1992-02-12

Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to tell you about an event that will be taking place later today at the National Library here in Ottawa.
My colleague, the Minister for National Health and Welfare, will be joining six members of the cast of the popular television show Degrassi High and Ottawa area high school students. They will discuss issues of great importance to teens and young Canadians such as drugs, sex, depression and child sexual abuse.
I would like to congratulate the cast and the crew of Degrassi High, who are here in the House today, for producing a new series entitled Degrassi Talks. Filmed at different locations across Canada, the actors talk to young Canadians about these issues. They tell real life stories encouraging discussion of these very crucial subjects.
I am sure the House will join me in congratulating the cast and the crew of Degrassi Talks and in commending Health and Welfare Canada for sponsoring such a unique program.


BREAST IMPLANTS
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my colleague and former Islander, the member from Nepean, in calling for an investigation into the product review process within health and research branch. It certainly appears that in
the case of silicone gel breast implants, the process did not serve Canadian women as well as it should have.
The onus should be on the producer of a product to prove that the product is safe rather than on others to prove that it is harmful. If there is uncertainty, then surely we should err on the side of safety to protect the health of Canadians.
An estimated 150,000 Canadian women have these implants. The moratorium on sales is not enough. How can this government be satisfied with its actions if the implants are still in stock in doctors' offices and hospitals across the country.
This government must move to recall these products so that we can be guaranteed that they cannot be used. The lack of action on this issue is appalling.


FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the First Ministers' Conference on the economy. Certainly in Atlantic Canada we are feeling the recession in a very tangible way and appreciate the leadership shown by all first ministers in working co-operatively.
While I do not advocate a spending spree by governments, I urge the governments to move on projects that will be done in any case, just do them sooner. I note that the three maritime premiers spoke in support of the fixed link to Prince Edward Island. It is projects like this that will provide the encouragement and the jobs that the business community needs right now.
Another approach is to encourage a call at western diversification, 1ST and FDBD to expedite private sector applications and cut any red tape for really good projects. Banks should also be urged to participate in the resumption of the economy by loosening up their credit requirements for consumers.
Being a retailer for 20 years, I have never seen tighter controls on consumer financing as right now. The missing link now is confidence.

February 12, 1992
The combined influence of all the premiers and the Prime Minister will go a long way to resolve this confidence and encourage people to resume their business and buying.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim KarpofT (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has said that Canada will proceed with legislation to restrict generic drugs regardless of the GATT negotiations.
Before we even consider this, Canadians should first recall this government's promises on Bill C-22. For example, are there 3,000 new jobs in the pharmaceutical research area that were promised by the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, now the government House leader? No, the government no longer even talks about jobs.
Are there more jobs in the manufacturing area? No, we have lost more than 700 manufacturing jobs since 1987.
Has price control been effective? No, not when more than 20 per cent of the drugs exceed even the weak price guidelines of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board.
Bill C-22 was a bad deal for Canadians. We should not accept further weakening of our generic drug laws simply because the United States is forcing it on us. Let us protect jobs and lower drug prices with our own Canadian generic drug industry.


WELFARE
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-StoufT-ville):: Mr. Speaker, this week I read that a Toronto man who recently came to Canada seeking refugee status was arrested for fraud. He had been collecting welfare under three different names.
The most disturbing thing about this is it is not an isolated incident. Metro Toronto police officials told me last week five other refugee claimants were arrested in Toronto for fraud. These five people alone have collected $75,000 since 1990 in illegal welfare assistance.
The government has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure that our tax dollars do not continue financing these widespread incidents of welfare fraud and to guarantee that people who are found guilty of such fraud are deported without delay.


BRAVERY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago in Ottawa, Joanne Kulwartin demonstrated qualities of resourcefulness, quick-thinking and courage.
This 17-year old high school student acted without concern for her own safety in rescuing a 2-year old and his 82-year old grandfather from their burning townhouse which was thick with smoke.
Moments later Ottawa firefighters Bob Parent and Marc Asselin acted with similar courage in entering the house, climbing the stairs in smoke so dense that they could not see and rescuing 4-year old Sebastien Marier, who was unconscious under a bed.
Sebastien remains in critical condition and our prayers are with him and his family.
Meanwhile, on behalf of their neighbours in Ottawa South and my colleagues in the House of Commons, I would like to celebrate the bravery of Joanne Kulwartin and the two firefighters. Their courage, determination and willingness to risk their own safety is an inspiration to all.
Joanne, Bob and Marc, our hats are off to you in admiration and respect.


Some hon. members:: Hear, Hear.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Garth T\irner (Halton-Peel): Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of ill-informed comment lately about the GATT talks, article XI of that agreement, and the supply management system which controls imports of dairy and poultry into Canada.
For the record, there are three central questions which need to be answered.
First, is supply management a distortion of liberalized trade? Absolutely.
February 12, 1992
[Stage Direction]
Second, does supply management constitute a barrier to agricultural imports? Again, absolutely.
Third, does Canadian supply management distort total world agricultural trade? Not enough to care about.
Supply management and the higher consumer prices it brings is the cost of maintaining Canada's agricultural infrastructure. For my constituents, that cost is certainly worth it.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago I received a letter from the Liberal member of Parliament for Scarborough West, the Official Opposition critic for the Solicitor General, purportedly on the subject of paedophilia and the charter of rights.
Upon closer examination, it became clear that the letter was thinly disguised hate literature directed at lesbians and gay men. The letter repeated that most-


Mr. Speaker:: This is getting awfully close to a personal attack against that member. I do not know where the hon. member is going.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the letter repeated that most despicable stereotype that we prey on children, that we are child molesters. It was silent on far more widespread heterosexual paedophilia.
As a gay man, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is these distortions that lead to the appalling levels of discrimination, harassment and violence among my community, a community already devastated by the epidemic of AIDS.
I therefore call upon all members of this House, particularly the leader of the Liberal opposition, to join me in strongly condemning this hate literature and in reaffirming our commitment to a Constitution and to a Canada in which all people including lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are treated with full equality, respect and dignity.


ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Beauce region in Quebec takes charge of its destiny. Three major partners in the region have decided to create an institute for international trade, to be located at Chaudiere-Appalaches. I am referring to the network for business expansion, the Beauce economic council and the Beauce-Appalaches CEGEP.
Being aware how difficult it is for small businesses to carve out a niche for themselves and to compete on international markets, since most businesses do not have all the necessary resources, these socioeconomic partners decided to provide the region's entrepreneurs with a full range of services focusing on international trade: reception and information, consulting, training, prospecting and international marketing.
This is another example of the imaginative and energetic approach of this region to developing entrepreneurship.


MAIL ORDER INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, for the past six years the American mail order industry received a free gift from the Conservative government.
This government has allowed U.S. firms to ship goods valued under $40 into Canada free of all taxes and charges. However, the Americans have been charging Canadians $8.40 U.S. for every such shipment made by Canadians into the United States. This has cost Canada over 4,000 jobs and $260 million in lost sales.
This insanity is just one more example of how this government has favoured Americans at the expense of Canadian jobs.
Today, six years later, this government has finally decided that Canadians deserve a chance. They are bringing in measures which we hope will provide reciprocity for the Canadian mail order industry.
Canada must charge the Americans the same fees that they charge Canadians for shipping into the United States. Instead of exempting U.S. shipments under $20

February 12, 1992
as they are proposing to do, Canada must give no exemption whatsoever.
Canada must at last stand up for our Canadian industries and Canadian workers.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, farmers in Durham region support the federal government's position on GATT which was developed in concert with farm groups and the provinces.
Grain producers want reductions in export subsidies to end the economic lunacy which has been part of the western world's agriculture policy for too many years.
Producers in supply management sectors want a clarified and strengthened article XI to support a system that has worked well and has not contributed to excessive agricultural production.
On behalf of Durham producers I urge the federal government to go to the wall with its position. We know that some method of supply control must be achieved to solve the world's excessive agricultural production. I find it ironic that our system of supply management has not been seriously considered by many other nations.


