1991-03-27

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, the people of my riding of Nipissing feel victimized by the pricing practices of the large gas companies. In fact we might say that they are fuming.
I must confess that I find it difficult to account for price differences of over 10 cents a litre between urban and rural points in my riding and over 20 cents a litre between northern and southern Ontario. The people want to know: How could such large differences exist within a relatively small geographic domain and isn't it odd that the retail price of gas reacts very quickly to increases in production costs and very slowly to decreases?
What is even more perplexing is that there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that consumers are not ripped off for such a vital and necessary commodity. In fact, we are at the mercy of this virtual monopoly and what it can get away with in the marketplace.
The Minister of Finance said in his budget that he wanted to be tough on inflation. Indeed, he threatened the Public Service with job losses and back to work legislation. I wonder if the minister will be just as tough on his corporate friends when they give us unwarranted price increases, for this too causes inflation. Or, is it one set of standards for his friends and another for everyone else?


WORLD CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mr. Brian White (Dauphin -Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, the city of Winnipeg, the curling capital of the world,
is this week the site of the 1991 Canada Safeway World Curling Championships.
Ten teams in each of the men's and women's divisions are battling it out for a berth in Sunday's finals where world champions will be crowned.
Support from the fans has been extraordinary. A crowd of 11,349 last night at the Winnipeg arena raised the four-day attendance mark to 121,931, which eclipses the previous week-long record set at the 1978 world championships held in Winnipeg.
The combination of competitive curling, strong fan support, an army of dedicated volunteers, corporate sponsorship and excellent television coverage by TSN makes this week's curling in Winnipeg a truly unforgettable world-class event.


GUN CONTROL
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, this House accepted over half a million signatures for gun control.
Recently, too, an Angus Reid poll found that 80 per cent of Canadians and 88 per cent of women oppose easy access to arms in this country. The petitions and the poll raise the question of democracy: a concept in which the justice minister has been citing her belief throughout the Bill C-80 saga.
She fails to mention that her own Advisory Council on Firearms consists overwhelmingly of gun users. But, as the head of Canadians for Gun Control points out, "owning a gun does not make you any more of an expert on gun control than having a disease makes you a physician".
New Democrats say to the justice minister: physician, heal thyself, include the majority of Canadians in the advisory process: the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Chiefs of Police, and not just a biased minority of gun users.

March 27, 1991
Canadians want democracy. Canadians want strong and effective gun control.
*	5|c


THE STUDENTS' COMMISSION
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia -Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of all members and indeed all Canadians a national students' conference entitled "The Students' Commission". It will bring together four grade 10 and 11 students from all 295 federal ridings to one of our national workshops in Fredericton, Montreal, Toronto or Saskatoon during May and June of this year.
Thereafter, 96 representatives will travel to Ottawa to hammer out one final set of recommendations which will be presented to the Prime Minister on July 1.
The Students' Commission will be a viable forum through which our youth can express their ideas on a number of important issues facing our country today, such as national unity, the environment, the transition from school to work, drug abuse, the job market, as well as problems and promises of education, all as seen through the eyes of a cross-section of young people.
In particular, the commission offers our youth an opportunity to tell us, members of their federal government, what type of Canada they would like to see and what direction our country should take.
I know that all members will want the youth of their ridings to have every opportunity to know about The Students' Commission and to let it know of their interest and support.
* 3k *


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, no problem can be more immediate yet at the same time have such lasting consequence as the inability of a growing number of people in our society to find enough food to eat.
While permanent solutions to this human suffering lie in the creation of a lasting world peace, investment in the individual, and environmentally sustainable development, we must find the time and the means to address
the fact that today and every day in Canada and around the world people are going hungry.
On Saturday, April 6, we in Ottawa South are organizing the second annual "Stop Hunger-Fast", a non-partisan hunger awareness event that features a 24-hour liquid only fast. Over this day we hope to collect food, pledges and volunteers for the Ottawa Food Bank and UNICEF. "Stop Hunger-Fast" will be held at the Herongate Mall in Ottawa, and we are hoping that our residents will take the time to learn about how we can stop hunger.
Hunger need not exist. Children need not be denied their future for a lack of food and senior citizens, for all their years of work and care, should not have to live in poverty today.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing the question of national unity. Now is the time for all good people to come forward and speak up for Canada.
One such patriot who has and continues to speak up for Canadians is Don Cherry. I am please to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Cherry is here in the House today witnessing our democracy in action.
The pride we take in hockey, our home game, is a reflection of the pride we have for Canada. Don Cherry has recognized this fact and is vocal about his feelings.
The upcoming Stanley Cup finals and the Canada Cup are fine examples of Canadian spirit. If Canadians could put as much effort into issues of national unity as they do their hockey, our country could stand together.
As Mr. Cherry says: "Unity is like a bunch of grapes; disunity is the pits".


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, last week the federal government announced further measures for Canadian companies to participate in the reconstruction of Kuwait.
March 27, 1991

The key word here is companies. The Kuwaiti government will not issue individual working visas. Our government has indicated that it will not issue a list of Canadian companies awarded contracts.
I ask: How do Canadian workers access this wonderful employment opportunity that this government speaks of daily?
Canadian workers who have been laid off due to the made-in-Canada recession and plant closures are desperately seeking employment opportunities. Many of my constituents are willing to relocate to the Middle East, yet they are frustrated with the lack of co-operation and initiatives from the federal government.
This government is sending mixed signals to the Canadian people. This government is giving Canadian companies exclusive control over the contracts, and this government once again is ignoring the wants and needs of our own employable people.


DECENTRALIZATION
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard your constituents say that we can solve Canada's problems by decentralizing government? I have heard politicians and academics say that but not my constituents.
Some politicians say that we need to disentangle government, that we are over-governed, that we need to get the decision-making process closer to the people, and that that will eliminate waste and inefficiency. It all seems to make sense.
However, if we decentralize, what happens to our national social safety net? What happens to national standards? What happens to the equality of all Canadians? Should the city of Toronto's works department, for instance, really look after the Trans-Canada Highway? If it did, would that eliminate waste and inefficiency?
Personally I think we still need a strong national government.
5. O. 31 EXPO 92


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to tell Canadians the truth about the boondoggle known as the Canadian pavilion at the World Exposition in Seville, Spain.
Yesterday I referred to a departmental document that said that the budget would rise by $10 million. Now it appears that the actual rise is even higher, from $33 million to at least $46.7 million, a $13.7 million overrun so far.
I have another document in my possession, also from external affairs, dated October 6,1989, which shows that the minister's officials knew the construction budget for the pavilion had been underestimated by 50 per cent. This clearly shows that the massive cost overruns plaguing this project are not just the result of unforeseen disasters in the past six months. It has been going on for a year and a half.
Yet at the same time that the government is spending more and more money on a pavilion in Spain which will be demolished at the end of the fair, the external affairs department has said that 306 positions will be cut in the next six months as a result of the federal budget.
I ask the minister responsible to confirm just how much the disposable pavilion will cost and how many jobs in external affairs will have been sacrificed to finance this apparently bottomless pit.


SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure to honour a colleague, a compatriot and a great Canadian. This man is a warm and kind friend to many and certainly a friend to all that is right and just in this country.
I am here to praise the man for whom the Canadore College Gerry Weiner Scholarship was named. This scholarship, which will be awarded in perpetuity, and for the first time in the fall of 1991, will serve to recognize the contribution and leadership of a student in the social service program in the area of human rights.

March 27, 1991
Oral Questions
I understand that the person responsible for scholarships and programs took this decision while listening to an inspiring speech of the Secretary of State in North Bay on the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, March 21. It was not a prepared speech, but it came from the heart.

We are doing everything we can to promote national unity, and I know that people in my riding and other ridings in Canada will do so as well. Congratulations to our Secretary of State.


EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont -Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, the 7.6 per cent unemployment rate for the economic region of eastern Ontario is totally inaccurate.
Unemployment in Cornwall is over 15 per cent with 3,400 people looking for work. Many have lost their jobs due to plant closings and bankruptcies. The number of weeks needed to qualify for UI in Cornwall is 18, whereas only 10 weeks are required in regions where unemployment is at 15 per cent. In addition, only 21 weeks of UI benefits are provided to the jobless in Cornwall who do qualify for UI instead of the 37-week coverage allotted in a 15 per cent region.
When will this government stop using inaccurate data to mask the real picture of unemployment in Cornwall and other communities in eastern Ontario? When will this government improve the UI system which sets unemployment rates? When will it implement an economic development program to help the economy of eastern Ontario so that UI is not needed? The people want answers now.


COMMENTS MADE BY RIGHT HON. PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU
Mr.   Maurice@: Mr. Speaker, in a speech at the University of Toronto last Thursday, the former Prime Minister of Canada stated quite bluntly
that after the patriation process in 1981-82, sorcerer's apprentices persuaded Quebec it had been left out.
Now he accuses the Supreme Court, and the majority justices he himself appointed, of manipulating the evidence. This is not only contempt of court, it is an argument unworthy of a man who in the past was so quick to condemn injustice.
Furthermore, he justifies his Machiavellian policy by claiming he enjoyed the support not only of federal members from Quebec but of the majority of Quebecers as well. That is false. In March 1981, only 27 per cent of Quebecers supported patriation and 54 per cent were opposed. A year later, the figures had hardly changed: 26 per cent in favour and 55 per cent opposed.
If the former Prime Minister of Canada had tried to understand the aspirations of Quebecers instead of wanting to sabotage them, his policies would have had a better chance of surviving into the next century.


Mr. Speaker:: Before starting Question Period, I just want to share something with all hon. members.
Hon. members will know that we have customarily, for some time now, been coming in to open Parliament and to take prayers early. The reason for that is not to lose any time in either members' statements or in Question Period.
I am in your hands. I cannot proceed without a quorum, and I would hope that over the break you would all be determined to be here just a minute or two early when we come back so that we can get on with the business of the day.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: That is certainly a good point, Mr. Speaker, given the fact that we all need some prayers at this crucial time in our country.
My question is for the Prime Minister.
March 27, 1991

[Translation\
There is one point on which there is a consensus in this House: it would be better to renew Canada than to have a referendum on sovereignty.
Yesterday, referring to his constitutional policy, the Prime Minister said outside the House that he had a very good idea of what he wanted to do and of the timeframe in which he wanted to do it.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to reveal to the House today what that timeframe is, since every hour wasted is an hour lost for Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we appointed the Spicer Commission and the Special Joint Committee, the Beau-doin-Edwards committee, with very specific objectives. I said that at a given time we intended to put all this together with what transpired from the work being done by the Government of Ontario, the Government of Quebec, the Governments of Alberta and New Brunswick and so on, in a parliamentary process. This would give Canadian parliamentarians a chance to put forward national-not provincial-proposals that would reflect the needs of Western Canada, the Atlantic regions and the North, which might pave the way for a new Constitution or an amended Constitution. That is what we hope to do as we continue our work.
For the same reason, I urged the hon. member sometime ago to submit her own ideas on the subject- which would be a very interesting exercise-on behalf of her political party, and that is why all of us who believe in Canada are going to work together. We may work together as a team to initiate a process that will pave the way for a new but nevertheless strong and united Canada.
[English \


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in fact on this side of the House we want to play an all-party role. We want the Parliament of Canada to begin the real work of examining where we can go as a country.
Since last year, we have asked the Prime Minister for a larger role for the Parliament of Canada. His House leader has acknowledged that over the next few weeks it is likely the government will announce such a committee, possibly in the throne speech.
Oral Questions
Given that time is short, given that the constitutional clock is ticking, does the Prime Minister not think it would be better today to share his time frame and his ideas so that the Parliament of Canada can get on with the real job of saving the country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt the sincerity of my hon. friend in regard to her commitment and desire to save the country.
One would have to be pretty far off base to fail to understand that this country, Canada, has been a magnificent illustration of co-operation between French and English speaking Canadians for 123 years. We are resolved to keep it together for another 123 years.
My hon. friend seeks a larger role for Parliament. There were two questions when we came back: one was a larger role for ordinary Canadians. The argument was that there has been too much involvement by many parliamentarians and premiers.
The Spicer commission was designed to invite comments from ordinary Canadians. It has been criticized by some, but I still believe that the Spicer commission will prove to have been an excellent initiative that will provide beneficial results and a major contribution to the debate. It is to report on July 1.
The second problem of substance we encountered not only with regard to the constitutional discussions last year, but with regard to the aboriginal discussions mandated under the previous Constitution was a flaw in the amending process. That is now being dealt with for the first time by a Senate-House of Commons committee.
It is doing very impressive work across the country. I saw some of their hearings from the territories and from Edmonton. Those two reports will have a very major and beneficial effect on the debate. It will be helpful to all parliamentarians.
Now that the Belanger-Campeau commission has reported, now that the Ontario legislature report has been tabled-I discussed it last night with Premier Rae-and other reports are in the process of coming in, the Parliament of Canada can be seized not only of these but of all initiatives coming from all parties and all citizens.

March 27, 1991
Oral Questions
I believe that we can put together the kinds of proposals that are responsive to the needs not only of Quebec, but of the west, the north, Atlantic Canada and Ontario. Then we can devise, perhaps, a new Canada; a better, more modern, more flexible and more united Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said clearly outside the House: "We have a pretty good idea of where we want to go in the timeframes we would like to respect." Obviously, he has a plan in mind.
Does he not believe it is about time he shares that plan with the people of Canada? Does he not realize that if he waits until after Easter and until the throne speech, every hour lost is an hour lost for this country that we all love, Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the urgency inherent in the question of my hon. friend, but I indicated in the House of Commons in the past that this is a sovereign Parliament of a great and sovereign nation.
This Parliament shall establish the timeframes and not the legislature or political party in any province. We have a country. The country is called Canada. We are going to keep this country together by working together to the timeframes and the objectives of Canada.
In the process of doing that, we will by every reasonable means seek to observe and respect the wishes of others that emanate from other legislatures. That is not unreasonable.
The fundamental objectives must be set by legislators in the interests of all Canadians and within timeframes that all Canadians will find reasonable. I am not unaware of what is happening elsewhere, but I insist on the supremacy and the primacy of this House of Commons.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. With the Belanger-Campeau report, Quebec has lobbed the ball back into the federal court, all of which has taken place in a climate of political crisis and economic decline created by this government. Canada needs profound political change but it also needs economic change.
Unemployment and poverty are increasing in Canada. Fifty thousand children are going hungry in Montreal alone. My question is this: How does the Prime Minister intend to persuade Quebecers to accept his new political contract, considering that his economic contract and his obsolete policies have failed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of comment all parliamentarians should try to avoid in this debate on national unity. Federalists in Canada and Quebec are not that numerous nowadays-


Some hon. members:: True!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -that we can afford to indulge in such mean-spirited accusations. We need all our allies. We need everyone. And I would urge the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard to contribute actively to this debate and do so positively and constructively. Instead of tarnishing the reputation of the federalist forces, help us build this new Canada!


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I can't believe this! The country is in a crisis, and all the Prime Minister has to offer is cliches.

The Prime Minister may not think the economy is important, but yesterday two of Canada's leading economists testified that this government's economic policies were: "destructive, caused vast damage, were nonsensical." The economists then went on to say that this government's policies would result in higher unemployment, more bankruptcies and a higher deficit. Mike McCracken and Doug Peters were the two economists.
The issue is, can a nation that is deprived of hope by its leaders, hope to hold together? The question is, why can this Prime Minister not bring himself to understand the inevitable link between national unity and a sound economy.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks if I understand the link between a sound economy and national unity. I assume that we all understand that. You do not have to be a Liberal or an NDP or a Conservative, I think everybody understands how important it is.

