1991-03-08

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 7, 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 second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise in the House this morning to speak on Bill C-98, the Farm Income Protection Act.
At the outset I want to point out to the House and to make very clear and understandable to Canadians, to those who will be reading the proceedings and to those who are watching this morning, that even though there has been a lot of talk about a farm safety net program being implemented in Canada basically for the immediate use of the primary producers, and therefore hopefully of some benefit to the whole agrifood industry, this bill is only an enabling piece of legislation. I know that is the case with many bills that we pass in the House of Commons or that are brought forth.
When we read through this bill, we have to understand that it really does not say very much in terms of
answering the questions of the agricultural industry. This bill is going to allow the government and the minister to go province to province throughout this country and make the deal that is most suitable, hopefully, to the individual province. There are pluses and minuses to that. There is the plus that it can recognize regional diversity and regional differences, but there is the minus that it allows the deals to be made. That part of is tends to make some of us nervous.
I have other concerns that I would like to raise this morning, but first of all I would like to compliment the department on the manner in which it went through the process of getting this piece of legislation in place. I also want to remind the government not to get too excited about that, because in recent days I have talked to some people who were involved in that process, in what was referred to as the implementation committee which started to meet last fall, a cross-section of the industry, including many farmers. It is interesting that the members of the implementation committee did not get a copy of this legislation until about 48 hours ago. In speaking to some of them, they were absolutely appalled that much of what is in this piece of legislation was not discussed by the implementation committee, was not debated with them and, contrary to the comments of the minister in the House yesterday, they will not and cannot take ownership.
I noted with interest yesterday that the minister said that he takes no ownership. I believe his comments were: "We claim no ownership of this particular policy." That is a beautiful way of putting it. He went on further to comment yesterday that he hopes it works. Politicians being what they sometimes are accused of, if it works I am sure the minister naturally will take claim.
I am concerned with the fact that there are clauses in that bill which the implementation committee was not expecting to see, does not understand why they are there and, rightfully I think, needs an explanation of what is there. I am sure that those points, when the bill goes to committee, will be raised by all parties and hopefully can be cleared up at that time.

March 8, 1991
Government Orders
As I said before, I compliment the department on the over-all view that it accepted and took part in from the different sectors of the industry.
There is no question that something needs to be done. The agricultural industry is in dire straits mainly at the primary producer level. I have seen figures over the years that every dollar received at the farm gate by primary producers, before it is through the system in our society, is multiplied seven times. We must keep that in mind. That emphasizes a saying that many of us have said for many years: "As goes agriculture, so goes the strength of any economy".
I would like to read clause 4(2)(a) of the bill and then raise some concerns that I have.
Clause 4(2)(a) reads as follows:
The program should not unduly influence the decision of producers of agricultural products with respect to production or marketing, and should encourage adjustments with respect to production or marketing so as to improve the effectiveness of the responses of producers to market opportunities.
As well, the bill is to address production or market neutrality, equity, consistency within international obligations and encouragement of long-term environmental sustainability and responsibility.
I have some concerns there. I can tell this House that unfortunately-and I mean that sincerely-GRIP is being farmed by producers. I know there will be people who argue that that cannot happen, but unfortunately it is. If there is one thing we do not need in the agricultural industry, it is something to change the decisions that producers make and not pay as much attention to market indications, to market prices and to market returns as they should.
I recognize fully that it is extremely difficult and maybe impossible to put a program in place which does not have that use made of it. In talking to individuals from different parts of Canada in the last number of weeks, the decisions on what they plant this year in many cases are going to depend on what they see in the short run being returned to them from the GRIP payments.
One can say that should not happen and, if they are looking at the long-term good of agriculture, they should not be doing that. I agree. What has happened in the short term in agriculture, especially at the primary producer level in the last number of years, is that even though farmers know what is the long run proper thing
to do as far as environmental conservation and long run investments are concerned, for example, they unfortunately and realistically have to survive in the short term. They have to satisfy the needs of their banker for the next 12 months, as well as their personal needs, the needs of their family and their social needs in the next 12 months. They may very well be forced into looking at what is sustainable economically, and economically only, for them in the short term and therefore have to neglect what would be best not only for their own individual operation in business, but collectively for the over-all good of the farmers and producers in the long run in order to get through until next year. We will worry about next year when next year comes.
I have some grave concerns that in the short term these programs may and I know are influencing cropping practices for this year and the direction of the crops.
In the same light, it is definitely going to encourage thoughts and actions toward cropping practices that are not the best for agriculture and for the good of all of us as Canadians as far as environmental sustainability is concerned.
There is encouragement with this and I know there are some safeguards that are being put in place. I advise the minister and hope it will take it under advisement that safeguards must be watched with this to prohibit what will likely occur in many cases. That is what we refer to in the primary producer sector as planting fence row to fence row.
One of the problems we have in Canadian agriculture at the present time is that we are planting crops on marginal land. Because they do not yield and because of the many attempts to get a decent yield, input costs are high. The yields are just not available from that type of property or land resource, therefore when the yields are obtained they have a high cost of production.
As far as adding something constructive, I wish there were something we could do. I hope that we are looking at it. I know that many of us are looking at a certain type of program.
I think we should consider-and it will have a shortterm cost but I think it will have a long-term benefittaking some of the marginal land in this country, which programs like this encourage farming, out of production
March 8, 1991

and using it for something else. This means that the land that is being farmed can be used at a more profitable and realistic level, and we will all be better off environmentally.
The other concern I have is whether this program is going to be accepted as it should be in international trading circles. The question that many of us ask is, is it "GATIhble"? In other words, is it acceptable at GATT? I have to have confidence that this is being looked at.
But when I look at some programs that we have had in the past in Canada, programs we thought were safe, we thought were untouchable as far as other countries were concerned, were not. Some of those which we have been able to protect effectively, and I refer to the on-going saga of countervail duties on live pork and fresh chilled and frozen pork, we have had those to GATT panels, we have had them to free trade panels, and we win one day and lose a few days later.
Our trading partner to the south is very effective because, as they have a different way of funding these disputes than we have here in Canada, as soon as the producers convince the government, it funds all of the court cases. The United States is successful in keeping the cases in the courts, in the dispute panels or the GATT panels, until a lot of damage is done.
I have a lot of concerns. And I only hope that because this program is theoretically offered right across the country, to all producers, that this will be acceptable to them.
The other concern I have is about what will happen to the GRIP program, in particular, as far as the premiums are concerned. As I said from the outset, this is an enabling legislation and producers are out there now buying the sizzle to this legislation and I do not blame them. In the short-term, quite frankly, they cannot afford not to. The banking industry is saying, yes, we want you to join. It is giving the producer something that is bankable, no question of that, in the short term. But I am also hearing many, many producers asking, where is this going to leave us in the long term? What is going to happen to our premiums in the long term?
The base prices that are being used are at a percentage of a 15-year average. And we all know what can happen to 15-year averages, especially in the case of some crops
Government Orders
and some products when the peaks in those prices drop off. Every year we have to remember that one year drops off at the beginning of that period and another one adds on at the end. If those peaks drop off, and especially with what has been happening in many crops in the last few years where prices have been low and there is nothing in the foreseeable future to make us think that we are going to have any major increases in prices-especially in the grain situation-and we know that just is not going to happen. Probably the prices we have now are far closer to normal than they have been for some time, and they will likely stay around that range.
So, what is going to happen to those average prices? I will tell you what is going to happen to those average prices, they will go down. Unfortunately, reality enters the picture and the cost of production goes up.
The minister said yesterday, and it is understandable, that in the short term the GRIP program will go into deficit. Once any program is in deficit when the premiums are examined in the future they will be examined with the hope that the deficit can be recovered by the premiums.
The concern I have and the concern of many producers is that as the long-term benefits of this type of program are looked at in the future, the guaranteed gross revenue per acre is going to come down. The cost of production is going to go up and probably the premiums are going to go up as well. Because of the type of program that it is, the bill cannot allow-and I agree-individuals to get in and out whenever they want, but when a producer signs up he is in for four years. If it just does not pencil out into black ink down the road in three, four or five years, the producer is caught and has to stay in the program. There is a lot of concern about that. I suggest that must be examined.
Another concern I have is there is nothing in the legislation, that I can see, that says there will be a national supervisory committee. The legislation says that the results of this legislation will have to be reviewed, I believe by April 1, 1996, which is basically five years, and every five years after that. But there is nothing in the legislation that says there must be and there is an ongoing committee to review this legislation all through next year and each year as we go on. I think it is important that that be done.

March 8, 1991
Government Orders
I see my time is running out. The other program basically, and there are others, is NISA, the Net Income Stabilization Account. Not a lot of provinces have agreed to take that on. I agree, it is an excellent program as far as individual fanners are concerned. It is costly as far as governments are concerned.
I have some long-term concerns on that program as well. Can we, in the agricultural industry-and I hope we can-justify those types of expenditures to the rest of Canadians? It is a registered retirement type of fund. Unfortunately, it is not going to help those who are struggling in agriculture because they will not be able to put money in it. They simply will not have the dollars to deposit.
The bill is an honest and good attempt and a bill that I can support. It is going to create a situation that I know is going to require a lot of monitoring. It will require some discussion at the committee level. It disappoints me that again we have an agricultural bill brought into the House on a Monday and the government says we have to get it through in a hurry. We have done this with several other bills. I wish there was not always the urgency. This concern and this requirement has been there for some time. I wish there was not always the urgency when this comes forward.
I am hearing more and more, in the last couple of days, of individuals and groups that want to discuss this bill with the committee and I hope the government will allow the time. I know it will be encouraged to allow the time to listen to them. There is more to discuss. It is better than what we have at the present time, but it needs monitoring. It can be improved and I look forward to all of us doing that for the agrifood industry.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Madam Speaker, before I direct my comments and questions to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, I would like to say that on occasion, and probably unintentionally, the hon. member has referred to a member's being absent from the House. However, to be fair, this morning I would nevertheless like to take this opportunity to refer to the presence of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister responsible for Agriculture. His presence is to be commended. It shows he is interested in agriculture and also has great respect for the House and its members.

Now, to my colleague from Prince Edward-Hastings, I share his support, in principle, for the bill. I think he raised some very real concerns and we do hope that they will be addressed in committee.
Members in the House familiar with the member from Prince Edward-Hastings are only too familiar with his knowledge and particularly his commitment to agriculture.
I would like to ask my colleague how this legislation is being perceived and received by agriculture industry groups across Canada.


Lyle Vanclief: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I think in all honesty that in general it is being received quite well. However, what concerns me is that as time goes on nervousness is increasing.
I echo the sentiments of my colleague that the minister has been here for this debate and I appreciate that. But there are concerns. Probably the province that is promoting this legislation and has been for three or four months, more quickly and with more energy and enthusiasm than anyone else, is Saskatchewan and its premier. Those that follow politics know the reason for that. Mr. Devine has some problems and concerns, not only financially but otherwise. In a lighter vein, in the last 24 hours I see he does not even know what a riding is. There is some question on who represents where in the province.
I noted that one of the premier's ministers, the Minister for Rural Development in Saskatchewan, said, "farmers are not getting enough time to make an informed decision on this. The cattlemen have some concerns."
When the minister made his statement yesterday and he read that "cattlemen say that they choke on GRIP," I wondered to myself, why? Their concern points out the concern I raised a few minutes ago that this program is probably going to redistribute the cropping acreage throughout Canada. Looking at the figures, it is evident that it encourages production of some crops more than others. The beef industry is a major user, especially in
March 8, 1991

the west, of barley. The beef industry is concerned that the program may redistribute the acreage, for example, to crops other than barley, therefore creating a shortage in barley, increasing the price of barley on the open market, and thereby increasing the cost of their production.
Forage seed growers have concerns as well. There is no question, as I said before, that the banking industry is happy, and rightfully so. I can tell you from experience that this program serves a very worth-while purpose because an individual can go to a bank manager and say, "Madam, or sir, I can guarantee you that this is what my returns will be per acre." That has not been possible for farm producers, for agriculture producers in the past. That part of it is good.
My real concern, and I am sincere on this, is about what we are going to do with this type of program in the long run. We are all sincere, we are all trying to do our best. I am not sure that enough study has been given and time has been taken to look at the long term. It is going to do the job this year and next year. The government has said it will put money into the program. I hate to say this, but the government will put money into the program, especially in the next couple of years before there is another federal election, but that is not what is going to dictate the action. The markets are going to dictate it; the uncertainty about what is happening in GATT; the impossibility at the present time of settling things at GATT.
The discussions for a GATT settlement that we hoped would happen by December 1, 1990 may go on for another couple of years. If it does go on for another couple of years, we know the trade games and the subsidy games that are going to be played between those two big treasuries that we cannot compete with, the European Community and the United States. As a country, we just cannot play in that game. If we cannot play in that game, it will depress prices and on and on, which means these types of programs are going to have higher than ever pay-outs. We are going to have to make those. They are going to be needed. It is going to keep us going in the short term, there is no question about that.
Unfortunately, what has always been and may always be throughout the world is that the primary producers are kind of "next-year" people. Hopefully, this can be the beginning of a type of program or a combination of
Government Orders
programs that can be worked on, monitored, pushed and poked over the next number of years so that producers can get more out of their products, so that they are not just living hand to mouth for 12 months, hoping to get through until the next year.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I would just like to have the hon. member make a comment or two.
He spoke briefly about the moral hazard of the program. Farmers will be making decisions as a result of the program, switching acreage, and probably bringing marginal land into production. Is that not a self-defeating purpose? I do not believe that farmers look at the program that way. They are looking for a bankable program, with long-term objectives in mind. Any program has the risk of moral hazard. Is the hon. member saying that the programs are being funded with too much money and that the programs are too rich, allowing this to happen?


Lyle Vanclief: Madam Speaker, I want to remind my colleague that I said I did not like to see that type of thing happen, but in reality that is what, according to what I am being told on the concessions, is happening. Because of the financial situations that individual farmers may very well be in and their sector of the industry may very well be in, they have to look, as any business person has to, at what is the best and easiest way to come up with the biggest figure in the bottom right hand comer of the balance sheet for this year. In reality, that is what is happening. Even though, as I said, and I hope I made it very clear, that is not what they should be doing. They know they should not be looking at it that way, but they are forced into doing that.
As far as investment in the program, I am not saying and I did not say, that there are too many dollars going into the program. What I am saying and what I did say, is that the dollars that will go in there have to be monitored. We have to be able to explain to all Canadians why they are needed and we have to justify-as anyone does, as any government does, as any parliamentarian does- the actions. I think we have to do a better job, as a department, as a government, as opposition members, as players in the industry, of explaining to Canadians why it is there.

March 8, 1991
Government Orders
I was very upset, and I have been upset more than once, when a certain kind of question went to a member of the cabinet and the cabinet member stood up and said: "This is another example of x millions of dollars this government has given to farmers". I get very annoyed at that. That is an excellent opportunity for the minister to explain to Canadians why that is a good investment.
As I said, as goes agriculture, so goes the industry, so goes the economy of any country. It is money well spent, as long as it is well monitored.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate regarding Bill C-98. This piece of legislation has been promised to the Canadian public and to the Canadian producers for some time. In fact, it was back in 1985 that the former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Wise, promised a long-term, permanent program for agriculture. I am glad, and I am sure most people are glad to see that it is finally arriving.
There are some good aspects to this bill. The fact that there has been more consultation than usual is of value. The fact that there is a mechanism for a review every five years is a plus and that there will be an annual report on the programs to the House is also important. Those are important factors.
The one thing I think we must keep in mind, especially for those who are watching this debate or happen to read it in Hansard is that this bill does not outline the details of the particular agricultural programs. What it is instead is enabling legislation. It is legislation that is going to provide a framework which will allow the government to enter into programs. That is all that does. We have no details on exactly what form GRIP or NISA will take, the full details of premiums and so on. They do not exist in this legislation. It is simply a framework.
I think in looking at that framework perhaps the key clause section in the whole bill is the clause which sets out the statement of principles, clause 4(2). This clause outlines four basic principles which the government shall follow in establishing any programs. I would like to go through them, if I could, because I think they are important.
The first one states that the program should not unduly influence the decisions of producers of agricultural products with respect to production or marketing and should encourage adjustments with respect to production or marketing so as to improve the effectiveness of the responses of producers to market opportunities. In other words, the program will not unduly influence the market. That is fine. That is a good principle. It is important for farmers to be able to react to the market and not be forced through government programs or government regulations to skew either way. That is a good principle and it will be a good test for the program.
The second principle talks about the fact that the money shall be fairly distributed through the program; that the level of protection to be provided by and relative share of government contributions to be provided to the program in relation to particular agricultural products or classes should be reasonably consistent with all other agreements. In other words, the money should be evenly distributed. That is an important principle because what we need and what this government and past governments have failed to do time and again is to develop national programs that respect and represent this country as a whole. We often have piecemeal legislation. That also is an important principle.
The other two principles-that it shall meet international obligations and that the program shall be environmentally sound-are also very important principles.
The fact that the principles are in the legislation is important. The next question is: will they be followed? That is a question that cannot be answered today and will only be answered in time as the programs are introduced, developed, followed and reviewed.
I think another question that we would ask as social democrats is: Could we fit a strong social democratic program into this framework? The answer is, yes we could. We could follow these principles and put in a very sound social democratic program that is market responsive; that does allow producers to follow their inclinations and act with the market; that is environmentally sound; and is meeting Canada's international obligations. We could put in there a very good social democratic program.
March 8, 1991