AID TO RUSSIA
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, eveiy day in the news Canadians see the plight and starvation of people in Russia and the other republics.
But private citizens are responding. Led by John Powell and Sherry McNeir, two people from Ottawa and Winnipeg respectively, close to 170 tonnes of food and 6 tonnes of medical supplies have been gathered.
Given the size of the shipment, the Russian government has committed itself to sending over some of its military planes to transport the goods. But Russia does not have the money for the fuel.
The office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been approached to help cover the estimated cost of $75,000 but has refused, stating that its allocation for aid for Russia has been used up. What an appalling and lamentable response to the generosity of private Canadians and the suffering of Russians.
Farmers, churches, schools, and other Canadians, many of whom face uncertain futures themselves, have reached out to the people of Russia in this extraordinary humanitarian effort.
I urge the government to find the necessary funds immediately to help transport the aid, to help these major human rights issues, and to ensure this effort reaches the needy in Russia.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's dairy, egg and poultry industries contribute over $10.2 billion a year to the Canadian economy.
The current Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations presents a do or die situation for our 97,000 dairy, egg and poultry producers and their associates.
Clearly, the stakes are extremely high. Without quantitative import restrictions, these vital agricultural industries will become integrated with their American counterparts. As a result, price stability will be replaced with uncertainty. The pillars of Canada's domestic policy for these industries will be destroyed.
But I think the members opposite will join with me in congratulating the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture because they have spoken out for Canada and Canada's farmers to ensure that Canada's position be known in GATT and that it will be maintained in GATT.
I urge the farmers in this country to get behind this government. It is their friend on this issue. Together, we will win this one for Canada.
February 12, 1992



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question once again is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Last year 15,000 Canadian women got breast cancer and 5,000 women died of breast cancer. The issue of breast implant safety was first raised in the House of Commons in April 1990.
I would like to ask the minister on how many occasions did the manufacturers of the Meme implant violate part V of the medical devices regulations? When did he become aware of these violations, and what action did he take?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should point out, first of all, that the Department of National Health and Welfare acts in the best interests of the health of Canadian women in every area that concerns the department, and especially breast implants. As I said yesterday, and as I have said many times, the department makes decisions regarding the drugs or food or medical devices it is asked to evaluate, on the basis of the information it is given and also on the basis of scientific evidence.
Mr. Speaker, the information received by the Department of National Health and Welfare on breast implants, and especially silicone implants, did not, as far as I know, contain any erroneous data that might have led the department to decide otherwise than it did.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister stood in this House and said that if he had any evidence whatsoever he would act.
I have in my hand a copy of a letter that he received last October from his own deputy minister in which he cites proof that the company on at least two occasions violated part V of the medical devices regulations. On at
Oral Questions
least two occasions, according to his deputy minister, this company failed to follow Canadian law.
I want to ask the minister this: In light of this information which was passed to him last October, why did he do nothing and why does he continue to stand in his place and do nothing?

Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton East is in the habit of producing all kinds of documents. I do not question the letter that may have been sent, but I confess I am not familiar with the context in which it was sent. In any case, we will have to look at the letter to which the hon. member referred. I will see exactly what the reference is, and in due time I will have the appropriate response to the hon. member's question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, for shame! This letter reveals that the company on two occasions violated the regulations for this implant product. My question for the minister still is: When will he do something about the 150,000 women who today are wondering whether the government will protect them? Why did he not act immediately after receiving the letter sent to him on October 30 last year. Why did he do nothing, and why does he continue to do nothing?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, once again, I have no comments on this document at the present time. I will comment in due time.
Perhaps the hon. member will recall that in the case of the Meme, which is a manufacturer's trademark, the product was voluntarily withdrawn from the market last April, before I was appointed to this department.
As for other silicone implants, since January companies have been asked and in fact have agreed, on a voluntary basis, to stop providing surgeons with silicone implants. We have been informed by the Association des chirurgiens de la province de Quebec-in fact there was a public announcement-that it will no longer use this type of breast implant.
I believe that as usual, our response was based on our knowledge of what had happened. As far as women's health is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that many

February 12, 1992
Oral Questions
women in Canada are watching this matter very carefully. That is why I said, and I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that today, no silicone breast implants are available on the market, and until I have had information to the effect that there is no risk involved, I will no longer allow this type of breast implant on the Canadian market.


JOB TRAINING
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, on January 15 the employment minister chaired a meeting of his OECD counterparts and a discussion of employment and labour market policies. At that meeting the minister recognized that we needed to develop a co-operative strategy to address unemployment created by the major restructuring of the international economy. He also said that we needed to develop training and re-employment programs.
I ask the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the minister of employment: Considering that training programs are indispensable to Canada's global competitiveness, is he still committed to the goals the minister outlined in January?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, I must repeat that we have put in place several strategies in various departments and programs.
We are maintaining our programs and we offer programs that give workers seeking employment an opportunity to learn more, acquire new skills and become better able to compete in a world of globalized markets.
We are respecting the measures that were announced and we are on schedule.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, an internal memo in my possession from Employment and Immigration Canada reveals that the government is in the process of dismantling existing training programs in metro Toronto. The memo calls for budget cuts of 20
to 50 per cent, which will effectively kill many of the programs.
The programs in question help those most in need. They have a 100 per cent subscription rate. They have huge waiting lists. Eighty-five per cent of the graduates find work.
In an age when training is so vital to our nation, why would this government even consider or give any thought to having cuts in this most devastating economic recession? We need to train this nation. Can the minister guarantee us that these programs, and more important these people, will be protected?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I really find my learned colleague opposite to be exaggerating.
We are continuing to dialogue with the provinces and trying to see how we can work with the provinces in Canada to be able to attain our common objective of ensuring a higher standard of living and respecting workers who are in search of employment.
I do not want to hear it said that we are not following our budget, because over the year, further to our decision in the wake of Bill C-21, which unfortunately was passed too late, we invested large amounts. We are working together with the provinces-Ontario, Quebec and the rest-to make it easier for every person who is out of work to get back into society and the economy.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
This government was warned of the devastating effects the GST could have on the economy. Since the GST has come in we have seen those devastating effects: thousands of bankruptcies, some 52,000 retail jobs lost, and a loss of $1 billion to the Canadian economy.
I want to say to the Minister of Finance that it must be devastating to Canadians, to retailers and to consumers to hear that the government's answer to cross-border shopping is to have Canadians pay more tax. The
February 12, 1992

question is how do we make goods acceptable here, not how do Canadians pay more tax.
Given the effects the GST has had, will the government finally look at a solution that will work and withdraw the GST?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the information I am about to impart to the hon. member may be devastating to her. I have in my hand a pre-budget submission by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association which says in part that lower interest rates had helped reduce corporate financing charges in 1991 by $500 million and, second, I quote: "The implementation of the GST has also been of significant benefit to the manufacturing sector. The tax savings that manufacturers realized by the elimination of the federal sales tax on investment goods may have been as high as $3.5 billion in 1991".


