted that after the year 2000, 10 to 20 major corporations will dominate the seed market.
For myself and many of my constituents, this causes a major problem. The control of our basic food stocks by a few large multinational corporations sends shudders through me when I look at what is necessary for our very life on this planet. All of us need food to exist. If food is controlled, prices can be altered and increased or supplies can be held back for the increase in profits by multinationals. That is not something that I would like to see happen here in Canada, in particular, but I would not like to see it happen anywhere.
Let me turn now to some of the things that people in my riding have brought to my attention. I was presented with a petition which, unfortunately, is not in a form that is presentable to the House. Thirty-two people in the riding have sent it in to me to indicate their unhappiness with Bill C-15. They all feel that this gives the large conglomerates too much control of seeds. They are asking me personally to strongly oppose the bill. The petition simply states: "We, the undersigned, are against private ownership of genetic information and thusly we
May 3, 1990

oppose Bill C-15". It is signed by constituents throughout my riding in Penticton and in Naramata.
I also received a number of letters and I would like to share with the House one that was written to the Minister of Agriculture by Sharon Rempel of Keremeos in June, 1989. In part, she states:
This bill should be scrapped, and funding and research directed towards provincial plant breeding programs. Adequate gene bank facilities should be made available in all areas of the country, and continued free exchange of materials with other countries encouraged.
As a heritage seed saver I have heard from growers in countries with plant breeders' rights that access to old varieties becomes difficult, or even illegal. I do not want that in Canada. This aspect of a free market system is free only to the breeders, not to the rest of the population.
Please stop this bill before it is given final reading. I urge you to do so for the sake of sustainable agriculture, and the survival of genetic diversity in this country, and globally. Preservation of the plants should be done in the fields, not in the courts.
That letter was from Keremeos in the Similkameen Valley. I have a further letter from Naramata in the Okanagan in a similar vein from Daryl O'Neill who states:
I am writing to you to voice my strong opposition to C-15, the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. There is nothing more crucial to the welfare of a nation than its ability to feed itself, and I see that this bill, C-15, seriously compromises Canada's ability to do that, for the sake of multinational profits. Genetic diversity is threatened by the increasing reliance on over-developed, highly specialized hybrids, and the resultant loss of older standard varieties of plants. This could have disastrous consequences, as the 1970 corn blight in the U.S. indicates.
To conclude, I cannot express my extreme disappointment that your government would once again try to foist this odious piece of legislation upon us, for the benefit of corporate shareholders, to the detriment of Canadian citizens.
That letter was sent to the Minister of Agriculture on July 10, 1989.
Harry Nagel from Penticton writes:
Farming, especially smaller operations, is a marginal business. Keeping costs down is very important for growers. Is it not obvious that when the company that provides the seed also provides the agri-chemicals it is more likely to impact negatively on growers?
Although there are many other very good reasons for scrapping Bill C-15, my main concern is the promotion of chemical-dependent plant varieties and their apparent and hidden costs.
Government Orders
I encourage you to consider the impact on the smaller players by
this legislation.
That is a sample of some of the opposition in the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. It puts this legislation in a broader perspective and outside of the area of plant breeders' rights. There must be a harmonization of the plant breeders and the plant breeders' rights with other countries, and particularly with the United States. I would like to digress for a moment and discuss the area in the Okanagan and Similkameen valleys that I come from and some of the difficulties we are already having.
As Mr. Nagel stated in his letter, farming is a marginal business, at best. Certainly, that appears to be the case throughout the Okanagan and Similkameen valleys, where more and more through the attempts at harmonization, through the free trade agreement and GATT, the farmers in my area have been hurt and this bill simply adds to that.
What we have now as a result of the free trade agreement and GATT are thousands of acres of empty lands where grapes used to be grown. Throughout the Okanagan and Similkameen valleys we now have acreage where soft fruits were previously grown which have been pulled out. Again, it is a matter of harmonization with the United States, doing what they see as necessary in order to make us more like our brothers, sisters and relatives across the border.
We are not like people in the United States. Certainly, we are related often by blood and otherwise, as I am myself. But we have a country of which we are proud. We have a country that has grown up through time and history with a proud heritage. The people of this country want to be able to viably produce the majority of our own food stocks, so that we can be somewhat independent of the rest of the world and assist other countries within the world.
What we see within my area is a breaking down of this ability. There is pressure on farmers to sell off their lands, whether it be for development, for housing, or for recreational areas, before they go broke. It is a moving away from the basic belief in the land. They cannot make a living. We are making it harder and harder for them by forcing them away from areas that they know well, whether it be soft fruit growing, farming, or the growing of cucumbers and tomatoes.

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
How do you take a 40 or 50 year old man or woman who has farmed one particular commodity all his or her life and tell them to strip the land and plant something else? You cannot do it, Madam Speaker. Since they were children, they have been growing that particular product and now they have to switch and look at the world market. It is very difficult for these people who have looked toward their retirement with very marginal profits throughout their lifetime and are looking forward to sitting back and relaxing a little bit in their retirement years. We have made it very difficult for them.
Farmers in the Okanagan, in the Fraser valley in British Columbia, Saanich in the lower island area of Vancouver Island, across the prairies, or Annapolis valley, it does not matter where, are running into the same problems time and time again. It is a problem of keeping up, making a living, and trying to overcome what nature throws at them. Now they have to struggle against a government that states that it is for farmers and is trying to help them. I would suggest that this is one more nail in the coffin of the farming community, one more put-down of the farmer. The potential of increasing the price of seeds for grain farmers, three times, ten times, or whatever in a marginal operation makes it very difficult for the farmer to make a living.
In conclusion, in the educational process of looking at this legislation, it is clear that although there are some who support this bill, it is not one that is of benefit to the individual farmer and therefore I speak against it today.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: I listened attentively to my friend and I was impressed with his background, depth, knowledge and the insight he brings to this whole question of plant breeders' rights.
There is one area that rather puzzles me. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and one of the areas that really interests me is this whole question of monopoly practices. In fact, statistics show that there have been 1,008 corporate take-overs of seed companies since 1969. Many of the purchasers also sell fertilizers and chemicals. In the 1970s, there were 30 companies that produced crop chemicals and today there is only a dozen. The industry itself states that within a decade there will probably only be about six remaining.
The minute we get this plant breeders' rights legislation passed, there are certain implications in terms of monopoly control of the seed companies and the seed business. In light of the fact that even this namby-pamby corporate take-over legislation that we have got has been ruled unconstitutional and now it is going to be appealed to the Supreme Court, I want to ask my colleague if he sees any significant problems for the people who depend on these various varieties of seeds to continue to get seed at a price that they can afford? Can he see a problem with the trend toward monopoly take-overs?