Oral Questions
My hon. friend says we have not demonstrated it. For example, today in the Toronto Star there is a headline which says "Economic optimism in Canada leaps to a three-year high," which means that the policies of this government are taking effect.
My hon. friend quotes a few economists in regard to the economic difficulties we are having. Well, we are having difficulties. We are emerging from a recession. Interest rates have dropped 408 basis points since their high, and we are now in the process of coming back.
Yesterday I had the privilege of spending an hour and a half with the Secretary-General of the OECD. He indicated that in its reports it would be commenting on the fact that the policies of deficit reduction, free trade and the GST of this government are contributing to a modernizing of the economy and that Canada's economy will soon be regarded again as one of the strongest in the industrialized world.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Yesterday, during Question Period, I asked the Prime Minister three times how he intended to obtain a mandate for restructuring this country. Today, it was reported in one of the newspapers that the Premier of New Brunswick and the Prime Minister had discussed the possibility of having a national referendum on the Constitution. Is that how the Prime Minister intends to obtain this mandate?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I did not see the report but I have discussions on a regular basis with all provincial Premiers. Last night, I spoke to the Premier of Ontario who said that this afternoon he intended to make a major and, I assume, very useful speech on national unity. Of course, when we discuss these issues, we cover a range of possibilities, but we are not committed to one idea in particular at this time, especially since Beaudoin-Ed-wards is now considering the matter of the amending process, including referendums. The commission is to report in the near future, and with the hon. member, we will look at the results.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Clearly Canadians need to know what is happening in all stages of constitutional development in his country. Canadians want to be involved and they want to know. One of the key issues is how we open up the constitutional process to all Canadians.
The Prime Minister has said that he will not work on a timetable other than Canada's timetable. But there is a timetable set through Quebec. Quebec has said that it wants the option of a referendum in 1992. We cannot ignore that timetable.
We also read today that there is a report from his deputy ministers who are working on the Constitution and have put in interim reports. Will the Prime Minister table those reports in the House today so that we can all share from that thinking and so that all of us can participate in that debate with full knowledge of what the Prime Minister is working on and what his officials are working on?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would have some difficulty tabling any reports from the deputy ministers inasmuch as I have never seen one. To the best of my knowledge there has never been any report submitted to me, to my office, or to the cabinet. I can assure my hon. friend that I have not seen hide nor hair of any report from any deputy minister with regard to the question she raises.
I will examine them when they come in and I will be happy to discuss them with the leader of the NDP in her capacity as a member of the Privy Council. We can decide the extent to which they could be tabled at that point in time.
I just want to point out to the leader of the NDP that contrary to her prefatory remarks, I never said that we were going to ignore Quebec's deadlines as set out. I said we were going to follow our own, and in the process of following our own, established by the sovereign Parliament of a sovereign nation, we will seek to accommodate the wishes expressed by others to the extent humanly possible. It seems to me that this is a fundamental Canadian question that ought to be decided by the Parliament of Canada.

March 27, 1991
Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, of course it is a fundamental Canadian question and that is why this party has been pressing to make sure that all Canadians are involved: aboriginal Canadians, Quebecers, and the multicultural community.
But I say to the Prime Minister that the worst thing-and I know it is not the Prime Minister's wish or this government's wish even- for this country would be to see a Meech Lake II where the door is slammed on Canadians as other negotiations were going without the involvement or open knowledge so that everyone could participate in it.
His deputy ministers are working on reports. That is fine. There are other meetings going on. Apparently there are some talks about a referendum. We hear about one-to-one negotiations. Canadians do not want a sequel to Meech Lake, they want renewal. Will the Prime Minister be open with Canadians about all of the closed door initiatives as well as the open processes, the commission that we know is going on, and be honest with Canadians about the initiatives he is taking?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the hon. member meant would the Prime Minister be frank, but I think that we should watch our language in this veiy carefully.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to accept from my hon. friend any useful and constructive suggestions that she may have either in regard to procedure or in regard to substance. I have already indicated that-because the leader of the NDP has talked about the desire and the importance of listening to Canadians-we established the Spicer commission precisely so that it could listen to ordinary Canadians and it is in the process of doing that.
One of the matters that became very clear, beginning with the aboriginal processes in 1985 and 1986, and then in Meech Lake, was the flaw in the amending process. We have established a committee that is presently supported by members of her party in the process of looking for ways to correct the amending process.
Both of these reports, one listening to ordinary Canadians, another seeking to unblock the amending process, would be major contributions to putting forward the substance of constitutional reform.
The House leader and I have indicated that it is our intention at the earliest possible moment to create a committee that will involve all of the parliamentarians in putting this together on behalf of all Canadians. As soon as it is done, I will be inviting the member either to participate or to designate participation, but also to give us her ideas on how best this can be done.
There has been a lot of criticism of Meech Lake by my hon. friend. I would simply remind her that we are all great Monday morning quarterbacks, and her party supported Meech Lake all the way through.


BELANGER-CAMPEAU COMMISSION
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: My question is also for the Prime Minister.
He said yesterday that he gave no instructions to the Conservative member on the Belanger-Campeau commission as to how to vote on Monday on the question of a referendum in Quebec.
Many residents of this single great nation would like to know why the Conservative member on that commission was not told to vote against an early referendum. Will the Prime Minister tell us?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I answered that completely yesterday in both English and French.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Government of Canada's position on the referendum a matter that interests all Canadians? Is the Government of Canada in favour of a referendum of Quebec's sovereignty, even in June 1992? Could he tell us something more substantial than he did yesterday?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the question is so juvenile and hypothetical it doesn't deserve an answer.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 19019 of Hansard:
March 27, 1991

-we are not abstaining from the great issues of the day. The government has taken a position in regard to the unity of Canada.
Canadians want to know why the Prime Minister says one thing on the floor of the House of Commons, while a representative of his government and his party does a completely different thing by abstaining before the Belanger-Campeau commission. Why the double standard, Mr. Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend from Toronto was here yesterday when I indicated that when the question on sovereignty for Quebec came up, Mr. Hogue, the member for Outremont voted solidly against it, along with other members of the commission, and it was defeated 17 to 15.
I also indicated to my friend something that he knows. He knows that Jean-Pierre Hogue is a very strong and very firmly committed French Canadian in favour of Canada's unity-so much so that it brings laughter from the Bloc Quebecois. They don't like strong French Canadian people who believe in Canada's unity as Mr. Hogue does.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: They are going to find out, this little group over here on my right-and I am being charitable because Easter is coming-that this group is going to find out-

-there are a lot more French Canadians who believe in Canada than French Canadians who believe in destroying a great country like ours.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is if he was a strong national federalist he should have stood the course right until the end and cast his ballot on behalf of the country that we all enjoy and the one we all love.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is getting very close to imputing the motive of an hon. member. I am sure the hon. member would want to be careful.
Oral Questions


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I return to the Prime Minister who also said yesterday, and I quote: "We have a Canadian agenda. We are not bound to anybody's agenda or anybody's time frame."
I ask the Prime Minister this. If he was so intent to pursue a truly Canadian agenda, why did the government representative abstain and thereby fail to stand up for a more realistic time frame that would give the Canadian agenda a better chance to succeed? Why condone a race against the clock?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thought my hon. friend, as a strong committed federalist, would take pleasure in the fact that a member, a colleague of accomplishment, such as Jean-Pierre Hogue, defended the interests of Canada, represented the Parliament of Canada with great dignity. Jean-Pierre Hogue is a very strong Quebecer and a very strong Canadian. He believes very strongly in the unity of Canada.
As the Speaker has implied, it is very dangerous for anyone to impugn the patriotism of a member of Parliament. I would remind my friend in any case, and I say this with some affection, to remember, as someone else said, that patriotism is the final refuge of a scoundrel.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, we learned in Le Soleil this morning that once again the Prime Minister and at least two of the premiers are secretly discussing a national referendum on the new amending formula.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Evans Skelly: Has the Prime Minister involved the leaders of Canada's aboriginal peoples in any high-level discussions regarding the Constitution and, knowing the dangers of excluding them, why not?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will tell Bob Rae of the indignation of the hon. member of the fact that he and I have been speaking. I will tell Bob the next time rather than call me to call you.

March 27, 1991
Oral Questions


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I am told that the matter was not raised with Bob Rae last night, but-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Albemi):: When Parliament returned last September the Prime Minister promised us one of his four pillars, that Canada would address the relationship between aboriginal peoples and governments. Yet his government has fobbed off responsibility for the off-reserve child welfare in the province of Manitoba, refuses to assert jurisdiction for on-reserve policing in Quebec and the Prime Minister himself has ducked every single question on aboriginal issues in this House over the last two weeks, including the last question.
Is this the kind of priority aboriginal people can expect from the Prime Minister and his government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the government is giving the very serious problems of aboriginals the highest priority and indeed the minister of Indian affairs registered another very significant accomplishment on behalf of aboriginals in British Columbia just the other day, and I want to congratulate him.
I suppose a question of equal importance is: How does the hon. member know what I said to Bob Rae? I think he has been spending too much time with Simon de Jong.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who says he has a good idea of his agenda for Canada. All Canadians are proud that our linguistic duality is one of the fundamental characteristics of Canada. I ask the Prime Minister, is it equally an important part of the Canadian agenda that our aboriginal people, our multicultural reality and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms be affirmed as fundamental to Canada's future?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the three final proponents referred to by my hon. friend, I believe, are already in the Constitution and/or in the charter. Obviously that is already there.
With regard to the linguistic duality notion as being a fundamental characteristic of Canada, which it is, that very important precept was found for the first time in the Meech Lake Accord, which is one of the genuine regrets that I had, and I know many had, when it was rejected.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the other three were not found in the Meech Lake Accord where linguistic duality was located.

The Prime Minister knows Canadians feel left out of the constitutional process. They want to participate. They want to be consulted in an open process. Can the Prime Minister give us the assurance that residents in the North, members of cultural communities and members of native communities will be directly involved in the next round this time?


Mr. Lapierre:: And women and children!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend said "this time". I personally chaired two sessions with native leaders to obtain a constitutional amendment, and we were very close to success. If there had not been some last minute decisions in 1985 or 1986, we would have obtained this constitutional amendment that was so important to Canada's native peoples. So, do I believe it is important that the issue of economic and constitutional justice for native people is dealt with in a positive way? I believe it is not only important but vital. If we agree that this problem must be settled, we require the participation of all native peoples. And we intend to be very active and in urging them to participate.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. This week, the Commissioner of Official Languages reported that official bilingualism has been very successful, especially in federal institutions and the National Capital, but that improvements were necessary to preserve national unity. Does the Prime Minister agree with the commissioner? And if so, is he prepared to table the regulations for language of work and equitable participation arising from the Official Languages Act, regulations that are now two years late?
March 27, 1991

Oral Questions


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I may remind the hon. member-I already explained this in the House, I believe yesterday or the day before-that we have tabled a major piece of legislation. This government has tabled an important bill concerning official languages. Since then, it has prepared a very important set of regulations that are still being reviewed by people across Canada and which have now been printed in The Canada Gazette.
As for the language of work, I would say the legislation is sufficiently clear to provide a valid framework for efforts in this respect. As far as the government is concerned, we are putting in place a series of protocols to keep improving the quality of these services.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that is not the view of the Commissioner of Official Languages and many other Canadians in minority language groups.
My supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. The Commissioner of Official Languages also stated that none of the present commissions on the future of Canada or Quebec have made a precise proposal on the role of bilingualism in a restructured Canada. In this respect, when can we expect a specific policy from the government for the constitutional debate which would fully recognize the linguistic duality of this country?
Will the language minorities continue to be protected by the federal government or will they be forgotten in the constitutional shuffle?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the Commissioner of Official Languages is doing his job. He looked at all sectors and, on the whole, he said he was very satisfied. He drew our attention to a number of points that we could certainly improve, and I think that is clear. But if it is so simple, why didn't the Liberals deal with the problem during the many years they were in power?


CONSUL GENERAL IN BOSTON
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and it concerns a very serious breach of professional ethics by Canada's Consul General in Boston, former Conservative cabinet minister, Tom McMillan,.
As the minister knows, three weeks ago Mr. McMillan wrote to a Prince Edward Island daily attacking Mary Boyd, the head of the Catholic Church Social Action Commission in Charlottetown, for speaking out against Conservative government policies and he urged Islanders to write to the Pope's representative in Ottawa to attack her.
I want to ask the minister this. Will he call in his former colleague, the Consul General, and explain to Mr. McMillan that this conduct is totally unacceptable for a diplomat and will he ensure that McMillan apologizes, not only to Mary Boyd, but to the people of Prince Edward Island and the Catholic Church for this very serious lapse of judgment?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my church, may I thank the hon. member for his help.
May I quote to him the beginning of the letter from the Consul General of Canada, where he said: "Your Excellency, I am not writing to you either as Canada's Consul General to New England or as a former politician. Instead, I am writing as a concerned Roman Catholic"
I will not go on to read the rest, Mr. Speaker.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the minister unfortunately is confused. The letter in question is not the letter he quoted from, which is a private letter. The letter in question is a public letter, published in a Prince Edward Island newspaper.
I want to ask the minister: In light of that fact, and in light of the criticism by Dean Thomas Maybe, fellow Catholic of the Atlantic School of Theology, who said: "The letter displays ignorance of Catholic teaching and insensitivity to proper relations between church and state", will the minister not recognize that it is fundamentally wrong for-

March 27, 1991
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is, certainly by his supplemental, moving into a debate which is taking place between some Christians of the Roman Catholic faith. I really think that it goes beyond something that the right hon. Secretary of State, despite his allegiance, is in a position act upon.
I am going to move on.


QUEBEC'S RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. During Question Period, we heard the Prime Minister claim that it was up to Canada to decide, that it was a prerogative of the House of Commons, that it was up to the Government of Canada to set its own timeframe, and this on the very day the Belanger-Campeau Commission and leaders of Quebec society chose their timeframe and the path they will follow. Is the Prime Minister telling Quebecers that he wants to deprive them of their right to self-determination, that he does not acknowledge the supremacy of the National Assembly with respect to the issue of Quebec's nationhood? Is the Prime Minister telling Quebecers he wants to try to confuse the issue and thus prevent them from making a clear, logical and unambiguous decision?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Not so,
Mr. Speaker. Quebecers are expressing their views, and I am referring to those who took part in the Belanger-Campeau Commission. If I am not mistaken, there will be further comments this afternoon. We intend to read this report very carefully because it constitutes a major position for the Quebec National Assembly and, I assume, for the Government of Quebec. However, I noticed that in his comments as Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa said he was committed to carrying out all his responsibilities, regardless of commissions of inquiry. In other words, he is not yielding his moral or political authority to anyone.
That being said, I consider the Belanger-Campeau report as a major contribution by Quebec to the national debate. The government and the federal Parliament intend to take an active part in this debate. And I am
sure the hon. member will not be offended if, as the Prime Minister of Canada, and as Canadian parliamentarians, we ensure that the prerogatives of a sovereign Parliament are also respected.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the fundamental question I asked the Prime Minister of Canada is this: Does he recognize, in law and in reality, the right of Quebec to be the master of its destiny? Does he recognize the right of Quebec to self-determination and that of the National Assembly to hold a referendum in 1992 to decide of Quebec's own future without any interference from the government of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised this question before. The answer is in the record.