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, this is great news, I suppose, but can the minister tell us why there are increasing bankruptcies and why we are losing billions of dollars to cross-border shopping if it so much improved the manufacturing sector in this country?

I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Clearly the GST is contributing to cross-border shopping. More taxes are not an answer. I would again like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to consider removing the GST in order to increase shopping here in Canada and not outside Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member takes great joy in blaming all the ills of the economy on the GST. I will quote further from the document because that might be very revealing to her as well. It goes on to say: "Manufacturers passed these tax savings and considerably more along to the consumers in the form of lower prices".


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There it is, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. member:: They don't like good news.
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: "While the elimination of the federal sales tax alone would have allowed manufacturers to reduce selling prices by 1.2 per cent in 1991, industry selling prices in Canada actually declined by 2.8 per cent over the course of the year". The GST has had the effect of reducing prices and lowering the cost to the consumer, not increasing them as the hon. member alleges.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The GST has added to unemployment. There is over 10 per cent unemployment; 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed. They cannot afford to make the purchases this minister is talking about, but people are going across the border. That is the problem for Canada.
Yesterday in this House the Minister of Employment and Immigration said that there are skilled jobs for people to take. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Is it a fact that this government is prepared to cut training funds for skills training, the very skills that his minister said were needed?
In fact the memos we heard about earlier today, and I have copies here, indicate a 20 to 50 per cent cut in training. Is it correct that the government is prepared to do this and cut workers off at the knees by cutting back training?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not have to take my word for the fact that the GST has helped the manufacturing sector. She can phone the Canadian Manufacturers' Association herself and find out what the conditions might have been had it not been for the implementation of the GST, had it not been for the withdrawal of the silent killer of jobs, the federal sales tax.
In so far as training funds are concerned, I only repeat to the hon. member that $3.1 billion has been allocated this year and $3.4 billion is allocated next year.


JOB TRAINING
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speak-ker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

February 12, 1992
Oral Questions
What is at issue is the credibility of this minister and of his government. We have been told time and time again that this government is committed to training and retraining. If that is the case, can he explain why the directors general sent a memo on December 20, 1991 asking areas managers right across the country to prepare contingency plans for three scenarios: (1) a 20 per cent reduction, (2) a 35 per cent reduction and (3) a 50 per cent reduction in community based training funds?
Can the Minister of Finance explain this discrepancy? Why is the minister saying one thing in the House of Commons when his area managers are being told another thing down at street level?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I have a list of investments that we made in training our workers: programs like job development, which got $257 million in 1991; community development, $150 million; job entry, $412 million. Mr Speaker, we gave out some $19 billion in income support last year. What we are trying to do is to build an economy in which our workers can find employment and we do not intend to cut our programs.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is a phoney. He stands in this House and he says that his government is committed to training.
I would like the Minister of Finance to have the courage to stand and explain to the thousands of people who rely on these training programs why this government has decided to cut $100 million from community based training and why the area manager in the Toronto region says in a memo dated January 10, 1992: "We will be forced to terminate projects due to budgetary reductions".
Can the Minister of Finance explain to these people who are desperate for jobs and who want to be trained in order to fill those 300,000 vacancies that the Minister of Finance spoke about yesterday why this minister is
cutting them down? Can he explain why he is cutting $100 million from community based training?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, last year we invested $3 billion in worker training and in the coming year we definitely intend to continue working with the private sector, the provinces and especially the workers, who must do their part to find work and register for our training courses.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade.
We have just learned that a preliminary U.S. customs report has ruled that Canadian built Honda Civics do not meet the North American content requirements set out in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and will be subject to a 2.5 per cent tariff.
I ask the minister: Doesn't this show that the free trade agreement is not providing the secure access to the American market for Canada which was its original justification by his government? Isn't this an example of rising U.S. protectionism and a blatant attempt to discourage future automotive investment in Canada?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to my counterpart in the United States as has the ambassador. We have both made very, very clear our dissatisfaction at the way this audit has been conducted and the results of the audit. Once we see what the specific elements of the audit are, if it is appropriate we will take action under the terms of the free trade agreement.
Let me also say that we do have protections under the free trade agreement which we would not have had through the dispute settlement mechanism provisions, as well as the elements of the U.S.-Canada Trade Commission where we can discuss these things, get them resolved, and not leave them outstanding as was the case prior to the free trade agreement coming into place.
February 12, 1992

Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, why won't the minister admit, in the face of this latest example of harassment by the U.S. authorities of Canadian manufactured exports to the United States, that the free trade agreement, in spite of what he says, when it comes to Canadian interests is simply not working; it is a flop?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, during the time the free trade agreement has been in place, we have seen the trade surplus of Canada with the United States increase from $14.2 billion to $17.5 billion. We have seen our exports increase by $8 billion, about 7.5 per cent. We saw an all-time record high of exports in August of last year. Surely that is an indication the free trade agreement is not hurting but helping Canadian exporters.
I remind the hon. member that before the free trade agreement was in place, we did not have recourse to judicial practices where we could go to the chapter 19 dispute settlement mechanism. Now if we have disputes, we have a legal basis on which we can protest them.


BREAST IMPLANTS
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister of health said that he was still waiting for evidence that silicone breast implants were unsafe.
I wonder if he is aware of what is going on within his own department. Staff within the Health Protection Branch have been instructed to cut and paste company supplied data on this issue and that is how decisions are being made. Those who have objected to this process have either been silenced or sacked.
Will the minister now take this issue seriously, order an independent inquiry where all of the evidence can be presented, looked at and a reasonable decision made on behalf of Canadian women and the health of Canadian women?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, in my previous answers, I referred to processes established in the department of health to deal with medical devices. I must mention, as I told the same hon. member yesterday, that we also set up a register to which women who have had a breast implant can refer to give information concerning their reaction or their level of satisfaction with the implant.
Second, within the department, I asked the deputy minister to implement a process for a thorough review not only of breast implants but of all medical devices that are used. Mr. Speaker, I think that these measures will keep us up to date and ensure that the policies of the department of health take account of women's health, especially in this case-the health of women who for their own reasons decided to proceed with the operation.
Accordingly, I met with Marcella Tardif yesterday. I talked with her at length about this subject and I think that we are doing what can be done. I repeat what I said earlier: If I have any doubt whatever about the advisability of allowing silicone breast implants back on the market, no one, including the hon. member, will again see these breast implants on the market in Canada.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, that is a long answer but it is not an independent inquiry. It does not address the issue of taking company supplied data from Dow-Coming, cutting and pasting it and using it as departmental evidence.
If the minister will not agree to an independent inquiry, will he at least refer this issue to the status of women subcommittee of the House of Commons and ensure that all of his departmental staff who are asked to appear do appear on this critical issue?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to considering the request to refer the case to the committee on the status of women. In general, officials of the department of health who are called to testify before committees do so. Now, again, I prefer to consider the request and see, because the committees have mecha-