The question is whether this government will. I guess the issue is: exactly what type of stability is being sought under this bill and for whom? One thing that concerns me, and I know it concerns a lot of my colleagues and other people across the country, is that under these principles there are some missing; primarily one that sets out and commits the government to maintain viable farm families. If we are going to maintain a viable world community in this country in areas where agriculture is the economic base, we have to maintain farm families.
This bill says nothing about that. To me, that is a major omission and a major problem. Although you could fit in a good social democratic program, as New Democrats we are very concerned with the future of farm families, we are very concerned with the future of rural communities, in putting in a program. You can also put in a program which that does not recognize or deal with the future of farm families. I say that because the record of this government has been the dismantling of farming families and in fact the dismantling of rural Canada. We have had a number of examples over the last few years. To outline some of them, we have certainly had changes in advance payments which have not kept in mind farming families and average size farms. That is not the principle behind the change to advance payments. The Canadian Wheat Board is being dismantled and certainly in the removal of oats there was absolutely no meaningful consultation in that change. Many producers want canola but the government has and continues to refuse to allow fanners and wheat board permit book holders to make a decision on their own wheat board.
I see red flags when we have a bill that on the one hand sets out some nice principles but on the other hand, when you compare it to the actions of this government, makes you wonder if in fact this government is really committed to the principle. Why does it not act with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board and allow producers to make their own decisions on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board?
The free trade act has also wreaked havoc with the Canadian Wheat Board and with the grain trade in this country. This spring it is expected that American grain will be allowed to come freely across the border. That is going to cause further problems and will drive down the price. The Canadian Wheat Board has already said it is going to make sure it is very competitive with American
Government Orders
grain which simply means the Canadian farmer is going to be receiving less for his or her grain.
Two-price wheat is gone. The whole future rationalization of the transportation system in this country has not been proceeded with keeping rural families in mind. When those types of actions are taken without keeping in mind these fundamental principles, who is to say what sort of program we are going to have under this particular bill?
In my opinion, it would much improve this legislation and much improve the confidence of Canadians in this government if there were some commitment to developing a program or programs that in fact have the objective of maintaining viable rural communities. That applies not only to this legislation but certainly to the rural Canada that depends on forestry, on fisheries, et cetera.
There are no details with respect to the actual programs but there are some concerns. We are hearing all kinds of rumours on GRIP and NISA and certainly the Saskatchewan government has been going all over the province, in fact claiming that it is its own program basically. There are some concerns about the GRIP; that it is not based on the cost of production, that there is no cap in the actual legislation. There is on the program. We have not seen those details. We do not know exactly what is going to be coming out when the program is announced. Certainly the words and comments we are hearing do not bode well for viable rural communities in the future.
The bill needs some fundamental change with respect to the principles that it sets out.
I think it is also important to state that while this bill deals with incomes, there is another aspect that goes hand in hand with incomes that this government has yet to talk about and that is farm financing. The rural communities and fanners in those areas have been trying to survive but they have been suffering because they have not got a steady, reliable income, and the financing aspect has really hurt them, along with input costs going up.
While it is very important to have a stable income program, and it is yet to be seen in fact if we will have one, it is just as important to have a strong finance program as well. We have seen time and time again, in Saskatchewan and right across the country, foreclosures are up, quit claims are up, people are having a very

March 8, 1991
Government Orders
difficult time. It is very disappointing, I have found that the minister introduced this bill knowing full well that they were coming for some time and has not put a moratorium on foreclosures, at least until this bill takes effect. In fact, this government would do a great service to rural Canada if it would stand up today and announce that all farm foreclosures will not be proceeded with until such time as this program had a chance to take effect, to allow farmers to keep their land.
There are many farmers who are simply hanging on, literally by their fingernails. It is important that they have a stable income.
Another aspect with farm financing is, of course, interest rates: We in the farming communities need stable interest rates. It is very difficult for many farmers. There are many senior farmers and there are numerous farmers who would like to retire from the land, who would like to leave the land, those who are getting close to retirement age, and many who are past retirement age. I run into farmers all the time who are well into their seventies who say they would like to get off the land but who really have no mechanism, no way of getting off the land. They cannot get rid of their land. Nobody can afford to buy it; the interest rates are too high.
We need a mechanism to set in a whole new generation of farmers so that in 20 years we are going to have a viable farming community. Therefore, we need a mechanism that is going to allow senior farmers to get off the land and allow younger farmers to get on the land.
That has not been addressed. There has been no indication of changes by this government with respect to that objective. It is not that we are short of alternatives; in fact even Jim Hewitt, the chairman of FCC, has made some very valuable contributions with respect to that matter.
Along with a strong incomes program, which I hope this bill will allow, we also need a strong national finance policy, it has to be a program that takes into account rural Canada-that is the key factor, that is the important factor that we have to take into account.
I would say this in concluding; we need a national policy, both with respect to income and farm finance, that recognizes the ultimate importance of a healthy industry to rural communities right across this country. Policies and programs must be available to assist farmers in realizing a return on their investment and labour comparable to that of other industries, so that an industry based on family control and family-operated farms can be maintained. That is the key element, that is the underlying issue. Certainly on this side of the House we will be calling for some changes to this legislation that are going to set out those principles and commit the government to moving toward developing programs that have that as a fundamental objective.
This bill allows for such an income program to be put in place. The question is, will the government achieve that desirable objective? That is the question that has to be dealt with and that is the question to which we await, with great anticipation, an answer.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Madam Speaker, I would like to say just a few words about this legislation presently before the Chamber.
Of course, we are debating the principle of the bill; in other words, the principle of income stabilization in the primary industry of agriculture.
The question has been put in many different ways concerning our primary producers because, of course, everybody realizes that they are perhaps the most important economic element in our society that keeps our balance of payments in the right order. They contribute more than other sectors of our economy because what they are producing is food, a most important commodity in today's world.
In thinking about the principle of this legislation, we have seen various attempts by governments over the years to stabilize incomes of farmers, fishermen and other primary producers. However, these attempts to stabilize incomes through measures such as crop insurance or, in the case of the fishing industry, the Fisheries Prices Support Board, all have one major drawback.
An assessment is made of the year and then the Government of Canada, through the mechanism of legislation, enables those primary producers to receive some compensation. The compensation is given after the fact. It does not profit somebody very much, for example, if they are about to lose their home and their property, and they are told by the legislators that what they passed
March 8, 1991

was something that says: "We are going to assess the damage at the end of the year and then we are going to discuss it between the governments. Perhaps sometime next year, you will get some money. You will get some money but we cannot tell you exactly how much money you are going to get."
I suppose that is better than nothing, but it does not do anything for the man or woman who is facing the seizure of property by our financial institutions. It appears to be the thing these days for financial institutions in this country to analyse the economy and to say all of a sudden: "Perhaps those primary producers are not really a good investment because either the industry is down generally or because of some external factors, external even to this country of Canada."
What happens is that our chartered banks deal with producers who need a line of credit almost on a daily basis. Because you are in a business like that where you are selling a commodity, you first of all have to produce the commodity and even after you have sold it, you sometimes have to wait for your money. It always was the tradition of our banking system to say: "We will allow you a certain overdraft at the bank because of your particular circumstance". You could go in and say: "I have definitely sold this amount of farm produce," or, "I have sold this amount of fish. Definitely, I have the contract. It is here."


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I apologize, but I have to interrupt the hon. member at this time.
It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 35, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Madam Speaker, my constituents are saying, loud and clear: enough is enough! After seeing their parishes and CBC station shut down, and after the cuts in VIA Rail
services, now they are going to lose their traditional post offices, which will also mean more unemployment.
Madam Speaker, my constituents Petite-Matane and Redemption are very upset about the fact that their post office will be closed, and they are asking the government's help in obliging Canada Post to rethink its policy, in communities where the post office is the only symbol of their ties to the rest of Canada.
Madam Speaker, the people in these small villages are not asking for the improved services they were promised. They just want to keep the services they have.
Why, in a region where the poverty rate is the highest in the country, this attempt makes matters even worse? Do they want to close down the Gaspe?


INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, today, International Women's Day, is set aside as a time to celebrate women and our achievements as we work to take our rightful place as equal partners in society.
Violence against women is perhaps the most persistent yet intolerable situation in the struggle. Documented evidence shows that violence against women has not abated.
Amnesty International reports indicate that, and I quote: "the list of gross violations around the world against women is endless-Many are targeted because they are strong, because they are political activists, community organizers, or persist in demanding that their rights or those of their relatives are respected. Others are targeted because they are seen as vulnerable young women who can easily be sexually abused or humiliated, pregnant women fearful for their unborn babies, or refugee women who are isolated and vulnerable in unfamiliar surroundings."
I implore all members of this House to take a moment and think about what this means and how it feels.
The Liberal Party is strongly committed to moving quickly to make women true equals. This government, on the other hand, is longer on rhetoric than it is on its record.

March 8, 1991


INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S WEEK
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Madam Speaker, Monday brought the beginning of a special week of celebration throughout the world, International Women's Week. All across the country this week has been marked by numerous activities involving both women and men, including panel discussions, receptions, films, and rallies.
I invite hon. members to join me in congratulating the women of Canada for their significant contribution to Canadian society. No area of Canadian life, be it economic, social, cultural or political, has been left untouched by the talent and achievement of Canadian women.
In both the traditional and non-traditional sectors, women of every background are making their impact felt and bringing the sometimes elusive dream of true equality that much closer to reality.


SEED POTATO INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, the Prince Edward Island seed potato industry has been dealt a devastating blow. Potatoes are to P.E.I. what grain is to Saskatchewan, the engine of the provincial economy.
Potatoes have been responsible for 50 per cent of total farm gate receipts the last two years, $125 million per year.
The entrepreneurial spirit of our producers, dealers and exporters has put P.E.I. in the forefront of world potato production. P.E.I. is responsible for making Canada second only to Holland in seed potato exports.
The industry has reached this position because of 75 years of effort by both producers and government which has resulted in the establishment of a world-wide reputation for quality in seed, table and processing potatoes.
That reputation is now in jeopardy because of the PVY-N virus in our seed stock and an embargo by the United States, Canada and Mexico. This is the first time an entire province has been quarantined.
What P.E.I. needs today is a strict eradication plan in order to restore quickly our reputation in the marketplace and generous compensation to prevent wholesale bankruptcies.
P.E.I. potato farmers appreciate the attention-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is expired.


CANADA COUNCIL
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, today we celebrate International Women's Day and, with this in mind, I would like to remind this House that the Canada Council is the chief means for the federal government to impact and support arts in Canada. Yet the board of the Canada Council has never been graced with a member of a visible minority.
At this time, when the need for a visible minority representative is greatest, a woman with talent and dedication has stepped forward.
Carol Geddes, who currently is a member on the Native Committee of Canada Council and was a member of the Northern Jury of the Council is a candidate for the board.
With the growing racial tensions in this land, it would seem that the time is at hand for such a woman who represents native peoples to participate in the important decisions that the Canada Council makes.
I would like to take this opportunity to support Ms. Geddes' bid fully, in light of her substantial achievements, and I would like to urge that this House do the same.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Barry Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, recently, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec announced that under the Canada-Quebec subsidiary agreement on the regional economic development of Quebec, three new programs will be implemented to help reinforce the economic
March 8, 1991

infrastructure in Quebec's resource regions, including the ridings of Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle and Abitibi- Temiscamingue.
Both levels of government have agreed to budget $80 million, to be allocated over three different programs.
Madam Speaker, both governments realize that unfortunately, some regions in Quebec, including my own riding, have a very high unemployment rate and are experiencing serious economic problems. These initiatives will stimulate the economy in these regions by helping them carry out major projects, which will give these communities renewed economic vigour.


CROP ASSISTANCE
Lyle Vanclief: Madam Speaker, farmers from all parts of Canada are in desperate need of assistance this spring in order to get their crops in the ground.
Total net farm income has dropped by over 50 per cent. The federal government has promised a so-called third line defence payment but yet, to this day, it has not said when the payment will be made, how much it will be worth, or even who is eligible.
I wish to stress to the government that western grain producers are in desperate need of this cash, but so are producers in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes; not only grain and oilseeds producers but horticultural producers as well.
The current income crisis is shared by all farmers, and I ask the government to take this into account when the payment is made.


INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, today I think it would be very appropriate to read a poem by Janet Foster called "A day of rest".
Some women say God is a woman -
Everybody knows that's not true -
He worked six days and rested on the seventh;
If God had been a woman, he wouldn't have stopped;
After 85 hours of board meetings, working outside the home, making beds, doing the Iaundiy, shopping, taking the kids to the doctor and the dentist, ordering groceries, nursing sick kids, spending Saturdays ironing and dusting and Sundays preparing meals, women don't know what the word weekend means.
If God had been a woman, as so many people seem to think, he wouldn't have needed Sunday to rest.
Since the beginning of time, women have known that only children, men and God need a rest.
Madam Speaker, I have this to say: Men, stop being selfish and help women achieved equality!


ATHLETES ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Robert (Bob) Kilger: Madam Speaker, the denial of full funding under the Athletes Assistance Program to Canada's female athletes because they become pregnant is a violation of their human rights. It is gender discrimination. The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport promised to remove this barrier to equality last October. He has repeatedly stated in the media that this policy will be changed.
On the occasion of International Women's Day, I ask the minister to take this opportunity to announce today that the Athletes Assistance Program will be immediately amended so that female carded athletes who become pregnant will be eligible to obtain full funding.
I ask the minister to correct this injustice to Canada's female athletes.


RURAL WOMEN
Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, today, on International Women's Day, I rise to recognize the contribution of rural women across Canada.
Rural women and their families are under a tremendous amount of stress. They are overworked, underpaid, and their contribution often goes unrecognized.
The lack of support services and programs in rural areas is a major problem for rural women.

March 8, 1991
Rural families lack accessible, affordable and flexible child care and stress counselling services. Battered women have no where to turn for help.
The farm financial situation has created a greater need for social support services. This has placed an even greater stress on the inadequate level of services currently provided. Yet the Conservative government and the Liberals before them have ignored the urgent needs of rural women.
In fact the recent federal budget cut financial support for transition houses, abuse counselling, child care, education and medicare. These cuts come at a time when rural women need these services the most.
I call on this government to provide adequate and stable funding to ensure rural women and their families have the support they need. I call on this government to treat rural women with the respect they deserve.


INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Madam Speaker, today thousands of women the world over are celebrating International Women's Day.
I wish to emphasize the commitment of our government to promoting women's equality in our society. The Department of the Secretary of State, which is responsible for women's issues, provides annual funding for more than 800 volunteer organizations whose activities are aimed at improving living conditions for women. A host of projects to counter family violence have been initiated. Each project helps bring women another step closer to economic, social and legal equality.
To ensure that Canadian women have the full equal status to which they are entitled, we must continue to work in partnership with provincial, territorial and municipal governments, women's groups, community organizations, the private sector and the labour unions.
I would like to stress the exceptional work done by Canadian women who, by their efforts, are helping to promote the status of women.
Today, March 8, I would ask you all to join me in congratulating the women of Canada and their sisters throughout the world.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, I was disappointed to see the government cave in to CSIS by not adopting any of the parliamentary review committee's major recommendations.
All Canadians know is that CSIS will spend $213 million. They do not know if it is on people, cars, airplanes or tape recorders. Parliamentary oversight would have provided the necessary controls over expenditures, as well as the secret operations of CSIS.
Ron Atkey, a Conservative and former chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee said:
It also seems clear that the government wanted to avoid at any cost a commitment to introduce legislative changes.
How convenient for CSIS which never really wanted to limit itself to investigating terrorism and espionage. And wasn't this just super for the communications security establishment, that huge vacuum cleaner in the sky which has the frightening capacity to invade the privacy of Canadians in a variety of ways, but which has no legal mandate and which is not accountable to anyone -
This government must explain to Canadians "why".



Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Does International Women's Day mean anything more this year than it did 12 months ago, Madam Speaker? Absolutely.
Over those 12 months vocal protest halted this government's attempt to recriminalize abortion services and to sap the support of women's centres across Canada. Women celebrate those victories today.
Over the same 12 months, however, our Prime Minister refused to remember the Montreal massacre officially or to answer calls for a royal commission on violence against women.
The justice minister sidelined her own gun control bill. The status of women minister said that her government will not strengthen the toothless Employment Equity
March 8, 1991

Act. The health minister, with his superficial family violence initiative, returned a mere drop to the bucket of social programs that his government has emptied.
Over the same 12 months some Liberals felt no shame about-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has expired.


BILL C-85
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, the government's bill to privatize airports weakens the government's committed policy on bilingualism.
In 1988, Parliament passed a new Official Languages Act which applied bilingualism to airports. Bill C-85 to privatize airports restricts the application of the 1988 Official Languages Act. It does not deal with concessionaires, equitable participation and the language of work.
When Air Canada was privatized, all the obligations of the Official Languages Act were applied to the privatized airline.
Why is it different for airports? Yesterday, the Commissioner of Official Languages recommended amendments to Bill C-85 to make it consistent with the Official Languages Act.
I urge the government to listen to the commissioner and support full bilingualism at our airports.


INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, the theme for International Women's Day is "Together towards Equality". This theme stresses partnerships between all levels of government, non-government organizations, women's groups, the business world, schools and universities, unions and concerned individuals.
We agree that many problems remain to be overcome if women are to achieve true equality in all spheres of society.
Congratulations, Madam Speaker!
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Just one week after the so-called recovery budget the job verdict is in, and it is a disaster. There are 222,000 people in the city of Montreal looking for work, 194,000 people in the city of Toronto looking for work, and 84,000 people in the city of Vancouver looking for work.
Isn't this human job loss an example of how this government's economic policies are a disaster?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Madam Speaker, I do not think anyone in this House enjoyed reading the statistics that came out this morning on unemployment. We more than anyone else want to see people back to work.
That is exactly why the Minister of Finance brought in a recovery budget. The recovery budget will lead us out of the economic problems we are experiencing today and lead us back to economic growth in the middle of this year.
There are some signs already that the economy is starting to turn around. The markets are extremely active, and they traditionally lead us out of a recessionary period by four or five months. Interest rates are down by some 4 per cent. In the hon. member's city, the city that she lives in, if she were reading her local paper lately, it is shown that the real estate activity has increased there, as in other areas of the country.
There are signs that we are seeing things turn around, and we will in fact later this year see a recovery.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, if the member wants to talk about the city I live in, I would like to have him speak to those 30,000 people this month who are looking for work on the streets of Hamilton. I would like to see him pick up this morning's paper and read that the steel industry's predictions for 1991 are

March 8, 1991
Oral Questions
worse than they were for 1990. We are witnessing the deindustrialization of Canada.
I want to ask this minister and this Acting Prime Minister: What specific policies do they intend to introduce to reverse their disastrous economic policies and start putting Canadians back to work?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, it is very obvious that the solution that the Liberals tried of throwing money at the problems did not work. The secret is to get interest rates down, to get inflation down, and to keep them down so that we can have permanent jobs. That is what the budget is designed to do.
I find it rather surprising that the acting Leader of the Opposition would in fact blame a budget of one week ago for the employment statistics that came out today for last month. That is Liberal figuring.
The hon. member also made mention that manufacturing is disappearing. I might point out to her a report from the Royal Bank which said that at the end of 1990 our manufacturing base in the Canadian economy was 9.5 per cent above where it was at the end of 1982. She should get her facts right.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I am referring to this government's poor economic management which started six budgets ago. In Montreal alone, 222,000 Canadians are living proof that your economic policies have failed. That is more than in any city in Canada, including Newfoundland.
I would therefore like to put the following question to the Acting Prime Minister: What specific policies will he introduce, starting today, to reverse the bankrupt policies of this government?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I can inform the Acting Leader of the Opposition that the government has, in recent years, introduced several policies to stimulate the economy in Montreal.


Mr. Gagliano:: What policies?


Marcel Danis: I will tell you what policies. For instance, we had the policy initiated by the Minister of Industry,
Science and Technology, who invested $112 million in southwest Montreal to stimulate the economy. And there are others. For instance, we have the Space Agency on Montreal's south shore, where a total of $300 million will be invested. And if you want another example, we have the petrochemical industry. Where, following the Prime Minister's personal intervention, the federal government invested $55 million. We also have the Minister of Employment who created a training centre for workers in the petrochemical industry.
And now for another example: Since we came to power in 1984, we created 83,000 new jobs while between 1980-1984, your government registered a net loss of
5,000	jobs.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, the answer of the Minister of State should be displayed in the "museum of jokes" the government is setting up in Montreal.

Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The brutality, the cruelty of this government's economic policies have been demonstrated once again by today's unemployment numbers. In Ontario alone, the unemployment rate has gone up some 79 per cent over the past year. These are not just numbers on a page, they represent the lives of tens of thousands of Canadians this government is throwing on the economic scrap heap.
Why will the Deputy Prime Minister not admit that the unemployment numbers that came out today show that last week's budget is the wrong budget, at the wrong time, and is making things worse, not better, for hundreds of thousands of Canadians.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, just the opposite. It was the right budget for this time. There is no question about that.
Those who looked critically at the budget in a very fair and honest way support the Minister of Finance in his attempt to lead us back to recovery of the economy.
I might remind the hon. member, who rants and raves in the House all the time about figures, that today there are 1,283,000 more people working in Canada than there were when we took power in 1984. That is the number one figure. The number two figure is that unemployment
March 8, 1991

is about 1.5 points less than it was when we took power in 1984. That was after the recession. This is in the middle of a recession. We are starting to come out of it. We are on the road to recovery and we are going to make it by the middle of the year. We will not make it with negative comments from the hon. member, but by positive hard work by Canadians.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the unemployment rate announced today is already higher than the unemployment rate forecast in the budget. The decline in interest rates the government has been talking about has stalled. Interest rates went up yesterday. The minister's answer is a slap in the face of the tens of thousands of Canadians looking for work in the towns and cities of this country; a slap in the face. In my own city of Windsor, there are now 17,000 people out of work, an unemployment rate of 13.6 per cent, an increase of close to 25 per cent over the past year.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this question. Why has this government no plans in the budget to create jobs except to cut $100 million from job creation funds? Is this the way the government intends to help Canadian workers? No wonder their plans are nothing more than a cruel slap in the face for Canadians and their communities.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stands up here and talks about interest rates. They have dropped over 4 percentage points, over 400 basis points. Yesterday they went up one one-hundredth of a point. Interest rates did not move at all on mortgages, on consumer loans or anything else. So the hon. member is really a little misleading when he is giving that kind of figure in this House of Commons.
I might also point out that he is talking about Ontario. Ontario today has 485,000 more people working today than it did in 1984 when we took power from the Liberals, and more people are working in Ontario in more meaningful and full-time jobs. There are announcements in the papers every day of plant expansions, of growth in the economy-


An hon. member:: Where, where?


John Horton McDermid: Where? I am glad the hon. member asked where; in Winnipeg, I.E. Aerospace Canada; in
Oral Questions
Mississauga, General Electric; in Thunder Bay, Eamway Industries, Trans-Alta Resources Corporation in Mal-ton; Abitibi-Price in Manitoba; Journal Printing of Sudbury. I could go on and on. Thanks for asking.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, on this International Women's Day the Prime Minister has a responsibility to provide Canadian women with some answers, and some jobs. Figures released this morning show that the unemployment rate has jumped dramatically. It is an absolute disgrace.
Even more disgraceful is that we have seen the finance minister gloating with the big business community about his budget, the same budget that is forcing ever more women into part-time work or right out of the labour force altogether. This is happening because women have no choices.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister give Canadian women an economic break today? Will he enact the necessary training programs which he promised when his unemployment insurance cuts ensured the unemployment of
Canadians?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I find it astonishing how the member can misrepresent the reality of the situation for women in this country today. The reality is that unemployment rates for women are significantly less than for men. Not that one is that happy about it, but unemployment rates for women over-all are about 9.5 per cent. In fact, the rates for adult women are only about 8.8 per cent.
There are, in fact, 900,000 more women working in this country since this government took office. Sixty per cent of those jobs are in administration, professional and managerial areas. It is the financial policies of this government and the budget which will put us on the path to economic recovery. More and more women will be going into these increasingly important jobs and achieving economic equality for women in this country.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. The fact of the matter is that this government has forced more and more women into part-time work and forced more and more women right out of the labour force altogether. That is the reality.

Oral Questions
Madam Speaker, this government also cut $1.1 billion from medicare. These cuts will leave many Canadian women without choices for their own health care. This government did have a choice; it chose to retain tax loopholes that allow the business community to entertain their friends to the tune of the same $1.1 billion a year.
Mladam Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member has a question.


Dawn Black: I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to rise from his seat, look me in the eye, and explain why happy hour for the corporate elite means more to this government than the health of Canadian women and then-children.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I will look the hon. member in the eye and I will tell her that that is not a tax loophole at all. As a matter of fact, if she had joined with some of her colleagues the other night to visit the Canadian Hotel Association and the Canadian Restaurant Association meetings, they would have told her that this is a very important part of our tourism industry, attracting tourists to this country, and which employs, I might say, hundreds and thousands of people in this country.


Dawn Black: Women?


John Horton McDermid: And women. Exactly, women in the tourist industry.
If she is advocating that we wipe out all those things that help employment in this country, so be it; have her stand up and say that. But at the same time also suffer the consequences, if we do that, where we will have less employment in that particular sector.
If you check with the tourism industry, which the NDP says they support, then you would not be advocating such a foolish move.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, it appears that the hypocrisy of this government knows no bounds.
Two weeks ago, this government announced a family violence initiative that would put a meagre $1.5 million
towards stopping violence against women in our society and a week later slashed the Canada Assistance Plan which was the process for funding women's shelters, and for funding child care and services for children.
This government gave women a drop in the bucket on a Thursday and emptied the bucket on the following Tuesday. When will this government announce a royal commission on violence against women? This is something that women in Canada from coast to coast to coast are demanding from this government. We want a royal commission. Will it be announced on International Women's Day?
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Madam Speaker, I listened with some disbelief to the hon. member suggesting that the government had announced $1.5 million for family violence in Canada, which is nonsense. We announced a $136 million family violence program. This represents a more than doubling of the commitments that have been made in the past of fighting family violence and child sexual abuse.
The hon. member says that we should be studying the issues related to family violence. I do not think we should be studying them. I think we should be acting on them.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
None of the government's words will disguise the fact that 185,000 unemployed men and women are now living on the prairies; 162,000 unemployed Canadians in British Columbia; 142,000 unemployed men and women in Atlantic Canada and over 900,000 in Quebec and Ontario.
Just 10 days ago, the government forecast an unemployment rate in the months ahead of 10 per cent. Within 10 days, that forecast has been shattered. It now stands at well over 10 per cent. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: What is the government's new unemployment forecast for Canada?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, again Liberal logic is to take one month's unemployment as a year's average which goes to the spring, March 31, 1992.
March 8, 1991

I think that the hon. member is about a year ahead of himself, and one month before the budget takes effect on April 1. I find that rather amusing.
The hon. member would have a reason to attack the government by March 31, 1992 if, in fact, that goal had not been set, but let's wait for 12 months before he attacks that. That is silly.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, only a puffed up minister of this government would tell 1.4 million unemployed men and women in Canada to wait a year before we say we are going to act.
I ask this minister who is not cold-hearted but who is heartless whether the government, in the face of these new unemployment stats that shatter the projections of the minister only 10 days ago will restore the $100 million cut to the Canadian Job Strategy Program.


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, when we talk about the Job Strategy Program, I think all the members of this House should remember that when this government brought in Bill C-21, which allowed the government to put a lot more money into job training which was one of the essential things that Canadians need, the opposition blocked it. The Liberal opposition blocked it. The Senate blocked it.
As a result of that, we did not have access to moneys for practically a full year. Now that the bill has been passed, the money spent on job training in Canada during the coming year will be over $3 billion. That is an increase of $500 million over last year, and an increase of $900 million over two years ago. I think the government is doing something about it.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In the province of Ontario, a traditional tower of economic strength for our country, 500,000 people are now out of work, 72,000 Ontarians having lost their jobs in February alone.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this question. Will his government now admit that its economic policies are wrong, or will he simply let the other minister do as he
Oral Questions
has done all the time this morning, evade the legitimate questions being asked on behalf of Canadians who are looking for work?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that there are 485,000 more people in Ontario working today than there were in 1984 when this government came to power. So there are a lot more people working in Ontario.
That does not minimize the situation of those who are out of work. We feel badly about that, but we also believe, and believe most sincerely, that we have produced a budget and are setting an example for industries and other governments. Last night Newfoundland accepted the challenge. With its budget it knows that it has to trim and keep wage increases down, and keep expenditures down. It is setting a good example and we hope the other provinces will as well.
We will be coming out of this period of economic difficulty by mid-year and we will start to grow, create more jobs, meaningful jobs, full-time jobs, on into the foreseeable future.
That is what this budget is all about. What this budget will do is lead us to recovery in this country.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, the Tory version of modem math will not find jobs for my constituents.

I should like to direct a supplementary to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last year Ontario lost 153,000 manufacturing jobs as a result of high interest rates, the value of our dollar, and other mistaken policies of the Conservative government. When will the government launch an economic recovery program for Ontario regions in dire need of assistance, like the eastern Ontario riding I represent? The regions of Ontario need help. When will the government implement that kind of program?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has every reason to say that we have problems. This is why we must come up with the right solutions for the unemployed. Again the hon. member is suggesting the goverment should spend money that it does not have and that taxpayers are not prepared to contribute so as to create artificially a situation which in the end will be

March 8, 1991
Oral Questions
worse for everybody concerned. As he said, we know that interest rates must come down. This is precisely why we are taking measures to create the kind of conditions that will ease inflationary pressures and keep pushing interest rates down. The government is doing its best to achieve that and make sure the unemployment rate declines rapidly.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, rising unemployment shows that the recession is far from over. We lost 420,000 jobs last year. My question to the government is this: It often talks about national unity, so why does the budget fail to address directly the unemployment issue, particularly when we know that in Montreal, for example, another 60,000 men and women joined the ranks of the unemployed this month?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I can only repeat the remarks of my colleague the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization. We are concerned about the recession. Still I would remind hon. members that for a year and a half or two years now we have been saying that the Canadian economy is weak; that Canadians go on overspending despite the inflationary pressures on the economy; that they are jeopardizing their own jobs; and that interest rates are there to reduce that pressure. Yet opposition members said: No, no, artificially bring down the interest rates, increase the monetary mass, inflation and unemployment.
In an attempt to correct the situation we had to make decisions that should have been made in 1980-81. Interest rates have been going down over the past four months and the situation in Canada has been gradually improving so that industries-they, not the government, create jobs-will find that conditions are ripe for the recovery we are all waiting for.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, the minister talks about the problems this government has tried to deal with. It says that inflation was a problem. It is a problem which this government has made worse with the GST. That is what the last statistics on the cost of living show us.
They said interest rates were falling and that would get us out of this problem. Yesterday they rose. They said jobs would be helped. Today they have given us the biggest jump in unemployment since 1985.
Will this government admit that its budget last week was a mistake? Will it admit that it has failed people, that it has listened to big business instead of caring about the ordinary person. Will it turn direction and put this country back on-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member has put his question.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, that is the same member who stood up in this House just a few months ago and demanded that interest rates drop 2 per cent. That is exactly what they asked for. They have dropped 4 per cent. The gap in interest rates has narrowed between the United States and Canada, rather dramatically. He is wrong in his figures again.
If the hon. member wants to get his act together, why does he not stand up and thank the government for lowering interest rates 4 per cent? He asked for 2 per cent and we doubled it.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, on a daily basis we observe in the news media the destruction that has taken place in the Persian Gulf, particularly in the country of Kuwait because of the war. That presents a tremendous opportunity for Canadians, as it does for many people around the world, to create the jobs that are possible through economic activity.
Can the Minister for International Trade advise us what the Government of Canada is doing it assist Canadian business to make sure that Canada gets a portion of the work available in Kuwait.
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Madam Speaker, on July 16, the Minister of Finance of Kuwait visited Ottawa and met with me and with the Prime Minister. He assured us that we would have a prominent and valuable part in the reconstruction of Kuwait.
At the present time, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is visiting Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. He has with him a senior business delegation from Canada. We
March 8, 1991

have a task force on Kuwait reconstruction established in our department to provide advice to exporters and to register the interest of companies.
The Canadian Commercial Corporation has established a Kuwait reconstruction desk. I am announcing today the creation of a private sector liaison group on Kuwait reconstruction. I have in my hands a message from Riyadh from Mr. Craig Dobbin, a prominent Canadian businessman, saying: "It is a real feather in our government's hat, in that our group, the Canadian Businessmen, will be the first commercial visitors to Kuwait City after the war". This is from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
We are making Elerculean efforts to see that we take advantage of the opportunities that are open to Canada and to others in Kuwait. We will do all we can to help in the reconstruction.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. The Minister is well aware that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples is hearing witnesses concerning the events of last Summer in Kahnawake and Kanesatake. Almost all the testimonies insist on the number of civil rights violations. How can a significant response be found if the provincial authorities do not testify and if the committee does not visit either Kahnawake or Kanesatake? And why does the Minister refuse to set up an of inquiry to thoroughly examine the situation?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I congragulate my hon. friend on the quality of his French which may be superior to mine.
The hon. member is well aware that all decisions made by a Parliamentary committee concerning its business are its own. The government has nothing to do with them. Moreover, questions concerning commissions of inquiry should not be directed to the Minister of Justice, but to the proper ministers involved in these matters. My colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Oral Questions
Development may have his own views about such an inquiry concerning the Oka events which, by the way, are outside my purview. Although I have nothing to do with the business of the committee, I share the hon. member's interest in it.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, the precedent was created as early as 1923 when the government instituted a royal commission to examine the army moving into settle a strike in Sydney, Nova Scotia. I think the minister will realize that the situation remains tense and is becoming perhaps more tense. If the question is not dealt with frankly and openly by all concerned parties, the situation and the problems are going to augment.
I want to know why the minister and the government will not appoint a judicial committee. We do not want to see another situation where the military is brought in to deal with a political situation.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, perhaps I should defer to my colleague in Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but I think it is important for the hon. member to understand that the causes that led up to the situation in Oka last summer are multi-discipline in terms of the government. They involve the Department of Indian Affairs, the concerns of the Solicitor General and the Department of Justice.
We are actively considering those circumstances and the best government policy to do that. Whether in fact a royal commission or a commission of inquiry is the appropriate way to go, I cannot say, and I am not sure that would not simply delay the ability of government to respond constructively.
I think there is also a problem, and it is a problem that arises in my own province as well, with respect to issues related to native people. There are a number of initiatives we are taking in the government to try to provide positive steps which we hope will deal with the underlying causes. My colleague in Indian Affairs can talk about those.
In the area of justice, I might say that I will be jointly chairing with the Minister of Justice in the Yukon a federal-provincial territorial conference on aboriginal justice this fall which I hope will provide some positive

March 8, 1991
Oral Questions
suggestions to deal with the underlying causes, which I think we all agree have to be addressed to avoid similar circumstances.