An hon. member:: Answer!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, many things are going to happen, but I will not put up with being harassed by the Bloc Quebecois while I am answering an important question on behalf of all Canadians. You can count on that!
As I said,-


An hon. member:: Just wait until the next elections!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will be waiting for you resolutely. Let us see how you fare in Quebec!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Come to Quebec and you will see that, if they have to choose between the builders of Canada and the demolishers from the Bloc Quebecois, Quebecers and Canadians alike will go for those who will build a great big country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds.
The same minister in 1985 caused the Western Grain Stabilization Act to be amended to provide for the possibility of interim spring payments.
March 27, 1991

Given the fact that seeding time is not far away, I want to ask the minister if it is possible to say whether there will be an interim payment or not. If so, how much will it be and when will it go out to producers?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the Western Grain Stabilization Act provides for joint funding by producers and the federal government to assist producers in times of falling grain prices.
We are in a situation now because of world grain prices being very low that the fund will trigger a payment this year. I am happy to announce today that we will be putting cheques in the mail to producers at the end of this week.
The total amount will be $158 million.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Often on this side of the House, we disagree with the Prime Minister in a great many policy areas. On the question of Canada and the obligation we, in this House, have to do what we can to work together to keep this country united, we agree with the Prime Minister.
I want to ask the Prime Minister: How is the cause of national unity strengthened and fostered when the Prime Minister, as he did yesterday, began this phase of this important debate in our nation's history by spending a good part of the Question Period attacking the Leader of the Opposition who is not here, and by attacking premiers who are not here to defend themselves?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that is a question. Perhaps the hon. member would put a direct question to the government.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I do not know how else, but to say to the Prime Minister: If we are going to work together in this Parliament among the parties and all the players, the provinces, to rebuild Canada, that requires trust, sharing information and opening up the backroom process to build a team to restructure this country.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments by my hon. friend in regard to the intentions of his party to contribute constructively to the debate. I take that in good faith. Indeed, it would probably be a major contribution that we could all make to the country, given the seriousness of the challenge confronting us, if all of us undertook to depoliticize this very important issue and work together on behalf of a united Canada.
I do not want to digress or diverge from what I have just said, but my friend says that the Prime Minister began this phase by attacking the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I did not. What began were comments from the Leader of the Opposition, to which I responded.
That being said, I want to accept my share of responsibility in terms of partisanship and give my hon. friend the following undertaking: The importance of this issue is such that all of us should go the extra mile to avoid partisanship in dealing with this fundamental question of national unity, and I tell my hon. friend that if that is the position of the Liberal Party and the NDP, it is one that I will follow suit on and respect.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my demonstration of frustration and anger a moment ago.
In supplementary to the Prime Minister, I accept what the Prime Minister has said and I say to him on behalf of this party and on behalf of all Canadians that we want to be part of a constructive process.
Will the Prime Minister at the earliest opportunity please share with all members of Parliament the plans, the designs, and the process that the Prime Minister alluded to yesterday so that we can work constructively and collectively to give this country a fighting chance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend says that he wishes to be part of a constructive process and to work collectively. I think that is already an important contribution to the most important debate that will be confronting this country in an extended period of time. I thank him for that.
I give him the assurance, as Prime Minister of Canada, that we will work collectively and constructively with him and all of his colleagues to make sure that Canada does indeed remain a strong and united country.

March 27, 1991
Privilege
In conclusion, and in the same spirit, I owe my hon. friend from Granby a comment simply because I was precluded from answering. It is very simple and straightforward: The participation of the Prime Minister of Canada in the 1980 referendum presupposed by all of those who participated in it the democratic acceptance of what was a democratic consultation among the people of the province of Quebec. That has always been my position. It has been the position of the Leader of the Opposition and others, and I believe it to be a legitimate one.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I made allegations to the effect that the PMO had contacted the reporting services to prevent the printing of minutes. That is not so. In fact, the PMO's contact with reporting services was to obtain the minutes of the meeting.
Earlier I informed the chairman of the consumer and corporate affairs committee of such, and I now withdraw those allegations unequivocally.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point. I had the opportunity to discuss this matter with my colleague before Question Period today, and he was kind enough to inform me of his intention to rise in the House today to make the statement that he just made.
I thank my colleague on behalf of the members of the committee for having closed this matter in the way he did.


COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, of which I have given Your Honour notice, concerning the supplementary question which I was attempting to ask of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Question Period.
As I pointed out to Your Honour, the question related to the actions of the Consul General in Boston, for whom the Secretary of State for External Affairs is directly responsible. Indeed, he was responsible for the appointment of this individual.
In my supplementary question, I was simply seeking to obtain an assurance from the Secretary of State for
External Affairs that not a private letter but a public attack on an individual within the Catholic Church of Prince Edward Island for expressing views on government policy was not an acceptable manner for a diplomat to proceed.
I was simply seeking an assurance from the minister, who is responsible for the Consul General's activities, that this kind of thing will not be repeated and that there would be an apology. With respect, I would hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs might be prepared to answer the question which is indeed in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the first thing I should say is that of course the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway gave me notice of this and raised it as a question of privilege. It is not. It is a point of order. It may well be that if I had heard the end of the question, the supplemental, I might have been in agreement with the hon. member.
However, given what was said at that point I felt it was straying beyond the bounds, and that was my ruling at that time. I understand the point the hon. member is making.
The right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs may wish to respond. He indicates that he does not wish to respond.


ARREST OF GLEN KEALEY
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another question of privilege. At approximately five minutes to two today outside this Chamber a gentleman, Mr. Glen Kealey, was standing peacefully and silently, holding a Canadian flag and a sign.
At that time, Mr. Kealey was approached by a member of the RCMP and was arrested. A number of members of Parliament questioned the basis for that arrest, and we were told by the officer in question that Mr. Kealey was obstructing the law.
I want to raise a question of privilege regarding contempt of this House in view of the unanimous and strong position that was taken by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations in a letter addressed to the Minister of Public Works in July 1990 when the regulations allowing for this kind of arrest were severely criticized and were arguably in breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was suggested and it was urged unanimously by the committee that the regulations should be revoked at once and that there should be pre-publication for any subsequent regulations.
March 27, 1991

In the response by the minister dated September 26 to this question, the minister stated: "The regulations are not being enforced by the RCMP".
Surely it is a sad day in this country when a Canadian citizen wishes to stand silently and peacefully in front of the Parliament Buildings and express his views with respect to government policy, and that person is arrested as a criminal and taken away in an RCMP vehicle. That is not acceptable in Canada today.
I want to ask for clear direction from the Chair. Will the Speaker make it very clear to the RCMP, since it is the Speaker who is responsible for the precincts of this House, that this kind of conduct is unacceptable, that it is totally inappropriate for any individual to be arrested when that individual is silently and peacefully standing on Parliament Hill, exercising his or her freedom of speech in conformity with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Will the Speaker give that direction to all Canadians, particularly to the RCMP, and will he ensure that no further arrests will be made of those who are seeking to exercise freedom of speech in this country?


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: I rise on the same question, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to add my voice to the question raised by my hon. friend opposite and tell you that I also witnessed the scene. The thought that came to my mind was that we have lost a little bit of democracy today.
Things were very peaceful, and all of a sudden an RCMP officer who had been told to do so-I am not particularly angry with the action of the policeman because obviously he was following orders-arrested the gentleman in question when he was doing absolutely nothing that was criminal or violent. If one person's rights and freedoms in this nation are in peril, then the rights and freedoms of us all are in peril.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question.


Mr. Speaker:: Very briefly. I have the point.


David Kilgour: I join with my colleagues on both ends of the House. I think you and I have discussed this matter before. I realize that you do not have jurisdiction outside
Privilege
the building and that you may feel, therefore, you can say nothing about this matter.
As was just put my colleagues, all our rights are affected when a priest and today Mr. Kealey can be dragged away for not obeying a lawful order. I understand the police cannot give what the basis of that lawful order is.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me deal with this point first of all. As is perhaps not as well known as should be, the Speaker's jurisdiction ends at the building wall. It does not extend out on to the grounds.
Second, I do not know what the circumstances were and I cannot sit in judgment as to whether the arrest was within the law or outside the law.
Third, the hon. member raises the matter as a question of privilege. There may or may not be a legitimate complaint about the action of the RCMP under the circumstances. That is not for me to rule on.
I have to decide whether the matter that is raised is a question of privilege or a contempt against the House. I have to say that nothing that has happened has made it impossible for any of the three hon. members to rise in this House, to carry on and to do their duties. That is, after all, the essence of what is a privilege. It must be clearly understood that although there may be no sign of prima facie privilege there may be, however, a complaint in another direction.
The hon. members have given some indication of their unhappiness. They of course can take the matter up in other ways, but I do not think they can establish, certainly on what I have heard, a prima facie case of privilege.
With respect to the policy in general here on the Hill, hon. members know that it is a matter from time to time of considerable concern. I certainly will discuss the matter further with colleagues in the Board of Internal Economy.
I also want to say-and this does not necessarily reflect on the facts that took place today because I am not sitting in judgment of them-that there are security problems. They are very real. One way or another, in the final analysis the Speaker is responsible for the security of all members, at least when inside the building. This is a matter which gives the Speaker some difficulty because there is this dividing line.

March 27, 1991
Privilege
We are governed by the rule of law and I do not have authority to do what might be a very good idea to give me authority to do. However, I do not have it at the moment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, to add to the point you just made, when there was a disturbance in this House some months ago, you felt that perhaps the most appropriate way to deal with it would be to refer the matter to an appropriate committee. This in fact was done, the details were looked into and discussed among members and other witnesses. I wonder if it would be the appropriate thing to do in this case as well.
The point is that when there are disruptions in terms of innocent citizens before their Parliament Buildings, I think it is something of concern to us all. For that reason, I just wonder if it would be appropriate to refer the matter to the appropriate committee for consideration and report back to the House.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my capacity as co-chairman of the Joint Senate and House of Commons Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, particularly in response to the comment of the hon. NDP House leader.
As the hon. member for Burnaby indicated, the committee has already looked at the public works regulations which were brought into place by the Minister of Public Works and which were the subject of my friend's comments.
The committee has in fact already advised the minister quite clearly that the committee's view is that those regulations are totally unacceptable and unconstitutional.


Mr. Speaker:: I am also bound by the rules. This is a matter of debate. It may be a matter for Question Period. However, it is not something that I can interfere with. I do not think I have the authority even to go as far as the hon. member for Kamloops has suggested, that I refer this matter to a committee. The committee is the master of its own proceedings and can take the matter under consideration if it wishes.
As I say, I will do what I can do. I will discuss it with members of the Board of Internal Economy because
undoubtedly security and all such matters, not just within the building but outside the building, are of very grave concern to us.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has heard my comments. I will listen for a moment.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that in my view one committee of this House is already seized of the matter. My point was just to indicate that the particular committee of which I am the chairman is already looking into it.
I also wanted to make the point that the minister wrote to yourself, Sir, in September 1990 and now we have an arrest outside the House in March of 1991. With great respect, we are still waiting for a response from this place.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise just for clarification. You indicated in your response to the member for Burnaby that you were not responsible outside the walls of this building.
Could you advise the House and the people who are watching who in fact has the jurisdiction relative to the policing of the grounds of the House of Commons? Which minister has responsibility or which organization has responsibility for that?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may have that question and he may have further questions. He may certainly come and see me and I will discuss it with him, but I think we are getting far beyond anything that I can justify under the rules.


RESPONSE OF MINISTER
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my personal concern arises out of a question which I asked toward the end of Question Period. It was a question directed to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds.
I do not consider that the question was frivolous or that it lacked substance. However, I say with the greatest respect that I do not believe the hon. minister was given sufficient time to provide an answer.
March 27, 1991

I suggest that perhaps it was a 15 or 20 second span. It was inadequate to provide an answer. I do believe that there are several hundred thousand grain farmers who would be very interested in hearing the answer.
Routine Proceedings
as possible. May I suggest that in a moment or two we will be getting into Routine Proceedings and that the minister responsible has an opportunity to make a short statement at that point.
I wonder, with the greatest respect, whether the minister might be afforded the opportunity to complete his response to my question because I for one would like l rans a lon>
to hear it.
*



ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I certainly regret if for whatever reason the hon. minister did not have sufficient time to give his response.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
I must also point out that there are very adequate means available to ministers and to members to make information available. Of course the hon. member can avail himself of the rules, bring about an adjourned debate and put further questions to the government, at which time the minister or the minister's parliamentary secretary would be able to give an even more full response.
In any event, I certainly regret if the minister was cut off too quickly. I will try very hard to make sure that does not happen.
Rideau Hall Ottawa
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Beverley M. McLachlin, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 27th day of March, 1991, at 4 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely, Anthony P. Smyth Deputy Secretary, Policy


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, again with the greatest respect, I simply wish to make the observation that it appears that a number of questioners are allowed considerable preamble, some of which I would suggest were 40 to 50 seconds in length, and indeed there are long answers. I am simply suggesting that a question from a backbench government member ought to be treated with the same respect as one from any other member within this House-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure the hon. member that questions from all members are treated with respect by the Chair. There have been suggestions made very recently that members on both sides have some discussions among themselves with respect to Question Period. I am hoping that those discussions are taking place.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the point is well taken that we want to make this place as relevant


Iain Francis Angus: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just for clarification, in the interpretation of your first remarks, it said six o'clock, in English it said four o'clock. Could you clarify for the House when the Royal Assent will occur?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It should be four o'clock. Sorry.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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 three petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

March 27, 1991
Routine Proceedings


[Stage Direction]
23RD REPORT OF CANADIAN NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, it is my pleasure to present to the House, in both official languages, the 23rd report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with its mandate under Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs has the honour to present its fourth report. Having undertaken a study of arms transfers, the committee tables its report entitled "World Summit on the Instruments of War and Weapons of Mass Destruction".
This study was undertaken with some urgency, as the committee believes that we have the duty to do what we can to prevent the types of mass arms build-up that allowed Iraq to invade its neighbour and to cause tremendous suffering.
As a part of its post-hostility proposals unveiled in February, the government proposed a world summit designed to highlight the problems of weapons proliferation and to develop plans to control it. In the weeks since the end of the war, the committee has held hearings with a number of experts on the idea of a world summit.
I am pleased to say the committee supports the proposal and has made some suggestions which we think could strengthen its impact. We hope our suggestions will be useful in this regard, and we will work to ensure that Canadian policies are consistent with the goals of the summit.



SIXTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE STATUS OF DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons.



FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE FOR THE SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS

['I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-99, an act for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991; Bill C-100, an act for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992.']
Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

This report emphasizes the lack of legal authority for certain programs administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare and intended to authorize the possession of controlled and restricted narcotics and drugs.

The report notes that the department has been aware of the lack of authority for the regulations authorizing these programs for at least 15 years.
The report also notes that successive ministers have failed to seek parliamentary approval for legislation authorizing these regulations, despite the government's admission that the current regulations are illegal.

In their fourth report the committee categorically rejects the suggestion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the effect that departmental recourse to illegal regulations can be justified by his department's health protection mandate. The report points out that constitutional government principles make it mandatory for ministers and other public officials to enforce the law as it has been passed by Parliament, not as they would wish it to be drafted.

The fourth report calls for the revocation of the current regulations and their replacement by new regulations that conform to the Narcotics Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act.
March 27, 1991



Hon. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
The committee issued an earlier report entitled Securing our Global Future: Canada's Stake in the Unfinished Business of Third World Debt.
Today's report responds to the government's reply. It is entitled Unanswered Questions: Uncertain Hopes. It encourages continuing Canadian leadership on the critical North-South issue of debt relief.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-351, an act to amend the Criminal Code (terminally ill persons).
He said: This bill concerns amendments to the Criminal Code. Specifically, it deals with the serious subject of the right of individuals who are in the latter stages of terminal illness to refuse or withdraw from medical treatment in order that the timing of a more natural death may preclude unnecessary pain and suffering.
In essence, this bill will address the question of whether we allow individuals in our society to have the right to die with dignity.
As a society and as a government, we can no longer keep avoiding this issue as there exists virtually no government regulation or no judicial guidance concerning the right of a terminally ill patient to refuse or withdraw from treatment.
Terminally ill patients must have the right to determine their own length of treatment and physicians must, in turn, not be held liable for following the very wishes of their own patients.
A strict reading of the Criminal Code of Canada would indicate that withholding treatment from the terminally
Routine Proceedings
ill might constitute a criminal offence. As a matter of fact, the Criminal Code has a number of sections which either indicate or seem to indicate that doctors must provide their patients with full medical treatment regardless of circumstances.
Section 14 of the Code reads: "No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted upon him."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe that is a brief explanation.


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

[Translation)

Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a ways and means motion. It will no doubt be of interest to all of those who are concerned with the increasing fairness and efficiency of the GST.
So, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to lay upon the Table a notice of ways and means motion concerning the Excise Tax Act and other Acts pertaining to the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax.
I ask, at the same time, Mr. Speaker, that you designate an Order of the Day for the consideration of the said motion.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like to wish Happy Easter to everyone, Mr. Speaker. I also wish to thank the government to have taken our advice about the GST on books.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Western Arctic would like to present a motion, but she must have unanimous consent.