February 12, 1992
Oral Questions
nisms and procedures. If that meets this request and it is what they want, Mr. Speaker, of course we will co-operate with the committee, as we have always done in the past.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the minister of employment what he was going to do to save thousands of jobs in the pulp and paper industry. His answer to me and to this House was that they could use the unemployment benefits that were available to them.
We have a better idea. What we want to do on this side of the House is save all of those jobs in the pulp and paper industry.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he instruct all of his ministers, all of the Crown corporations in Canada to use only fine paper products produced in Canada. This will immediately create full employment, full production in the paper mills that produce fine paper products in this country. Would the Deputy Prime Minister issue that directive today please?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that as a government, we are very concerned about the employment situation that now exists in the pulp and paper industry.
We are therefore studying mechanisms which could meet all the needs that are specific and different from one company to another and of course we are making available to laid-off workers all our job strategy programs. We are trying in the short term to be able to meet the financial, cultural and economic needs of every worker.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Thank you, Madam Minister for that answer. However, the job strategy is not what we had in mind. What we are trying to do is keep the jobs that the people are presently working in today.
If we could receive this direction from the Deputy Prime Minister, the Island Mill in New Westminster, British Columbia and Provincial Papers in Thunder Bay could return immediately to full production, but more importantly, to full employment.
We already know that the Americans give their U.S. mills a 7 per cent benefit in price when they supply paper. We do not and I think this bends the free trade agreement.
We know that the fine paper products made in this country beat other products in quality. They are very competitive in price. We also know that there are simple solutions at times to the employment problem.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister today: Make the directive to all ministers and all Crown agencies to use the fine paper products in this country.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his suggestion.
I simply advise him that I will take his question as a representation.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
The minister knows that cross-border shopping cost Canada over $2.3 billion in 1991. He is also well aware that one of the major incentives for Canadians to cross the border is the attraction of cheaper gasoline in the U.S.
Later today the minister will be announcing measures he is prepared to take to stem the flow of cross-border shopping. Will he include a reduction of federal excise tax on gas in these measures so that this inducement for Canadians to cross into the U.S. will be eliminated?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, it would be unfair of me to make part of the announcement at this time.
February 12, 1992

I can only tell the hon. member that the elements of the announcement that will be made at 3.30 p.m. in Room 130-S, which is a change of venue, are going to be based on consultations with the provinces and with the private sector. There will be consultation with the border communities and the consumers' association.
Let me point out to the House that the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party and others have said that there will be increased taxes. There will be no increased federal taxes in this announcement.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance.
Given the impact higher gasoline prices have on forcing Canadians across the border, will the minister assure Canadians that at the very least the upcoming budget will not include any increase in the federal tax on gasoline? Why will the minister not commit himself today?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there is more than the gasoline tax that has had an impact on cross-border shopping, it is a multifaceted issue.
If the hon. member would like me to make representations to the provincial governments which also have high gasoline taxes, I will do that as well.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
While Canada was ostensibly looking for a strengthened article XI(2)(c)(i) of the GATT, we want-


Mr. Speaker:: Please. The difficulty the Chair is in is that we have an opposition motion today which refers to the whole of the GATT issue, of which we have been hearing in the House. The hon. member seems to be anticipating an order of the day, but the Chair is having difficulty with the question. He may want to rephrase his question, but it is clearly out of order at the moment.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: What efforts did the minister make in pursuing the government's so-called balanced approach
Oral Questions
to the strengthened and clarified article XI? The world has not noticed these efforts. What were they? What will he be doing to have it put in the Dunkel report?


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have to stay with my original view on it. I have to advise the hon. member for Mackenzie that his question is out of order. He may want to reconsider his position and come back, but at the moment I think I must move on to the next member.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. The state of Maine has an emergency bill before its Senate which is designed to stop a Canadian success story, Irving Oil Limited, in its efforts to expand its operations into the American market. This is one more example of Canada not gaining market access under the poorly negotiated Tory free trade deal. This is not a free trade deal, it is a one-way deal. What does the minister intend to do to remedy this situation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had given me notice of the question, which is a fairly specific question, I would have been very happy to give him a response. If he could give me more information, I will get back to him.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, there is a piece of legislation in the Senate, which I am advised the minister's office is aware of, which is designed purely to stop Irving Oil from expanding into the Maine market and into the United States market. This is not an independent or an isolated event. They have tried to control the lobster industry. We all know about shakes and shingles and now there is this emergency legislation. Why does the minister not admit to Canadians that they failed to negotiate market access in their free trade deal?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: think I heard my hon. friend say something about the legislation in the U.S. Senate. Surely my friend is aware that there are any number of bills that will be presented by U.S. senators or by U.S. congressmen as a basis for making a point. It is similar to them asking a question in

February 12, 1992
Oral Questions
Question Period. They want to get their point of view on the record. Putting a bill in is one way of doing that, not unlike a private member's bill. I think my hon. friend is aware that if there is an attempt by U.S. legislation to inhibit the capacity or the ability of companies to enter the U.S. market that is contrary to the free trade agreement, we will fight it very, very hard.


CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday, during discussions that the Leader of the Opposition had with the Secretary-General and other senior officials of the United Nations, several matters of concern to Canada came up, one of them specifically dealing with children. Close to 50 countries, many of them very poor countries, have already completed and finalized their national plans of action and are in fact implementing them. Canada is not one of them.
I want to ask the minister why has Canada, which co-chaired the summit on children, been so neglectful in living up to its commitments of that summit? When will this government start leading instead of following in dealing with the plight of children in Canada and the world?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, before Christmas we said we would sign the convention for children and we did, as was said by the Prime Minister. I said at the time that a plan would be presented some time in March, after consultation with the provinces. We in Canada once in a while have to consult the provinces. We do and we did. I believe that I can live up to what I said in terms of March. The plan of action for children should be presented to the House in the middle of March.


Lloyd Axworthy: I hope the minister is faster on this than he was on the question of breast implants on which we are still waiting for a proper decision.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on another humanitarian problem. There is a tragedy in Haiti. Thousands of refugees are being forcibly repatriated to misery and oppression. Canada, as a member of the OAS, has a special obligation to these refugees.
What concrete action will the government take to help these people? What representations is it making to the American government to come up with a more humane solution?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the best solution for the refugees is to continue to work on improving policies within Haiti. Canada has played an important and significant role with other OAS members and the eight nations that visited Haiti to look into the situation. I often discuss it with the other ministers of foreign affairs and with people in Washington.


MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In the Canada Gazette of December 21 regarding amendments to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act there was a paragraph that reads:
The amendments do not require vehicles manufactured to United
States and California emission standards to comply with Canadian
emission levels. There are other areas of double standards in the
Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding notice of defect regulations and
also the metric calibration regulations.
As the free trade agreement is phased in, these really hurt the Canadian industry. Will the minister move to either lower the Canadian standards to the U.S. standards or require that American vehicles meet our standards?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will certainly recognize that the numerous issues that he has raised in his question cannot be answered on the floor of the House. I know that one of his main concerns is related to odometers. One of the suggestions he has put forward would require the open-
February 12, 1992

ing up of the odometers, which I think he will recognize is of grave concern to us. Our basic principle is to be concerned with the safety of the cars, but at the same time not allow illegal tampering with the odometers.
We are examining the suggestion that he has put forward on the odometers, and all the others. I thank him for his very explicit letter. I hope to be able to give him a very detailed answer very shortly.