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: It is obvious that the member for Nickel Belt, being from a good agricultural area, has some of the education of the member from the Okanagan. The in depth knowledge that I have unfortunately simply scratches the surface of some of the speakers that we have had before us.
However, he turns to an area that is near and dear to our hearts and to the hearts of Canadians, which is the whole aspect of where this government is going and where it has gone in the past. For example, is this privatization for the sake of privatization. There is a whole public area here.
We have research stations and seed research funded publicly. We have scientists who now work for the federal government in various research areas, who are world renowned and are happy working within the system for the Canadian government, establishing new strains. That is one of the things I think there is a move toward, the ultimate privatization of that total area. I simply throw that out as a caution that there is that possibility.
What we have seen, and what I think the member for Nickel Belt has alluded to, is the monopolies that have been created. I sat as a substitute on his committee on the odd occasion and saw some of the mergers that have occurred over the last little while in many areas.
I also sat on the finance committee last fall and heard some of the confection manufacturers and others talk about being forced into mergers by legislation before the House of Commons, whether it is goods and service tax legislation or whether it is legislation on the free trade agreement. These large companies are becoming megacompanies.
May 3, 1990

More and more the control of our economy is falling into fewer and fewer hands. This is what the people of my riding are frightened by this particular legislation. What has alarmed me are the predictions that I heard throughout some of these hearings that I have been on, and now hearing it again in relation to this particular legislation. The control of our food stocks is falling into the hands of only a very few major corporations, and that has created problems. We have seen in the past that as we fall into the area of monopolies and do not have a competitive edge, prices have a tendency to go up. We have seen the prices of feed stocks go up for the farmers. I have stated that they will triple, but I understand that there are studies that show it to be substantially higher than that.
I believe'that when monopolies or control falls into very few hands, there will be major problems not only for farmers, but for the people of Canada in not only growing their food but obtaining their food at a reasonable price.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, I appreciated and enjoyed the remarks of the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. I hope that his constituents are aware of the very active role he plays in this House in speaking on behalf of soft fruit and grape growers who have been hard hit by free trade.
Whenever there is a promotion of Canadian wines the member is on the front lines urging his colleagues to, in all moderation, enjoy the benefits of the production of his constituency. However, I would not want to over-ex-tend his knowledge of the agricultural field. I would, however, like to pursue some of the legal abilities which he does so obviously have.
One of the principal rationales that the government has presented as to why we have to adopt this legislation is that countries like the United States, Japan and others are pushing us internationally, particularly at the GATT negotiations, to adopt this legislation because of an argument that is being made in some parts of the world that things like genetic materials and life forms should be treated no differently in terms of international trade than things like the better mouse trap and intellectual property of different types such as movies.
I was wondering if the hon. member, as a lawyer or legislator, believes that there is some distinction that
Government Orders
needs to be made between the normal commerce that might go on in international trade and things that are so vital to our survival like genetic materials and the various life forms? Should a line be drawn? In fact, should we as the Canadian Parliament be drawing it by rejecting this whole trend?


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: It is clear that there is a major difference between some intellectual property rights, patents and copyrights that do not affect the very life blood of the people of Canada, or anywhere else in the world, for that matter. It is important to distinguish between the two. With this legislation we are working toward that very basis of life for people, our food stocks. When you start playing with food stocks, and you start playing with the patenting of our staff of life, then you are into a far different area in every way than you are with other intellectual property.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I join in debate of the Plant Breeders' Rights Act in opposition to its passage. I share the views of many in my province who are opposed to the introduction of plant breeders' rights in circumstances in which breeders of new crop varieties would enjoy exclusive rights in the commercial exportation of varieties of crops for a period of up to 18 years.
They oppose the notion that a holder of plant breeders' rights would be able to collect royalties on the sale of seed of the protected variety. They are also opposed to the concept of plant breeders' rights as they are so closely related to the patenting of industrial inventions, and legislation which covers plant breeders' rights in many other industrialized nations.
The notion that plants and seeds should be controlled and owned in the same way as industrial patents is not one which finds favour with many of those farmers in my riding. My riding comprises about 75 per cent of the dairy industry in Saskatchewan.
This legislation has been controversial and that is why its introduction has been delayed. It was a promise of the Conservative party in 1984, and it has taken until now before it has been introduced into this House. It is also well known that the Liberal party introduced legislation of a similar sort, but did not get very far with it either. We have seen that the Liberals, after committee hear-

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
ings on the bill, are now supporting this piece of government legislation.
The similarities between plant breeders' rights legislation and the drug patent legislation are quite clear to see. Once the Drug Patent Act was passed, the path was clear for the introduction of this legislation. Control of drugs which are necessary for the health of Canadians went into private hands. The government has now gone on to enable private interests to control the rights to make profits on plants, seeds and so on.
The drug patent legislation troubled many Canadians who use drugs and the consumer groups who represent them. It did so because of the fear of increased costs, and it did so because of the fear that if a drug manufacturer could control its interests in a particular drug that it invented, its long term control over that drug would preclude generic manufacturers in Canada from producing the same drug at a cheaper price. This would cut down on availability perhaps, but certainly on the opportunity for Canadians to pay less for those drugs.
Just as those who might potentially use drugs were concerned about the drug patent legislation and the potential price increase that that would give rise to, we have seen a reinforcement of the concerns raised by my party and other groups since the passage of the Drug Patent Act. For the same reason farmers, farm groups in Saskatchewan and those who are concerned about ownership of important natural resources in the world are concerned about the passage of plant breeders' rights legislation.
The issues are not only economic, although the government would prefer that we treat them in that way. They are also ethical, social and political, moral and ecological. The questions include: Who will do our research? Who wifi control the fruits of that research? Who will control our genetic resources, and are the resources of the world to be used by everyone or only by private corporations for their own benefit?
A question we sometimes do not ask enough is: What about those plant resources of the Third World which may be exploited by this practice? After all, most of the plant resources we use at the present time for our farming activities were originally found in the Third World. We took them without those Third World countries and farmers being paid for them. Now we are going to put the rights in the hands of private businesses to sell those seeds and plants back to those Third World countries from where we took them without payment in the first place.
There is concern from a broad range of individuals and groups, from genetic resources of our world, a coalition of church, farm labour, consumer groups, and non-government organizations. Membership includes the National Farmers' Union, OXFAM, the CLC, the Consumers' Association and the United Church of Canada. Many groups have been opposed to the passage of the plant breeders' rights legislation giving private interests control over something that was previously in the public domain.
In my province, as I mentioned, there are many who are opposed. Included is the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool which is opposed to the plant breeders' rights as they apply to major grains and oilseeds in western Canada. That organization, as you know, is the largest farm organization in the country. It represents farmers and attempts to ensure that they can obtain a living in spite of the federal government's agricultural policies. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is opposed to the passage of this legislation as it applies to major grains and oilseeds for the reasons which I have generally indicated. I will now give more reasons in specific detail.
There are concerns about seed costs. At the moment, as we all know, fanners are very concerned about the input costs. They are at the present time trying to obtain financial assistance from the federal government to help plant their crop for the coming year. They are faced with high interest rates and they are faced with a low price for their product when completed. They are also concerned about reducing their cost of input as much as possible.
Seed costs at the moment represent about 4 per cent, for example, of Canadian wheat farmers' production costs. Europeans spend five times as much as this. There are suggestions, or predictions, by those in the seed industry that the farmers' share of costs will, in fact, rise to over 50 per cent in the next few years in Europe. A former minister of agriculture in Manitoba has suggested that with the passage of plant breeders' rights in Canada, seed costs in Manitoba could triple over the next decade as a result of this legislation.
May 3, 1990