AGRICULTURE
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The economy of Prince Edward Island is not a large one, so when the province is faced with a crisis in a major industry, such as the potato industry is experiencing right now, the whole economy is affected.
Will the minister advise the House if the potato farmers of Prince Edward Island will receive full compensation for the losses that they are incurring as a result of the PVYn virus?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I recognize the importance of the potato industry to Prince Edward Island. In that regard I and officials of our department have been working very closely with the producers and the Government of Prince Edward Island and indeed, the Government of New Brunswick which has been involved as well in an eradication plan which would be also tied to some form of compensation.
We have said all along, and I think that this finds agreement with the Government of Prince Edward Island, that any compensation plan has to be tied to an eradication program. I believe we are at the stage where that has been fairly well developed. I will be meeting with representatives of the P.E.I. and New Brunswick potato marketing board this afternoon. We will be outlining the details and trying to conclude this in a satisfactory manner.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Madam Speaker, this is a very critical situation. The very livelihood of some Prince Edward Island potato farmers is at stake. The entire economy of my province is affected by this. Farmers need to plan now for this year's crop.
When will the minister announce the precise compensation package and let farmers know where they stand?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I recognize that farmers want to plan for the future, but I think they also want to have the assurance from the two levels of government that an effective eradication program is in fact put in place, and to attempt to restore normal production and normal trading patterns.
I have to tell the hon. member that this issue is all encompassing and I also have to consider other things, i.e. the recent Auditor General's report that was brought down on Prince Edward Island. It outlined some very serious deficiencies in terms of the administration of the potato disease control program, the inspection and, indeed, the enforcement of laws. I have to assure myself, and I am sure the producers will want to be assured, that the very major deficiencies that were identified in the Prince Edward Island Auditor General's report have to be identified and corrected. That is also part of the eradication program.
So there is certainly a joint responsibility here and we owe it to ourselves and to the producers that those deficiencies be corrected and those deficiencies are the responsibility of the provincial Government of Prince Edward Island.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, we are now seeing the impact of last week's budget. Last month, the Minister of Finance had a message for Newfoundland; $280 million in cuts from federal transfers for post-secondary education and health care.
Now, Premier Wells and his Liberals have chosen to take the path the federal government called for in its budget. They have slashed 2,600 public sector jobs and 360 hospital beds will be closed.
I want to ask the Minister of State for Finance if he will finally admit that the result of this budget is that thousands of Newfoundlanders will lose their jobs and that health care and post-secondary education will be cut in that province and, indeed, that the result of the budget will be that job losses and cuts to health care and post-secondary education will be the case across this country?
March 8, 1991


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the facts do not support the hon. member's comment.
In 1990-91, Newfoundland, in transfers to the province, received $1,000,376,000, about 44 per cent of its total budget by the way.
In 1991-92, it is going to receive $1,434,000,000. That is an increase, not a decrease. I do not know where the hon. member is getting this decrease from.
It was interesting to read the comments of the premier of the province of Newfoundland and the finance minister. I might say the minister of finance congratulated the Minister of Finance for Canada for the budget that he brought in.
Newfoundland is getting more money next year than this year. I am not sure what figures the member is looking at, but he had better get a new researcher.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the real boss, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada.
As a fellow westerner, I am sure he has noticed now that the recession is real in western Canada, with pockets of unemployment of up to 15 per cent or 20 per cent. The city of Saskatoon has a rate now of 11.8 per cent.
What I want to ask him, as the Deputy Prime Minister of this country, is the following. Does he have the courage to phone up the Governor of the Bank of Canada, John Crow, and instruct the governor to roll back interest rates in this country so that they are more in line with the bank rates in the United States? There is now a 4 per cent gap and that gap should not be more than 2 per cent. Does he have the courage, as the Deputy Prime Minister, to phone John Crow and say, roll back the interest rates so we can export more from the west and create jobs for western Canadians?


John Horton McDermid: One of the good news stories, if you can find it in the employment figures today, Madam Speaker, is that employment actually rose in Alberta last month. So there is some growth in employment in the west.
Oral Questions
There are other areas, and the hon. member is right, there are pockets of high unemployment out west and we are very concerned about that, there is no question about that. But as to just automatically rolling back interest rates, it just does not work that way. The hon. member was another one who was on his feet demanding a 2 per cent roll back and now they have been rolled back 4 per cent.
The hon. member should know full well that we have lowered interest rates to get the economy going again.
The hon. member talks about gaps. Let us just take a look at those gaps because he has got to get his statistics right.
The prime rate in the United States is 9 per cent; in Canada it is 11-1/4 per cent. That is a 2-1/4 per cent difference in the prime rate, which is not too bad.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. minister has answered the question. We will go on and let as many members as possible have the floor.


AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Madam speaker, yesterday we learned that an air traffic controller at Halifax International Airport had to shut down the tower to take a nap. Today, I have learned that five air traffic positions at Pearson International Airport in Toronto are being cut to save money in overtime.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, the father of deregulation in the transportation sector in this country: Why is his government prepared to put human life at risk to save a buck?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's allegation is a distortion of the facts. I am not aware of all the circumstances surrounding the incident in Halifax. If the hon. member is aware of them, then perhaps he might want to give us the facts.
There are two points to the question. Insofar as the Halifax incident is concerned, the Minister of Transport is in fact investigating this. Obviously, if the air traffic controller was not fit to be on duty, he did the proper thing. But the facts would have to be recognized.

Oral Questions
Insofar as his allegation that the Government of Canada, the Department of Transport, is simply laying off people and putting human lives at risk, that is absolutely false.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Madam Speaker, this government has been warned by the Canadian Air Pilots Association, this government has been warned by the Air Traffic Controllers Association, this government has been warned by the Official Opposition that overworked controllers at understaffed airports put at risk the safety of the air travelling public.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not realize that the spectacle of an exhausted, overtired air traffic controller anywhere in this country may be the last signal before we witness a disaster at a Canadian airport?
Will the minister now promise to go back to the drawingboard to review the planned cuts at Pearson and the critical shortage of air traffic controllers in this country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that on previous occasions when this issue was raised in the House, the Minister of Transport did indicate that steps were being taken to deal with this particular issue, including the acceleration of the training of air traffic controllers. Obviously, I will ensure that this matter is brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport, and I am sure he will get back to the hon. member and provide him with detailed answers. I hope that he accepts the answer and reads it.


SECURITY INTELLIGENCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
George Saunders Rideout: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
Ron Atkey, a Conservative and former chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, speaking on why this government turned down parliamentary oversight of the CSIS operation and budget said:
The Solicitor General and CSIS tried to slip one past us. The government turned thumbs down on reforms designed to protect the rights of Canadians-
When most advanced nations in the world have parliamentary oversight of its security institutions, why is this minister too frightened to provide similar protection for Canadians?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: This minister is not frightened with respect to what the hon. member has just said. I think if the hon. member takes the time to read the comprehensive response to the committee's report, he will perhaps realize that some of the recommendations have been agreed to. The government is going to put in place some measures in order to guarantee what the hon. member is referring to.
The 117 recommendations per se have not all been accepted, and the hon. member knows why. He could read the report. I believe that SIRC has served its purpose before and will continue to serve its purpose. Mr. Atkey, who is a former SIRC member, should know what that is all about.


WAGE INCREASES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board.
Does the minister not believe that the pay raises that the senior executives got the day before the budget was announced were indecent, that it was hypocritical for the very people who are calling for others to lose their jobs to get pay increases above those of all the other government employees?
Does he not believe that those people, whether we call it retroactive or not, who are calling for sacrifices by others should lead the way by taking sacrifices themselves?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that the heads of Crown corporations will be treated exactly the same as all other government employees.
He refers to numbers pertaining to last year, calendar year 1990. We are in 1991. What I announced last week was for the coming fiscal year, next April, and for the coming fiscal year the heads of Crown corporations will
March 8, 1991

not be entitled to increases beyond 3 per cent not only for next year, but for the next three years.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I would like to designate next Monday, March 11, as an opposition day or allotted day for the purpose of supply.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, since the government House leader has finally announced what he is going to do Monday, would he also be able to indicate to this House whether he intends to proceed with any government legislation next week?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the House leaders of the respective parties have been in discussion and looking at a calendar for next week and so on. It was the intention to use a number of the allotted days which are required under the rules.
I believe his House leader, if not him, has in his hand now a proposal for a calendar, as does the Official Opposition, and we are ready to discuss that and work on an agenda so we may all know as much in advance as possible the business of this House.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, again to the government House leader, I noticed on that calendar there is no reference whatsoever to taxation with regard to the northern tax benefit. There are a number of Canadians right across northern Canada who cannot get their tax rebate unless that legislation is introduced into the House of Commons. It has not been introduced whatsoever, and I would like to know when the government plans to introduce that legislation.


Harvie Andre: I am not sure that it is appropriate that we keep this negotiation on the floor of the House of Commons. There have been discussions with his House leader-


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is not on the list.


Harvie Andre: We had discussions with his House leader. He keeps interrupting.
We have had discussions with his House leader. There is a willingness on our side, if there is on his side and in
Points of Order
the Official Opposition, to pass that legislation very quickly if we can get co-operation. That is under active discussion. If he would consult with his House leader, I am sure he would find out about that.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that the hon. member for Richelieu may have been off track when he spoke in this House yesterday. Perhaps he was daydreaming. At any rate, the plan is for four new offices for government members, not 30. Only 13 members will be involved in the move, and the costs incurred for each of them will be approximately $100. Those are the facts.


ESTIMATES
René John Soetens: Madam Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order relating to the Supplementary Estimates and the estimates pertaining to next year's budget as tabled in the House by the President of the Treasury Board.
In the estimates as tabled there are included estimates for the Senate of Canada, in particular in the supplementary, as well as in section 21 of the regular estimates for next year.
In these estimates, particularly the Supplementary Estimates under vote 2c, there is an amount of $1 million. In the 1991-1992 estimates in section 21 under vote 5, there is an amount of $1,150,000 included for new allowances for senators. It is based on the $153 per day they are paid to attend meetings of the Senate.
I would like to quote from the Minutes of Proceedings in the Senate of June 5, 1990 which describe exactly how this money is to be paid to individual members, and then I will relate that to the point of order that applies. I would quote from page 1080 of June 5:
"In addition to any other allowance otherwise provided, there shall be paid to each member of the Senate in this and future sessions of Parliament a tax-free living allowance at the rate of one hundred and fifty-three dollars for each day the member is in attendance at a meeting of the Senate, one of its committees or subcommittees, or a joint committee of both Houses, calculated as of the date of the

March 8, 1991
Points of Order
adoption of this Report by the Senate and payable, after Parliament
appropriates the necessary funds, on application by the member."
That was approved, and that is the rule under which the Senate has established that the funds are available.
Members of Parliament and senators are paid under the statutes of the Parliament of Canada Act, which I have referred to, and I would now like to reference in detail my point of order, in the Parliament of Canada Act, Part IV, section 55(1), the sessional allowance of MPs and senators is clearly prescribed.
In section 55(3) of the same act the annual rate of change to this allowance is also very clearly prescribed.
In section 55(5) the rate of change that did not prescribe to the rate established in section 55(3) was included very specifically as a unique consideration.
In section 55(7), when again the automatic provisions for salary adjustments were overridden, an amendment to this legislation was enacted to change the rate of pay.
Section 57 of the Parliament of Canada Act deals with the deductions for non-attendance by members to the House and the Senate. I would also emphasize it deals with deductions, not increases or extra payments.
In section 59 both Houses are empowered to set stricter rules that relate to attendance.
Section 63 of the Parliament of Canada Act authorizes either House to pay certain expenses incurred by members. Specifically, section 63(3) establishes an allowance for expenses for members, and particularly section 63(3)(a) sets the allowance for senators.
Further, section 67(1) establishes how members' allowances can be adjusted annually by a very clear process.
Section 68(1) requires the Governor in Council subsequent to each election to appoint commissioners to review the adequacy of the allowances provided to members and to report their findings and recommendations within six months.
The government did in fact appoint that commission and its submissions were received in this House.
I would like to submit, Mr. Speaker, that the inclusion of the $153 allowance does not meet any of the preceding requirements. Further, in the absence of any indication of legislative amendments to the Parliament of
Canada Act, I would request that you rule the senators' new allowance as it appears in the spending estimates out of order.
The reason I would do that, I would now like to indicate, is that there have been similar attempts to use the spending estimates to change legislation. The Speaker in the past has been asked to rule on similar type attempts. I would now like to cite a couple of examples which I hope Your Honour would include in your considerations on my point of order.
Back on March 25 of 1981, Madam Speaker at the time had been asked by the hon. member for Calgary Centre to address a similar occurrence, where in fact the statutes were not being amended but appropriations appeared in the spending estimates.
I would like to quote from page 8600 of the March 25, 1981 Commons Debates:
In 1971 hon. members commenced to take exception to those items in Supplementary Estimates which in effect were amending statutes other than appropriation acts. The hon. member mentioned those occasions commencing with the ruling of March 10, 1971 leading to the ruling of December 7,1977, on a point of order which the hon. member himself had raised on that occasion. Because it was a new point in 1971, the Speaker disallowed only some of the items objected to on the ground that they were obvious amendments to statutes other than appropriation acts while permitting, with a warning, less obvious items to remain in the estimates.
Further, on June 12, 1981 the Speaker ruled on a similar point made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. It is a rather lengthy ruling. I would like to quote some comments from it, but I would certainly refer it to Your Honour for consideration. As reported on pages 10546 and 10547 of the Commons Debates for June 12, 1981, it reads:
-history shows that during the past 10 years, members have objected that in one way or another the estimates that have been submitted from time to time by the government have attempted to do more than set out the spending requirements of the government for the next fiscal year. This is of course supposed to be the acknowledged purpose of estimates and appropriation acts.
In 1971 the Chair ruled that items in the estimates that attempt to amend existing statutes are out of order. This was confirmed by most subsequent rulings.
In 1974 and 1976 the Chair went further and dealt with the question of matters of substance being put in the estimates. The Speaker, in effect, ruled that the Appropriation Act is not the place to seek authority to do something such as to establish a program. Rather, the
March 8, 1991

Appropriation Act should only seek authority to spend the money for a program that has been previously authorized by a statute.
It continues:
In March of that year the Speaker said:
The government receives from Parliament the authority to act through the passage of legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized action through the passage by Parliament of an appropriation act. A supply item in my opinion ought not, therefore, to be used to obtain authority which is the proper subject of legislation -
There are considerable other points raised in the ruling of June 12, 1981, but I think the final point I would like to refer to in the ruling made on that day relates very clearly to a specific appropriation in the spending estimates. I would like to quote again from the June 12 Hansard, which reads:
Accordingly, consistent with earlier rulings, Energy, Mines and Resources votes 35, 40 and 45 are out of order. I note that in his remarks last June 1, the President of the Treasury Board confirmed this view when he addressed the question of the receivability of these items by saying, "Of course, legislation will be introduced with respect to those programs". By asking for money now, he would be putting the cart before the horse.
I would like to conclude on the basis that it is my opinion the spending estimates, as submitted, clearly are outside the statutes as they are printed in the Parliament of Canada Act. I would therefore request your ruling to rule out of order the allowance included in those estimates for the Senate of Canada.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I was not given notice of the point of order by my colleague opposite.
Since he is not arguing with regard to whether the measure is appropriate-he is arguing I believe with regard to the procedural aspects as to how it has been introduced here in the House-I am wondering if the Chair, who I would think would want to ascertain interventions from other members of the House, might wish to defer any decision until sometime next week when we have had an opportunity to review the particular point of order and to make a submission to the Chair.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add further argument on this particular issue next week when we have had a chance to examine it. I
Points of Order
think that the member for Ontario has made a very interesting point.
If that is the case, it would look like the entire bill should not be in front of this House, and that the estimates themselves are not properly placed before the House of Commons. That would be a very interesting thing, I think, for the Speaker to look into.
When you and perhaps other members are having an chance to review this matter you could take a look at the vote 2c itself where it refers to this authorization of $1 million being for the current and subsequent fiscal year. Of course, the current year is the year that ends March 31, 1991 and presumably the subsequent fiscal year is next year.
It is my understanding that the estimates before us can only refer to this year, not to a subsequent year, so what indeed the Senate has asked for is $1 million for the present fiscal year; in other words, $9,000 for each of the senators.
Unless my understanding of the act and the estimates is incorrect, the information that is being put to the House is inaccurate and is certainly misleading.
I do believe this is a very serious matter. I have problems with the $153 a day the senators are asking for for merely showing up for work, but that is a side issue as far as this debate is concerned. I think we have a real question as to whether or not the Senate, in preparing its estimates, is misleading the House of Commons and whether in fact the government has properly put the estimates before this House.
It is a matter that we should look at further, and I would request that the Speaker spend sometime looking at this whole matter.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, just in case I did not hear quite correctly, the estimates that come from the House of Commons or the Senate come through the mechanism specified in the Parliament of Canada Act. They are not government estimates. I think the suggestion was that all estimates might not be appropriate. Government estimates, I think, have a different origin and a different sense of responsibility for the government and for the Chamber. I simply wanted to make that point at this time in case there might be some confusion out in the general public.

Points of Order
Under the Parliament of Canada Act, estimates related to the Senate come through the conduit of the President of the Treasury Board, but the President of the Treasury Board is not at liberty to change them; they are simply conveyed according to the statute law.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member for Ontario is an important one. I thank the hon. member for his presentation. It was very clear and well thought out. I thank the hon. member for Calgary West for his point of clarification.
I do not think it would be appropriate, given the significance of the point, to proceed when the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has indicated on behalf of the Official Opposition that he would like sometime to consider this matter before argument was concluded.
I take it the hon. member for Churchill is supporting that position. The hon. member for Churchill has given me some indication of how he may pursue the argument at another time.
I think the request for an adjournment for the continuation of the argument in the coming week is appropriate. I am certainly going to accept that suggestion. I wonder if at some appropriate time later on this afternoon members might contact me to indicate when they would be prepared to proceed with the argument. I might say I do not think it is appropriate for a very long delay, but I certainly will co-operate.