An hon. member:: Let us hear the motion.

March 27, 1991
Routine Proceedings


STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek leave of the House to move the following motion. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs be authorized to subpoena the ministers of the Quebec government as well as other key witnesses who had direct responsibility for the events which occurred at Kahnawake and Kanesatake in the summer of 1990, in order to complete the committee's work on this subject, in full and with credibility.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION REVIEW ACT
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the various members of the House and I believe you will find consent for the following motions. The first motion is the one I moved yesterday. I move:
Pursuant to section 57 of an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act and the Canada Labour Code, to enact the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act and to amend other acts in relation thereto, chapter 24, third supplement, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, section 12 of the act be referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations; and
That the committee undertake a comprehensive review of section 12 and submit a report to the House no later than December 1, 1991.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Speaker, I believe you find consent for this motion as well: I move:
That three members and one researcher of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources be authorized to travel to London, U.K., to attend the conference, "Coal in the Environment", from April 1 to 6, 1991.
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, this should be the last time I rise on motions. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of the House, at 11 o'clock a.m. on Monday April 8, 1991, the House shall meet for an address by His Excellency Carlos Salinas de Gortari, President of the United Mexican States, to members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate, and
That, such address and all customary introductory and related remarks be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates of that day and form part of the records of this House, and
That, media recording and transmission of such address, introductory and related remarks be authorized according to House guidelines, and
That, beginning at 2 o'clock p.m. that day proceedings will be in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
He *	*

[Stage Direction]
* *
*
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to table today another four or so petitions on behalf of residents of my riding of Ottawa- Vanier who disapprove of Canada Post's decision to close down the branch located at 580 Rideau Street, which is part of my riding. These petitioners claim that this branch is serving not only a number of senior citizens homes, but also several embassies, three of which already strongly opposed the closure.

March 27, 1991

Mr. Speaker, I have tabled nearly a dozen petitions on behalf of constituents of Ottawa-Vanier asking Canada Post to reverse this unfortunate decision and I hope they will listen to good old common sense.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first requests that as the House of Commons has condemned the brutal and unacceptable Soviet crackdown on Lithuania and Latvia, Canada has suspended aid to the U.S.S.R. in light of Soviet military aggression in the Baltic States and the Canadian government does not recognize the de jure annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union, and the Canadian government supports the peaceful restoration of freedoms in the Baltic States, and as the present Government of Latvia was elected on a pro-independence platform and enjoys the confidence of the people, the petitioners call upon Parliament to allocate and activate credits for feed grain to Latvia and the neighbouring Baltic States.
The next petition, Mr. Speaker, is similar in the preamble. However, in the whereases, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ascertain the specific requirements for medical aid to Latvia, allocate funds for the acquisition of required medical supplies for Latvia, and expedite the shipment of these supplies to the Government of Latvia.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of several thousand residents of Labrador from a number of communities; Happy Valley, Goose Bay, Labrador City, Wabush, Nain, Makkovik, and other communities along the coast. The petitioners are calling on the Parliament of Canada to instruct the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to reverse its decision regarding the cancellation of Labrador services. They point out that the federal government, through the CBC, has seen fit to cancel all locally produced and locally broadcasted television material in the region of Labrador, and as Labrador is the only location in Canada's north to experience such a cut, and as there is no alternate source
Routine Proceedings
of local television broadcasts available in Labrador, neither a daily newspaper, nor a full-time local radio station, that these local CBC television services are essential and should be reinstated immediately.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I rise, following the tabling of the Ways and Means Motion by the President of the Treasury Board, where we removed the tax on yoghurt but we certainly did not stop taxing books, which is to impose ignorance. Ikxing books is a terrible mortgage on our future, and I think we should do everything that we can to encourage reading-

Now that we have come to realize the extent of the problem of illiteracy in our country, now is the time to encourage reading, not to tax it.

It was with great regret that I will read once again into the record that petitioners, thousands now, call on this Parliament to remove the repressive tax on reading, which is a tax on intellectual property.
Mr. Speaker, please note that Canadians are not happy with the the Ways and Means Motion deposited today.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by many of my constituents from Malpeque, Prince Edward Island. They are concerned about the post office in Albany and state that the Canada Post Corporation, which is presently reviewing the status of the Albany post office for conversion, its residents should not be deprived of adequate postal service due to the rural nature of Prince Edward Island.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to reject proposals which will decrease postal service to their local community, to take strong and immediate action to assure them that our post office, which serves a great need in their community will not be closed, put out on contract, relocated in another community, replaced with supermailboxes or any other inferior service.

March 27, 1991
Routine Proceedings IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present the names of close to 600 petitioners who signed this petition stating that thousands of east Europeans did enter Canada legally in good faith and did subsequently apply as self-exiles in good faith.
Self-exiles from Poland and other east European countries are unable to work or attend school while waiting for their applications to be processed, creating unnecessary hardship for both themselves and their sponsors. The processing time for many of these self-exile applicants is up to three years. The quotas imposed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration limit the number of applications being processed.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to request the Minister of Employment and Immigration to reciprocate on their good faith and speed up the process, remove quotas, and allow self-exile applicants to work or attend school while waiting for applications to be processed.
I am pleased that the minister responsible is present to hear these petitioners, and I hope that she will act on these before Easter.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition. This is further to the thousands of Canadians who have already petitioned this House calling upon the government to issue a stamp in honour of Marie Sklodowska Curie who discovered radium. This honour can be made by issuing a commemorative stamp on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of her birth, which will take place on November 7, 1992.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present to the House numerous petitions signed by citizens from North York, Thornhill, Willowdale, and several hundred from Guelph, Cambridge, and others outside of Toronto, all of them objecting strenuously to the unjust imposition of taxes on books, on reading, on literacy.
All of the petitioners humbly implore this Parliament to urge the government to withdraw the GST on textbooks and other materials that lead to literacy and culture.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on the subject of the private member's bill introduced this day by the hon. member from Fraser Valley West. The petition points out the difficult questions confronting health care professionals, family members and terminally ill persons which have grown more complex with the advancement of medical technology. It calls upon Parliament to acknowledge openly the urgent need for changes to address the present denial of human dignity among thousands of elderly and dying Canadians by taking such actions as it deems appropriate to cause the government to examine the numerous proposals now being presented which would safeguard the right of every Canadian to control his or her own life to the end.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to present petitions signed by over 400 members of my constituency supporting the use of ethanol based gasolines. They want the government to make the oxygen content of gasoline at least 3.2 per cent and to ban methylcyclopentadienyl from further use in the automotive industry and as automotive fuel.
I am shocked that in response to earlier petitions the government has been responding using technology that is probably 10 or 12 years old and not up to current standards on the efficiencies that are involved in manufacturing this product or some of the end uses, one of which is a flour that can be used for human consumption, particularly suitable for Third World countries.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petitions signed by approximately 900 or so Canadians, plus some visitors to our country. It is part of the "Put Canada Back on Track" campaign. The petitioners, who are from right across Canada, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support the NDP plan to restore VIA Rail services cut on January 15, 1990, to maintain and where appropriate upgrade remote services on which many Canadians rely, to provide a legislative mandate for VIA Rail, and to make available to VIA the resources which it needs to become a modern passenger rail system in a class with those throughout the rest of the western world.
March 27, 1991

This is a new petition and perhaps the government can come up with a new answer.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a group of petitions from constituents in my riding from Melfort, Naicam, Mistatim, Hudson Bay, Spalding, Plea-santdale, Grandin, Fairy Glen and Lac-Vert, who note that the government is attempting to off-load some of the costs of maintaining RCMP policing in their area. They point out that the Government of Canada and Canada benefits by at least 30 per cent by the activities of the RCMP.
The petitioners request the Parliament of Canada to continue the sharing of this important national symbol and institution and that the federal government continue to carry 30 per cent of the cost of RCMP policing instead of the 25 per cent to which it is attempting to shift.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present with respect to the goods and services tax and its impact on Canadians, an impact which the petitioners are quite critical of.
The various ways and means motions which have been presented before the House today do not deal with most of these problems. They do provide some very important changes with respect to jigs, dyes and moulds, which are of extreme importance to my constituency and I am pleased to see, but they do not address things such as the need to provide an exemption for books, the need to see to it that this GST is replaced by a fair tax system applying in a fair way to Canadians across the country.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions which have been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions.
In the first one, the petitioners point out that tax guides have been provided for a variety of groups with special needs. It also points out that students are a group with special needs with respect to income tax. They seek action by Parliament to request that Revenue Canada
Routine Proceedings
make available to students a guide that would be suitable to their needs.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present the final 3,000 of
57,000	petitions which were submitted by the citizens of Windsor, the content of which you know, but I think it is important to re-emphasize the final paragraph. It says: "Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take all necessary measures to preserve local CBC television broadcasting in Windsor and all other areas deprived of such service by federal government cutbacks and by the decisions of CBC management". I would remind you that we in Windsor have lost our sole source of local Canadian broadcasting and are, therefore, subject to dominance by American airwaves by the action of this government.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by people in a number of provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba and, as well, residents of England.
In their petition, the people humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support the New Democratic Party plan to restore VIA Rail services which were cut on January 15, 1990, and maintain and, more appropriately, to upgrade remote services on which many Canadians rely, and to provide a legislative mandate for VIA Rail and make available to VIA the resources which it needs to become a modern passenger rail system in a class with those throughout the rest of the western world.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to be able to present a petition signed by several hundred people from places in Saskatchewan like Moose Jaw, Regina, Saskatoon, Prince Alberta and, in Manitoba from Brandon, Boissevain, Winnipeg and other points. These people have taken note of the spill of radioactive waste at Wollaston Lake in 1989. They found that the regulatory system that pertains to these kinds of events was grossly inadequate.

March 27, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Therefore, the petitioners are calling for a comprehensive, independent and public inquiry into uranium mining in Saskatchewan and in northern Canada in general.
As well, the petitioners feel that there needs to be an immediate EARP panel convened in order to look into the new mine at Eagle Point next to the Wollaston Lake mine.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of presenting two petitions.
The first one states that since 1981, Canada's Dying with Dignity Association has been expanding and reflecting the concerns of Canadians for more widespread understanding of euthanasia.
It goes on to point out that many thousands of Canadians are kept in existence in conditions totally lacking in human dignity and with no resources for relief. The petitioners call upon Parliament to acknowledge openly the urgent need for changes to address the present denial of human dignity among thousands of elderly and dying Canadians.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have is 45 pages long and contains several hundred names.
The petitioners are mainly old age pensioners living in mobile home parks who point out that the goods and services tax is being levied unfairly on their residences. They point out that the government is taxing shelter by virtue of the definition of mobile homes.
The petitioners also point out the government's failure to recognize the use to which mobile accommodation can be put and call upon the government to rescind the goods and services tax. They wish the prevention of taxing of shelter for persons residing in movable residences, including recreational vehicles, small trailers and houseboats.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise under Standing Order 36 to present yet another petition on VIA Rail.
The petition shows how widespread the support for VIA Rail is. The petitioners are from places like Winnipeg, Toronto, Kamloops, British Columbia, Fredericton, New Brunswick and various places in Manitoba, Thunder Bay and Calgary, Alberta.
These petitioners have not given up on VIA Rail. They have asked the government and Parliament to maintain VIA Rail as a present national network, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.
The first one is from a number of residents from Saskatchewan who are concerned about the cuts made by this government regarding the Public Distribution Assistance Program which is threatening the future of weekly newspapers.
The petitioners are particularly concerned that weekly newspapers have been especially hard hit. In fact, weekly newspapers are, in many cases, the sole instrument for receiving news in a local area. They call upon this government to make some changes with respect to the mailing costs for these newspapers.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition presented to me by a number of farmers from Saskatchewan who are very concerned that this government has removed oats from the Canadian Wheat Board.
The petitioners call upon this government to replace oats under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and to give oats and barley the same protection under the Canadian Wheat Board that wheat presently has.
They further call upon this government not to remove oats or barley without this institution, Parliament, first having a debate and making a decision after a proper and open consultation with all the farmers in western Canada.
March 27, 1991


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 423, 439 and 469.


Mr. Skelly: Are any of the employees of J.F. Hickling Management Consultants Ltd. (a) former employees of (b) presently employed by the federal government?


Albert Glen Cooper: The
information requested is proprietary to the Company and also of a personal nature.


Mr. Walker: For the Canadian Armed Forces units involved in Oka and Chateauguay, Que., during the summer of 1990, were any units involved in any training exercises since 1985, and, if so, (a) at what costs (b) were any held during 1989?


Hon. William Hunter McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Yes. Canadian Forces units involved in Oka and Chateauguay, Quebec during the summer of 1990 were involved in training exercises since 1985.
a)	The cost of all training and exercises is an integral part of command budgets. A summary of command allocations is attached as Annex A.
b)	Yes.


[Stage Direction]
The following table shows the funding allocations for Commands and Reserves for FY 85/86 to FY 89/90. The amounts are shown in thousands of dollars ($000) and have been rounded.
[Stage Direction]
FY	FY	FY	FY	FY85/86	86/87	87/88	88/89	89/90FMC	271,400	180,368	201,817	216,290	232,535MARCOM	215,429	177,941	186,542	182,242	187,758AIRCOM	458,526	430,149	467,644	461,169	492,153CFCC	87,615	77,741	79,729	86,403	91,717
Routine Proceedings
CFTS	103,493	99,644	103,536	108,667	119,551CFE	113,871	148,111	172,604	186,645	167,169RESERVES	*	112,024	124,023	158,558	206,6311,250,333	1,225,978	1,335,895	1,339,974	1,497,502*Notes:	(1) In FY 85/86 Resrves funding was included in command allocations.
(2) Command operating, maintenance and administrative funds may be used directly or indirectly to support training and exercices. These costs are also funded from the command allocations.
Mr. Dionne: Has the Minister of Supply and Services made renovations or improvements to his House of Commons office and, if so, in each case (a) who received the contract (b) what was the nature of the contract (c) what was the total cost?


Hon. Paul Wyatt Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: The Department of Supply and Services has not made any renovations or improvements to the Minister's office at the House of Commons.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 297, 394, 395, 422, 424, 425 and 438 could be made Orders for Returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Whittaker: For the time period from November, 1988 up to and including April, 1990, were government grants or monies received by individuals or groups within the Constituency of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and, if so, in each case (a) from which department or federal funding agency (b) what was the program name (c) what were the names of individuals or groups receiving funds (d) what were the dollar values of each award (e) what percentage of the total money value of the program did the award represent?

March 27, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Return tabled.


Ms. Hunter: For (a) each year of operation to date (b) each nuclear worker, what is the total absorbed dose of radiation in person-rents (i) by reactor station (ii) for each nuclear power generating station?
Return tabled.


Ms. Hunter: For (a) each year of operation to date (b) each nuclear worker, for (i) the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories (ii) the Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment, what is the total absorbed dose of radiation in person-rents?
Return tabled.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni): For the period 1984-1990 were any government contracts awarded to J.F. Hickling Management Consultants Ltd. and, if so, (a) how many (b) for what projects (c) what was the value of each project?
Return tabled.


Question No. 424-Mr. Ferguson:
1.	What studies, research, working papers etc. and responses by author and title has the government conducted, commissioned or funded on: (a) the gasoline oxygenate Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese THcarbonyl (MMT) (b) MMT and hydrocarbon emissions (c) MMT and automotive exhaust emissions (d) MMT and its effects on pollution control devices (e) MMT and its effects on the environment (f) MMT and its effects on human health and other living organisms (g) MMT and its neurological effects (h) Mn3 and its effects on human health and other living organisms (i) Mn3 and its effects on the environment (j) Mn3 and its neurological effects (k) Mn3 and the neurological effects of breathing it (1) other heavy metals and their neurological effects (m) the gradual phase out of lead in gasoline and alternative oxygenate (n) the environmental effects of alternative oxygenates (o) the effects of alternative oxigenates on human health and other living organisms (p) the neurological effects of alternate oxygenates?
2.	Is the governement aware of studies or research papers that have been conducted by the private sector or educational institutions in Canada or abroad on any of the subjects listed above and if so, what are they by author and title?
Return tabled.