Rather than attempting to address input costs for farmers, we have legislation from the government protecting private interests, ensuring that private interests control more of what was previously in the public domain, and in the process adding to the costs in quite a considerable level to farmers' input costs.
Allusion has been made to the problem of control of seeds. It has been indicated that some 1,000 corporate takeovers of seed companies have taken place since 1969. This indicates a considerable centralization and concentration of control by those who are in the business of selling seeds to our farmers.
Many of the purchasers of these seed companies also sell fertilizers and chemicals. Indeed, many of the developments that these companies are pursuing with regard to seeds are not to make them pest resistant as one would have hoped, but indeed pesticide or chemical resistant. We have those producers of fertilizers and chemicals buying companies which sell seeds and then ensuring that the development of those seeds is somehow compatible with their chemicals, rather than attempting to build into the seeds qualities which can resist the pests that we are concerned about. It is not a very ecological development in terms of how we develop our seed genetics.
In the 1970s there were 30 companies that produced farm chemicals, just as an example of increased concentration, and now there are about a dozen and perhaps within a decade the industry itself suggests that there might only be six. We will see a further concentration of those private organizations providing inputs to farmers.
As no doubt the government would be only too prepared to admit, increased concentration and lack of competition is likely to increase the price to farmers, making it ever more difficult for farmers to make a living and stay on the farm in Canada, making it more difficult for them to provide the food products that we so badly need.
If we wanted any more information or any more evidence of the concentration of control and the negative implications that that could have, we only need look to European and American jurisdictions where there is plant breeders' rights legislation. In those areas 90 per cent of all seed patents are held by a handful of multinational corporations. It has been forecast that by
Government Orders
the beginning of the next century, perhaps 10 to 20 major corporations in the world will dominate seed markets. It is only to the detriment of farmers and surely not to the benefit of farmers that lack of competition and the control over seed genetics cannot serve the Canadian farmers or the Canadian public.
In addition, seed and fertilizer companies are continuing to buy up and hold patents on seeds which make it hard for farmers in the Third World to get the seeds they want. It is harder to ensure that both in the Third World and in the prairies that farmers obtain the sorts of seeds that are suitable for the growing and soil conditions available to them. We are not seeing, in the concentration of ownership in seed corporations and we will not see it as a result of further concentration through the plant breeders' rights legislation, a development of seeds and products which will be suitable for Canadian farmers.
Many studies have been conducted, including a 1960 royal commission, which suggests it is not worth the economic benefits which might flow from plant breeders' rights legislation to have the legislation itself. Primarily, that is a result of criticisms of the industry because of the potential, as I have indicated, for massive concentration of the plant breeding industry by international corporations and primarily international chemical corporations.
We also have to be concerned about, as we are so often reminded, the diminution in our genetic base in the world. We often hear of the number of species which are lost to the world. It is important for us to maintain that genetic bank. In Canada we have a gene bank which protects many species which are important to us, in particular barley. There is considerable concern for the safety or the security of those genes. It is certainly the case that Canada's gene bank has been cited as one which does not provide the sort of security necessary to make sure that our genetic base in the world is maintained.
Even in a country such as ours, we are not able to protect the gene bank that we are responsible for. One other point which should be made strenuously and has been made before is that again we are bowing to pressure from Americans to do what their private corporations want. We are also bowing to pressure from the Japanese corporations and from other private interests around the world. It is one more push by the United States to have Canadians harmonize our standards and our approaches

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
with the standards of the United States. This is not to the benefit, of course, of Canadian farmers and Canadian consumers. It is time that we stood up to those pressures from American private corporations and governments acting on their behalf and take into account the interests of Canadian farmers and Canadian consumers. In coming to my final comments, I would like to point out the main drawbacks with this legislation and point out why the government should not be pursuing it in the way in which it is.
A great deal of research and activity in the plant breeding area is done in Canada by Agriculture Canada. There is a genuine fear that public sector plant breeding in Canada will decrease as governments reduce program funding in deference to increases in public sector investment and pushes more and more onto the private market.
There is also concern that the nature of public sector research will change with increased concentration on basic research and a decrease in actual variety development, in particular for crops such as wheat and canola. As a result of shifting the ownership of products onto private industry, as it is able to persuade Agriculture Canada to do, basic research rather than applied research will be done by private industry.
There is real concern that seed prices will rise considerably. There is concern that there will be restriction in the exchange of genetic stocks between breeders as competition increases. We have seen examples of that already where work is being done on particular plants and large corporations pressuring their friends in other large corporations to concentrate on some other development rather than the one of concern to the corporation in question.
We are concerned about the loss of the world's plant gene resources and that it will be accelerated as private industry promotes the cultivation of protected varieties in Third World countries. We are concerned as are many that a small number of multinational companies will dominate the Canadian seed industry as they have been doing through corporate take-overs, that they will integrate seed and farm chemical activities and develop and promote varieties whose performance is dependent upon the use of specific chemicals in which they specialize themselves and varieties whose performance is dependent upon various herbicides and fertilizers which are called into question and, as suggested by many, should be used less and less if we are really seriously concerned about the ecology of our planet.
Last, and perhaps more serious is the major criticism that Canada's food system will, as a result of plant breeders' rights legislation and following what we have seen in other countries, come more and more under the control of a small number of multinational corporations.
For example, in eastern Europe we have an example in which we see a society striving for more and more information and receiving more information, whereas in Canada we seem to have a government looking to concentrate ownership and information in such things as plants and seeds and in other areas as well.
This legislation, rather than opening up ownership and information, proposes to provide monopoly control which will limit access to information on genetic material. I think that is the wrong direction in which to go. We should be more concerned with making more available things such things as seeds and plants, which we have tended to do in the past, rather than making them more restrictive and in the ownership of a small number of corporations which then have to be purchased by farmers. We have seen increases in input costs. It will be to the detriment of farmers, Canadian consumers and indeed consumers of Canadian food products all over the world.
It seems to me it is the opposite direction in which we should be following. We should not be concentrating ownership and control of what had previously been public property. We should be making sure that access is more widely available. We might be able to manipulate genetic material, but we did not create it. Humans did not create it, and we should not receive compensation for something in which we have a minor role in assisting. There are interests for everyone all over the world in making sure that ownership of seeds and plants are more widely owned, and not more closely owned. Quite clearly, this legislation is a move in the wrong direction.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, in a publication called GROW, Genetic Resources for Our World, Volume II 1989,1 would like to bring to the member's attention a couple of
May 3, 1990

quotes, and ask him for comments and expansion with respect to the plant breeders' rights.
On the front page of that magazine, there is a quote: "If we believe in the right to a clean environment and that food is to share, then we cannot create a system which encourages ownership of life form, the most basic which is seed, by corporations whose primary motive is profit." I would like the member to comment on that.
There is a further quote on the last page of the article called "PBR, The Thin Edge of the Wedge, The Rationalization of Life Patenting". It indicates some excerpts from a book From Land to Mouth: Understanding the Food System by Brewster Kneen, Economist and Theologian. In one of these it states as follows: "It is then but a short step to the patenting, claiming the property rights of the modified human embryo, one that has been subject to gene therapy on the basis of need established as a result of amniocentesis on the embryo utero.
In other words, once the principle of intellectual property rights is accepted, there is no natural or inherent limit to the claims that can be made. Human characteristics could be patented and licensed for production just the way a McDonald's hamburger or a new lettuce plant could be".
Would the member like to comment on those two with respect to his impressions of where we are being led by the plant breeders' rights legislation?