HOUSING
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance or the acting minister.
At the First Ministers' Conference this week there was broad support from a number of premiers on the proposal for first-time home buyers to use their RRSPs for down payments. We all know that the RRSP proposal will not cost the taxpayers anything. It will provide a stimulus for the housing industry which is still steadily declining and which has left thousands of workers unemployed. In fact, housing starts were down again to their lowest levels in nine months.
I want to ask the minister why this government is not acting on this proposal now. What is it waiting for? Consumers want this proposal today.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, this government reduced the requirement of a down payment from 10 per cent to 5 per cent under CMHC insured mortgages. The housebuilders' association has informed us that this has created a great deal of activity since being announced. The housing starts in January were down. They are traditionally down in January in Canada. It is not the greatest time to start house building. CMHC is sticking to its projections that there will be 180,000 starts in this year, which is a significant increase over last year.
As far as the RRSP suggestion that has been made by certain provinces, not all, that is being considered at the present time.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, the minister will know that 8 out of 10 premiers in fact pushed for the RRSP proposal. He also knows that the private sector, as well as all the provincial governments, even an all-party committee of this House, has endorsed
Oral Questions
the concept of the RRSP proposal for first-time home buyers, including this government's own members.
When will this minister and this government stop playing politics with this issue? Homebuilders want to work and consumers want to buy homes. Why will this government not act today and announce this program?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the homebuilders have been most laudatory of the government's actions so far in housing and have let us know that. It also informed us that the increase in activity has been significant.


An hon. member:: You are playing politics with the RRSP thing.


John Horton McDermid: We are not playing politics with the RRSP thing. We are looking at it very, very carefully. When you are looking at this, you are talking about retirement benefits and you are talking about housing benefits and changing the philosophy on that. It is something that is very serious and has to be looked at in great detail before a decision can be made.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the minister of trade.
I would like to deal with the question of the barriers which have now been put in place against exports from Canada of Honda automobiles. This is going to be something which will have very serious effects on all future Japanese investment in the auto industry in this country.
I want to ask the minister of trade if his latest step against the spirit and the letter of the free trade agreement by the United States is not in fact a sign that Simon Reisman was absolutely correct in saying that the United States was behaving like a thug in the way it was treating us in terms of our trade relations.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I made it very, very clear in response to a previous question that the government takes very seriously the implications of what has happened in this Honda audit. We are going to study it very carefully. We will be reviewing it closely with our Revenue Canada people as well as the U.S. customs people and other members of the administration. If there is a need for any

February 12, 1992
Oral Questions
further action on this through any dispute settlement provisions or any other way that we can support the Honda company here, we will do so.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact there is action that can be taken here in Canada. The CAW has just suggested that Japanese cars should be subject here to the same kind of value added conditions which exist for North American cars produced in this country.
I want to ask the minister of trade if he would put into effect in this country Canadian content regulations on Japanese vehicles similar to those that affect Ford, Chrysler and General Motors and thereby solve the problem through Canadian action. Certainly that is a solution which would give us extra jobs in this country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, one wrong does not make another wrong any better.
The hon. member is suggesting that he wants to see a closed market. Canada today has something like 17 per cent of the North American assembly production and he is saying "tighten the market". One of the results of that might be that we have less assembly production within Canada.


PAY EQUITY
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday after the Pay Equity Eleven met with the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, the CBC reported that the minister is rarely, if ever, consulted on the matter of pay equity by her colleagues.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Why does this minister not consult with the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women on a matter of such great importance to the women of Canada and the women of the Public Service?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reaffirm here before I discuss a particular aspect that Treasury Board is still absolutely committed to equal pay for work of equal value. We are presently in front of the Human Rights Commission because when we decided to invest $370 million to correct pay equity which had not been corrected by the Liberals, we asked our employees to provide us with information that we committed ourselves to keep secret. We have now been asked to make this information public and we are contesting that. We have been advised that we should not proceed with this. We are not dragging our heels, we are proceeding as diligently as possible.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not dragging his heels by finally pulling them out of the mud. The women in the Public Service might have a different idea.
My supplementary question is for the minister responsible for the status of women. It is the responsibility of this minister and her office to keep on top of an issue that is absolutely crucial to the equality of women and men in Canada. Why has the minister closed her eyes to the abominable situation of a government that will not follow its own pay equity laws?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure my hon. colleague, as the President of the Treasury Board has said, that this government has indeed made great strides forward with respect to pay equity: the $317 million settlement, $81 million each year. There is a legitimate difference of opinion about some of the technical aspects of pay equity and that is now before the human rights tribunal, the appropriate place for that resolution to be dealt with, as the members of the PSAC women's committee indicated their support.
I have indicated the ongoing discussions I will have with my colleagues and with the women workers of the Public Service to ensure that those procedures move ahead as expeditiously and as fairly as possible.
February 12, 1992


WAYS AND MEANS
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table two notices of Ways and Means motions respecting amendments to the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Customs Act and amendments to the Customs Thriff. I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for consideration of the motions.
* sic *


POINTS OF ORDER
Gilles Loiselle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the House that I consult, on a very regular basis, my colleague, the minister responsible for the status of women.


OPPOSITION DAY MOTION
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before Orders of the Day are called, I wish to indicate that the government will not consider the vote that will be held later this day as a question of confidence in the government.
The government has reviewed the motion which has been placed on notice by the New Democratic Party as the subject for today's Opposition Day debate and feel that members must be able to debate this most important issue on the basis of its merits without being constrained by the question of it being a confidence motion.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of members on this side, I want to congratulate the government House leader for this spirit of reform with regard to this particular measure. We look forward to the healthy debate which will follow Routine Proceedings today.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I too want to say that we appreciate the decision by the government House leader. Obviously he listened to some very compelling argu-
Points of Order
ments concerning the need to have a free vote on this critical issue.
I think that if the vote is to go in the affirmative it will certainly send a very clear signal as to how the representatives of the people of Canada feel on this critical issue.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise hon. members I have a point of order from the hon. member for Timmins- Chapleau and then I have a short ruling to make.


ANSWER DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and please direct me if I am rising under the wrong order.
Today in response to a question, the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration said, regarding the reductions being made to training programs, that the government had spent millions of dollars in 1991 and continues to spend millions of dollars for training again in 1992.
I wish to offer an opportunity to the Minister of State to rise and correct that statement. As we all know, under Bill C-21 the government has withdrawn all funding to training-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member very kindly asked me if I might give him some guidance. The hon. member is not content with an answer that was given. There may be good reason for that, or otherwise. However, the hon. member really is getting into debate.
It is a question of disagreement about what the facts are. That sounds like debate. If the hon. member can persuade me that it is not debate, I might out of great generosity change my mind.
I will hear him further.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If it is debate I apologize. Very simply put, the government does not pay into the UI fund. The UI fund pays for all training that takes place today. How can the minister say that the government is paying for this training? It is not true.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member certainly has some support in the Chamber for his proposition, and there is some editorial comment as well.

February 12, 1992
Routine Proceedings
I must say to the hon. member that I cannot hear him further at the moment. Perhaps he can find some other way to engage the minister or ministers on the same issue.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I promised yesterday that I would return with respect to a question which was put-

-by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier yesterday, a question on a subject that is of course very important to all members of this House.

I think hon. members will remember that yesterday I said there were really two issues. One is whether the question as put was in or out of order. The second is whether the subject matter of the question can be pursued in the Chamber.
I think I was correct in clearly pointing out to the House that there were two issues.
The issue I have to decide is whether the question as put was within the rules. I should say to hon. members that the substance of the issue concerned comments made by a Canadian who was appointed to a board by the Government of Canada relating to the question of bilingualism.
I have looked very carefully at the question as put which was:
Will the Prime Minister call Mr. Crispo, tell him that the
impression he left with his comments is wrong, dead wrong,
absolutely wrong? Will he ask Mr. Crispo to get his facts straight or
keep his mouth shut?


David Charles Dingwall: Good advice.