['Orders of the Day.']
David Charles Dingwall: rise on a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Earlier in the week I had raised with you and with other members in the Chamber the prospect of obtaining your guidance in terms of deliberations at Question Period.
We had a number of incidents today, although you were not in the chair, that made it obvious to members on this side of the House that perhaps the answers although not very forthcoming were a bit verbose and a bit long in responding to the succinct questions put by members of the Official Opposition.
I am wondering if there has been any reflection by yourself, other than what you had stated earlier in the week, to try to bring a little bit more cohesion and
succinctness from the other side in responding to various questions that we pose. As you can appreciate, there are a number of members of Parliament on this side, who for whatever reasons, believe they have good questions, but because of the timeframe are not having an opportunity to proceed.
I am just wondering, now that the Government House Leader has entered the Chamber, if he would like to make a submission on my intervention, or whether you would like to share with us any further views you might have on this particular subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. House Leader intervenes, and I certainly will hear him, I think I should point out that, yes, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond raised this matter a few days ago. As he knows, I have contacted his office but we have not been able to have a discussion. I also made suggestions at that time that it might be a matter that should be discussed with members in the Chamber and then with myself.
I would like to hear from the hon. Government House Leader.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, let me say that having spent many, many years on that side of the House, I understand the frustrations of the newly appointed House leader of the Official Opposition in that each and every day there is a long list of people who desire to ask questions, quite understandably. Tough choices have to be made and it is frustrating if, in fact, that is unable to occur because time runs out.
I must say that from our perspective we have some frustrations as well in terms of Question Period. Very frequently, if not in the overwhelming majority of cases, questions become mini-speeches, with a number of accusations and suggestions made of impropriety, malice, incompetence, et cetera. It is not surprising that when these accusations are made by way of preamble, the recipient of those accusations, the accused, feels it necessary to give an adequate response so the record does not show an accusation not responded to. That is part of the nature of our adversarial system. It is the nature of our adversarial system that I felt for some time, and I say this in all honesty, even when I was on that side of the House.
March 8, 1991

I am not sure that we serve the public altogether well in that context because of how it appears to those in the galleries or those watching television. We have this interchange and then sometimes wonder out loud why it is that politicians are held in disrepute and disrespect, when it is a small wonder, given the kind of exchanges we too frequently have.
That being said, I am certainly more than prepared and anxious to engage in discussions with colleagues on the other side of the House to see if, in fact, we could not arrange some ad hoc rules, instructions, suggestions that we might put to the Chair in terms of how we might manage Question Period in a way that meets the understandable and appropriate desires of the opposition: to have the time and ability for their members to stand up and question members of the government on their respective responsibility, and to recognize the equally legitimate concerns, from the government's perspective, of the ability to defend oneself, if you will.
I do not know how these discussions might come out and I do not want to prejudge them. If it were to come out to a circumstance where the Chair received generalized instructions from both sides of the House to cut off those who abuse the preamble or the set-up to a question and, equally, to cut of those government ministers who respond with too much verbosity, frankly, I would not quarrel with that at all.
Let me repeat that I understand the frustration of the House Leader of the Official Opposition, and I am more than willing to engage in discussions to see if we cannot find some satisfactory resolution.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, we are all, of course, moved with compassion for the concerns that the minister has for slights made against him during Question Period, but I have one or two brief points to add.
It is the New Democratic Party, and sometimes the Independents, who often feel the brunt of too much time being taken by others in Question Period. I just want to point out that concern. However, it is clearly everyone's responsibility to be as succinct as we can, both in questions and in answers, and I would like to contribute whatever my party can to the discussions which will achieve that.
Points of Order
I would also like to thank the Deputy Speaker, who today found the opportunity to give a fourth question to the New Democratic Party, and that sometimes gets us through Question Period satisfactorily. It is a difficult question but it is important for all of us to participate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the non-cabinet members of my party, I would like to join in this discussion.
I heard the NDP spokesperson say that it was his party that suffered when preambles were long. Let me tell him that it is government members who frequently get no questions even though they represent the majority of members in this Chamber. If we could indeed come to some collective agreement that would enable us to shorten the preamble and shorten the responses, that would enable us to increase the number of questioners and questions asked in Question Period, that would be strongly supported by my members in the anticipation that they would have somewhat of an increased opportunity to participate in that process, as well. They would like it; they have a hunger for it; and brevity is the route to the solution. I am pleased to see so much accord, and I am sure our caucus would unanimously support that kind of a move.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will not be long in my intervention.
I guess we are talking, to a certain extent, with regard to the purposes of Question Period. Of course, the purpose of Question Period for the Official Opposition has always been to elicit information from government members. It is not to score cheap political points, as alluded to by the member opposite. He must be referring to some third party or independent members, but he certainly cannot attribute that to the Official Opposition.
I hope that as we proceed in the coming days and weeks, perhaps the Chair, through his able assistants, will be able to provide us with some statistical information about the timing of the questions and the timing of the responses. I think this will be helpful to any discussion that we might have.
However, I wish to point out to the Government House Leader that we are prepared to examine some of the suggestions that he has made. But I cannot let it be said by the chief government Whip that it has the largest body of members of Parliament who do not have an opportunity to ask questions. The purpose of Question

Routine Proceedings
Period is to elicit information. Surely, government members can elicit information in their weekly caucuses. Caucus, which is the rock of democracy, can provide government members with the necessary information they need.
That argument does not hold much water. Nevertheless, we wish to proceed, but we would like to have those statistics that I have referred to.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary West, who probably cannot resist responding.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we are negotiating on the floor of the Chamber. I would like to signal to the Liberal House leader that we would be glad to send some of our cabinet ministers to their caucus, provided that we could take the hour and spend it on Government Orders. We would be happy to make that change.


Mr. Speaker:: As your Speaker, I want to express my appreciation for the assistance extended to me this morning in this brief discussion.
I want to say to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond that I spent a great deal of time in opposition, and of course I was always a model of decorum. Perhaps times have changed, but I have to confess to hon. members that there were times when I was on my feet knowing perfectly well what the information was; my object was more to point out that information on behalf of my constituents and in the public interest of my country.
However, I am very intrigued at the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond that Question Period is to elicit information, and I think that we might be able to discuss that matter among all of the members.
I think perhaps it might be helpful if the initiative which has been taken by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond were to be pursued through perhaps an initial discussion with the House leaders, and perhaps others, on the question-which is a very, very sensible request-of statistics. I want to say to the hon. member that I believe that would be helpful. The Table will make that information available.
Quite frankly, I welcome the initiative taken by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond because, as hon. members know and as I remarked the other day, there is a lot of competition in this House now for questions. More, perhaps, than there ever has been, partly because there are more members but there are also other reasons.
We want to do what is in the public interest and we want to do what is right for all members of the House. I accept what the hon. member for Calgary West has pointed out, that there are a lot of private members on the government side who often feel that they do not have an adequate chance to put questions in Question Period.
Again I remind hon. members that those of us who spent quite a long time in opposition do have an understanding of the difficulties to which the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and others have alluded.
I want to thank the hon. members. I thank the hon. member for Cape Breton-Richmond and the others who have intervened. I would hope that an initial meeting could be held as soon as possible, and I certainly would be prepared to co-operate in every way to answer the needs of all the hon. members. I suppose it will not come as any surprise if I indicated that I, too, have some views as to how we could make Question Period more effective.
I thank the hon. members.



Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition with respect to post offices. It is a petition with over 300 signatories from Nova Scotia who are concerned that this government's attitude towards post offices is strictly profit-motivated. While this government has made well over $150 million in profits, it has continued to close post offices, both rural and urban. They are particularly concerned about one post office at 7183 Quinpool Road in Halifax.
The petitioners call upon this government to improve the service of Canada Post and to instruct the government to abandon its policy of closing rural post
March 8, 1991

offices and urban post office stations throughout this country.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, it gives me particular pleasure today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present this petition. It arrived at the right time, as we are celebrating International Women's Day.
The petitioners have the following to say: We believe that a great woman, Marie Sklodowska Curie, must be honoured for her scientific contributions to humanity. We believe that the gift of the discovery of radium to heal the sick of the world deserves to be recognized by Canada. We believe that she deserves to be recognized because this discovery of radium, for which she was twice awarded the Nobel Prize, has brought relief to millions of people around the world, including Canadians. She was the first woman to win a place in the history of science.
Therefore, the petitioners feel that this Polish woman, Marie Sklodowska Curie, who was a servant of humankind and has been honoured by so many different countries of the world, should be honoured by Canada. They call upon this House to issue a commemorative stamp on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of her birth, November 7, 1992.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I have the sense that the population out there is ongoing in its concern for the tax on books, magazines and literature. I had thought, after all these months of depositing these petitions, it would be the end.
Since I have come back after the break, I have, for your interest and for this House, the request that the historic principles embodied in the tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations be reviewed once again so that magazines and books will no longer be taxed at the tax level that they are suffering because it is a very serious matter.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the House will recall in December that I and other members tabled a number of petitions from people in the Wind-
Routine Proceedings
sor-Essex community which protested, in effect, the cutbacks of the government which closed down our only television station CBET.
Over 50,000 names were tabled at one time, having been gathered just over the space of a few days. We continue to receive these same kinds of petitions and I am very pleased, on behalf of the people of my community, to table a number of petitions which call upon Parliament to take all necessary measures to preserve local CBC television broadcasting in Windsor and in other areas, deprived of such service by Mulroney government cutbacks and by the decisions of CBC management.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the opposition to the GST continues. As evidence of this, I have a large number of petitions from people across the country who strongly oppose the goods and services tax on the grounds that the tax is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians and will hit them not only with higher interest rates, but with higher inflation, higher taxes and higher unemployment.
These petitions have been duly certified by the clerk and I am very pleased to present them to this House.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present to the House today a petition signed by thousands of residents in the Halifax area.
These individuals are very concerned about the decision by Canada Post Corporation to close the postal facilities in Halifax. They are petitioning this government and call upon this Parliament to make improved service the highest priority of Canada Post Corporation, and also to instruct the government to abandon its policy of closing rural post offices and urban postal stations.
I submit this to the House at this time.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, I rise on International Women's Day to present a petition that has been signed by Canadians, both women and men, from every region of this country.

March 8, 1991
Routine Proceedings
The petition says that whereas violence against women in our society is a serious problem, whereas 14 women were brutally killed at the University of Montreal because they were women, and whereas our society must recognize the misogynist aspects of our society and never forget these kinds of action, they call upon this Parliament to declare December 6 a national day of remembrance in honour of those 14 young women who were massacred in Montreal, a national day of remembrance and action on the issues around violence against women.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 191 residents from Halifax, Nova Scotia, who are opposing the closure of post offices. These residents feel that with a profit of over $149 million there is no reason for this government to continue destroying Canada Post as we know it.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to instruct the government to stop this massive destruction of this very important facility that helps to unite Canadians and they would like to see the facility in particular at Halifax Main, at 713 Bedford Row in Halifax, remain open.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege today to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition that deals with postal issues in the Halifax area. Hundreds of petitioners suggest that with a profit of $149 million, Canada Post should not be cutting back service at the expense of Canadians.
The petitioners are particularly concerned about Canada Post's intention to close the postal facility at 1526 Dresden Row in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and call upon Parliament to instruct the government to make improved service the highest priority of Canada Post Corporation and to instruct the government to abandon the policy of closing rural post offices and urban postal stations.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitioners here today who continue to protest quite vigorously the implementation of the goods and services tax. These are Canadians from across the country who have joined together in a petition of several hundred names, suggesting that the goods and services tax is not appropriate for
the Canadian economy at this time, that it will cause grave and serious hardship to small business across this country and will unduly affect middle-income Canadians, as well as those on fixed incomes across this country.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada that notwithstanding its implementation of this very regressive tax that it would reconsider its decision of months ago and do away with the goods and services tax.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, question No. 415 will be answered today.


Mr. Fisher: During the 1989 strike by hospital service employees and ships' crews, what were (a) the total costs (b) the costs for (i) moving veterans (ii) catering (iii) additional security (iv) replacement workers?


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: I am
informed as follows:
Environment Canada: a) $27,000	for the charter of a vessel to search for and recover a de-moored meteorological buoy in the Pacific Ocean
$5,000	for overtime during off-hours
Fisheries and Oceans: a) $74,227	for DND services
Health and Welfare Canada: a) $21,393	
b) ii) iv)	$364 $21,029
National Defence a) $89,450	
b) ii) IV)	$1,000 $40,000 for overtime paid to civilian employees
Public Works Canada: a) $83,808	for ships' officers (additional costs)
Tbansport Canada: a) $1,235,000	for the charter of tugs to assist navigation in the St. Lawrence River
March 8, 1991

Veterans Affairs
Canada:	a) $7,763,582
b) i)	$2,433
ii)	$428,899
iii)	$2,608,501
iv)	$900,210


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


Dave Worthy: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Don Boudria: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, in relation to answers to written questions. I must bring a matter to the attention of the House and that is the fact that on February 25 the government answered question No. 411 on the Order Paper in my name. The only answer that the government provided was the fact that it had refused to answer the question.
I do not know of any provision under our rules that permit the government to refuse to answer an Order Paper question or to state as an answer that it is refusing to answer. Could I perhaps ask the Chair to look at this question.
It is a very simple question. I asked the Government of Canada how many golf club memberships had been purchased for the executives of the Canada Post Corporation. Those same people are shutting down the rural post offices in my riding. I want to know how much was spent and on whom in buying them golf club memberships. The government simply told me that it would only share this information with the employees in question.
I bring this to the attention of the House, on a point of order, and to your attention, Madam Speaker, hoping for your guidance. I would ask you to take it under advisement and to respond at an appropriate time.
Routine Proceedings


Dave Worthy: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to deal with that particular question. I have no knowledge on it, but I will look into it with the appropriate people. The government should be in a position to respond to the hon. member at the earliest possible time.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin and the Chair as well will look into the situation.
Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Orders of the Day.



POINT OF ORDER


David Charles Dingwall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There has been some preliminary discussion, and I am not fully aware that my colleague to the left has been apprised, but we are presently debating Bill C-98, second reading, to be followed thereafter by the disposition, if you will, of Bill C-91, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
There is agreement on this side to proceed with Bill C-91 at this time if, in fact, there is unanimous consent.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: No
to that suggestion, Madam Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker I have heard that the hon. member is not giving consent, but I cannot see that consent is required at this time.
The government is allowed, after Question Period, to call whatever piece of legislation the government wishes to see in front of the House at this time.


George Baker: On a
point of order, Madam Speaker, I did not hear the government call Bill C-91.


David Charles Dingwall: I am just making a suggestion, Madam Speaker, that perhaps if the government decided to call

March 8, 1991
Government Orders
date back to Erskine May and includes Beauchesne that it can call Bill C-91.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the Table was informed some time ago, as were all parties, that the first item of business after Question Period would be Bill C-91.
The normal practice is for the table officers to rise and announce that. It was interrupted with a point of order.
When the point of order is completed, I would anticipate that the table officers would rise and make that announcement.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 26, consideration of motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-91, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House is ready for the question. 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.

[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 second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When debate stopped for Question Period at 11 a.m., the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls had the floor. There are 15 minutes left in his speech.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, I will not use my entire time period. However, I would just like to make a couple of remarks regarding this legislation.
The legislation is, as the bill says, the Farm Income Protection Act. Perhaps, that should be changed to read: "Some farm income protection for some farmers act".
One would get the impression from looking at the title that the bill would cover all fanners in Canada and that there would be income protection for all of the farmers of Canada.
Such is not the case, unfortunately. I will read, just to put on the record, what the government says is in the legislation. It says the legislation provides for the Net Income Stabilization Account, called NISA; the Gross Revenue Insurance Program, called GRIP; the revenue insurance program, called RIP; and the crop insurance program, called CIP.
All of these things are incorporated into this bill to provide protection for farmers.
Really, in the bill for the year coming up, 1991-1992, the main component called GRIP will only grip the grain and oilseed farmers. Now how well, in my limited knowledge of the farming community, will it grip the farmers?
Some of the contributions to the program come from the federal government; it has contributed some 41 per cent. Where do the rest come from? Oh, they come from the farmers; 33 per cent. And then the provincial governments, if they so wish, will have to put up 25 per cent each.
So it is not such an all-encompassing program and the NISA section-and I am not saying there is anything wrong with it- all it really is, is that you can put money into a bank account to save for a rainy day.
As I read the legislation you can only withdraw-and as I say I have very limited knowledge of the farming community, that is those who produce grain and oilseed-if your income drops below $10,000 for the year.
March 8, 1991

The legislation before us today is really not what some people would have you believe it is; a safety net program for farmers. It is not a safety net program for farmers. There is nothing wrong with the legislation, as I said before. It goes further, I suppose, than legislation has in the past because this is really a consolidation of all of those income support programs that were in existence in the federal and provincial laws in some of the western Canadian provinces. However, it is certainly not the all-encompassing program that it was made out to be by the Government of Canada.
That brings me back to the principle of the legislation because that is what we are debating today, the principle of the legislation, the principle of guaranteeing an income to a farmer, or guaranteeing an income to a primary producer.
It should be made clear and put on the record that to guarantee an income to a primary producer, apart from our social welfare safety net, is perhaps more important in economic terms than guaranteeing the income of perhaps any other group of people in our society.
I say that because economically speaking on the balance sheet, it helps our balance of payments. It helps the respect for our dollar on the international money market if we are exporting products from this country. In fact, we could not survive if we did not have something in the books that said our dollars were being used in exchange on the international money market.
I realize there are various ways that you can have a healthy financial situation vis-a-vis the United States or any other nation in the world on your balance of payments. You could be exporting tourism. That is true. Americans could come into Canada and spend dollars here, and that is an export on your financial ledger when you judge the value of that commodity in a country like Canada. You could have investment from foreign nations. That is another help on your balance of payments, because dollars are being spent here and foreign money is being exchanged for Canadian products. The export commodities of our primary producers, of our farmers, loggers, miners and fishermen and other primary producers in our society are perhaps more important than any of the other commodities, because when you talk
Government Orders
about farming or fishing, you are talking about food. You are talking about food, which is indispensable.
You cannot judge in economic terms, the value of a computer chip versus food. There is just no comparison in real terms. There might be in the mind of an accountant or an economist. Certainly, in reality, we should be paying more attention to our primary producers in this country.
I make the point: Why not have guaranteed income programs for all of our primary producers in this country? Why not have a guaranteed income or a stablizing of income for our loggers in this country and for those people who work in our paper mills? Why not have a guaranteed income for our fishermen and our fish plant workers? Why set them adrift? There is not one income support program in existence in the Statutes of Canada. There is not one legislative measure that was ever brought in to give income support to our primary producers in the fishing industry or in the logging industry. Not one.
Members could point toward the prices support boards we have. But that is after the fact. That is much after the fact, after the individual has either been driven into bankruptcy or has sold off all of his possessions because of the nature of the work.
These professions are at the mercy of weather conditions and international markets. That is why they need the support of the Government of Canada.
I would say, as I mentioned before, the intent and the principle of the legislation is good. But I do not think it measures up to what a real farm income protection act should be. Perhaps the Government of Canada can build on this and perhaps it can come up with an act that will not be dependent upon how much money a farmer has or whether a provincial government decides to cost share on this particular program.


Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for what clearly was a remarkable degree of knowledge on a bill relating to an area on which I know he would have had to do a great deal of research to understand. It would not come to him naturally because only a few of his constituents would be involved in this sort of business.


An hon. member:: Particularly the primary ones.

Government Orders


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Particularly the primary producers. I know that he has demonstrated some knowledge of primary producers, at least, in the broader definition.
Perhaps, the hon. member could elaborate just a touch more on what he sees as being the real farm protection act he thinks this government should bring forward.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, I must admit that my knowledge is a bit limited as far as the books of some of our farmers are concerned because I have not really dealt with them on a personal basis as constituents.
I can assure the hon. gentleman that without those farmers we are talking about today, we in Newfoundland would not be able to have our porridge every morning and our cream of wheat-the most nutritious foods that we can eat-and even our corn flakes and so on.
To get right to the point, what income support program do I visualize should be in place for farmers, fishermen, loggers, and other primary producers? I think it should be done this way, Madam Speaker. Just let me give you the illustration. All support programs, guaranteed income schemes that have been talked about, talk about giving money at the end of a financial year. They talk about giving money at the end of a season.
It can be seen in our social welfare legislation with the child tax credit. The government has tried to change it a bit by giving an advance. I realize that, but a true income support program would mean that a farmer, a fisherman, or a logger, to me the way it should operate, would be able to draw on a fund, compliments of the taxpayers of all of Canada, when he needs the money.
In other words, it does not mean that he will be to able to draw on the fund on March 31, if the financial year ends at that time, or December 31, if it ends then. He should not have to wait until that period is up.
The hon. gentleman asked me what I visualize as an income support program. The programs that are being devised are just bail-out programs, and hopefully the producer is not into bankruptcy by the time he is bailed out. There should be a system-and it deals with philosophy-that if you believe your primary producer is of the utmost importance to the economy and the people
of Canada, then it is quite easy to devise a system which says that his income will be stabilized.
In other words, when he hits the point where he is getting absolutely no income and does not know if he is going to get any income, that is when he should be given the money. That is when he should be able to draw on that income.
What do we have in Canada today? Sitting right across from me is the chairman of the fisheries committee who can testify to us here today that he has argued and complained for years that fishermen have absolutely no income after the month of May, when there could be ice on his territory. He makes the argument-and other members have also made it-that an income support program would deliver the money when the primary producer needs it to put food on the table.
We appear to have the philosophy in this country that the primary producers are all right because they grow food; they have loads of food in the cellar so they really do not need any money; and that the fisherman has fish in the deep freeze, he can go out and shoot a moose every now and then, so he does not need any income. These people are like everybody else. They have children going to school, children going to university. These are real people who need income at certain moments of the month, not of the year.
I bet I could draw up the ideal income support program in a couple of days, at least the general principle of it. All we have to do is believe that we really need it in Canada today, and we do.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, I was wondering if the member for Gander-Grand Falls would care to comment on whether the philosophy of this particular bill can be reconciled with Canada's concepts of supply management as it concurs with the GATT or otherwise, and as it relates to the devastation wreaked upon the Canadian food processing industry by the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


George Baker: No, Madam Speaker.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I want to start by complimenting the member for Gander-Grand Falls on his eloquent presentation today on Bill C-98.

I guess there are not quite as many farmers in Gander-Grand Falls as there are in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has a large number of dairy farmers, as the Secretary of State will likely know. He drives through my constituency going back and forth to his own riding in Montreal. By the way, I hope he stops often and spends a lot of money my riding. The economy sure needs it. All the ministers who drive through my riding are invited to spend some of the hard-earned tax dollars they receive for doing their job. As I said, my constituents would benefit greatly.
I also should say that the minister is welcome to my constituency, even if it is not to spend hard-earned tax dollars. We would always be pleased to receive him, and I say that sincerely.
The bill that we have before us is one to establish the GRIP and NISA programs. The constituency I represent, as I indicated previously, has no less than 1,000 dairy farmers, in addition to others in cash crops and other areas of endeavour in food production.

The past few years have not been easy for Canadian farm producers, Madam Speaker. They saw their incomes fall in a very drastic and serious fashion. At any rate, those who are not involved in supply management were hit even harder because of a major reduction in food prices. Prince Edward Island potato producers had to deal with special problems in addition to the common natural disasters such as drought which all other farm producers had to contend with.

I see that as I am making these brief remarks my distinguished colleague from Prince Edward Island is seated immediately beside me. She brought forward very eloquently in the House this morning the problems suffered by Prince Edward Island potato producers. In this particular case, the problems are twofold. First, the prices have not been all that great. The sad reality is that is almost not new for potato producers. It is something they have had to deal with for some time. In addition, there is the infestation of their crops that they have had to deal with. That again will take its toll on those particular producers. I want to take this opportunity to compliment her for her usual quite forthright and
Government Orders
apropos remarks in assisting the producers in her part of the country.
At the same time, she also speaks of producers from my own riding, perhaps not knowingly. I do have a number of potato producers in Glengarry-Prescott- Russell as well. In one community named Pendleton, Ontario potatoes are still grown. There is only a handful of producers now, but only a few years ago there were several more. There has been consolidations and in some cases farms have been transferred to other crops, again for the reason that the price of potatoes was not all that good in our area.
Coming back to the bill at hand, I would like to speak first in favour of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, this is a two part program. At first, we could deal with the support part designated as the GRIP in English and the CSRN in French.
The purpose of this program is to provide a crop insurance plan, an insurance plan that will cover most if not all products, once agreements have been concluded with the provinces and the groups representing our farmers.
What we are discussing today is the framework of the bill, not the whole program, because there will be negotiations with the provinces and producers on the specific programs, the premiums for each product, and so forth. On the whole, however, on the basis of the information we have today, I believe this initiative deserves the support of this House, Mr. Speaker.
Some of the merits of this bill include the fact that, unlike other crop insurance programs, under the NISA program it will no longer be necessary to sell the grain in order to be eligible for insurance payments. This is a matter often raised in our area, because farm producers who grow their own feed grain are often unable to collect stabilization or other payments, because they don't sell the grain since it is consumed on the farm. This was a very serious problem under the previous stabilization programs.
I am glad to see, that according to what we have been told, the problem will no longer exist under Bill C-98. In other words, feed grains used on the farm will be eligible under the Agricultural Stabilization Program on the

March 8, 1991
Government Orders
same basis as grains sold on the market. It was high time this kind of coverage was available.
Mr. Speaker, there are still concerns, however, and I must say we wonder how some provinces will be able to pay their share of the premiums. For instance, a grain producing province like Saskatchewan might easily have to pay provincial premiums totalling as much as 400, 500 or 600 million dollars annually. Anyone familiar with the economy of Saskatchewan can see that would create a very serious problem for the provincial treasury. So there are some potential problems.
Another problem is timing, Mr. Speaker. I must say that introducing a bill of this kind at a time when the plan is expected to go into deficit is a problem in itself. The answer is of course that if all were well in the agricultural sector, we might not need these programs so none would be introduced. Unfortunately, there is some truth in that. If we set up a stabilization program when times are good, automatically, funds will be deposited in the plan that will stay there, to be used during the lean years. The trouble is that when we start a program of this kind during the lean years, then either we have a plan that goes into deficit from the word go, or otherwise, we have premiums that are far too high because we are right in the middle of those lean years.
I realize it is rather difficult to get around this problem, and there are people who suggest waiting until things improve before setting up a program of this kind. However, that line of reasoning would be pretty hard to sell, and I don't intend to try, but my point was that we do have this problem right now, when we are about to start up these programs.

The government is telling us of the tremendous contribution that it is making to agriculture generally. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, being the non-partisan person that you are, know far better than that, because the Speaker is a totally objective person and is able to see through the kind of government rhetoric that some of us are subjected to from time to time.
The government has cut some $1.8 billion of expenditures and funding toward agricultural support programs during 1987 and 1988: $1.1 billion in 1987 and approximately $850 million in 1988. We cannot believe everything that the government says, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are so objective that you have already detected that in your non-partisan position in the chair where you now sit.
The government has included certain sums in this year's budget, but you will obviously recognize that agriculture is still at a net loss, if you calculate the amount that was put in this year's budget and subtract that from the cutbacks of the previous years. You can see that all is not well in the area of agriculture in terms of the help that it is getting from the federal government.
We have just finished talking briefly about GRIP. The other one is the NISA program. That particular program is not nearly as universally acclaimed as the first one that I have just described. As a matter of fact, I had occasion lately to travel to different parts of the country as part of the famous Liberal task force on the economy. I am sure you have heard of it, Mr. Speaker, because it did such excellent work throughout Canada. This Liberal task force heard representations from various groups.

On of these briefs was presented to us by Quebec farmers. And they argued that as far as they were concerned, the NISA program, RARB in French, was nothing more that a Registered Retirement Savings Plan for higher income farmers. Such was the view expressed by a few farmers group. While I do not agree entirely with them, I do think that we should listen to their gievances and complains because it is obvious that farmers want fair programs which will be sufficiently supported to serve the needs of the Canadian population.
In any case, during the hearings held by the liberal caucus task force, a few weeks ago, in Montreal and in Quebec City, farming groups of that province aired negative criticisms about the NISA program while commending the other program, the CSRN or the GRIP as it is better known in English.

A number of Canadians have spoken in favour of this general program. Again I state that it is a general program. It is an outline, if you wish, because there are specific agreements that have to be signed in the future.
March 8, 1991

I will describe what has been said in a few newspapers, just to give you an example of the fact that the agricultural community is certainly not looking at this in a negative way. It is looking at it in very much a positive light, hoping that this will work out.
For instance, in a Globe and Mail article of January 26, entitled "Farmers' new safety net will offer much-needed security", the following is stated:
Western Canadian grain farmers have been looking for five years
for an income stabilization program that did not depend on Grant
Devine's electoral needs.
That is a very apropos remark because too often we have seen programs in the past really geared to the urgent political necessity rather than the urgent farm income situation. This program, of course, if it develops the way we are all hoping it will, will not have Grant Devine's electoral needs as the system by which pay-outs are made.
The Winnipeg Free Press carries this headline: "Income protection for farmers is patently unfair." It states the following:
- the political debate has centred exclusively on GRIP One argument is whether farmers' 33 per cent share of the premium is too much. Another hinges on the insured price based on a 15-year rolling average that some say will mean the guaranteed price will collapse once the high price years of the late 1970s are out of the formula.
That gets back to the point that I raised a little while ago about starting a program in difficult times, as opposed to starting it in times when things are better. Others say GRIP amounts to major off-loading of support for agriculture from the federal to the provincial governments. There is some merit to that argument as well, because in some cases the federal government has attempted in the past to shift a burden of responsibility on the provinces.
Under crop insurance and certain other stabilization programs, there has been both federal and provincial contributions. So to that extent, certainly in my own province of Ontario, the situation is different than perhaps it is in other regions of the country.
I would just read another comment which I think should be brought to your attention, and it is with respect to banking institutions. This particular article is entitled "Royal Bank Likes Program". It is from the Western
Government Orders
Producer of February 14. It quotes the chief executive officer of the Royal Bank, Allan Ihylor, as saying:
The worry that the bank would grab hold of this, grab all the money for the debt, and leave nothing else so it becomes a wonderful thing for lenders and not so good for the farmers, that wouldn't happen I don't think, because-we've got to try and keep the farmers on the farm.
A number of us think that perhaps there should be legislation, to ensure that in fact that happens. However, perhaps we should consider having legislation to ensure that the banks do not grab hold of everything. Second, any kind of a good insurance program that will bring stability to the agricultural system, is bound to assist in alleviating some of the difficulties in obtaining farm financing that are encountered right now. I say to you that is of equal concern as any of the other issues in terms of obtaining financing for the continuing operation of farms. Anything that would bring that stability would be tremendously welcome, and perhaps this would.
In conclusion, then, I want to reiterate my support for the general outline that is announced in this bill, and hope that the specifics of the program as they develop in the future will be such that the optimism that we have today will be realized.
Perhaps some of that is a little bit Utopian, but nevertheless, because with the way things are in agriculture we have to give some benefit of the doubt right now and hope that things will improve very soon.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, before I begin my remarks today, that I would like to split my 20-minute time with the member for Essex-Windsor. I will speak for 10 minutes and then accept five minutes of questions. So will the member for Essex-Windsor, if that meets with your approval.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Hughes):: Of course, the Speaker is in the hands of the House. I believe that there is general agreement.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today and speak on Bill C-98, the legislation which provides authority to the federal government to enter into negotiations with the provinces and reach an agreement with agriculture support programs.
The programs, GRIP and NISA, the Gross Revenue Insurance Program and the Net Income Stabilization Account are becoming well known throughout the farm

March 8, 1991
Government Orders
community and come at a time when a long-term income stability program is desperately needed.
The farm income forecasts for 1991 are not veiy positive. In fact, Statistics Canada reported in the last week of February that the Manitoba and Saskatchewan economies will fare the worst of all provincial economies in 1991 because of the recession and low grain prices.
In Saskatchewan, information meetings on the new support programs, GRIP and NISA, are well attended as producers are anxious to get information that might give them hope of improved income and some stability in the industry in the future.
A long-term income stability program is necessary when governments control products and price, but not inputs and expenses. Problems develop, and it is important to find solutions to those problems.
The agriculture debt across Canada is more than $22 billion, and the price paid to farmers for grains and oilseeds is inadequate to meet production and financing costs. Obviously, something has to happen. If the marketplace is not able to provide an adequate price, then the federal government has an obligation to sustain Canada's food industry until the price is adequate unless we, as a nation, are prepared to lose that industry. Then, we have no choice.
The ability of Canadian farmers to compete internationally is beyond their individual control. We are well aware that the price paid for farm products and the amount sold is determined away from the farm gate.
The only control a farmer has is over the inputs, not the price but the amount he puts into his operation. The costs of those inputs, of course, are determined by the marketplace and are certainly much higher than the income available to the producer to pay for them.
Competing against other governments is absolutely out of the individual's control. Take the U.S. Export Enhancement Program as an example. The Western Producer in late February reported that the United States recently sold a bushel of feed wheat to a Norwegian fish farm for $1.50.
The subsidization on that sale was a contribution from the United States taxpayer of $1.42. The United States sold 917,000 bushels with this $1.42 subsidy on a $1.50
selling price, further contributing to the decreasing price for feed grain.
That deal was outrageous and disastrous for producers around the world, including those in the United States. It guarantees the price for grain will stay down. The only real winners in that deal were the fish on the Norwegian farm that were getting that soft winter red wheat for feed.
The losers, in addition to Canada and U.S. producers are the U.S. taxpayers whose money is feeding those Norwegian fish. The Saskatchewan farmer obviously cannot compete against this kind of nonsense no matter how hard he or she works.
The legislation in front of us today starts to address Canada's internal problems in the face of these international problems. It recognizes that financial support is necessary and commits federal participation in the process.
There are problems, some of which I will address in a moment but because there are problems, I want to urge the government to take a long, hard look at these programs when the legislation goes to committee for study and be prepared to make changes. Changes are important because these programs are designed to stay in place for a long period of time. The farm sector and the people who survive on the farm depend on the success of these programs for their future viability.
Producers, particularly grain producers on the prairies, know that GRIP and NISA become the only support they have, they want only the best that can be designed. If, for any reason, GRIP and NISA are not the best that they can be, we may be dooming an entire generation of farmers.
Unfortunately, one generation of farmers has almost already been sacrificed. There are very few young farmers on the prairies and that represents a problem in itself but a problem that will have to be addressed on another day.
Last week I was visiting a number of farm families south of the Battlefords and we discussed GRIP and NISA at some length. There were a number of opinions within each family. The government would be well advised to consider some of their thoughts.
March 8, 1991

The huge debt loads on these farm families and their concern for the future would likely be shared by most in their situation. How they look at the future depends on their age. Older farmers, especially those who have survived recessions and droughts, are skeptical about the new GRIP initiative because they see the moving average, this 15-year term, as simply a guarantee that the prices will remain low. Many are not considering signing up for the program, but rather hope to see a continuation of deficiency payments until prices rise on their own sufficiently to cover the production costs on the farm.
Younger farmers are more likely to accept the GRIP program because they are so desperate for cash that any program that will get them through one more bad year can't be all bad. They are more concerned about the immediate than the future. I am somewhat surprised at that basic response from the younger farmers, who tell me that they are prepared to sign on to the GRIP program for the first few years when the financial return is expected to be high, but are likely to drop out after a year or two when the return is predicted to be much lower.
If GRIP is to be at all successful, this callous approach must be addressed and the problem corrected, because the entire program will collapse with a huge deficit and little ongoing on-farm support if participation of the young farmers is not maintained.
This is just one of the matters that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture will have to look at when it gets this legislation to study next week.
There is also the question of whether the program will cause farmers to plant more acres of wheat in a year when prices are at rock bottom and when wheat is needed the least. The question was raised in late February by analysts with Ag Decision, a research group, which says that GRIP will dramatically change the way farmers will operate, and may influence the type of crops grown and the amount of land seeded. The analysts report they had expected a decrease of about 8 per cent in wheat acreage in 1991-92 but now expect it to increase by about 3 per cent. That concerns me because of my personal concern for the environment and the unfortunate but at this time necessary use of marginal land for crop production in the northern part of Saskatchewan.
Government Orders
I am also concerned with the process which is bringing us GRIP and changing the face of agriculture support payments forever. The legislation in front of us today is enabling legislation. It is not the GRIP or the NISA programs, the details both of which are contained not in this legislation but in agreements which have yet to be signed by a number of the provinces, and in regulations which we may not see yet for another few months.
Details of the program are being sold to farmers across the west and are available, but not the fine print. We do not know if the programs will work; we do not know what they will cost, and we do not know if they indeed answer the problems that face us in the long term.
The federal government, using its marketplace-oriented master plan, outlined in its paper Growing Together, initiated the discussions and they consulted widely with the farm and industry groups.
However, Bill C-98 and the programs it established is scheduled to go into effect on April 1, less than three weeks away. Agreements are being signed with the provinces, farmers are being signed up, and Parliament has yet to give the authority to even enter into these negotiations. I fear the mistakes of the past are being repeated and that GRIP and NISA may turn out simply to be four letter versions of the GST, programs that are flawed and faulty but cannot be changed because the government has committed too much to them before the final assessment is in. GRIP in many ways parallels the New Democrats agriculture policy unveiled during the 1988 federal election campaign. We recognized then the need for a long-term stabilization policy that would protect fanners against losses caused by price declines of any kind and natural disasters which can strike farmers individually or collectively at any time.
In developing our policy, however, we differed from the government's current program in that we thought then and still do today that support for farmers should be based on cost of production and not on a 15-year moving average.
Our program would provide basic price guarantees for part of each year's sales that are consumed domestically or about 8,000 bushels.
I think the idea of a long-term income stabilization plan is good and that these programs are necessary. I only hope that the government is prepared to make the

March 8, 1991
Government Orders
necessary changes before April 1, changes that will secure, not deter, the future of farming in Canada.