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to those two questions.
Let me take the last one first, the dangers of patents on life forms. Experts agree that it is very difficult to accurately define genetic substances in a way that effectively ensures that we do not move along a slippery slope towards patenting life forms, something which we would all be quite concerned about. I would agree with the member and the quote that he referred to. The plant breeders' rights legislation is something that we should be really quite concerned about, if we are concerned about the dangers of patenting life forms. I think we all are.
In terms of ownership of life forms being handed over to private corporations, we might refer to an example which has been in the public eye a great deal lately, and
Government Orders
represents a tragedy for Atlantic Canada. We can look at the developments which essentially placed the control of the fish stocks on the east coast in the hands of two large private corporations and observe what has happened to them. Those fish stocks were previously regarded as essentially public property which fishing people went to catch, and then to process.
By handing over the quotas to large corporations, those stocks became owned by those corporations. We have seen that stock, with the help of mismanagement by the federal governments over the last decade, fold to such an extent that we are now hearing from those in the fishing industry, including those whose lives depend almost totally on the fishing industry, that we should stop fishing. If we do not, we will end up by having no fish left there at all. Indeed, there are many examples of areas where there was previously a good deal of fish, and where now there are none.
We can look within our own country at what has happened when we have given private ownership over a life form to large corporations, and watched the way in which they have abused it. There is no doubt that we need to be very careful when we give large corporate interests-as we are going to do-control over plants and seeds. As experience in other countries which have with the plant breeders' rights legislation has shown, if we give ownership to large corporations they will use it only to ensure that they make profit and will not make sure that it is used to the best advantage of all Canadians and to all those who might otherwise have access to that resource.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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

May 3, 1990
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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

And the division bells having rung'.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The government whip has asked the Chair to have the division deferred until Monday at 7 p.m.


Ms. Langan:: Madam Speaker, May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member suggested that the Chair seek unanimous consent to call it six o'clock.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do not have unanimous consent.


Hon. Frank Oberle (for the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved:: That the Standing Orders of the House of Commons be amended in the following manner:
1.	By adding the following new section to Standing Order 30:
"(7)(a) Notwithstanding Standing Order 24(3), if Private Members' Business is to be taken up on a day, other than a Monday, appointed for the consideration of the business of supply, the time provided therefor shall be delayed by one hour; provided that it shall be further delayed by the time required for the completion of any division arising out of the business of supply or any deferred division set down for that day. Upon the completion of Private Members' Business, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.
(b)	Any recorded division demanded during the time provided for Private Members' Business pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall be deferred in the manner set down in Standing Order 45(6) for proceedings on a Friday."
2.	By deleting sections (1) and (2) of Standing Order 87 and substituting the following therefor:
"87. (l)(a) At the beginning of a session, the Clerk of the House, acting on behalf of the Speaker, shall, within two sitting days of the placing on the Order Paper of separate items of Private Members' Business from at least twenty Members, notify the Members involved of the time, date and place of a random draw of twenty Members' names to establish the order of precedence for twenty separate items.
(b)	To the extent that there is a sufficient number of eligible motions and bills, the draw shall be conducted so that there shall be in the order of precedence an equal number of motions and public bills originating in the House of Commons.
(c)	The names of Members with bills and those of Members with motions shall be drawn separately to produce the appropriate number of bills and motions. The names first drawn separately shall then be drawn again together to determine the order of precedence for those items.
(d)	Not later than 6.00 o'clock p.m. (7.00 o'clock p.m. on a Monday and 3.00 o'clock p.m. on a Friday) on the second sitting day after the day on which the draw is conducted, each Member whose name has been drawn, and who has given notice of more than one motion, shall file with the Clerk an indication as to which motion is to be placed in the order of precedence. If a Member does not file such an indication within the time specified, the motion first placed by the Member on the Order Paper under Private Members' Business will be included in the order of precedence. This requirement applies equally to each Member whose name has been drawn for a public bill.
(2) The Clerk of the House, acting on behalf of the Speaker, shall, when necessary during a Session, conduct a random draw to establish an order of precedence for not more than ten additional items of Private Members' Business, in the manner set down in section (1). No Member having an item listed in the order of precedence at the time of the draw shall be eligible to have his or her name chosen. Not later than two sitting days prior to the conduct of the draw, the Clerk shall inform the Members involved of the time, date and place of the said draw."
3.	By deleting section (1) of Standing Order 92 and substituting the following therefor:
"92.(1) The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections shall meet as soon as practicable after the order of precedence has been established pursuant to sections (1) and (2) of Standing Order 87, and from time to time thereafter, and may select after consultation with, among others, the Members proposing the items, not more than three motions and three bills from among the twenty items in the order of precedence and an appropriate number from among any subsequent items for which the order of precedence is established and such selected items shall be designated as "votable items". In making its selection, the Committee shall not take into account the number of Members jointly seconding an item, but shall allow the merits of the items alone to determine the selection and shall report thereon, from time to time. At no time shall there be