Mr. Speaker:: I must respond to this issue in a purely procedural manner. My judgment yesterday was that it is out of order as asked; it is not seeking information.
I still maintain that as asked it is not within the administrative competence of the government.
Having said that, as I think all hon. members conceded yesterday, the issue is of importance. The hon. government House leader said:
I can say on behalf of the government with assurance that Mr. Crispo does not speak for the Government of Canada.
Now at that point we had some discussion as to the question and perhaps we were also getting on to some discussion of the issue itself. I have to say that I remain with my ruling of yesterday. I am also indicating to hon. members that there are probably other ways to pursue the issue in Question Period.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
22ND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on House Management, pursuant to Standing Order 108.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



DIVORCE ACT


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-332, an act to amend the Divorce Act (granting of access to, or custody of, a child to a grandparent).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make sure that grandparents, who are very often a stabilizing influence in family life, have equal access to the spouses in a divorce situation. Rather than having to
February 12, 1992

go to court with a lot of cost, this bill would allow them access similar to spouses in the action.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Wilbee moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I have today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, the signatures of 39 residents of Canada in support of the parents of Nina de Villiers. I draw this to the attention of the House.
These petitioners request that Parliament recognizes that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society and amends the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.
These petitioners request that Parliament recognizes that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society and amends the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Beryl Gaffney: I have a second petition, Mr. Speaker, to present pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The undersigned 40 petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to condemn the Indonesian military occupation of East Timor and the genocide of the East Timorese people, to support publicly the right of the East Timorese to determine their own destiny by refer-endums and free elections, and to support these causes in the United Nations and all other international arenas.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of a number of constituents from British Columbia.
They are concerned about the inadequate funding of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and are asking the federal government to ensure that proper funding is possible to enable the RCMP to fulfil its mandate and its
Routine Proceedings
role as the only visible police force for many communities across British Columbia and other parts of Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another matter, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, again from residents of the North Thompson Valley primarily in British Columbia, pointing out the petitioners' concerns regarding a plan to dam the North Thompson Valley in an effort to divert the North Thompson River into the San Diego, California area.
The petitioners are asking that this government simply announce that Canadian rivers will not be sold to the United States.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by several hundred Canadians, residents of Ontario, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia.
The petitioners point out that in October 1985 the subcommittee on equality rights of the justice committee submitted a report to this House recommending that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas of federal jurisdiction. They point out that in March 1986 the federal government accepted this report and its recommendations. They point out that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has consistently called for this amendment to the Human Rights Act and that Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Yukon have such protection included in their human rights acts.
Therefore they urge the government and the Parliament of Canada to act and immediately bring forth an amendment to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Acts as a prohibited ground of discrimination.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton) Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition which has been certified correct in terms of form and content.
The hundreds of signatories in my riding of Sarnia- Lambton had called upon the federal government to recognize Croatia officially. I know that these petitioners and all Canadians were pleased and applauded the January 15, 1992 announcement by the federal government giving official recognition to Croatia as an independent and sovereign state.
[Stage Direction]
February 12, 1992
Routine Proceedings MINING
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition from my constituents in the Dawson City, Yukon area.
These constituents, who are representatives of the Han Nation and Dawson Indian Band, are concerned about a particular piece of land where there is placer mining activity. They are particularly concerned that the Government of Canada look into this and make sure that all of the agreements heretofore made in the interest of aboriginal people are respected. That piece of land at the Klondike and Yukon Rivers called Tr'o-ju-wech'in is an extremely important piece of land.
Therefore my constituents ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to take all steps necessary to protect their rights and honour constitutionally binding obligations made by this House and Senate in 1867. They ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to prevent any further mining activity within the old village site of Tr'o-ju-wech'in.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from Cardigan, Prince Edward Island.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the government to ensure that the necessary maintenance and repairs are made to small craft harbour facilities in Prince Edward Island.


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition with 40 signatures that has been certified correct.
At the present there are no provisions in the Divorce Act of Canada or in any other federal legislation to provide a right for grandparents to have access to their grandchildren when parents may place obstacles in the way of such access.
The petitioners are requesting that the Divorce Act of Canada of 1985 be amended so that in no case may the father or mother, without serious cause, place obstacles to personal relations between the child and his grandparents. Failing agreement between the parties, the modalities of the relations are to be settled by the court.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 wish to present a petition signed by hundreds of residents of Quebec, British Columbia and other parts of Canada. Your petitioners call upon the House to pass legislation that would include the term "sexual orientation" in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Yukon have already passed similar legislation. It is now time for the Parliament of Canada to do the same.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the distinct pleasure and honour to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians, a whole whack of whom are from Alberta and I believe a few from Scarborough West.
They call on this House to ensure that government and Parliament act immediately to bring forward an amendment to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination. This is a wise and worth-while petition.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present two petitions.
First, the petitioners from various places such as Okanagan Falls, Penticton, Naramata, Oliver and Osoy-oos in the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt point out that the CRTC hearings on the Unitel bid to take over or to become involved in a telecommunications area in the province of British Columbia and elsewhere should be integrated with development of over-all Canadian telecommunications policy.

The petitioners urge the Minister of Communications to oppose Unitel's bid to compete with the long distance services of Canada's telephone companies. They also urge him to consult with all affected parties who will be impacted severely by the deregulation of the service and further urge him to hold local hearings in our communities before deciding the fate of Canada's telecommunications system.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from people from all over British Columbia, various other points in Alberta and throughout Canada.
They petition Parliament to ensure that the government and Parliament act immediately to bring forward amendments to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 49 will be answered today.


Mr. Skelly (North Island-Powell River): With respect to Canada Post Corporation, a) are over 30 employees discharged each month b) are there over 100,000 employee grievances outstanding c) does it take an employee more than a year to have an arbitration case heard d) do over 80 per cent of the employees discharged have their jobs returned through the arbitration procedure e) do employees rehired after arbitration receive full pay for their time off f) does Canada Post delay the repayment of lost salaries of reinstated employees, and, if so, for what reasons?


Harvie Andre: In so far as
Canada Post Corporation is concerned:
a)	In the 1990-91 fiscal year, 317 employees were discharged or released from the corporation. This averages out the approximately 26 per month. Approximately 20 per cent of these employees were "released from incapacity". In these cases the employee continues to
Routine Proceedings
work in his/her regular position until the matter is either settled between the parties or decided by an arbitrator. In these circumstances, the employee suffers absolutely no loss in pay. Approximately 55 of the 317 employees were discharged for their failure to meet the requirements during their probationary period. Approximately 75 per cent were for disciplinary matters such as insubordination or theft.
b)	There are approximately 135,000 employee grievances in the system at this time. To reduce the number and to expedite the resolution of these grievances, a separate fast-track process was agreed to by the parties in March of 1990 (the Backlog Arbitration Resolution). It should be noted that this number is not a clear representation of the employee-employer relationship at Canada Post since a single incident often generates hundreds of individual grievances for example, if a supervisor is alleged to have performed bargaining unit work, the entire shift will be encouraged to grieve the matter.
c)	In many cases, yes. Every discharge/release is grieved by either the employee or the union on behalf of the employee. Due to the number of grievances in the system, the corporation and the CUPW agreed to give discharge cases priority (agreement reached March 4, 1988 and included in Appendix "C" of the current collective agreement). Even so, many of these employees are forced to wait months for their cases to be heard. The discharge/release arbitration cases must be scheduled in the order in which they were referred to arbitration and are assigned to arbitrators (who are outlined in the collective agreement) in rotation of their availability dates. These arbitrators, who are assigned specific regions of the country, provide an average of approximately four hearing dates per month. The process is further complicated by the fact that many cases require more than one hearing date for completion.
d)	No. A review of the corporations' statistics concerning arbitral awards indicated that only 7 per cent of discharge grievances were completely sustained by the arbitrator (i.e.: reinstated with full compensation and seniority and without penalty). In 57 per cent of the grievances, the employee was reinstated with terms and conditions of employment, time served or some combination of both. In many of the cases, the reinstatement (i.e.: the employee had several years of seniority or suffered from an alcohol/drug problem) or that although some form of discipline was warranted, discharge was too harsh a penalty. Finally, 36 per cent of these discharged/ released grievances were either denied by the arbitrator