Mr. Ferguson: 1.	What studies, research, working papers etc. and responses by author and title has the government conducted, commissioned, or funded on: (a) Manganese and its effects on human health and other living organisms (b) Manganese and its neurological effects?
2.	Is the government aware of studies or research papers that have been conducted by the private sector or educational institutions in Canada or abroad on any of the subjects listed above, and if so, what are they, by author and title?
Return tabled.


Mr. Walker: Since 1985, what are (a) the names of the military training exercises or wargames conducted by the Canadian Armed Forces and Reserves (b) the cost for each exercise (c) their duration?
Return tabled.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 378.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask that this response be made an Order for Return. This return would be tabled immediately as well.


Mr. Duhamel: 1.	For each of the government's recently announced projects providing assistance to literacy, what are the (a) project names (b) objectives (c) amounts allocated (d) breakdown by (i) project (ii) amount for each province and territory?
2.	What is the breakdown by project for (a) English language (b) French language (c) other languages?
March 27, 1991

Return tabled.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-99, an act for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991; Bill C-100, an act for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre in relation to amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-79, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, and the motion of Mr. Hawkes (p. 18849).
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, this motion on Bill C-79 received a lot of debate yesterday, basically on the fact that I was not allowed to introduce some of my amendments which would have ensured that any opinion the board had already given with respect to an investigation that may be ongoing on a member of Parliament or a senator, and the bill reads at present:
- the board or the relevant committee in the Senate may not give that opinion to the police officer who requested it.
In debate yesterday representatives of the Conservative and the Liberal parties indicated that they would be willing to make sure that the Board of Internal Economy
Government Orders
in this House passed bylaws soon to ensure the gist of that would be part of the bylaws of the board.
If we could have that assurance at this time, that those people spoke for their parties, I think you may find that there is a disposition of the House to move quickly on this matter.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: The member for Ottawa-Vanier and I had discussions earlier and I had his assurance. He is not in the House at the moment but there may be another member of the party who can speak on his behalf. But I welcome the input from my colleague across the way. I can assure him that as a board member and on behalf of the members of my party on the board, we would attempt to incorporate the principle in a bylaw as quickly as possible, once we have it proclaimed and through Royal Assent, and so on. It should be one of the very first bylaws, if not the first bylaw.
The advantage of that may be, in a funny kind of a way, Mr. Speaker, if we get it right it will endure forever, if we get it wrong all members of the House from experience can tell us it should be changed, and we can change the bylaw if we haven't got it right. It has been a clause that has given us enormous difficulty in its wording over time, and so there may be a kind of advantage to doing it by a bylaw which is legally binding on the board and on the behaviour of the board. But if we do not get it right the next time, it will be easier to change and more quickly changeable to make sure that we get it the way the House wants.
I hope that is sufficient confirmation. I do not know if the representative of the Liberal Party is willing to confirm, but I can assure the House that I had that conversation with the member for Ottawa-Vanier at around two o'clock or two-fifteen. He made the offer on the floor yesterday and is still standing by the offer.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: I am
afraid I am not in much of a position to help. I have tried to locate the hon. member and he is not in the building at the moment. He will be back later today. If he had the discussion as was indicated by the government Whip- and I have no reason to disbelieve the government Whip in his statements. I am not a member of the board obviously and can give no such assurance and I am sorry not to be in that position-but if the discussion took place between the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and the hon. member for Calgary West, then I think the hon. member for Churchill could take that assurance.

March 27, 1991
Government Orders


Iain Francis Angus: One of the
realities is that the existing Board of Internal Economy may change in the next month, month and a half. Because if the House does prorogue there will have to be a new striking of that committee and I suspect because of the changes, particularly in the Official Opposition as well as on the government benches, there may be some readjustment.
I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if through you I can ask the chief government Whip whether he was speaking as a member of the board or whether he was speaking on behalf of the government in terms of an indication that the government would be prepared through its votes on the Board of Internal Economy, whoever may hold them, to ensure that those bylaws were put forward.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: One of the beauties of Bill C-79 and the changes is that the board continues through dissolution, promulgation-it could indeed be changed, but I would give him the assurance, and we definitely have enough votes to be able to see that the bylaw comes into place.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Without insurance and with the assurance that the member for Ottawa-Vanier gave me privately on behalf of the Liberal Party, I would be willing to let the bill come to a vote.
The New Democratic Party caucus will still oppose the legislation, not because we are against Bill C-79-we have supported the work there-but because we believe the very issue we have been talking about today should have been put in the legislation. It is not that we doubt the word of the board. I think it will be in the by-laws that affect the House of Commons. However, my concern is that by not having that as a requirement we have no power to ensure that the Senate passes the same sort of by-laws.
Therefore we will oppose the motion before us, but we certainly do not oppose the intent of Bill C-79.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The first question is on the motion standing in the name of Mr. Hawkes.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion of Mr. Hawkes agreed to


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before you begin the ringing of the bells, let me indicate that there have been consultations.
There has been a request that we defer this vote to about 4.45 p.m. and therefore have a vote at 5 p.m.
However, that is on the understanding that upon the completion of that vote we would then move to the consideration of Bill C-98. No one would object to the normal motion for continuation of hours through to the completion of Bill C-98. It might take until 6.30 p.m. or 7 p.m. as a lot of members would like to make at least some input on it.
There would be general agreement that no party in the House intends to stop that motion for extended hour and that at the conclusion of that debate no party has the intention to have a recorded division at that point.
If we could just have that confirmation, we could defer the ringing of the bells until 4.45 p.m. for a vote at 5 p.m.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, assuming that right after this motion passes and/or Royal Assent we will immediately deal with the agricultural bill. The bells will start ringing at 4.45 for a vote at 5 p.m. and we will return to consideration of the agricultural bill.
March 27, 1991

The understanding is that there will be no dilatory motions, no additional extensions, no additional legislation or motions brought in if we do go past 6 p.m. and that there will not be a recorded division called for, at least by this party, on the agricultural bill.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: We agree with what has been stated, but I think it should be a House order. It should be agreed, by unanimous consent of the House now, that those are the terms. I think the table could properly draft the order.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
['I thank the hon. dean of the House for those kind words and I wish each and every one of you a very, very happy Easter.\nIt being 6.35 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 28(2) the House stands adjourned until Monday, April 8,1991 at 2 p.m. pursuant to order made earlier this day.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-34, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 16.
Bill C-258, an act respecting the establishment of the Centennial Flame Research Award to publicize the contributions to Canadian public life of persons with disabilities -Chapter No. 17.
Bill C-100, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the March 31, 1992 -Chapter No. 18.
Bill C-99, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the March 31, 1991-Chapter No. 19.
Government Orders



Hon. Marcel Danis (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-98, an act authorizing agreements between the Government of Canada and the provinces to provide for protection for the income of producers of agricultural products and to enable the Government of Canada to take additional measures for that purpose, 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):: Mr. Speaker, I will keep my remarks very short. This piece of legislation we are dealing with, Bill C-98, has had considerable study throughout the country going back to January 9, 1990 when the committee was formed. We have had a lot of consultation right across the country with provincial governments, producers, and the federal government.
I would like to read into the record, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, the names of those people who contributed so much time and help to the process we have just come through: from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Don Downe; from the National Farmers Union, Gil Pedersen; from the Atlantic Grains Council, George Burris, secretary-manager of the council; from Quebec, Claude Lafleur; from Ontario, Terry Daynard, executive vice-president of the Ontario Corn Producers' Association; Roger George of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, an organization which represents many farmers and producers across this country; and Larry Miehls from the Ontario Soybean Growers' Marketing Board.
From the prairies we had Gordon Cresswell and Bill Duke who served with the Western Canadian Wheat Growers' Association; Ken Edie from the Manitoba Pool Elevators; Alex Graham from the Alberta Wheat Pool and Terry Hanson from the Advisory Committee of the Canadian Wheat Board. Also we had Ed Armstrong, Western Barley Growers' Association; Bob Hopely of the Western Grain Stabilization Advisory Committee and Keith Lewis, the past president of the Prairie Canola Board; Owen McAulay from Keystone Agriculture Products; Roy Piper from the United Grain Growers; Barry Seneft, director of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool; Frank Spanbauer from Western Canada Pulse Growers and Brian Haddow from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture.

March 27, 1991
Government Orders


Mr. Vanclief:: You forgot us. We helped.


Murray Cardiff: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I want to say, as well, that we thank all parties in the House of Commons for the co-operation they extended to us. They recognize the importance of this legislation and how necessary it is to have it implemented as quickly as possible.
Many things have been said about the legislation. We have been accused of hurrying it through the House of Commons in the process. As I said before, from the timeframe and the consultations held with producers across this country, the 19 producers on that committee, I believe this is legislation that everybody should be very proud of because they played a very major role in its development.
It is now up to us to give quick passage to Bill C-98, and allow the Senate to deliberate on the bill. It is the first time in a long while the farmers and producers of this country have had such a major, comprehensive piece of legislation that offers the long-term security and bankable programs this legislation does.
We wish more provinces would offer the NISA program, because we believe that GRIP and NISA are compatible with one another and would give that much more security to the farm economy as well.
I will close my remarks by asking my colleagues if they could give quick passage to this legislation, because I believe it is absolutely necessary and the producers are looking for it.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words at the third reading stage of Bill C-98, the Farm Income Protection Act. This is extremely important legislation.
Unfortunately it is not legislation which spells out exactly what arrangements will be provided to producers of agriculture products, but rather provides a framework for the government to put in place agreements with provincial governments and with producers groups. From that point of view, I think it really circumvents Parliament and does not allow for the normal kinds of inputs to be made for producers in stabilizing their incomes.
The proposals planned under this bill, the Gross Revenue Insurance Program and the Net Income Stabilization Account and the third line of defence, or the
special arrangements provisions probably will be made to work.
I am exceedingly skeptical as to whether the agreements that have been put in place will be in place three or four years from now. I think there will have to be massive modifications to them.
I believe there is a great deal of concern among producers as to just how serious the government is about this legislation. There are those who think there will be a massive payout in 1992 and 1993. Those are election years. After that there will be very little pay-out because of the structure and the arrangements. Whether the GRIP and NISA programs survive no one knows at this time.
There is one overriding consideration and it is that the situation for Canadian grains and oilseed producers is so desperate that whatever the proposal being offered by this government and by the provincial governments involved, producers need it desperately at this time.
The net farm income this year is projected to drop by 54 per cent from about $4 billion to $2 billion. This is an industry that at the retail level has something like $45 billion. At the farm gate level there is some $22 billion. Out of that $22 billion only $2 billion is there as total net farm income. The Department of Agriculture has projected no net farm income for provinces like Saskatchewan and Manitoba this year.
The situation is exceedingly desperate. Farmers are being forced to take GRIP this year because the initial price for grain is not going to be revealed until late July. The world farm gate price for wheat may be as low as $90 or $95 a tonne, lower than it has been in real terms since the 1930s. The situation is so desperate that producers feel they have absolutely no choice.
If we look at the three levels of support, GRIP and NISA are designed to stabilize farm incomes and level out the low years with the high years of income. The government has lost all credibility with the special arrangements committee, special arrangements or deficiency payments that are being proposed because it has not made an announcement. It is now the end of March. It is questionable whether any assistance will be made available in time for the seeding next month or early May.
March 27, 1991

That destroys the credibility of the whole three-stage level of support, especially with net farm income dropping by over 50 per cent this year. Many farmers feel they have to take the Gross Revenue Insurance Program, even though the premiums are very high, because of the tremendous uncertainty and the question in their minds is: "Is the government really going to provide any additional assistance?"
Today the minister had a backbencher put a question concerning western grain stabilization fund. He announced that there was going to be $158 million distributed under the western grain stabilization fund this spring. That would be an interim payment in this particular crop year. It sounds like a lot of money. When we realize that net farm income is dropping by $2 billion, and the minister's own advisory committee on interim financial support is recommending at least $1 billion or $1.2 billion, it is not very much. Unless the minister comes through with a major payment, the situation this spring for literally tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of producers is going to be very bleak.
On this side of the House we are concerned about executive federalism, where the government gets legislation like this which puts it in the position to make all kinds of deals without hardly a nod to Parliament. Fortunately, the government has accepted a couple of amendments from this side of the House. One is by the member for Prince Edward-Hastings recommending that there be an ongoing review of the legislation. The one that provided specifically for a review and report to Parliament by 1993 was not accepted, but we hope the amendment that was put by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings will have the effect of providing that kind of interim review.
I do not think there is very much confidence among producers as to what is going to happen with this legislation. I am told that in the central part of Alberta many producers will not take the program. I met with a number of producers in western Canada over the weekend and the split was interesting. Some were going to take the program because they were in such a desperate situation. Others who were in a stronger position financially said they saw the benefit this year, but thought they would be paying for four years and, at the end of the day,
Government Orders
they would not profit much by enrolling in the program. So there is great skepticism and great uncertainty.
The one amendment, which was put by our side of the House and accepted, provides for the government to be required, with the concurrence of the provinces, to table each agreement. At least we have the agreements with whatever number of provinces take it on.
There is great concern that the legislation will not be national in scope. There is provision for it. We have some five or six provinces who have, so far, indicated they will take the Gross Revenue Insurance Program, but only one has agreed to take the Net Income Stabilization Program, that being Saskatchewan. Whether the program will ever be national in scope the way that the western grain stabilization and the Agriculture Stabilization Act worked in tandem, only time will tell. That is part of the uncertainty with the whole arrangement.
The bill sets out laudable objectives: it should be market neutral; it should be production neutral; it should respect our international trade arrangements; it should be environmentally sustainable. Yet some groups who came before the committee were able to put very convincing arguments that none of these objectives will be met, at least in the initial year. That is why the need for a very capable and competent review.
Already there are important and credible agriculture forecasting groups saying that the bill is going to encourage greater production of wheat and it is going to ignore market signals. It would be most unfortunate if that were to occur this year when wheat is at $2.50 a bushel rather than $4 or $5 a bushel and that should not trigger a signal for an increased production of two million acres of wheat rather than a reduction of one million acres of wheat as probably would have happened without the GRIP program being in place.
There are a number of other amendments which the government did not accept. One is to protect the integrity of individual producer's income tax confidentiality. This bill will provide that the ordinary crop insurance authorities in each province will simply be able to trigger an individual producer's income tax files. I am not sure that is necessary or desirable. I am sure it is not desirable and I doubt that it is even necessary.