May 3, 1990

more than three motions and three bills among the selected items on the order of precedence."
4.	By deleting Standing Order 93 and substituting the following therefor:
"93. Unless previously disposed of, selected public bills at the second reading stage or selected motions shall receive not more than three hours of consideration and, unless previously disposed of, an item having been once considered, shall be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence and again considered only when it reaches the top of the said order.
Provided that, unless otherwise disposed of, at not later than fifteen minutes before the end of the time provided for the consideration of the said item, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted and every question necessary to dispose of the selected motion or of the selected bill at the second reading stage, shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment."
5.	By deleting Standing Order 99 and substituting the following therefor.
"99. The proceedings on Private Members' Business shall not be suspended except as provided for in Standing Orders 30(4), 50(4), 52(14), 91 and 94(l)(b) or as otherwise specified by Special Order of this House. No Private Members' Business shall be taken up on days appointed for the consideration of business pursuant to Standing Orders 53 and 84(2) nor on days, other than Mondays, appointed for the consideration of business pursuant to Standing Order 81(16)."
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 93 as amended, any selected i1em which is now on the order of precedence and has received more that two hours and forty-five minutes of consideration receive not more that an additional forty-five minutes of consideration following which every question necessary to dispose of the said selected item shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment;
That the Clerk of the House, on behalf of the Speaker, conduct as soon as practicable a random draw of a sufficient number of names, notwithstanding Standing Order 87(2) as amended, to establish the order of precedence for ten motions and ten public bills originating in the House of Commons;
And that motion No. 3, dated March 6, 1990, appearing in the Order Paper under "Government Business" be deemed withdrawn.
And on the motion of Mr. Milliken, seconded by Mrs. Finestone,-That this question be now put.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I do not wish to take much time in this debate but I do wish to signal to the House of Commons that this Motion No. 6 is the result of the work of the Committee on Privileges, Elections and Procedure that have studied the issue of Private Members' Business. This is largely the recommendation that they had put forward.
Government Orders
I want to say that the significant part of this particular amendment is one that allows an opportunity to treat all back-benchers of this House equally. The basic thrust of this particular amendment, among other things, is that now in Private Members' Business, the member's name would be drawn rather than the item. Therefore, each member would have one opportunity to have his or her name drawn and it would then mean that all members of the House who are private members would be treated equally.
I also want to signal that we on this side of the House, the government, are very much in favour of this particular amendment and are quite happy to lend our support to it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, we, in the Official Opposition, concur. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business as it then was, which drafted the resolution upon which this one is founded. It is to be found in the report of the committee that was tabled in this House in December but no action was taken on that report. As a result of that inaction, the government has seen fit to bring forward this motion to amend the Standing Orders, to permit, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated, permit private members of this House to bring forward their bills in an orderly way and have them debated with a fair chance of being drawn.
It takes away an advantage given to members who have filed dozens of bills or resolutions so that members who choose to proceed on only one or two items will have an equal chance in the draw with all others. I think that that is a fair method of proceeding. I think anybody looking at this objectively would agree that it is fair. Therefore, we are happy to support this. Indeed, I have assisted the government in ensuring that the wording of this resolution is correct. The first one is to be withdrawn as part of this resolution No. 6 because it was not quite correct.
I would like to say that the resolution constitutes a package and it is a package that I believe is reasonable. Accordingly, I move:
That the question be now put.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the motion as put by the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

May 3, 1990
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair would appreciate it if the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would put his motion in writing. I will wait to see the motion as written. If I understand correctly this is a debatable motion.
Is there debate? The hon. member for Saskatoon- Clark's Crossing.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as the House well knows, all along the New Democratic Party has not been in favour of the changes being suggested. Therefore, I will speak against the motion to have the vote put.
The changes that are being suggested are clearly to the greater advantage of the larger parties. As a result, this generates some disadvantage to the smaller parties. Indeed, in terms of whether or not those back-benchers who put forward motions for discussion should be rewarded for their work and their contribution, it clearly undermines the effort that they have shown in this past session. I do not think there have been any major problems with regard to private members' business, anything that would give rise to the need to change the present rules.
It is certainly true that the members of my party have put forward many motions for discussion, motions that have been referred to them by their constituents and by interest groups in their critic areas. They have been called upon by those individuals and groups to put forward these motions so that their interests can be presented to Parliament and be the subject of debate by all members of the House. Those individuals and groups should know the points of view of each of the political parties and many of the members who wish to participate in the debate.
The restriction of the opportunity of members of my party to present questions and matters for discussion to the House is a mechanism whereby those constituents and those groups are precluded from having their points of view discussed.
If you look at the list of questions and motions put forward over the last while, you will see that primarily
the work done to bring these issues to the House is done by members of the New Democratic Party.
There are members of the Liberal party who also put forward a good number of motions, but proportionately there are not as many motions put forward by members of the Conservative party. If they wish to put forward motions, there is absolutely no reason why they could not do so, on a continual basis, to ensure that they have as much chance to have issues discussed in the House as members of any other party.
I suggest to the members opposite that, if they have some concern with not having enough opportunity to discuss motions, then they should put forward those concerns. They will have the opportunity to be drawn and to have those issues discussed. If they are dealing with the interests of their constituents and groups that appeal to them on a regular basis, they are doing their job adequately and they should be putting forward those motions for discussion.
I do not think we have a problem. If there is envisaged to be a problem by the members opposite, or indeed by the members of the Liberal party, then I suggest that they respond to the demands and pressures of groups and individuals who might come to them with suggestions, make their cases and have the issues discussed.
There is a point which we should not let go by. It is quite clear that we have a situation here in the House over the last little while. We saw it with regard to some of the procedural discussion on the goods and services tax, when the Liberals found it convenient to support the government in opposition to some of the efforts made by the New Democratic party to represent the 80 per cent of Canadians who are opposed to the tax.
We have seen a number of manoeuvres as the members from the government, the Liberal party and the NDP know, to ensure that any procedural roadblocks placed in the way of passage of the goods and services tax by the New Democratic Party on behalf of 80 per cent of Canadians, would not be successful. We have seen collusion on the part of the two establishment, old line parties in Canada working together to ensure that the New Democratic Party, acting as I say on behalf of 80 per cent of Canadians, would not have their views heard.
This is another example of that collusion. The whole House knows that the New Democratic Party has, for some of the reasons I mentioned, not been in favour of changes to Standing Orders to deal with Private Mem-
May 3, 1990

bers' Business. The parties know that it would have been more fruitful-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. I have a point of order, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's.


Mr. Simmons:: Madam Speaker, I have been listening with great interest as always, to my good friend from Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.
I am sure he would not want to mislead the House or to be using the kind of provocative-I suggest unparliamentary-language he is using. First, he is talking about collusion. I can give him a dictionary definition, but I am sure what he wanted to come out is, apart from being cowardly, not parliamentary.
The other point, while I have the floor, is that he talks about what the Liberal opposition is doing. That is not a matter of a difference of opinion or debate at all. He is misrepresenting a very important position, the position of my caucus that has fought vociferously to oppose the goods and services tax while they played catch up.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am glad that I raised some excitement on the part of the Official Opposition. It would have been helpful if we had had that sometime during those procedural wranglings over the goods and services tax. Perhaps we could have carried on in a more effective way.
What we could have had through the process dealing with changes to the Standing Orders with regard to Private Members' Business is, rather than for the matter to be presented at this late stage on a Thursday, after discussion of a bill which-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Point of order, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, perhaps I was not specific enough and for that I apologize to you. I submit to you that the word collusion, when applied to the actions of members of this House, is clearly unparliamentary because in the process the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing assigns motives, and the rules are very specific on that point. You cannot assign motives to members of this House other than which they themselves assign. The use of the term collusion, apart from
Government Orders
being cowardly and beneath the member, I submit, is clearly unparliamentary. I believe, Madam Speaker, that you owe me at least the courtesy of a ruling on that very point. I submit it is unparliamentary, in that it does assign motives to members of this Chamber.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is certain that hon. members should not impugn motives to other members. I would be at a loss at this time to tell you whether or not the word collusion is, or is not, officially unparliamentary but certainly impugning motives would be. I would appreciate if the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing would act accordingly.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, of course I would apologize if I did impugn any motives to the Liberal party. I might point out that you can collude for a good reason as well as a bad reason. At any rate, perhaps I can say that the two parties are working together. Maybe that would satisfy the member.
We have another example of that this evening. It is not co-operation because had the two House leaders pursued the matter in the normal course of things, through the normal mechanisms for negotiation and discussion-