February 12, 1992
Supply
or withdrawn by the union (i.e.: the employee was not reinstated).
e)	Employees who have been reinstated by the arbitrator are paid as per the arbitrator's award. In the case of an administrative discharge (released for incapacity), the employee continues to work while the case awaits arbitration and therefore sufers no loss of pay. In the case where an employee is reinstated after being discharged for disciplinary reasons, the corporation will ask the arbitrator to determine whether or not the employee made a reasonable effort to mitigate his/her loss (i.e.: did the employee seek other employment during the period of time not worked?). In addition, the arbitrator may substitute a suspension without pay for periods up to the amount of time between the discharge and the arbitration hearing. Generally, the suspension will be of a shorter duration; however, no pay is owed for that period. Any money earned by an employee during the suspension (mitigation) reduces the pay owed by the corporation.
f)	No. The arbitrator's decision is final and binding on the parties. In some cases, however, the question of mitigation is raised (see part e). In these matters, the corporation will ask the arbitrator to reopen the case to determine whether or not the reinstated employee made a reasonable effort to mitigate his/her loss during the period of discharge.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That this House call on the government to support unequivocally any final GATT accord that:
(a)	provides for the maintenance of viable and effective supply management programs as an essential element of Canadian agricultural policy;
(b)	ensures the ability of Canada, through a clarified article XI, to control effectively imports of milk, eggs, hatching eggs, chicken and turkey, and products containing a majority of supply managed products;
(c)	permits Canada to retain the Crow benefit in its present form which was necessary for the development of the Canadian prairies and which continues to be necessary for the viability of that region and the nation;
(d)	reduces export subsidies that so grievously hurt Canadian producers; and
(e)	requires participating governments to provide impact assessments to their national legislatures prior to acceptance.


David Charles Dingwall: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Under the provisions of Standing Orders 41 and 43(2) the respective parties have the option of splitting their time accordingly.
I am wondering if there would be a disposition within the House so members of our party would be allowed to split their time into seven minutes of speaking and three minutes of questions and answers, thereby utilizing the 30 minutes which would be given to our side.
That is the way in which we would like to proceed for the remainder of the day.
I had some consultations briefly with the parliamentary secretary as well as with the NDP House leader. I am wondering if there would be a disposition for our party to proceed that way.
February 12, 1992


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the House and to the House leader of the Official Opposition that yes, we would be happy to co-operate on those conditions.
I want to indicate to him as well that we on this side, after our first speaker, the Minister of Agriculture, would also like to split our time.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), again, I think that we should proceed this way. Any party will have the flexibility to break up its speakers into any segments. It should be left up to that particular organization.
The principle is certainly supported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify one point. The Liberals have indicated that they would like to go seven and three.
On our side, we wish to do the ten and five which is an exact half-split.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I may remind hon. members that in view of the three-minute period for questions and comments, their questions and comments must be concise.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, to begin I would like to recognize that today the House has come forward with an unusual ruling and precedent setting ruling, I hope, in that the government has finally recognized that at times opposition days can be used in the manner that today's day is going to be used. This is something that backbenchers on all sides of the House have been fighting for ever since the McGrath commission in the mid-1980s. Today we finally have the first opportunity to permit that proposal to operate.
There were attempts last fall. I was part of that effort as well. I tried to get the House to discuss the question of the need for a special grain payment of some $1.3 billion to grain and horticultural farmers. The government chose not to participate in that. It wanted to take the ruling and the precedent and the tradition that opposition days were supply days. This meant that the government and the opposition had to be opposed to each other and that if the vote were positive the government would have to fall. We tried to assure them that that would not
Supply
be the way the opposition would consider such a vote in that case.
I am pleased that we seem to have come to that point today at the beginning of this debate, particularly since the topic on the table today is so important for a broad section of Canadians living in rural communities.
The GATT talks were initiated in Uruguay and have been ongoing for four or five years now. Part of what precipitated them was a grain war that had broken out between the United States and the rest of the world, particularly the European Community. When we returned here on February 3 we were faced with a Dunkel report. Mr. Dunkel is the Secretary-General of the GATT and is in charge of all of the negotiations. He prepared a report and required governments to begin responding to that report in mid-January.
We arrived not knowing yet what the response of the Government of Canada was going to be. I moved to have an emergency debate. The Speaker in his wisdom decreed that this could probably be dealt with adequately in an opposition day, and so today is the day.
The motion itself was drafted with the assistance and acceptance of a great range of affected groups, many of whom have representatives today in the House. These are people from the various supply managed marketing boards from dairy through to chicken, turkey, eggs and hatching eggs. They are all here and they were all participating in the preparation of this motion.
We are hoping that so-called balanced approach of the Government of Canada will get back in balance and that the amended Dunkel report which will be discussed in the final stages of the negotiations of GATT will contain a clause strengthening and clarifying article XI 2(c)(i). That did not show up in the report and that distressed a great many Canadians who had been watching the application of the government's strategy of its so-called balanced approach at these talks.
I know there are some members of the government who have for a long time had great difficulty with the idea of supply management and of marketing boards in general. I know this because as a farmer and a member of farm organizations during the 1960s and 1970s and before coming here, I watched, sometimes with dismay, as members of the Conservative Party would go to the wall and fight to keep any effort at supply management and marketing boards from coming into law in this country. In fact, the marketing board legislation that the country has now requires coming to Parliament each