Steven W. Langdon: It is an
unusual pleasure I have to say, Madam Speaker, to stand and offer some compliments to this government. I must say it is with some hesitation that I do so but in this case it has set up a process involving farmers across the country, which will permit those farmers to pull together some long-term responses to the continuing cost pressures and price pressures which farmers have been facing.
I have had a chance to talk with farmers in my constituency at a series of community meetings about both the programs on which we now have some detail, GRIP and NISA. I have to say that most farmers in my constituency do recognize that this is an important step forward.
They have some concerns, however, and so what I will be presenting in my brief comments today is their sense of acceptance of an approach combined with their sense of concern about some of the details of that approach. I hope very much as we support this legislation to go to the agricultural committee, it will be possible within that committee to deal with some of the inadequacies in the legislation as it now stands and the inadequacies in the proposals which, as my colleague has noted, are not actually in the legislation but in the details which have been provided to us up to this stage.
The two key programs on which we have some detail are first, GRIP, the Gross Revenue Insurance Program, which for eastern farmers is something slightly different in its implications than for western farmers. For western farmers this, of course, replaces the Western Grain Stabilization Act. For eastern farmers it replaces crop insurance programs which have been much more of a patchwork quilt than in the case of the farmers in the western part of Canada. One of the things which I am pleased about with the legislation is that we finally do have something of a common approach being taken to farm problems across the country. Certainly we in our part of Canada have felt considerable grievance at the fact that much agricultural policy, especially coming from this government, has tended to be aimed at western farmers, not recognizing that farmers from Ontario and,
indeed, farmers from Quebec have faced many of the same problems.
With respect to eastern Canada, the crops which will be covered by GRIP are com, soybeans, canola, oats, barley and winter and spring wheat. For our particular part of Ontario in Essex County, this is a reasonably good selection of crops. The inclusion of soybeans, for instance, of which I had some concerns is an important step forward on the part of the government.
There are, however, for my particular part of Canada some crops which are missing. We look particularly for the specialized vegetable crops. We look indeed for the less spcialized vegetable crops like tomatoes, which are very important right across Essex County. We do not see them covered by this legislation and, frankly, that is unfortunate.
The legislation has some other problems associated with it which I want to stress as the debate moves on to the agriculture committee. We have considerable concern about the decision to base support on a 15-year moving average of prices. Most farmers whom that I have talked to have said to me: "When we look at how these averages will work out over the next few years, this is a program which makes a great deal of sense for us for the first two or three years, but makes much less sense for the future". Many farmers talk quite openly, as my colleague noted, about the probability that they would enter the program and then leave it after two or three years. That is not the basis of a satisfactory program.
For ourselves, we would like to see this 15-year moving price average replaced by a cost of production formula which would give to farmers some sense of security, one where the cost of production is taken on an average basis across farmers so that you are not covering the least efficient farmers with their complete cost of production, but instead trying to encourage efficiency but nevertheless recognizing that it is the difference between cost of production and price which is the crucial issue. Our farmers are very concerned to see that take place.
We are also very anxious to see an emphasis in the resulting legislation which recognizes the importance of providing support for fallow crops, crops which help to

regenerate the capacity of the soil, if we are to move to a sustainable agriculture for the future. We need a program like this to support not just these common cash crops which are grown in Essex County but also crops such as beans, for instance, which help to regenerate the soil and provide the basis for future sustainability in our agricultural activities.
We are also concerned about the reality, as it appears so far that there will be different levels of support provided to farmers in different parts of the country. Ontario, for instance, under the new NDP government, has committed itself to a 90 per cent coverage, whereas other provinces have said that they believe they will not be able to cover more than 70 per cent.
I think that this kind of differential is not going to be something that will make this a long-term solution to our agricultural problems in the country. So, I look for that to be corrected in the future.
Finally, I think that while this step is important in solving some of the long-term problems which farmers face in this country, there is a short-term problem, a short-term cash crisis which farmers face which also must be covered.
Farmers in my community have called for a bridge payment to help producers seed their crops this spring. I call on the government to see to it that this Farm Protection Act provides such a filling of the gap for farmers across this country because, frankly, if we do not respond now to the concerns of family farmers across Canada, we will not have a viable family farm sector to deal with in the future. That is what we, as a country, I think, have found to be very successful in the past for us in farming and will find to be very successful in the future if we provide the support that is necessary.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order, on Monday, March 11,
the House meet at one o'clock and proceed to business of supply.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, as long as we have the knowledge that this bill is going to be completed at this present time, we would give our consent to that motion, but only if assurance is given.
Government Orders


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, certainly from our perspective, we would agree with the suggestion made by the Official Opposition and we would certainly be prepared to indicate that we have no more speakers on this bill, unless the Liberals do. I assume, therefore, the assurances can be given.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, with regard to the comment raised by my colleague opposite, we have no more speakers at this time on Bill C-98 on second reading. I know the member would not want to mislead the House in thinking that the bill would be passed in all stages today, but we would be happy to accommodate in passing this bill on second reading today.
Of course, if you concur with the motion as put by my colleague, opposition day would start at one o'clock on Monday since there is no Private Members' hour on that particular day.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, with that assurance, we would give our concurrence to the motion. Certainly, we did not expect all stages of the bill to be passed today, only second reading.
Motion agreed to [Translation]


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House to call it two o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House will suspend for five minutes.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 1:51 p.m.
Private Members' Business SITTING RESUMED

March 8, 1991
The House resumed at 1.58 p.m.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Steven W. Langdon: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of requiring that employers who benefit from federally-funded training programs provide long-term employment to trainees.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is particularly fortuitous that this piece of private members' legislation should be coming before the House on the day that the latest unemployment statistics for the country have been released.
These unemployment statistics represent, I would have to say, a serious shock since they have taken unemployment to a level of 10.2 per cent in the country, a level which is the highest we have seen in Canada since 1985. Perhaps what is most disturbing is that when one looks at these unemployment statistics, some of the details are particularly difficult, particularly hard to accept.
One sees, for instance, that the loss in permanent jobs has been especially dramatic. Comparing the figures for February of last year with the figures for February of this year which have just come out, there is a total job loss of
420,000	permanent jobs. That is a staggering figure. It is a statistic, but of course it represents hundreds of thousands of people across this country and hundreds of thousands of families who have seen their prospects which they thought were secure for themselves and their children destroyed in the past year.
We have talked, in the course of the New Democratic economic recovery tour that has been going across the country, with a number of groups in many different cities in the country. I recall one statement especially, which struck home in a very powerful way. It was a statement from somebody in Cambridge, Ontario who said to me that in the 1981-1982 recession when a lot of people were out of work it was nevertheless the case that their factories remained. Those factories, people expected,
would eventually get back to work and the jobs that had been lost would return.
What has happened in this recession-and it is this which is so tragic-is that people see the factories in which they have worked, the shops in which they have worked, the companies for which they have worked, in very many cases closing up. We have a bankruptcy rate which is even greater than in 1981-1982. We have a great many companies shifting out of the country as a result of the United States free trade deal, moving activities to the United States.
There are other companies that are making decisions to shift to Mexico, to the Maquiladora section of northern Mexico, where they feel they will be able to serve the American market, and eventually if free trade with Mexico goes through the Canadian market, from that extremely low wage part of North America. The jobs have not just disappeared for a time as these people see it, but the jobs have disappeared as they see it permanently. There sense of despair, a sense of tremendous frustration and a sense of tremendous anger which we have heard as a consequence.
I hope that this transfer of plants to the United States, this transfer of economic activity south, is not something which will have permanently eliminated the jobs that have been lost. I believe that there are things that we could be doing as a country to get these jobs back and to stop more jobs from disappearing.
Unfortunately the recent government budget does not seem to have reflected some of those changes which in my view were necessary. One such change, it seems to me, has to be in the area of training.
I believe we have to adopt a philosophy to move this country ahead through what I would call investment in the future. That can include a vast number of things. It can include investment in research and development, investment in the basic education system of the country, and investment in the infrastructure.
It must, I believe above all, involve investment in skill training for the future, Our capacity to be successful as an economy down the road depends very much on having the skilled people to be able to work in what one might call a high value added society. That is a society where we are not producing basic, easily produced commodities which lead us inevitably into competition with Third World countries, but which leads us into new product areas, into new and sophisticated production techniques
March 8, 1991

by which we are able to produce products with particularly highly technical specifications and particular specialized uses throughout the world economy.
To achieve that, we must have the skilled work force to be able to run the machines, to work on the shop floor, and to work in the office buildings throughout this country which give us the vast increases in productivity and human capital essential to a country if it is to survive successfully in the 21st century in the face of competition from many low wage countries that can increasingly and quite rightly compete with us in the traditional areas of activity in which we are engaged in our manufacturing sectors.
How do we succeed in building that emphasis on training for the future? I think that we have first to recognize that in this country the situation seems to be one in which the support for training programs is not increasing but rather decreasing. If we take the period from 1985 to 1991 and the Canada Jobs Strategy, for instance, the funds which were provided for training through CJS started with a total of $1.4 billion allocated in 1985.
Less than $1 billion of that, actually, is for training. Some of it is for other programs as well. That increased in 1986-87 and was increased in 1990. It was then decreased in 1991. As of 1991 the total amount available to CJS is $1.4 billion, precisely the same amount as in 1985, despite the much greater cost of training in 1991 compared to 1985.
We have seen some increases take place through the unemployment insurance system, but really it is extremely difficult to see a sufficient increase in any way to offset the increased costs which exist for training programs and which are not being covered by increased expenditures.
I do not want to pretend that the way to solve these problems is simply to spend more money. That has been part of the problem of the past. It has often been the view of especially the Liberal Party when it was in government that simply increasing expenditure was somehow the way to solve the problem. I think that it does make the situation considerably more difficult when training functions are being squeezed for resources at a
Private Members' Business
time when we desperately need more training to be taking place in the country.
Nevertheless, the key things that we believe need to be done threefold. First, we think it is extremely important that large scale corporations in the country start to recognize that they have a responsibility to undertake training. What we find in my constituency, for instance, is that most of the training, most of the serious apprenticeship programs which exist throughout the Windsor and Essex county area, are undertaken by the medium and small scale firms. Once people are trained, the large scale companies will then steal these people away at much higher wages and manage to fulfil their need for skilled workers without ever having to put into place training programs designed to increase the pool of such skilled workers.
We suggested a number of different approaches to try to deal with this problem. We suggested, for instance, that it would make a good deal of sense to have a training levy for all companies over a certain size within our economy. It would be possible for any such company to use up the money which it would otherwise owe the government in that training levy by undertaking training programs itself. If it did so, it would not have to pay the training levy.
In fact, if it over-expended, if it spent more than the training levy amount, it would be possible for such companies to receive government support for their training programs coming from the payment of those training levies on the part of companies that do not undertake such training.
In other words, we have some kind of a redistribution process within the company sector that sees to it that companies that take their training responsibilities seriously receive incentives and support to do so. That is one thing that we should set in place.
A second thing that we should set in place is a recognition that effective training is going to have to be training on the job. In part a training levy approach would encourage that, but I think we also need to say to provincial governments throughout this country that we are prepared as a federal level of government to provide support to the provinces for training activities but those

March 8, 1991
Private Members' Business
training activities, undertaken for instance through various community colleges, must involve a very serious element of on the job training.
In the case of community colleges in Ontario, I would hope very much that a co-operative arrangement could be worked out through the new Ontario government and the federal government so that more money would be provided for training and that those community colleges and the training programs supported by the provincial and federal governments would commit themselves to see to it that at least half the period of the training program was spent on the job. That would give people graduating from those programs a sense of experience and, frankly, it would give them considerably better training.
Finally, I think that it is also useful to put into effect regulations through the federal and provincial training programs which I hope will become increasingly important in the future. Companies that benefit from having people working on the job or are supported through a training levy system should make a commitment to the people who are trained with what is in effect such federal-provincial government support. Such companies should see to it that the people involved would have a preferential chance at jobs within those companies.
That is what this particular motion which I have moved today sets out as a philosophy. Employers who benefit from federally funded training programs should see to it that long-term training is something which also leads to employment within those companies.
I think if that happens, if we start to take training seriously in this country, five years from now we should not have to look at such grim unemployment statistics as those which have been released today by Statistics Canada.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the matter before us poses a new meaning to the phrase job training.
Job training normally means acquiring the skills to do a particular kind of work. But the hon. member's motion asks us in effect to guarantee every job trainee a job. If the federal government's training program did not lead to jobs we might indeed be forced to consider this or
some other similarly radical proposal to overhaul our strategy; but long-term employment is the essence of our training programs. By far the great majority of our training projects lead directly to full employment lasting a year or more for most participants.
If a training project fails to meet its objective, if the trainees who participated end up having difficulty finding a job that meets our standards; in other words they cannot find jobs that are full-time, satisfying and wellpaying, then we cease funding that project. It is that straightforward and simple.
As for the suggestion that participating employers be forcefully required to hire job trainees, surely the hon. member is not seriously implying that the government scrap its newly created approach to job training based on consultation and co-operation, and not compulsion. We all know that if an employee takes training he cannot be compelled to stay where he works. He may, for various reasons, not want to stay there. I am referring to the creation of the 22-member Canadian Job Labour Force Development Board announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration just recently.
But let me return to the motion for the moment. If you decide to compel employers to do something, it is because you have tried everything without success; so you simply require them to do it, you do not consult with them. In other words, you demand compliance only after consultation and negotiation have totally failed.
But our new approach to job training has only just started. The Canadian Labour Force Development Board has only just been created. And, as the hon. member's alma mater, the Toronto Star, phrased it in its lead editorial on January 16, "The new federal approach is truly an attempt to co-ordinate our training programs and solve problems from the bottom up instead of the top down".


Don Boudria: Great newspaper.