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member who is speaking at this moment is aware of the negotiations that have gone on between the three House leaders in an attempt to try and bring this matter to a resolution that is satisfactory to all three parties. I think what we are dealing with is a problem where you have the clear majority of the House very much in favour of a motion, and the NDP being a minority, do not want it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member has spoken in debate before and may have wanted to point out that very question earlier. At this point it is not a point of order.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, when I was referring to the normal method for dealing with these matters through the normal co-operative procedures, the deputy House leader for the government knows very well that most matters that are referred to the House leaders of the three parties are resolved quite amicably after a process of discussion and negotiation. Not very often are matters left in a situation in which there is no resolution possible and indeed I would assure the government deputy House leader that this is

May 3, 1990
Government Orders
also not a matter which is entirely at a deadlock. Negotiations can continue and I am sure they will continue. There is no reason to suggest that we proceed in the way which is being proposed. As I say, not only the Government House Leader and the deputy House leader but also the deputy House leader for the Official Opposition and the House leader for the Official Opposition knows that those procedures could continue and that discussions could have continued. We could have made sure that an amicable and useful solution was resolved for everyone. Instead of that, they proceeded in the way in which they have, knowing that members who have been involved in the discussions in an intimate way over the last many weeks are not in the House and would have, as I am sure they would understand, valuable contributions to make to debate of this sort.
Rather than wait until the members were present, we have the situation in which the deputy House leader for the Official Opposition is moving a motion, which is something the government also wants passed, rather than waiting until, as I say, the members involved in the discussions are here to present their arguments.
I want to stress that this is not a situation, not an issue in which discussions have broken down, not a matter in which there is no headway to be made. It is clearly an issue, as has been indicated by my party's House leader, the hon. member for Kamloops, with aspects in it which are worth considering and worth pursuing.
He has also indicated, as the House leaders and deputy House leaders for the government and the Official Opposition know, that there are concerns that we have with regard to it and in particular those concerns which revolve around the work that individual members can do in bringing matters to the attention of the House. These are matters which they feel and others feel should be brought to the attention of the House.
As a result of recognizing and indicating that there are positive matters with regards to the changes suggested, but also negative matters, it would surely have been the most useful way to continue to discuss the issues among the House leaders and to continue to do that until there clearly was a deadlock in the situation. We are not at a
period of deadlock, we are at a period in which negotiation and discussion would be useful.
It is not likely to bode well if motions of this sort are moved under these circumstances while discussions among the House Leaders could be continuing. It seems to me that the hon. member for Kamloops, the House leader of the New Democratic Party, does a sterling job of ensuring not only that our party's interests are well respresented but also does everything that he possibly can to ensure that legitimate concerns about the government side and the Official Opposition are paid attention to and are given due merit.
I think the government House leader, the deputy House leader, the Official Opposition House leader and the deputy House leader recognize the contributions that the member for Kamloops has made in many debates and in many discussions surrounding matters of procedure. This is with regards to changing not only Standing Orders but ensuring that the business of the House is facilitated in a constructive and useful way.
Madam Speaker, I think that this is not an appropriate way to continue. It is not useful in the long term to present motions of this sort at this time towards the end of the day when those who have been involved in discussions are not present. It is not useful for the Official Opposition and for-Madam Speaker, all the screaming and shouting made me lose the thread of my tenuous argument-but those who were involved not being-


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


Chris Axworthy: That is right, Madam Speaker, I am reminded I was talking about those who were involved in the discussions not being here while this motion is-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie on a point of privilege.


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and The Islands has used my name, I think, in a derogatory fashion. He was insinuating that I was involved in these negotiations all along and I must admit that I was for a time. Being a country bumpkin from northern Ontario these Tories and these Liberals took advantage of my naivety. Some people might construe it
May 3, 1990

as bullying, but I would not make any of those allegations toward them as they have done toward me.
With that point of privilege-



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, it is nearly 11 months ago now that I raised during Question Period the issue of the sale of Air Canada shares .to foreign investors.
I want to make a point to House leaders on both sides of the House that it has been an unconscionably long time since I asked my questions. However, I am delighted to have the opportunity to rise in the late show, although this event arises out of my question 11 months ago. I was put on a list, together with many other people, and of course my number came up today, something for which I am very grateful.
I say to the deputy government House Leader that I spent a little time in the Newfoundland House, and there we used to do it a little differently. There, anybody who was dissatisfied with a question had to give notice that day by four o'clock, and then was on the late show that day, if he or she was one of three. If there were more than three, the Speaker made a choice and the matter ended that particular day.
The advantage of that, of course, is that the subject being discussed has some relevance and currency, much more than it does right now, 11 months later. I say that because much of the issue that I raised that particular day, on June 12 last year, has since become ancient history.
The Air Canada deal is over and done with. The government has had its way. Anything I can say on that particular subject, the sale of shares to foreigners, is of course locking the barn door long after the horse has gone.
Adjournment Debate
Although this is not my purpose in rising, I would suggest in passing that the House leaders on both sides might want to look at finding a way to make the late show a little more current than they have had the tendency of being because of the circumstance that I have just described.
However, since I have the floor, and on a subject that is broadly related to the issue at hand, you will recall, Madam Speaker, that my particular interest in the matter of Air Canada flowed particularly from the awful and wrong decision by Air Canada to pull its jet service out of Stephenville as of last June.
Once that deed was done-and done in a not very commendable manner-I said to the president and to some of the senior officers of Air Canada on at least three occasions in their boardroom in Montreal, and in letters, that the way they did it is not a model way to conduct relations with people who have stood by them for 40 years, as is the case with the town of Stephenville in the Bay of St. George area of Newfoundland.
To add insult to injury, when the opportunity came for the airport of Stephenville to get a new jet service through a proposal by First Air of Ottawa, Air Canada also blocked that particular initiative, and focused on a particular issue in so doing. It focused on the question of whether or not so-called airline deregulation has not, in effect, created a duopoly situation in air transportation of this country where the two airlines, Canadian and of course Air Canada, can not only decide where they are not going to fly, but can also effectively decide that nobody else is going to fly there.
Through the mechanism of joint fare arrangements which all airlines have with each other, a company, in this case Air Canada, by refusing a joint fare arrangement with a particular carrier can effectively prevent that carrier from going into an airport. That is precisely what it did in the case of First Air and Stephenville.
Stephenville is a town that is far from beaten. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, two things have flowed from that particular obnoxious act by Air Canada.
First, an initiative has been launched through the Competition Bureau which in time will bear fruit. The Competition Bureau right now is looking at the issue of whether Air Canada is in violation of the Competition Act by virtue of its action with respect to Stephenville, the action I have just described in effectively preventing another airline from going in and providing jet service.