March 27, 1991
Government Orders
We had proposed as well that the government should not be allowing NISA, which is a funded program where the government matches dollar for dollar certain amounts of funding, to be made available to other than Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada. The government did not accept those amendments.
We look at the bill believing that it is a framework legislation that can provide for agreements. We are not certain how effective the legislation will be and whether the objectives will be met. On the other hand, we believe that the government has an immediate responsibility to provide cash assistance before the crop season begins this spring. Because of its urgency, we hope that the government will act and bring this legislation back to the House from time to time to be amended, as needed, or at least to have the agreements amended so that we will be able to make the necessary adjustments. With the wide variety of growing situations and market circumstances and other aspects involved in this, and at a time of incredible cash flow shortage, there is not much confidence or belief that this legislation will stand as it is for very long without amendments to those agreements.
We want to see the legislation pass so that the benefits can be made available to producers. We think it will require adjustments and changes not very far down the road, but we are pleased to see it pass at third reading today and get on the road to providing assistance either later this fall or certainly in the next crop year to remedy in that crop year what has been lost in this particular crop year. During the past two years the government has chopped back in a crude and violent way government support programs by some $1.6 billion. That is why there is an emergency today for Canadian grain and oilseed producers.
This legislation is not going to correct that immediate problem. We require assistance immediately, before the planting season this spring. If this legislation works the way the government believes it will, hopefully it will be useful in the next crop year 1991-92.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon -Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attended a press conference where I and a number of my colleagues from this House who had made a recent trip to Sudan and Ethiopia were putting
before our country the needs of those particular countries for food. It is recognized that if we do not get a couple of million tonnes of food to those countries in the next few months, as many as a million people will die.
There are 12 million people in those two countries that are being affected by famine, a famine that is considered to be even worse than the one in 1984-85 in which one million people died. This is thought to be a worse situation because of unco-operative governments and the wars that are going on in those areas. We in the prairies and in Canada grow over 50 million tonnes of grain, of which we export up to 30 million tonnes. Our contribution to world food is fairly small compared to the amount that we actually grow.
What we are talking about today is a system which will allow the farmers in Canada to survive. It is almost ridiculous that we find ourselves working on a plan that is supposed to help in the survival of the food producers in our country when there is such a great need in the world for the food that we produce.
Obviously there is something wrong with our distribution system. Some people starve while we cannot get enough for our product to survive. The various papers that were part of the growing together operation that the government put into place made a plea for a structure that would stabilize the food production industry in Canada.
The two plans that are part of this particular bill, the Farm Income Protection Act, are the Gross Revenue Insurance Program and the Net Income Stabilization Account. They are the product of a considerable amount of discussion among people interested in farming and among farmers themselves. At least that was what was supposed to happen. However, the consultation process only went so far. It continued up until the basics had been agreed upon, then the details were left to the bureaucrats and the legislation was left to the bureaucrats.
March 27, 1991

The agreements which really make up the key issues in this whole operation of a safety net are between the federal government and the provincial governments, with only marginal impact from the farm groups.
I know the government says this is the product of a considerable amount of consultation, and I guess we have to agree with that. However, this government has also given the term "consultation" a bad name. Therefore, we are always a little suspicious that what we are getting is an opportunity to say something, but nobody is on the other side listening.
This bill is enabling legislation. It allows the federal Minister of Agriculture to make agreements with the provinces and with the producers relative to the provision of safety nets for the products they produce. The parameters of these agreements are supposed to be established in this legislation and these are supposed to be long-term safety nets.
This was not to be an ad hoc solution to the disasters when they arose, but was supposed to be an ongoing, permanent solution to the ups and downs of the agricultural sector. The need for a permanent stabilization program has long been part of the New Democratic Party's policy, as it was a policy of the CCF, which preceded us.
Various attempts have been made over the years to establish programs which would allow this kind of stabilization as far as agriculture is concerned. We have had the Western Grain Stabilization program, the agricultural stabilization program, Crop Insurance Act, various supply management marketing boards. All of these have been attempts to put in place a safety net program that would be permanent and satisfactory.
These attempts have worked with varying degrees of success, supply management probably being the relative easy winner among the groups. In 1985, the Hon. John Wise, then the Minister of Agriculture, made a commitment on behalf of this government to the country that he would put in place a permanent long-term stabilization program for all sectors of agriculture. I am sure John Wise is breathing easier today because I think he gave up in despair of even expanding the supply management under the ideology that was at that particular time espousing things like free trade and the selling of the country.
As it happened, the hon. John Wise left us and it has taken the government since 1985 until now to come up with some kind of an alternative to the suggestion that was put in place at that time.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the taking of a recorded division.


PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre in relation to amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-79, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Amendments read the second time and concurred in.


FARM INCOME PROTECTION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-98, an act authorizing agreements between the Government of Canada and the provinces to provide for protection for the income of producers of agricultural products and to enable the
Government of Canada to take additional measures for that purpose, be read the third time and passed.
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, basically GRIP is much the same structure as a New Democratic Party proposal which is quite well known across the prairies and across the rest of Canada called the Family Farm Stabilization Program. It is by comparison to our program that we see the shortcomings of this particular program.
I would like to spend a bit of time on a couple of those shortcomings. First, this was supposed to be a long-term program and it may be a short-term program. The Western Grain Stabilization Program floundered under a $1.2 billion deficit, a deficit which Grant Devine hopes is to become greater in the next few months and hopes that he will win the Saskatchewan election.
I suggest that this program may be short-term because of the 15-year moving average price which is likely to pay well for the first couple of years, particularly for wheat. It will pay well because it takes in those years in the late 1970s when the price of wheat was fairly high.
This will mean that the program will establish a pretty hefty deficit during the first two years of its existence. We hope that the deficit will not sink the program during those years. That is why I suggest that it may be a short-term program. If it goes several billion dollars in the hole in the first couple of years, this government or a following government may have to or may want to look at it. However, it may not have to do so in the first two years, which will almost take it to the next election. That is one shortcoming of this particular program.
It may be short-term for another reason. If the guaranteed price falls after a couple of years, farmers may not want to be part of it.
The success of this type of program depends on almost universal subscriptions from the producers. If the producers decide that they do not like it and start dropping out, the program eventually falls on hard times and the government is likely to dump it. It is likely to dump it, particularly after a couple of years, if it becomes politically advantageous for the government to do so.
That is another reason why it may not survive and another reason why we think it has some shortcomings.
March 27, 1991

A third concern is that it does not include the cost of production for even a minimum amount of production. We are not suggesting, and we have never suggested it, that the cost of production be guaranteed for great amounts of product produced, to unlimited levels. However, we have suggested that every farmer should be assured of the cost of production for a certain part of his production.
There is not enough stability in this program after the first couple of years. If they start producing crops lower than the cost of production, they will want to get out of it as soon as possible or go into products that are more marketable. We in Canada know that we have to continue producing the products presently in place.
Another flaw in this plan is that there is no limit to the amount that can be paid to any particular producer. In the United States similar programs are now being blamed for the demise of the family farm, because those programs ended up paying 85 per cent of the funds available to 10 per cent of the farms. Those 10 per cent were the large farms, many of which were vertically integrated corporate farms that took the lion's share of the program. Meanwhile, small farms or farms that had been viable disappeared, with the effect of elimination of rural communities and, to a great extent, the rural way of life in many states.
In our amendments to this bill we have suggested that a limit should be placed upon the amount paid to each unit to keep the total cost of the program down. That again is a flaw in this particular program. There is nothing within this legislation which guarantees a top limit on the spending as far as the taxpayer is concerned.
In the policy our party has been suggesting for years we had many issues in place that are not in this program. The first would be the cost of production, a basic part of production. In the second level of production we suggested a similar program to the one we are talking about today and that the average price be guaranteed. In the third level farmers would have yield insurance.
There are two other real concerns about the shortsightedness of these particular plans. There is nothing in this program or related to this program which relieves farm debt. That is a major concern out there at the moment.
Government Orders
In Saskatchewan there has been a major decimating of a number of farms by foreclosures, quit claims and other methods.
Twenty to 30 per cent of the farmers are in financial difficulty. These plans do nothing to help these farmers stay viable, so that they can make use of these plans. Many farmers are also in a position where they do not have money to plant this spring.
The Minister of State responsible for Grains and Oilseeds made an announcement that western grain stabilization would make some pay-outs this spring that may help in the bridging. These plans are based on this particular year and the farmers need funds now to plant. Consequently, a number of farmers may not be able to take advantage of GRIP because they do not have enough money to put seed in the ground now.
I could spend a considerable amount of time talking about NISA which is a glorified RRSP plan, the kind of plan of which every group of people in Canada would like to take advantage. I could talk also about a number of other issues that we are concerned about: the fact that this is not friendly to the environment, that it gives the wrong kind of market signals, that it does not include forages. All of these are concerns we have with these plans.
Mr. Speaker, I will sit down now. I know there are other speakers who will talk about the particular concerns we have with this bill.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments about Bill C-98, the Farm Income Protection Act, before the completion of third reading.
Without a doubt this is the most all-encompassing piece of farm legislation that we have had in Canada in many decades. That statement has both pluses and minuses. It is a piece of legislation that is attacking the stability problem of farmers in Canada in a different way than we have ever attacked it before in the hope we can provide that stability.
I want to point out to the House and to all Canadians that the dangers of this type of bill, which is enabling legislation, gives this government and any future government more power to deal with agricultural legislation and programs than has ever been given in Canada before.

March 27, 1991
Government Orders
With this bill a government does not have to come back to the House of Commons or to the Parliament of Canada to make changes in most, if not all, of the important pieces of farm legislation. That gives flexibility, I agree, but it can also be used, if so desired, in negative ways, whether it be for political reasons, or for the expedience of doing what may need to be done in a hurry in order to help solve a problem. As I say, there are pluses and minuses.
We should all be aware that this bill, albeit for the most part a good bill, is not the be all and the end all that some people would like us to believe it is. It will put some stability into the farm situation, but most of that stability is going to be in the very near future. When I say the near future, I mean at the end of the 1991 crop and at the end of the 1992 crop. After that there are grave concerns about what may happen.
I would just like to quote from a very highly regarded Canada agribusiness authority, Agriweek, that is published in Winnipeg:
The first crop year to be covered is 1991-92 and a substantial
payment for that year is reasonably assured. But market prices have
nowhere to go but up; -
And let us hope that is the case, Mr. Speaker. The article goes on:
- meanwhile the 15-year moving average on which support prices are based will go progressively lower each year. When the two converge benefits will cease but premiums will continue. Unless crop prices drop even further the probability of significant GRIP payouts after about 1992-93 is low.
We have to realize that this is the type of program that has been arranged as it should. I agree that those producers who sign up cannot get in and out each year. One of the conditions of signing up for GRIP is that once a producer signs up for one year he must give three years' notice.
This is a type of insurance plan, but a farmer cannot get out for three years. The minister himself has said that the deficits, which should be covered by the premiums, are going to build up in the first two or three years in particular and if the premiums get to a level that they do not pay for the forthcoming year, there is not any way the producer can get out unless he or she has given notice some three years prior to that.
The other concern is that it is a combination type bill. In order to have anywhere near the effectiveness it is hoped to have, a producer must take part in both GRIP and NISA. All provinces right now with the exception of one, have not seen fit to sign up for the Net Income Stabilization Account portion of the bill.
We must not be deceived when we see the charts and figures that are put before us as taxpayers, producers, and people in the agrifood industry that show the net results of producers being involved in GRIP and NISA. For the most part producers are not involved in NISA and everyone says that for the program to be as successful as we hope it is producers must belong to both. Most producers in this country are not going to be given the opportunity to belong to both because most of the provinces have not signed up for the NISA.
When we look at the charts and the net income the farmers have had in the last 10 years, even with the new programs, when we look at the projections for market prices, market returns, and the returns from GRIP and NISA, these programs are still only going to guarantee Canadian producers about 80 per cent of the average net income they have become accustomed to for the last 10 years. I do not think there are many Canadians out there who would be happy with that.
The good part of that is that it is going to be stabilized. There will be some stability. But it is one thing to say to someone: "Yes, you have an income, and you are going to have an income for the next five years, or 10 years, or whatever it is". It is another thing to say: "But, it is going to be at 80 per cent of what your income has been for the last 10 years," or, in this case, the figures that we look at.
That would even be different if the income for the last 10 years had been a good income so that that cutback could be afforded. I can tell you that that cutback cannot be afforded.
The other concern that I have, and I think it is one we need to pay a lot of attention to and spend a lot of time with, is the acceptability of this program and the results of this enabling legislation, how it is going to be received by the rest of the world and by other trading nations. Already we have some of those groups from outside our borders taking a look at it, one of them being a very highly respected economic forecasting group from the United States, the Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates. They are already pointing fingers at what they feel will be the net result of this piece of legislation. They say that it is going to increase production and it is going to influence, not only the amount of acres of different crops that will be planted in Canada, but the distribution of those acres and the distribution of the different types of crops, whether they be wheat, canola, flax, lentils, corn, soybeans, or whatever it might happen to be.
March 27, 1991

Those are matters we had best be aware of now. They are going to be looked at by other countries at the GATT negotiations. Other countries are going to pass judgment on whether they think this enabling legislation allows Canadian governments now and in the future to influence production and, therefore, influence the amount of grains, oilseeds or crops that are in the country and whether that will adjust what might otherwise be the production level in Canada and, therefore, affect production in the rest of the world.
I would like to thank the government for all of the amendments they made at committee, and further, the amendments they made at report stage here in the House on Bill C-98.
One of those amendments was by my colleague from Algoma, which requests and ensures that the agreements the federal government makes with the individual provinces will be tabled in the House of Commons so that we can review and look at those each time the agreements are made.
The other was an amendment in my name, which covered the concerns of a lot of groups and individuals who came forward at the agriculture committee when we were going through the bill, prior to clause by clause review at the end.
The amendment states that the minister must appoint a review committee which each year must review and report to the minister with any suggestions or amendments they feel need to be made to the bill in order to improve it. I feel that is absolutely necessary. I appreciate the fact that that has taken place.
I do not think I will make any more comments, other than in closing, to say basically it is a good bill. It is not the be all and the end all. It is better than the ad hoc programs we have at the present time. It is filling in the second line of defence we are concerned about at the farm level.
The first line of defence, as we all know, and the only line of defence that producers and farmers want is a fair return from the marketplace for the produce, livestock and crops they produce. That is really what we want.
Government Orders
That is really what producers want and that is really what is needed.
Along with that, there has to be the government programs and the government action and force put into place to ensure that producers have a decent interest rate, not the interest rate we have now that is away out of whack, compared to our competitors, especially those south of the border.
We need proper border inspection put in place. We need a better way of counteracting the game that our friends south of the border like to play in putting up non-tariff barriers and the other word that they are now admitting they are using in the way they describe what they are doing, called harassment. They are excellent at that. We have do a much better job on behalf of our producers, as a Parliament, in counteracting that.
The GRIP and NISA programs covered by Bill C-98 puts in place the second line of defence in order to give some stability if the first line of defence does not provide a fair return to the producers for their product.
There is the third line of defence, which the government is presently dragging its heels on by not telling the producers what it is going to do, if anything, concerning the 1991 spring year as a result of the terrible prices in farm products because of the 1990 crop prices. That is bridging financing to get the producers through the situation they are in now, until the positive effects of the GRIP and NISA programs can take place after this year.
Again I urge the government to get off its hands and get that done so the producers know where they are for this year. Hopefully producers will to be able to take part in and benefit from the enabling legislation which puts GRIP and NISA in place for the long-term benefit of Canadian producers. Therefore, when they are benefiting and are productive, they will be producing the quality food that Canadians demand and deserve and they will be able to do it at a reasonable and competitive price.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a privilege to be able to participate in this debate because there is probably no debate that we have had in this House of Commons that more directly affects more people in a whole region than the one that we are talking about now.