William James Kempling: Surely with the promise of grassroots consultation ahead of us we should be giving this new venture a chance instead of marching in with a top-down requirement like the one urged in his motion.
Furthermore, the motion seems to cast government and employers as labour-market combatants. But, in fact, Canada has many economic players: business, labour, government, social action groups, educators, as
March 8, 1991

well as the trainees themselves. Marshalling their insights on the training issue has been the federal government's main intent since setting out to design the Labour Force Development Strategy two years ago.
Ours is the consultative approach. Rather than addressing the training issue by saying, okay, what is the problem and how do we solve it, the government has asked: who do we want around the table to help define the problems and seek the solutions?
A policy paper entitled Success In the Works which the minister tabled in April 1989 helped define the problem. According to this paper, if present trends were to continue, the 1990s would see Canada's work force become less and less competitive. Now, with the creation of the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, we have made a start on the solution. Not the gently dictatorial solution proposed in the hon. member's motion, but a rather modem consultative strategy which has the strong support and the approval of all players. The federal government needs that support, for training is everyone's concern.
It will take a virtual army of trained and skilled workers to ensure the strength of Canada's economy. Through formation of the Canadian Labour Force Development Board we have recruited the key players who will begin to work out the major issues.
These issues are to ensure that the private sector plays an active role in the decisions affecting skills training in Canada; only one in four businesses provide formal training to their workers; a dwindling labour force growth rate, now only 60 per cent of what it was in the 1970s; a mismatch in some regions between skills and people who have the skills that are needed.
You can see right away that simply requiring employers to retain trainees on staff would not go veiy far towards solving any of these issues. Yet the motion is right in one sense, job training and skill development are central to meeting the challenge of ensuring that Canadian workers achieve their full potential.
Training is the central issue faced by the members of the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. In fact, labour, industry and government, both at the federal and provincial levels, agree that a Canada-wide training
Private Members' Business
effort is essential for the future prosperity of our country.
All interests are represented: eight from employer groups, eight from labour, two from training providers, four from social action groups representing women, persons with disabilities, visible minorities and aboriginal groups. The board should be in operation by the end of March.
The establishment of the Canadian Labour Force Development Board is a major step in the advancement of Canadian labour-market training programs. Major technological advances in industries around the world demand the growth of new methods and skills here at home. Canadian workers need to acquire the new skills required to keep them working.
As much as this is a key initiative for business, labour and other stakeholders involved with skills development, the Canadian Labour Force Development Board is even more important in these economically troubled times. It is clear proof of people's willingness to work together for the betterment of all Canadians.
We applaud these pioneers who have come with common purpose to the table to consult on job training, something which, to quote The Toronto Star editorial once more, is both right and a necessity.
By all means, let us have federally funded job training programs that lead to full-time jobs. Let us impress upon employers who benefit from our programs that they play a pivotal role in the training and retraining of our work force.
With the creation of the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, the federal government has the means of developing a true consensus in Canada about what is needed to train or retrain our youth, our unemployed and workers of all ages who are being displaced in a more competitive and fundamentally restructured economy.
I just want to conclude by saying that I have been through this whole phase in my own business many years ago. I know what the member is talking about, the problem of training employees and seeing them scooped away by a large industry. But I think, with that experience behind me and looking at this Labour Force Development Board and knowing the program behind it,

March 8, 1991
Private Members' Business
I am quite confident that we are going to do a good job down the road and this program will help employ any person in Canada who really wants a job.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, may I start my comments by congratulating the member for describing, so eloquently, the words written in that valiant newspaper The Toronto Star. Some of us appreciate and have appreciated that paper for a long time and I am glad to see this new-found appreciation on the part of Conservative members for the The Toronto Star. It is nice to see that conversion on the part of government members. I will remind other Conservatives when they criticize The Toronto Star that it has been extensively quoted by one of their own colleagues today in the House of Commons.
Getting back to the serious issue before us, I have read this motion and I have listened to the speech of the hon. member presenting it and although I am sure it is well-intentioned, I do have some problems with it. I will describe them to you in the following way.
I have had experience in my constituency of some programs, particularly those of job entry and job re-entry.
Both of those programs are very successful in the riding that I represent. What they have done is taken women who had not been in the work force for many years, some of them had actually never participated in the traditional work force-not to demean, of course, their contribution at home-but in the paid work force, if we can call it that, they had not contributed for many years or perhaps not at all. Through this program they were able to integrate into the work force.
That is not always easy for a person who has small children at home, or even where the children are grown, and they live outside a village or town and need transportation into town to go through the training. In some cases, as a component of job re-entry, day care is provided for the children. That has been very effective and it has worked well in my constituency. The Prescott-Russell Separate School Board and the Board of Education have done a tremendous job in making that work. They are the people who have provided the training.
How in blazes am I supposed to expect those people to hire them? They provide the training, but they do not keep those people, Madam Speaker. They are not supposed to; they are a school. This is part of the alternative education program. That is just about the only training that goes on in my riding.
If we were to force the Prescott-Russell Board of Education to hire everyone it trains, we would have more teachers than students at the end of the program. That could not possibly work, at least in the area I represent.
I would imagine that the motion, knowing where the member comes from, is designed to target large industries particularly that perhaps have a tendency to go to small industries and rob them of their best employees with a few extra dollars rather than train their own. Then the small businesses have to train employees only to see them stolen later by the larger employers.
I think the parliamentary secretary, a former businessman himself, was describing that kind of situation as having perhaps happened to himself in the past.
If we are to consider what our colleague from Essex- Windsor proposes in the motion, the motion is going to have to be reworded extensively in order not to have penalties imposed upon people whose job it is-and who do it very successfully-to train others for re-employment using federal government programs.
In my constituency, I wish we had more participation in training by employers. We have had some but, to a large measure, the training has been done, as I said previously, by the alternative education program of both our Separate School Board and Board of Education.
I would not want us to adopt a motion that would suggest outright that employers who benefit-and the employer here is the Board of Education; it benefits by giving the jobs to their teachers to train those people-should be saddled with the burden of those people. The net result would obviously be that it would cease to train these people, largely women, who have received this very valuable training over the last three or four years. This is one sector of the Canadian Jobs Strategy that I must compliment the government on.
That might surprise you, Madam Speaker, complimenting the government is not something I do very often in this House. And I can tell, notwithstanding your impartial usual objectivity, that there is a tendency on
March 8, 1991

Private Members' Business
the part of perhaps the Speaker, or at least other members, to smile when I say that.
That part of Canadian Jobs Strategy has worked; namely, job entry and job re-entry. It has done well in my area. I think the program is good, but I also think that the people who have made it work in my area have done a very good job. They have had success rates of something like 90 per cent in placements when dealing with so-called ordinary clients; and when dealing with social assistance-type recipients they have trained-we call those SAR in the short-form language that Employment and Immigration Canada uses-they have had success rates of something like 75 per cent.
That is pretty good, as far as I am concerned. When you find jobs for three out of every four, particularly given the unemployment that is in the constituency that I represent, those programs have been successful. TTiis is a good opportunity for me to state that and to compliment those who have made the program work in my constituency.

But I would certainly not want us to pass a motion forcing the school boards I just mentioned to hire the very people they trained. That would kill the programs in no time, Madam Speaker, for lack of participation, if the school boards had to keep, to retain, to hire every person they provided with this kind of training.
So, I want to tell my colleague from Essex-Windsor that, while there is no doubt good points in his proposal, there are flaws in the formulation of his motion, and I have already indicated a few to the House. There may be others as well, as we might find out from other speakers who will describe what the situation is in their ridings as part of this debate.
It might be worth exploring the subject further though. Perhaps the hon. member would agree to withdraw his motion and refer the issue to a parliamentary committee so that could be considered the whole problem described by the parliamentary secretary when he told us, for instance, that some industries, rather than training their own employees, prefer to go and lift some from smaller employers who cannot afford to pay them as well. That is not unusual in the industry.

Madam Speaker, another thing we should look at as well is this whole business of how seniority and wage structure in some industries is developing at the present time. I bring this problem to your attention so that if we are to study the subject matter, I would hope that we would also study the difficulty within industry whereby, for instance, trainees and particularly apprentices are paid much less than, for instance, a janitor.
Let me set out that proposition. If you are a janitor in a plant and you make a certain salary, and you would like to train to be a machinist of some sort, or a skilled worker, you often have to take a cut in salary in order to become an apprentice. That is a big problem that we should study, should we decide to withdraw that motion and refer the subject matter.
I have enumerated some of the problems that I see that need to be studied further, but I think that the motion as presently worded does offer, perhaps, more problems than it does solutions.


Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, this is a historic event. One of my colleagues, our friend, the hon. member for Burlington quoted the Toronto Star positively. Another one, a founding member of the rat pack actually congratulated the government. This is a truly memorable day, Madam Speaker!


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I could not agree more with the hon. member. This is, of course, International Women's Day.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise on this motion. Like my friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, I had some of the same difficulties with reading the face of the motion. I listened, therefore, with interest to the hon. member for Essex-Windsor, who has been a friend of mine. We were at college together, so I listen with great care to what he says because he often has useful things to say, as he did here today.
My dilemma is that I agreed with about two-thirds of what he said that had nothing to do with the motion that is before us, but what he said with regard to the motion

March 8, 1991
Private Members' Business
that is before us I am afraid I must disagree with him. Therefore, I rise.
He made the point, I thought eloquently, of the need for a better blueprint for training our workers for a prescription for the future where we were going to have high-tech needs and the need to be more competitive in the global economy. He was, in fact, almost directly citing every single bank report one reads today. To get that from the hon. member for Essex-Windsor, it was gratifying to hear that understanding of the reality we face, but the motion goes the wrong way.
If you have spent time in your constituency, and I know the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has in his, talking to businesses that are already in the enormous difficulties that recessions pose, about trying to find the funds to do the things that need to be done to get more people back to work and on payrolls, any suggestion at the moment that one was going to add to the capacity to access training of an obligation-whether that worker has worked out or not-or any other sense of an excuse for a business to say no because there was a perception that what was coming was the heavy hand of government in an audit way thereafter, saying that if you have used and accessed training funds you must now provide long-term employment simply because government has come along and said you have to do it.
My sense of it from my own business experience, and I know the hon. member for Burlington would agree, is that that will not encourage people to put our people back to work. It will discourage them. I know that in my heart and in his heart that that is not the purpose that the hon. member for Essex-Windsor had when he brought this proposal to the House.
I appreciate, as I am sure we all do, the hon. member's desire to protect employment for Canadian workers. I understand and I respect the concern expressed, therefore, in his motion. I think I understand the good intentions that lie behind the motion, the sense that we have to find more ways to encourage our businesses and use government moneys in better, more targeted and more useful ways to make sure that those people who need retraining get it, and that in fact businesses participate in that program.
I can assure the hon. member that all of us want our investment in Canadian men and women to produce timely dividends. Perhaps we need to remind ourselves that we can best secure positive labour market results by supplying people with the training programs they need to pursue appropriate careers and to assist businesses in making sure that those desires are encouraged. That is not done by putting obstacles in the path of business in the training programs.
That is why this government has been so intent on providing training and retraining opportunities for Canadian workers. That is why we have developed the programs to encourage the private sector, including business and labour representative and professional trainers to enter into training partnerships with us of the kind, among other things, mentioned by the hon. member previously.
That is why the comprehensive strategy was developed, the Labour Force Development Strategy, to serve the needs of employers and workers alike. I think everybody in this House wants Canadian men and women to realize their full potential. We want them to participate successfully in the global economy that, whether we like it or not, is coming.
It is only through the education and training of our labour force that we can build a strong and competitive future and that we can compete in that new world that is coming.
Maybe it would be worth while to put on the record the record of this government with regard to these matters because I know the hon. member for Essex- Windsor had the view that somehow the government is reducing its interest in training. The government has, in fact, increased over time the investment in the training and the retraining of workers in programs offered since 1985 through the Canadian Jobs Strategy and, since this last fall, the new programs in the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
The government has always maintained that the failure to preserve a competitive work force would have dire consequences not only for individuals who lose their jobs, but for Canada's general economic prospects. We are aware that a training gap between our workers and those in other countries would have serious consequences for our economic health.
March 8, 1991

It would make our labour force and our industries less and less competitive. For those who sometimes accuse the free trade agreement of being the reason that many of our manufacturers have left this country, a closer examination of the decisions by those who have left should be made. It is more often from those who have gone because they believe the business environment, certainly in the province of Ontario where I come from, is driven by the costs imposed on business by the province of Ontario and not by the free trade agreement. This has been the chief reason that they have felt the competitive economy that they need to work in is not going to be here at least as that economy is being developed by the governments they see.
Consequently, this government has dedicated more dollars to job training and skill enhancement than any previous government in Canada. This year, over $3 billion will be spent by the government on the UI fund, on training allowances and on employment programming. The investment was not made hastily, and the ideas behind it were thought out and developed through consultations with everybody the government could think of: experts, organizations, groups including the Advisory Council on Adjustment.
In March 1989, that council delivered the report Adjusting to Win, an analysis of the constantly evolving work place, on how our workers and businesses can best exploit the world that is coming through the free trade agreement.
The advisory council observed that the major portion of Canadian labour market expenditures were directed to income maintenance, unemployment insurance-the safety net which we all know so well-and that a much smaller percentage of our resources went into employment promotion. The council specifically recommended that governments should shift that balance.
While ensuring that unemployment insurance would continue to provide temporary income protection to unemployed Canadians, it was recommended that more resources should be directed toward upgrading the skills of the Canadian labour force. Canadians would then better project themselves into the volatile labour market of the 1990s. No one who has witnessed the host of changes brought about by something as tiny as a microchip could deny that today's labour force is in a state of
Private Members' Business
dramatic transition. All of us here are familiar with the important challenges posed by technological change, expanding international trade and competition as well as changes in the work force itself. That is why the labour force development strategy places such a major emphasis on skill development and employment training and I could not agree more with the hon. member for Essex- Windsor about the need to make sure that our work force is given the skills it will need.
The federal government is determined to provide leadership in helping Canadians prepare for that labour market that is coming. The task will never be ours alone. Our primary role will, in effect, to be to incorporate the efforts and co-operation of business and labour. We are now enlisting the resources of both business and labour in our training and upgrading efforts.
I suggest the hon. member also ignores the successes to date. His recommendation would in fact, in my view, put a damper on the developments we have achieved. The experience of other countries confirms that business must continually upgrade their workers' skills to remain competitive. For example, on a per employee basis Canadian business expends about one-half of the amount U.S. firms spend on training their workers. That is why we have committed so much of our resources to the training and retraining of workers, and that is the motivation behind the strategy.
All the research done indicates that the Canadian Jobs Strategy has had an excellent over-all record in helping those on the margins of the labour force and those who are most in need. We are planning and designing new programs, building and expanding on the strengths and successes of the Canadian Jobs Strategy program. This year we will spend $500 million more on these programs this year than was spent last year, $900 million more than the year before that.
Indeed, surveys of the national impact of a series of CJS initiatives shows a success rate after 12 months of over 71 per cent.
The hon. member's motion suggests that employers are failing to provide work for the people they train. The statistics suggest exactly the opposite, that the vast majority of those who receive training are permanently on the job, thanks to the skills they acquire. I do not think from my own experience there is a single employer

March 8, 1991
Private Members' Business
in the country who would go through the exercise of training a worker and who would then want to lose a worker who was useful to him. The idea that you need to force somebody to keep somebody who is good for him and good for his business makes absolutely no sense to me. The world does not work like that. People who have been trained on a job in a business are the most likely people to get the permanent jobs that that company may be able to create in a growth economy.
More than 86 per cent of those who receive combined training and work experience have said they would keep their present job or, in their view, obtain a better one because of the training they have received.
We will continue to move further and further away from passive support programs and into skill development and relevant career training because we are determined to help young Canadians in particular realize their potential and become full participants in Canadian economic life.
We have committed $296.4 million to the five-year initiative to convince young Canadians to stay in school. Drop-outs become increasingly marginalized in the new and high-tech economy and we therefore have to keep more of our young people in the mainstream of economic life.
All of these programs, particularly the programs aimed at young people, have been expanded. We continue to direct more resources into co-operative education, work orientation workshops, Canada Career Week, and counselling services, and we are doing our best to mobilize business, labour, and the provinces in our stay-in-school efforts.
Madam Speaker, I know my speaking time is about to expire and I would therefore simply close with this: If one assumes that the hon. member for Essex-Windsor's long-term objective, and I think it probably is, is to get more Canadians who are out of work back to work, then somewhere in his thinking I think that he would understand that while we may have a different philosophical approach about how we believe business will get back to being able to create work in this country, we believe it will come through lower interest rates and less government intervention and more opportunities for business with government's assistance.
That is the philosophy we choose to adopt and I can assure him as I am sure you know, Madam Speaker, that we all want to put as many people back into real productive work as we possibly can.


Jacques Vien: Madam Speaker, many important developments have occurred since this motion was introduced, a long time ago.
Since it came to power, this government constantly improved, with the advice and assistance of other government levels and the private sector, the training and job programs it offers. In January, we announced a historical initiative calling for a government-private sector partnership. Because the concept was all new, we set up the Canadian Labour Force Commission.
One of the most important things we learned up to now is that the training and employment needs are very different from what they were a few years ago.
To set the context of these spectacular changes, we should perhaps look back a few years. When the government started looking into the problem of the labour force in Canada, we drew a number of conclusions which were grouped together in the policy statement entitled "Success in the Works" which was tabled in the House of Commons in April 1989.
The Labour force Development Strategy set out in "Success in the Works" predicted that, in the 1990s, the labour force would be confronted with new realities. The main one is that the level of training offered throughout the country no longer meets the requirements of the new decade.
We are going through rough times economically. The training and employment programs we are developping take into account these new realities, one of which is that Canada must invest more money and effort to train a more highly specialized manpower. We are also coming up against another reality, that of the globalization of the market, which will put us in competition with the rest of the world to sell our goods and services. As the international market gets more and more accessible, opportunities will become plentiful, but only for those of us who have acquired the appropriate skills.
It was stated in "Success in the Works" that, unless the trend reversed, there would be a loss of competitivity in
March 8, 1991

the Canadian labour force in the 1990s. Such changes are much more than projections now, they are occurring. Overall changes are needed in our way of conducting business.
After the Labour Force Development Strategy was announced, the government invited the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre to undertake consultations to learn about the points of view and concerns of both major labour market components- unions and businesses.
Seven task forces were formed. Each was asked to consider an area in particular: apprenticeship, the training of older workers, the training of unemployment insurance claimants, the training of welfare recipients, and human resources planning.
The task forces have provided us with an entirely new outlook and made a number of recommendations. That is what the government intends to do. We are working in close co-operation with the private sector to take advantage of new opportunities that are open to Canadians. We are rethinking completely our training programs and we are restructuring them according to the recommendations of the working groups.
At the present time, Canada urgently needs a labour force capable of adjusting itself to a changing work environment. Our country depends on trade. Technological and demographic changes are occurring so rapidly that traditional methods are no longer bringing results. Canada is already lagging behind many other countries in the area of worker's skills and training.
Our workers will need to acquire new skills and upgrade those they already have. Meanwhile, the rest of world is making progress. Our competitors are reajusting and restructuring in order to meet the challenges of the 1990s and beyond.
To be able to compete against the rest of the world, we need a highly skilled, highly motivated labour force, flexible enough to adapt to any new situation. Our
Private Members' Business
economic survival depends on the way we will educate and train our people. One way or another, almost every single Canadian will be affected. This is why we should be redirecting our efforts towards skill development.
This also means that employers will have to get involved more with training. To achieve this, the government introduced Bill C-21 to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act which was finally adopted last October. This legislative measure makes it possible to use part of the Unemployment Insurance Fund money for job retraining.
We wish also to support more and more the training offered by private enterprise. Even if Canadian corporations complain that workers lack the required skills, only 25 per cent of them are providing their employees with training opportunities.
On a per capita basis, Madam Speaker, Canadian corporations spend approximately half as much money to train their workers as their American counterparts. In Japan, employers spend three times as much money to train their employees as we do in Canada.
With the amended legislation following the adoption of Bill C-21, the private sector in Canada should be able to at least double-I repeat double-its training effort. On the other hand, as a result of the new measures we can allocate more funds to training programs for Canadians.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I must regretfully interrupt the hon. member. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being three o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday, at one o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 11,1991