May 3, 1990
Adjournment Debate
That is in the process, and I will let the House know more about it later.
The second thing that is happening is much happier. Thanks to the efforts of the town of Stephenville, the Chamber of Commerce, the whole leadership in the Bay of St. George area and southwestern Newfoundland generally-thanks to a massive effort-I am delighted to inform you, Madam Speaker, that as of last Sunday another airline, Air Atlantic, a connector airline of Canadian using the BAE-146, 70-passenger jet has begun jet service between Stephenville and Ottawa. On Monday of this week, 50 of my constituents from Stephenville who came on the inaugural flight were here in the gallery to witness the proceedings in this House and to say thank you to people, including people in government.
In particular I want to mention my good friend the now Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who was then the Minister of State for Transport at the time when she took an initiative. I will submit that the initiative she was able to take was partly because of her knowledge, coming from an airport area, Hamilton South. We thanked her at a function the other night. I just want to say in passing that through her efforts and the efforts of many others, Stephenville is back on the map again in terms of jet service. These people came to thank her.
In conclusion, my purpose in giving notice 11 months ago has long since slipped away, like so many other things 11 months later. I make two points.
First, we ought to look at a rule change which would make this whole debate much more current.
Second, I rise because I want to send a signal to Air Canada that the fight is far from over. The fight will not be over until we get the assistance of this government to ensure that deregulation, whatever its good purpose is, should not be manipulated to serve the negative purpose of preventing small communities such as Stephenville from having a jet service through the duopoly that I have described.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, as you may have noticed and as the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) pointed out, and
rightly so, his question goes back to June 1989. Since then the government has given its response, and the Air Canada share issue was carried out in accordance with the legislation on public ownership of Air Canada shares. The hon. member went on to talk about an airport. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind talking about one in my own riding-Mirabel-but I simply wish to repeat, in line with the question put by the hon. member in June 1989, that the government's purpose, when Air Canada launched its public share issue in October 1988, was to give all Canadians a chance to own part of this major air carrier. The government was successful, since the issue attracted over 130,000 new buyers from all provinces and territories in this country.
I believe the hon. member also realizes, and I am sure he agrees, that since Air Canada was sold to Canadians, the airline has been upgraded and service has vastly improved, as has the quality of their flights, and so forth. Anyone who travels will realize that, and now that we have Canadian Airlines as well, it is even more apparent.
I just want to repeat, for the benefit of our listeners, that 8 million of the 41.1 million shares sold by the government were offered on international markets. However, the hon. member knows perfectly well there was a 25 per cent restriction on those shares, which we enforced.
Madam Speaker, I think the answer is obvious, and in turn I too would ask him do his share to ensure that questions are more current and that it doesn't take a year for questions to be answered in the House.


FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT
Guy H. Arseneault: Madam Speaker, during Question Period on March 14, I asked the Minister of State (Forestry) about forestry development agreements that had expired.
My questions were as follows, and I quote at page 9278 of Hansard:
Does the minister intend to renew these agreements? Where will he find the money, and how much does he intend to spend on these agreements?
Another question:
Where is the $1.1 billion promised by the Prime Minister and when will the new forestry agreements be renewed?
May 3, 1990

Madam Speaker, I was not satisfied with the answers given by the minister acting for the Minister of State (Forestry) on that particualar day.

As I mentioned, not being very satisfied with the answers I received, I decided to try to get more answers this evening.
Since coming to power in 1984, the government has claimed that it would create a forestry department, which it did. I must congratulate the government for that initiative. I think it was a step in the right direction.
The only problem with the forestry department, as I see it now, is that the government actually reduced the power of the forestry department across Canada. It reduced it by reducing the budget and by reducing personnel.
This is the week before National Forestry Week. When we talk about current topics this is a very current topic.
Last year, the year that the department received its full status, it suffered an 11.9 per cent budget cut and a personnel reduction of 3.5 per cent, roughly a reduction of $28 million.
If we look at this year's budget, we find another reduction of 31 per cent over last year's reduction, basically a reduction of $47.6 million.
Further, if we look in other departmental budgets we find further cuts. These are budgets, supposedly, from which funding for forestry agreements is supposed to come, the funding for co-operative agreements.
The new Department of Forestry Act does not provide the forestry minister with any clout. If we look at the act that was passed last year instituting this new department, we find that the forestry minister must go to other departments to get funding for those forestry agreements. Certainly he does not have much clout when it comes to forestry agreements.
When we discuss the forestry agreements, we can say that we have consensus here in the House. All my hon. colleagues in all three parties have reached a consensus on this one issue. The forestry Resource Development Agreements have been very beneficial right across Canada. There is no doubt about it. There are some negative things about them. Some things just do not work right.
Adjournment Debate
But, in general, the forestry agreements have been a success across Canada, and there is a need for more.
Last year, six of those agreements expired. Those in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta were terminated last year, supposedly at the end of the year. We asked the minister at that time to renew them as soon as possible. A couple were renewed. The ones with Nova Scotia and my home province of New Brunswick were renewed. In fact I am very proud to say that New Brunswick received a little more money than we expected. I am sure it will go to good use.
This year on March 31 we see three more major agreements have expired, especially the ones with the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia. We know that the province of British Columbia has now committed funding to renew those agreements. So this is certainly a concern.
When we look a year later down the road, we see that seven of those agreements have not been renewed, which is cause for concern.
That brings me back to the questions that I asked on March 14, not too long ago, the questions I have asked in committee and the questions we asked last year when those earlier agreements had expired. We have asked the minister when he intends to renew the forestry agreements. We have asked him where he would find the money for their renewal and how much he intended to spend on them.
As well as asking those questions the other day, we also asked where was the $1.1 billion that the Prime Minister seems to have committed at a meeting not too long ago in Montreal with the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, as was reported in the media.
The response given by the minister was vague and did not provide a clear indication of the government's intentions with respect to the renewal of these agreements.
However, in all honesty, Madam Speaker, I must make sure that the people who are listening, as well as my hon. colleagues, that the Minister of Forestry was not in the House that day. With all justice to him, he was on government business. The answer I was hoping to get

May 3, 1990
Adjournment Debate
may not have been forthcoming because he was not available to give us all the details.
This is why I more or less was hoping that we would have more details this evening, which is why I have asked for this opportunity this evening.
Our country suffers from a backlog of unsatisfactory but restocked forest land, as was indicated in the estimates provided to the forestry subcommittee by the minister's own officials. That backlog consists of around 200,000 hectares every year. Those are the estimates this year.
It is imperative, it is very important-it is urgent-that the government get on with the job of renewing these agreements. It is these very agreements which have helped promote the forest sector right across the country. It is not enough, but without these forestry agreements in place it is certainly a negative step, especially this week being the week just before forestry week.
Given the forestry department's budget reductions and given the reductions in funding for all Economic Regional Development Agreements, what we want to know as members on the opposition side is this. Does the government intend to renew the forestry agreements which have expired? When will it do so? How much money does it intend to spend and from which budgets?
For instance not too long ago in the forestry subcommittee the minister mentioned to us that the B.C. funding would be available before seeding commenced. Well, seeding has commenced.
I also recognize the fact that if an agreement is signed it would probably be retroactive anyway. That is something that has happened in the past, and I recognize that.
I would ask that the government give us an indication tonight about those Forest Resource Development Agreements.