March 27, 1991
Government Orders
What we are talking about is not so much whether Bill C-98, the Farm Income Protection Act, will protect production in this country, but whether it will protect family farmers in this country. I have no doubt that we will keep on producing food in this country. Certainly we have the resources to do so and the world will keep on needing food, there is no question about that. So we will produce food in this country.
The question is: Who will produce it? Will it be family farmers as we have known it; generations of farmers who pass on the farming knowledge from one generation to another, the knowledge of a particular piece of land from one generation to another, or will it be corporate farms, a very few large farms where everybody works as hired help with no real commitment to the industry and culture of the farming community, the small communities and towns that rely on the farming community? All of that, which is so much a part of the Canadian fabric, could well be lost.
I would like to say that in some ways I feel, quite personally, that it is many of my friends and peers who are getting wiped out by the agriculture crisis that we are facing right now. The older generation of farmers, our parents, people who started in the 1930s and so on, went through tough times in the late 1950s which were resolved, in many ways, by the Diefenbaker government selling grain to the Soviet Union and China. Those same people went through the low prices and the inability to sell grain in the late 1960s and early 1970s when the former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, distinguished himself by saying: "Why should I sell your grain?" Those farmers went through those years. Those who have survived will continue to survive, but they are getting older.
What happened was that in the 1970s when prices were good there was quite a number of young farmers in all communities across the country who went back to the farm and established their families on the farm and took up farming as a career. These farm families are now in their late 30s, 40s and early 50s and are up against the wall. These people do not know whether they will be able to put a crop in this year. These people do not know whether they will have to relocate their families, whether the way of life that they chose is gone forever or whether it is worthwhile to try and hang on for another year. This is a crisis that not only pertains to individuals,
it pertains to whole communities and, indeed, whole regions of this country. If you look at the figures you can see why.
In 1980, net farm income in this country was about $4.5 billion to $5 billion a year. By 1989-90, it had gone down to $3.2 million although inflation had about doubled the cost to production in that time. Another 54 per cent drop this year to about $2 billion nationally. But in Saskatchewan and Manitoba not a dime of net farm income over-all. That means there is nothing to live on for farm families in those two provinces without government assistance in this coming year. Unfortunately these discouraging trends in the farm community have also been reinforced by other actions of the government which have also served to demoralize farm communities and take away their reasons for being-things like post office closures, closures of railways, and now most recently the cuts to revenue sharing with the provinces, which is serving to undermine the health and education systems.
In a lot of these rural communities it is the small rural hospital, the small rural school that is already in trouble that will be the first to go because of the cuts that were recently announced by the federal government. That again undermines that rural community, not only in terms of morale but by taking away valuable jobs which members of the farm family could hold to supplement their farm income.
The legislation we are talking about here permits the government to proceed with agreements with the provinces on the GRIP and NISA programs is the result of a long process obviously. There is a long history of struggle by farmers to get in place government programs which will maintain their incomes and their way of life-going back to the thirties, struggles for crop insurance, struggles for grain stabilization and so on.
It became apparent that a lot of these were not working properly. Too much ad hoc assistance was still needed, and that is why when the former Minister of Agriculture, John Wise, in 1985 committed the government to a long-term permanent program, there was widespread support for that idea across the farm community and across all political parties, a real willingness to move that agenda ahead.
March 27, 1991

Unfortunately, in its first term of government the Progressive Conservative Party chose not to move on that front. I think, without violating my native sense of modesty, the New Democrats did the farm community a real service in the last election by actually pinpointing, or at least suggesting, a particular program, a specific program, the Farm Family Support Program, which detailed a program for family farmers and forced a debate to occur on the whole question of a permanent safety net program.
I think it was a very good program. Certainly in Saskatchewan it was very well received. Saskatchewan farmers, as a result of that in large part, returned a large number of NDP members to this House this session.
There were a few aspects of that proposal that were particularly noteworthy in this context. One is that it set a basic support level at the cost of production, which this year would be about $5.28 per bushel as opposed to the $4.15 which the government is proposing under the GRIP legislation.
Second, the payment was payable at the elevator. You did not have to mail anything in, it did not depend on some announcement down the road, it was there at the elevator, it was part of the cheque when the farmer delivered his grain.
Third, there was a cap on the program which permitted the program to be premium-free for the first 8,000 bushels. There would be premiums above that, but it had the cap on the program so that the maximum amount of money went to the maximum amount of farmers, and therefore achieved the objective of keeping family farmers on the land.
The process was obviously continued by the Growing Together strategy, which I think resulted from some of the political pressure that had been created by the NDP in debating this particular proposal, as well as other farm groups. A consultation process ensued that had several stages, and certainly I want to give credit to the people who were involved in that. There were a lot of sincere people who put a lot of effort into it, and I think in some measure their voices were in fact heard.
However, in the last round of meetings that occurred in the farm community, and is still occurring, there was also a great deal of uncertainty about these programs. Farmers flocked to them in huge numbers. There must have been thousands of farmers who attended GRIP and NISA meetings in the last several months. They were
Government Orders
very curious. Over all, people recognized that there needs to be a program, that this at least offered some potential of a permanent, effective safety net program.
However, they were also very skeptical about some aspects of it. They were trying to take an objective look. Some of the problems that people identified are, I think, worth making note of again. One thing is that there is no relationship to the cost of production in the formula, and that it uses the 15-year rolling average to determine the level of farm support.
As one farmer, Lloyd Johnson from Turtleford, wrote in a communication: "What GRIP does in effect is guarantee 70 per cent of a market price that everyone already knows is too low to maintain the farming community."
That is true. If you look over the last 15 years, we have been steadily losing farmers, and to establish a payment level at 70 per cent of that obviously dooms us for some time to come.
Second, this is not a national program. It depends on individual agreements with specific provinces. Therefore, you get a situation where Saskatchewan residents pay $168 per capita, Quebec $21, and Ontario $30; certainly not a national program.
Third, it discourages forage, crop rotation and reforestation on marginal lands.
Fourth, it creates more uncertainty because the temptation is going to be to sign up for the program and then withdraw because the rolling average will create falling benefits. This will put the plan in trouble. As Roy Romanow, Leader of the NDP in Saskatchewan said: "It might well be the shortest long-term program in history."
NISA helps those most who need it least.
The last aspect I would like to refer to is the third line of defence. We have a serious problem this spring. Certainly in that regard we appreciated the $158 million announcement that we heard earlier today, but there is still uncertainty about the rest of the third line of defence. There is a suggestion that it will be tied closely to GRIP and NISA. That is unfair to farmers because the details of those programs are not fully known. Those farmers need that commitment now. The government promised that it would make known to farmers before spring seeding what this payment would be. It is time to do it now.

March 27, 1991
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate. In Canada we have too few farmers now; we need to commit ourselves as a nation to a strong and vibrant farm community that is based on family farms being there not only in this century but into the next.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the third reading of Bill C-98, the legislation which provides authority to the federal government to enter into negotiations with the provinces on matters pertaining to the protection of income for farmers.
The legislation does not refer to the present farm financial crisis of trying to support a $22 billion agricultural debt. It merely enables the federal government to enter into agreements with the provinces in matters relating to farm income. Farm people have grave fears about the future of their income stability and although this legislation proposes to establish the now much talked about but confusing GRIP and NISA programs, this legislation contains none of the provisions which will guide the administration of these programs. What GRIP and NISA really are is described only in the agreements to be signed with the provinces and in the regulations yet to be seen.
In other words, with this legislation in front of us, what we are being asked to do is to write a blank cheque for the government to fill in the details later. The crisis on the farm and the future of the prairie family farm, as well as the future of the agriculture industry itself, are much too important at this time to sign that blank cheque.
I have given a lot of thought to this since Bill C-98 was first introduced in the House on March 4, and I must now say that I cannot support it at third reading. For reasons I will explain in a few moments, I cannot support GRIP and NISA in their present forms. Therefore, I cannot in all fairness consent to legislation which allows the federal government to sign agreements which would set these programs in place.
There is a much more immediate financial need that must be addressed, as well as the long-term interests of agricultural sustainability and viability that we must discuss. The government's discussions and consultations which led up to the creation of GRIP and NISA included matters relating to the present crisis and the potential long-term problems in the industry. This government should be bringing legislation dealing with these matters before us instead of Bill C-98. This bill will not save one single family farm from foreclosure in 1991.
Bill C-98 ignores this crisis which is driving families from rural Canada in greater numbers than ever before. This trend must be stopped and reversed. In doing so, ideas presented in GRIP and NISA programs must be significantly changed.
A number of these changes were presented by the opposition in amendments earlier this week, but many of them were rejected by the government whose agricultural agenda is obviously much different than mine and that of the people I represent in Saskatchewan.
Since February 26 when the finance minister tabled his 1991 budget, farmers have been looking at one line in the minister's speech. That one line indicated that $1.3 billion in additional spending had been earmarked for farmers in need.
It is almost five weeks later, and still there is no word on the exact nature of that $1.3 billion. In my speech at second reading and again at report stage in this House, I urged the Minister of Agriculture to talk to the finance minister and get that money released immediately for spring seeding.
The prairie pools, the National Farmers' Union and others say there is a deficiency in agricultural support in excess of $1 billion. That must be made available for the seeding, or seeding is in jeopardy.
Today once again, I say to the minister: Stop playing games. Release the money and do not tie it to the yet unapproved GRIP because there are many producers in my area who will not sign up for GRIP but who are desperate for immediate assistance.
March 27, 1991

On March 1, when the Minister of Agriculture was in Regina, he said in a speech that the budget's $1.3 billion would be used to help off-set the WGSA deficit, introduce GRIP and provide transitional funding to get into the new safety nets. That word "transitional" is important because that is what we need now.
I hope the minister will rise in his place before this debate is over and announce that transitional funding as part of a spring seeding program. Decisions on the farm are being made now, and the minister knows this.
The minister's Regina speech also talked about new partnerships, dialogue and compromise. I want the minister to know that I agree with dialogue and compromise, but I want to see a little of that from his side of the House.
Farmers and their representatives in this House have identified many problems with GRIP and NISA, and they have suggested many changes. The government would be well advised to show a bit of that spirit of compromise and improve this legislation before us in line with what has been suggested by my colleagues in this House.
There are real problems in the agriculture sector that Bill C-98 does not address, as I have already noted. Is the government aware of many of these problems? Apparently not.
The 1986 farm census conducted by Statistics Canada gave us a very gloomy picture. No doubt the 1991 census will prove even more depressing. That census indicated a dramatic decline in farm population, an increase in the average age of the farm operator and a growing need for farm families to obtain off-farm income to make ends meet.
Some people think government subsidies for farmers are wrong. When we study the issue, we see that nobody subsidizes the farm more than the farmer himself. That 1986 study indicated that 55 per cent of farm family income came from off-farm earnings.
In order to stay on the farm, the farmer had to look off the farm for income. How many other Canadians would keep their jobs if doing so meant that they had to seek other employment just to secure the incomes necessary to pay for their food, shelter and health care needs?
Government Orders
This has meant that there is a growing proportion of farm spouses in the labour force. In 1986, 66 per cent of farm wives were in the labour force and accounted for roughly 25 per cent of the total farm income. We know that that has increased dramatically since then.
This extra income is necessary because during the past seven years expenses have risen sharply, prices have dropped drastically and interest rates on money borrowed to stay in the operation have been sky high.
With a combined farm debt of more than $22 billion, the average interest payment in 1985 was $10,800 per farm. It is worse today. That is interest, not principal and interest, just interest. Fanners have all their other costs to make on top of that, after interest. It is no wonder that the banks and the government's financial institutions are foreclosing. It is because the interest payments have made these farms non-viable.
In 1941, there were 733,000 farms registered in Canada. By 1986 there were fewer than 300,000. In the short five-year period, 1981 to 1986, the number of individual farms declined by a whopping 13 per cent. In contrast the number of corporate farms has increased. Therefore, I am not surprised that the new GRIP and NISA programs will allow pay-outs to be made to non-Canadians because more and more of these corporate farms are owned by people who live outside of Canada.
In 1941, 27 per cent of the total Canadian population lived on farms. By 1986, only 4 per cent were farm residents. By far the largest number of the people living on farms is in my province. In 1986, 17 per cent of Saskatchewan residents lived on farms. They want to stay on the farm, but the policies of this government and the Liberal government before it are driving them away.
Is it any wonder that the majority of Saskatchewan residents voted against these two parties in 1988 when the financial crisis was beginning to hit them hard.
When the Minister of Agriculture was in Regina on March 1, he also said that GRIP and NISA were designed to bring stability, predictability and security to the agriculture sector. Only two of these are correct. GRIP will certainly stabilize the price of grain, but likely at too low a level to make a difference. We can certainly predict what the program will do to farm gate prices over the long term, but there is no security in this.

March 27, 1991
Government Orders
Security in agriculture, both in farming and in processing, is important. Indeed, it is crucial to the future of the industry. For farm families in rural Canada in general, any and every program put forward by this or any other government must ensure viability and the better future that brings to all rural Canadians.
The minister sees GRIP as one of the first programs in a package flowing from his green paper, Growing Together, issued earlier in this government's term. The paper was based on four pillars: market responsiveness, selfreliance, regional sensitivity and environmental sustainability. For the most part this translates into a plan that eventually removes government support in times of need. If we examine GRIP closely, we see that that is exactly how it has been designed.
Farmers will always be committed to high premiums, but in a few years will likely to guaranteed no more than the market price for their grains and oilseeds. With the 15-year moving average provision, we are being asked to buy into a package that will eventually guarantee only low prices, below production cost prices for our products. This is nonsense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to hear the hon. member, if you do not mind. It is a great speech. The hon. member, please.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I realize the member for Vegreville and the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster have a lot to talk about after what I have had to say here. I am very pleased to hear that they are listening so intently.
For a farm to be viable, without total government support and without every member of the family working off the farm, we need to secure prices, at a bare minimum, that cover the costs of production. If not, the debt climbs and more people will be pushed off the farms.
At second reading I outlined other government agriculture programs which are tied into the marketplace philosophy of this government, like the interest free cash advance which was taken away just when it was needed most and the termination of the branch line rehabilitation program which has speeded up the rail lines abandonment schedule. Even the Saskatchewan Conservative government knows this is wrong and is complaining that
the federal government is merely passing the grain transportation costs of maintaining the rail beds to the provinces which have to maintain the roadbeds.
That raises one other very important matter. Bill C-98 and the GRIP and NISA programs do what this government is attempting to do across the board; decentralize the economy and off load federal costs on to the provinces. Agriculture is an important national industry and should be treated as such. The federal government should not and cannot expect the Saskatchewan taxpayer to shoulder any more of the financial burden. The national taxpayer and those who benefit from a government supported cheap food policy should assume the costs of maintaining the industry.
For the wage earners of Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver, to pay a greater share of the Canadian food costs would only be fair.
Then the province of Saskatchewan would be free to look after its own responsibilities like education and health care. I do not have enough time to get into all the federal programs that have been designed to push people out of agriculture, but I stress that is happening and that is happening on purpose.
The numbers speak for themselves. Anyone who has already lost his farm knows exactly what I am talking about. Just two days ago I attended a meeting in a farming community in my own constituency. I was overwhelmed with the sense of depression that existed among the farmers present. Many knew that GRIP was going to reduce their incomes over the long term, and most wanted changes made to the program which none have yet seen in any detail.
For the most part the farmers were resigned to the fact that GRIP would become a reality. Some were saying they would never sign up for it and expressed a desire for deficiency payments to get them through this period of low prices. Other said: what the heck, they will sign up in the early years and then withdraw when the guaranteed price starts to decline. They need the money now and are quite prepared to do almost anything to get it quickly. If that means signing up for a flawed and inadequate program that will eventually destroy their industry, they are willing to take their chances.
March 27, 1991

The minister knows the threat that this attitude presents. For fanners to take advantage of the program in the early years and then withdraw simply leaves the program bankrupt and debt ridden, which is not the idea at all.
Then the next government-and there will be another government-has to start from scratch repairing the mess and trying to retire yet another Tory generated debt.
However, the biggest threat in my constituency is the fact that many producers have not belonged to crop insurance or the Western Grain Stabilization Program. They have not paid insurance premiums in the past. The premiums are not part of their cash flow at present.
Now GRIP comes along and requires a hefty premium to be paid. That premium of $8,000, $12,000 or $20,000, depending on the size of the farm, is a brand new up-front expense on many of these farms. It is an expense that cannot be met. It is an expense that may mean many will not be able to participate in GRIP, even if they want to participate, because the government has been saying that transition funding, spring feeding funding, or any ad hoc funding will be tied to participation in GRIP.
These producers are doomed to an even more marginal existence and a more rapid removal from the land. For the average producer on the prairies, one who is in debt, one who requires off-farm income to make ends meet, one who is confused and concerned about his future, GRIP and NISA are no answer to the immediate and devastating problems facing them.
As I have said, after reviewing Bill C-98, after reviewing testimony before the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and after discussing this with significant numbers of producers in my constituency, I cannot in good conscience support the passage of Bill C-98 and give the federal government my consent to pursue federal-provincial agreements which would set these agricultural programs in place. Rather, I would urge the Minister of Agriculture to pursue another course. I am glad he is in the House today to be able to hear what this other course is.
That other course would include an immediate spring seeding payment, the lowering of interest rates on farm debt, the development of long-term, long-range agriculture support programs which include sound transportation programs and, most of all, a commitment toward an
Government Orders
income policy that guarantees a fair price for agricultural products: grains, oilseeds, specialty crops, as well as dairy and meat products. As I have said before, a fair price in my eyes must cover at the very bare minimum the farmer's cost of production.
I continue to believe, as I said at second reading, that the GRIP and NISA programs indicate that even this government knows there is a need for a long-term income stabilization in the farm sector in Canada. However, GRIP and NISA are only a recognition of this point. They are by no means an end. Much has yet to be done.
There is no reason why this government cannot reintroduce its program of deficiency payments to meet year by year needs, until an adequate and fair income stabilization program can be developed. It is the very least we can ask. The industry and the future of hundreds of farm families depend upon it.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I think I am rising to close the debate on third reading of this bill.
Today we are faced with massive farm income problems across Canada, brought on in part by the farm bill introduced in the United States several years ago. It has had the effect of creating a world price for wheat and other major grains which is consistent with the loan rates established by the U.S. government.
Its farmers are well protected because they get the loan rate, which currently stands somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2.30 or $2.40 Canadian for wheat. They are also guaranteed the target price by way of deficiency payments at the end of each crop year. U.S. farmers are getting a return that covers the cost of production of a big chunk of their farm community, whereas our farmers are being asked to work under a loan rate which is almost half that price.
In order to compete in world markets we have had in Canada some recognition of the ups and downs of the market. We have had in place the Western Grain Stabilization Act. It has had a long career of almost 15 years since 1976. Today the minister announced what I presume will be the final payment out of that act of $158 million. This $158 million will be appreciated by western farmers, because it will go a little way toward paying the premiums under this new GRIP program. It will pay a fraction of those premiums.