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, unlike the previous question, this one is very apt since this happens to be national tree and forest week. So it is entirely apt and appropriate.
Madam Speaker, as you know, federal and provincial governments have spent over $1 billion on forestry
resources in recent years. Canadians will also find it reassuring to know that the number of trees planted represents a value of over $1 billion and that this is an investment for their future.
We should remember that over 1.5 million hectares have been sprayed, twice the area of Prince Edward Island, and that $80 million has been invested in forestry research and technology. We have also worked with 40,000 owners of private wood lots in Canada's rural areas.
Madam Speaker, it was a Conservative Prime Minister, the hon. John Diefenbaker, who gave particular recognition to the role played by our forests, and it was Mr. Diefenbaker who created the first Department of Forestry in 1960. The hon. member knows perfectly well that during the years before we came to power, the department was neglected, and we are trying to restore the department according to the vision held by John Diefenbaker at the time.
Now that forestry is the responsibility of a new, full-gledged department, the government is busy negotiating a new series of agreements that will guarantee continued federal leadership by channelling funds toward sustainable development, integrated management, applied research and technology development.
Madam Speaker, the hon. member would like to know how much money will be spent on this department. I can inform the hon. member that the government will spend more money on forestry in the next five years than it has allocated during the past five. That should give him some idea of the amount involved. He is of course aware, as are all members of this House, of the serious financial constraints under which this government must operate.
Madam Speaker, as you know, we as members from Quebec have a particular interest in the renewal of the Canada-Quebec agreement on forestry development. We have worked on this issue since we were re-elected and we shall continue to do so. Of course, the provinces also have financial problems, as we saw in the latest budget brought down by Mr. Levesque in Quebec City. So we are working on it. We are doing our best, and one of the government's top priorities is to ensure that our forests, which are a national resource, will continue as such.
May 3, 1990

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me a chance to tell him that he will get some very satisfying answers within the next five years.


REAL WOMEN
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise in the House this evening because I was dissatisfied with the response I received from the minister responsible for the status of women on the issue of funding for REAL Women.
I asked her about the government's impending funding decision for that organization in light of a recent very offensive newsletter that had been issued by that group.
The Conservative government seems to have found ways to undermine the women's movement, and to undermine equality for women. One way it has done that was through having funded REAL Woman last year. Another way is that it has cut the funding for equalityseeking groups in our society. In fact, the decision to fund REAL Women last year came just before last year's budget decision to cut 15 per cent off the women's program.
I had to apply last year under the Access to Information Act about the government's decision to fund REAL Women. I could not get any information from the Secretary of State's office about that funding proposal.
This year another 15 per cent is gone from the women's program. This time the grassroots was attacked. Seventy-five women's centres across this country lost 100 per cent of their core funding.
This year REAL Women's funding application is still sitting somewhere in the Secretary of State's office. Does this mean that the diminishing amount of money that is there in women's programming will be going again to an anti-equality group?
In my question to the minister I spoke of the appalling REAL Women's newsletter. Some people have said it was hate literature. It spoke of the Montreal massacre and killer Marc Lepine. I will quote what was said in this newsletter:
Who knows why he did it? The thought immediately occurred to
me that he just might have been a man whose child had been
aborted by a feminist and that had been enough to trigger a terrible
response to the abuse of his childhood.
Adjournment Debate
The Social Credit government in British Columbia, headed by Premier Vander Zalm, mailed out this newsletter, at taxpayers' expense. Even a few members of that government have tried, after the fact, to distance themselves from this organization.
Last weekend REAL Women had its national conference in British Columbia. They were given the opportunity to renounce the contents of that newsletter. But a resounding "no" came back from the audience there. At one point it was said at their conference that the sexual abuse kit that is used in our schools was nothing but licensed porno for five-year olds. When we know what a terrible problem child sexual abuse is in this country, that is the attitude that this organization takes.
Equality-seeking women's groups have been scrutinized and threatened if they are pro-choice or if they mention the word "lesbian". Yet REAL Women's newsletter talks about being "homo nauseated". It talks about Vancouver as "sodom north", and says that homosexual AIDS patients simply reap what they sow.
One of this group's main reasons for being-and it is part of its acronym-is that it is anti-choice on the matter of reproductive rights for women.
Groups that are primarily active around the prochoice side of this issue are not funded by the government. REAL Women even went so far as to blame the Montreal massacre on some hypothetical feminist- again blaming the victim.
These attitudes should not be any real surprise to this government. REAL Women has spouted this kind of stuff before. They have spouted it for a long time.
They are opposed to women's inclusion in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A much earlier document from this organization claimed a victory at the defeat of several female members of Parliament in the last election-female members of Parliament from different parties.
This group never did meet the equality criteria set out in the women's program funding. But the Secretary of State somehow justified his decision last year on that basis.
I was a guest on an open-line talk show in Vancouver on Monday and the topic was REAL Women and violence against women. At the end of the program the host said something about "the two extremes on this

May 3, 1990
Adjournment Debate
issue-REAL on one side and the feminist movement on the other side". But I said to him, and I say in this House, women working for women's equality are not extremists. The women's movement is simply asking for-demanding-economic and social justice for women. It is demanding true equality in our society for women.
When women, only a few decades ago, were fighting for the vote they were called all kinds of unsavoury names too. There was a movement of women against the suffragettes. There were women who did not want the vote and wanted to deprive other women of it too. There will always be a backlash against positive social change. The government is under no obligation to fund both the progressive and the regressive elements in our society.
In light of its own commitments to the international treaties it has signed, the government has an obligation to promote equality. That is what the women's program should do. That is why full funding for women's programs should be reinstated. Groups like REAL Women should never, never again be funded by any level of government.
I am very concerned about the disproportionate amount of influence that this organization appears to have, both within the federal level of government here and the provincial government of B.C. We know that they speak for very few people. People in Canada do not support those attitudes.
I ask again: Will the government guarantee that this anti-equality, anti-feminist, hate-mongering organization will never again receive government funding?


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, first I want to congratulate the hon. member for Westminster-Burnaby who examined this question and produced, I would say, a pretty fair analysis.
I may recall, and I think she will understand from my reply that we are also very concerned, the operating criteria of the Women's Program of the Department of the Secretary of State.
To be eligible, women's volunteer organizations must have as their principal goal to promote the equality of women in Canadian society.
These organizations must respond to a need in the community, approach issues that are eligible for financial assistance under the Women's Program, demonstrate their ability to plan projects and bring them to fruition, have a good financial management system, involve their members in developing policy and use funds only for non-partisan activities.
In accordance with these criteria, the Department of the Secretary of State has set three priorities: economic equality, social justice and access and participation.
Last year, REAL Women obtained funding under those criteria. Until we have seen, after one year, whether the program for which funding was requested was in fact carried out as described, we will not know whether the criteria were net. Officers at the department are now analyzing the application, and based on the criteria and on what happened last year, Madam Speaker, they will decide whether the application for funding meets those criteria.
I can assure the hon. member for New Westminster- Burnaby (Ms. Black) that I will personally see to it that these criteria are enforced, and that the analyses made by departmental staff are reliable, so that we can find out whether or not this group deserves to be subsidized.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion that the House do now adjourn is now deemed to have been adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 4, 1990