March 27, 1991
Government Orders
The act itself is permissive. The meat of what is being proposed here appears in federal-provincial agreements to which my friend from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake referred in his speech. Those agreements are not as good as what people had hoped for, but I believe this act has some potential.
In historical and political terms I would place it somewhere in the neighbourhood of the 1935 act to establish the Canadian Wheat Board. It was put in place by the dying R. B. Bennett administration that finally cottoned on to the plummeting that he was taking in the countryside and finally understood that he was not terribly popular in the country. I guess he saw how many Bennett buggies there were out there and decided he was not a popular man. On his almost political deathbed he brought in the Canadian Wheat Board Act because farmers had been attempting to get a wheat board for some 15 years before then. One of his last acts of desperation to try to get support back was to pass the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I think agricultural historians 20 or 30 years from now will place this act in the same position. Farmers put a great deal of pressure on this government to get part of what we have before us here. As part of the green paper response and various task forces that were set up, one was to look at income stability. While they were not to bring in any report, they persisted and in fact produced recommendations which were acted upon in part with this legislation.
The farmers in that group wanted some form of price insurance or price guarantee to make them competitive with the United States. They were trying to get something like the target prices of American farmers so that they would know if they had 1,000 bushels of wheat to sell they would get about $4 a bushel for it. They could then design their farms so that they could get the maximum production out of them once they knew what the price was. That is what they wanted. What they seem to be getting in the agreements that are being signed between the provinces and the federal government is some form of revenue insurance.
Revenue insurance is not the same. It is simply a guaranteed price under an index moving average price cariying over 15 years times the actual average yield for the area. It is much less costly to the fund and less risk to
the program. We have to work on as to how these agreements will work is a bit of hearsay evidence, because the agreements themselves were not available to be put before the committee. The agreements could not be discussed because the government said that it did not have legislation. Because it did not have the legislation passed, it could not sign the agreements and, until the agreements were signed, the provinces could not be asked to make them public.
We have the information that is round and about in Saskatchewan, distributed by the provincial government there. While those pieces of information are still being formed, we think we have some concept of how the proposal will work under the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan.
In order to show the House how it works and to show how it is not the final solution, so to speak, let us suppose Saskatchewan has one farm that grows nothing but wheat and barley. We will use the actual acres in production for that farm of Saskatchewan for 1990. We will apply the GRIP program to that year and just see what results.
We will note that there were 16 million acres seeded to wheat in Saskatchewan last year. It was a fairly good year. The average yield was 32 bushels to the acre. The average price at the elevator was about $3 a bushel. Therefore they took off $1,536 billion worth of production. In the barley production, they seeded 3.65 million acres. The average production was about 50 bushels to the acre, for 182.5 million bushels at a price around $1.40 a bushel, yielding 255.5 million bushels.
Had they been under GRIP, would the income have been a great deal more than the $1,780 billion? That is the question. If there had been an average crop, there would have been only 400 million bushels produced. It would have, therefore, qualified for the GRIP price at the maximum yield at $4 a bushel or $1.6 billion. Instead of $1,536 billion with the good crop that we produced, had we produced an average crop and had GRIP we would have got slightly more money. We would have got about $60 million more in money out the GRIP payment had it been in effect this year, because that was what our coverage level was.
March 27, 1991

Having produced a 50 bushel to the acre barley crop would we have got a GRIP payment this year? Because the price is only $1.40 per bushel and GRIP coverage should have been around $2.30 a bushel, would we have got a payment? The answer is yes, we would have got about $55 million of payment. In total receipts from the fund, had we produced an average crop this year instead of the crop we did, this year's crop would have produced $120 million from the income account. What would it have cost us to get that? Our premiums into the account would have been in the neighbourhood of $220 million. With the crop we produced this year, if we had had the GRIP program, we would have contributed about $220 million on wheat and barley in the form of premiums and that would have given us the right to pull out about $120 million of GRIP payments.
The point of the story is that if we produce an average crop, we are more likely to get a better return. We will spend less money putting fertilizer and chemicals into the crop. The new market realities for farmers after this particular series of agreements come into effect is that farmers will be encouraged to reduce the amount of production they have.
This is reminiscent for some of the older crowd, including myself, of the LIFT program that Otto Lang introduced back in the 1970-71 crop years. It was LIFT, as you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that was supposed to stand for lower inventory for tomorrow and farmers very quickly said that what it really meant was lower incomes for tomorrow.
When we take the data that was presented from the Department of Agriculture in the committee, when it was presenting its expert opinions, we found that net farm incomes from grains and oilseeds across Canada has run about $3.5 billion to $4 billion the last several years and is expected to go almost to zero for the crop year 1990-91, the year that we are in. By using the example that I have just presented, for Saskatchewan at least, there would have been virtually no advantage to having had GRIP in this year that has just past. Even with GRIP Saskatchewan grain growers are going to have to get used to not having any money for the crop year 1990-91.
Government Orders
The department's estimates for net farm income in future years, 1992 and 1993, are quite optimistic relative to this year. The department estimates we could have $1.5 billion to $2 billion of net income, thanks to substantial GRIP and NISA payments expected in 1992 and 1993. That could all be thrown into a cocked hat if farmers have a good crop this coming year.
The worse thing that could happen to our region with the kind of agreements that are being signed is that we have another crop similar to the one we have just had because we will have contributed more to GRIP than we will get out and we still will not have any money, just as we do not have any money this year.
This is not a perfect program. As I say, the legislation is permissive. It is the agreements that are being signed between the provinces and the federal government that we have to be critical of.
Farmers have been very much aware of the similarity to these agreements and the LIFT program. They did not like LIFT. They felt forced into signing into LIFT because the government of the day told them that if they did not sign up for LIFT, they would not be able to deliver any grain because they would not have any quota. The only way they could get quota for the grain that they had built up in their storage bins was to sign up for the program and then they would get the right to be able to deliver it. They signed but under protest.
When I listen to my farm constituents and people across the west, and some of the mumblings I am hearing out of Ontario as well, they are not liking it but they do not see that they have any choice. I hear people trying to make arrangements. A number of very good operators have told me that their fertilizer has been cancelled. I spoke to a representative of one of the large supply companies in western Canada this morning who said that they have had a number of customers come to them and say: "We will pay you the margin on the fertilizer, but we do not want to take it". In other words: "We will guarantee that you have a profit for having handled it, but please keep it in your own storage. We do not want it. GRIP makes it a liability for us to have it. It just increases our costs and will decrease the amount of money that we will get in return at the end of the year".

March 27, 1991
Government Orders
It does make some dramatic changes. It will reduce the amount of grain that is in store and will be shipped. It will reduce the amount of money that goes through the western economy by way of fertilizers, herbicides and all the things that go into creating a crop.
Farmers do not like this kind of pressure and these kinds of choices. They have also been told quite clearly that if they are not signed into GRIP or NISA or both, if there is a third line of defence payment, which is the new buzz-word for the hoped for deficiency payment for the 1990-91 income shortfall, hey will not be considered for that payment.
They are very much in a quandary. They are feeling weak because they have had a series of bad years. While they produced quite a bit of grain last year, there is no particular relief in the bank account or in the accounts due, so they are going to join.
Some civil servants sat in on the committee hearings who came up to me afterward and said: "How does this pressure work? Why would farmers sign when they are put under these kinds of strains? Why do they not just stand up for themselves and say no?"
I said: "Put yourself in their shoes. Maybe the best way for you to understand this would be to consider that you and all civil servants in Ottawa were fired last week. The government left you without jobs, and five months later it came to you and said: You can have your job back and we will pay each one of you $7,000 a year". They said: "But this is voluntary. You do not have to do it". I said: "I bet over 90 per cent of you would sign up, because there is no other option for farmers". That is the kind of situation that the federal and provincial governments are taking advantage of with these agreements.
We are not going to see the kind of results the government spelled out when it introduced this legislation and this program. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that this is not a market responsive program. You do not have to be a genius to know that it will disrupt the rotation of crops, because forage crops did not get included in this program.
There will be some predisposition among some farmers to break up some of those acres that are in forage crops. There will be some tendency to shift acreage from the rather small acreages at the moment in specialty
crops to take advantages of the fairly high price guarantees for those crops.
There will be a tendency for people to retire early, dispose of their farm, divide it up among family members. All of this will happen and we will have the kind of stories we hear around the coffee shops, where one guy at a meeting I was at said: "Look, I pull chaff wagons behind my combines. I am smart enough to be able to measure when I should be putting $4 wheat in the combine hopper and $2.50 wheat out the back end". Those are the very crass and crude definitions that are going to be applied in order to maintain themselves.
This is the end of seven or eight very hard years for prairie farmers and grain farmers right across the country. Farmers will do what they have to do in order to survive. We will permit that to happen with the passage of this legislation, with the hope that like the Wheat Board legislation in 1935, future governments and future opportunities will arise so that the next series of agreements will provide truly the kind of program the farmers set out to establish when they made their initial report leading up to this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I thought the hon. member for Mackenzie was gong to be the last speaker, but I notice that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre has about a 10 minute speech.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks with respect to this bill.
The details and the ins and outs of this bill have been discussed many times over, but I think it is appropriate to make a few general comments with respect to this legislation and with respect to the future of rural Canada, family farms, and particularly western Canada.
There has been a need for a permanent farm program for some time, a program that has been promised since 1985. Bill C-98 does allow that program. However, being enabling legislation, we are not sure of the full details of the program and we do not know exactly what is coming out. We are somewhat in the dark. Farmers in my riding and farmers in western Canada are concerned about the future of rural Canada and about the future of family farms. While the government is asking farmers to trust it with Bill C-98, the farmers are saying: "We have trusted you in the past and look what you have done to us."
March 27, 1991

The erosion of the Canadian Wheat Board has been particularly hard on western Canadian fanners. The removal of oats from the Canadian Wheat Board was done without proper consultation, as was the removal of the two-price wheat system. The free trade agreement, which is going to affect the movement of grain into this country from the United States, is going to take one more slice away from the Canadian Wheat Board.
Western Canadian farmers have lost the fuel price rebate. They have had their cash advance taken away and replaced with a loan that is an interest-bearing loan. Before, they had a $50,000 interest-free cash advance; now it is an interest-bearing one, albeit a quarter of a million dollars. With an advance of a quarter of a million dollars, I don't know how many farmers in Saskatchewan would even qualify for it, let alone be willing to take it.
They are concerned about the transportation issue, the future of the Crow benefit, and the rumours that we have been hearing here and throughout the country that there are going to be some dramatic changes made to the transportation of grain in this country. There is concern over the future of the family farm. They are concerned, with some real justification, that the direction that this government has been taking over the last seven years does not bode well for a viable farming family future.
The government says that, unlike in the past, there has been some consultation, and that is true. It certainly has been much better than in the past.
With respect to the removal of oats, the government said that it had done valid consultation. It said that it had consulted with numerous farm groups right across the country. In fact, when questioned in the House, it quoted hog producing groups, groups such as the Alberta Sheep Growers Association, which has nothing to do with the growing of oats. In fact there was no consultation with the Advisory Committee of the Canadian Wheat Board and there was no proper consultation with oat producers. A Decima poll that had been put out, which the government is fully aware of, made it very clear that farmers at least wanted the opportunity to be able to have the option to decide whether or not oats would be under the Canadian Wheat Board, just as farmers would like to have the option with other grains as to whether or
Government Orders
not they would be under the Canadian Wheat Board. There certainly was not consultation there.
With respect to Bill C-98 there has been some consultation, and there has been consultation with most of the major producer and farm groups in this country. The final results, however, are somewhat unclear because we have not seen the final programs. As some of the groups before the committee said, they simply have to trust that the government will come up with a valid and beneficial bill for them.
The concern that some groups have expressed-and certainly one of the concerns that I have and one of the reasons that I am unable to support the bill at this stage-is the process of review. If we are going to have a new direction for the future of agriculture in this country, there is a need for an ongoing review. What we should have is an all-party committee made up of members of the House of Commons, done as other committees are done with the same representation as is in Parliament so that the majority would be, in this case, the Tories, followed by the Liberals and then the New Democrats. But it should be an ongoing committee that can review this legislation, that can provide suggestions and alternatives to the government. As the Minister of Agriculture said, this is only the first piece of legislation with respect to agriculture. He is anticipating, and we are therefore anticipating, more bills to be coming forth. If that happens, we are changing the whole face of agriculture.
It is important that there is a proper review process and an ongoing review process and it is done in an open fashion, an all-party fashion. That is what I think is appropriate for this piece of legislation and for the other farm bills that will presumably be coming down.
The fact that the government is not concerned about the future of family farms is evident in that this bill is not going to protect family farms in the long term. We have in Saskatchewan I think 23 per cent of the farmers in Saskatchewan who are insolvent.
Unless we have this commitment to the family farm, unless we have this commitment to rural Canada, the erosion is simply going to continue.

March 27, 1991
Government Orders
I want to make some concluding remarks. Once we lose the infrastructure that is now disappearing, it is not going to return. Once the farmers are gone from the land, the family farms are not going to return. Once the small business shops are closed up, they are not coming back. Once the infrastructure is gone, it is gone forever.
We have a chance to maintain a viable, healthy, rural infrastructure in the west based on agriculture, in other parts of the country based on fishing or forestry, or whatever the situation may be. We have the opportunity now. We have to be keeping that in mind. We have to, if we are going to maintain a viable infrastructure, have that as a basis for all such legislation, and certainly this is one piece of legislation that should have that in mind. I think in the long run that is not going to be borne out. In fact, we are moving to larger and larger farms and fewer and fewer people in rural Canada. That is a travesty. It is very sad. It is a situation tht I grieve for every time I go to rural Saskatchewan, every time I go to my riding and I go into communities that are dying, where farmers are hanging on by their fingernails. This government has done really very little to save those people.
In closing, I would say that this bill is going through, we are going to have a permanent program, but the concern for rural Canada and the concern for the future of farming families is still there.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, before we go I think it would be very appropriate if all of us wish you, in both Polish and Ukrainian, Restos Uskras-which means "Christ has Risen", or if you prefer, "Happy Easter", or if you prefer "Joyeuxes Paques", or if you prefer Kronia Pola in Greek, or Buena Pasqua in Italian. And, as you know, this Saturday it is going to be another event, not for the Christian but for the Hebrew faith. As you know, it will be Passover this Saturday. So I think it is also good to wish to our colleagues "Happy Passover".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I thank the hon. dean of the House for those kind words and I wish each and every one of you a very, very happy Easter.
It being 6.35 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 28(2) the House stands adjourned until Monday, April 8,1991 at 2 p.m. pursuant to order made earlier this day.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 8,1991