February 12, 1992
Supply
time that a new commodity is proposed to be included under supply management.
We can thank some of the people who now sit in the cabinet for that circumstance. The original act was written quite broadly so that all that needed to be done was that a majority of farmers in each of the provinces had to decide, vote for and participate in a supply management system and it could become the law. Thanks to the efforts of some people who are still in the cabinet that was made impossible. As a consequence, any time a new product needs to be added they have to come to Parliament and amend the law to include it.
I understand there are some problems with the concept of supply management on the government side. These are long standing. They are ideological and there are politics that go back a long way.
The negotiators and some of the press have been saying that it is a little difficult handling this two-track policy. We are maintaining supply management on one hand and asking for open borders and no interference by governments in trading. This is very difficult to manage. It is not really consistent with what GATT is trying to do. I think we are being a little too cute by using that argument.
First, I think when we get to be purists on these kind of arguments we should always remember the quip by a British diplomat from the last century who said: "Consistency is the refuge of small minds". I think consistency in this case can be carried to extremes. If the GATT participants are having great difficulty handling inconsistencies, how is it they can manage to have a whole section on the protection of intellectual properties when the whole concept of having intellectual property is to protect a patent or a copyright or an invention and put state proposed and state supported impediments to the free access of that idea or that invention? GATT had no problem dealing with that irrationality. The inclusion of intellectual property rights in GATT was seen as consistent because it applied a certain set of rules which would be similar from one county to the next.
That is the key. The application of rules from one country to the next is exactly what the supply management people are trying to achieve. Article XI has been a part of GATT almost from the beginning of GATT in the
middle 1950s. An improved, clarified article XI with the amendments that have been proposed by Canadian producers and their organizations in making article XI 2(c)(i) would make those rules clear. It would make it clear that imports of commodities made from supply managed products that contained more than half of the supply managed product in their make-up, formula or recipe would also be subject to the kind of management system that affects those products within the country.
We have to remember that supply managed products do not become a burden on the rest of the world. They do not burden the rest of the world market. They are not dumped. Generally speaking, the process in Canada has been that all supply managed operations produce slightly less than the Canadian market needs. They try to get it very close to what Canada needs, but there is always room for a small amount of imports to take up any slack so that consumers do not lose the ability to have that product available to them.
If we understand the full implication of the special nature of agriculture production, we will have less problem with the concept of supply management. A lot of the production in agriculture is perishable product that cannot be stored cheaply and is expensive to transport. Therefore it makes sense for it to be produced in relatively small units, relatively close to the consuming population.
It is probably no accident that most of the supply managed products in this country are specifically those kinds of products that are more perishable than grains, for instance, and some of the oilseeds.
All products in all agriculture production have a special quality in that they are food for humans. Because it is food for humans, surplus production becomes something that every human being attempts to do. We always want to have at least enough food for ourselves. We usually have a small surplus in our homes available to us. This is only natural and prudent. We can argue that it comes from back in the days when we were hunters and gatherers, but that does not explain it away. It is still a necessity and it is still an understandable reason for people and for nations wanting to be able to produce most of their own food and to be close to self-sufficient.
February 12, 1992

Supply management has turned out to be a very rational way of matching domestic requirements with domestic production. It is a very rational business response to a basic production need.
It is more efficient in real terms than open market supply systems because resources are never wasted on overproduction. In other words we do not produce a bunch of stuff and look around for a market for it and, when we cannot find it, end up watching it rot, burying it, throwing it away or disposing of it by means of consumers buying it very cheap and throwing most of it into the garbage because they cannot eat it all.
It is still a very competitive system because it encourages efficient production. As proof of that, I point out that in Canada where we have supply management for chickens and milk production, our production per hen and per cow is higher than in the United States where they do not have supply management.
Supply management encourages the perfection of technology and its earlier adoption. I point to our own experience, but I would also point in this regard to the United States and the Europeans in terms of crop production. They have been using forms of supply management to take some of the land out of production to reduce the over-all production of the country. As a result they have developed systems that use fertilizer and chemicals, sometimes with irrigation, and produce average yields that are much higher than was the case before. I contend that would not have happened had there not been supply management to encourage the most efficient use of the best resources to get those yields. It is necessary for the improvement to the over-all agricultural technology to have this sort of system at work.
We are told that the business of GATT should really have been to get rid of all subsidies. Who are the big subsidizers that the GATT has been trying to get at? We hear a lot about the Europeans because we live next door to the Americans who started a trade war with the Europeans, and most of the information we get about this subject is by way of war propaganda. They are in fact
Supply
at war and wars also have a lot of propaganda surrounding them.
When we look at the OECD statistics-and we should remember that the Prime Minister likes to quote the OECD as an outside, unbiased source of all statistics- we see that when we use the application of producer subsidy equivalents for comparing the subsidization levels in each of the countries, Europe in fact does have the second highest level of subsidization in the world after Japan. Japan's average level, using 1986-1988 average figures, was 76 per cent subsidization. For Europe the level was 50 per cent subsidization for its average production, and in Canada it was 46 per cent. We were only 4 percentage points lower than the Europeans. Then we had the United States at 39 per cent.
We did have some countries like Australia that only depends on 12 per cent subsidization for its production. We had others like Argentina that actually pays money in taxes before its farmers can export. It has the opposite of subsidization; its farmers actually subsidize its consumers in Argentina and one or two African countries.
What does the OECD predict would happen with agriculture trade liberalization? For Canada, taking all commodities, our production would go down 16.7 per cent, using those three years as averages. Of course grain growers are going to say: "Aha, that is because the supply management people are going to have to go out of business. Of course production in Canada will go down".
But when we look at what happens to exports under the OECD predictions in a no-subsidy world, we see that exports drop 42.5 per cent. We know that we do not export any of the supply managed products; we only export grains and oilseeds. It is obviously going to hurt our exports of grains and oilseeds if we go to a completely subsidy-free world.
We note that they predict agriculture wages will drop 8 per cent in Canada, 4 per cent in the European Community, and 5 per cent in the U.S.A. Land rental and land values will drop 53 per cent in Canada in a fully subsidy-free world, 40 per cent in Europe, and 41.2 per cent in the United States.

February 12, 1992
Supply
Our export prices will go up slightly, 3 per cent. Europe's will go up about 2 per cent, and the United States' will go up about 1.6 per cent.
Who benefits? It is not the farmers in Canada, the European Community or the U.S.A. They are all worse off. How about the consumers then? Do they get a benefit? Well, not much. European Community consumers will see a drop in prices of .6 of 1 per cent, six-tenths of 1 per cent. In the U.S. consumers will pay 1 per cent more than they are paying now, and in Canada consumers will pay 1.5 per cent more than they are paying now.
What was all the fuss about? Yes, Australia and New Zealand will benefit slightly. So will Argentina. But there is not much going for these three developed countries that I have been concentrating on: Canada, the European Community and the United States.
We see that there is not too much to be gained for Canada. Our farm output will drop and it will also drop in the United States. To get all of this, so far we have failed to protect our own grain producers in this country by allowing some clauses that will affect the way we export grains. We have failed to strengthen article XI 2(c)(i). We have not mentioned anything about strengthening or clarifying that article. We have left the families who are now producing products under supply management out to diy.
If this House does not send a clear signal to its negotiators to get a clear and effective article XI 2(c)(i) in the GATT, we will lose about 100,000 Canadian families in rural Canada; 38,000 of those are on farms, 22,900 are employees of those farmers, and 36,300 are in processing jobs that will be lost. The value of farm production lost if supply management systems go will be $4.7 billion of farm production, plus $5.5 billion that we gained by added production through processing, meaning a net loss to the Canadian economy of over $10 billion.
This is an important signal that we will be sending to our negotiators. It is extremely important that they go forward, that our government send them a clear message as to what their role will be and that the government pays attention to the motion which we hope will pass here today, and that the government comply with it very religiously because it is of grave importance to all Canadians and especially to those who live in rural Canada.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and colleagues who have worked together on this day. We believe that agriculture is an important sector of our economy, and those men and women who are involved in it feel this is an important debate and an important opportunity.
My colleague from Mackenzie put forward some arguments, suggestions and comment that I think would be useful for people around the world, particularly those in some embassies who may be watching this debate that is taking place in the House of Commons. I think they are important points and points that I would like to attempt to emphasize.
This is an opportunity I think also to clarify-we have been using that word in this debate for over two and a half years-and set the record straight on the government's longstanding commitment to a successful conclusion of the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations. The government has been involved, as other governments have, over five years in this Uruguay round. It is an important round.
As we know, the director-general of GATT, Mr. Dunkel, on December 20 issued a text. He had worked with the countries of the world, some 108 members of GATT, to attempt to come to a conclusion at the negotiating table. He was unable to do that. He then took the debate and the proposals of governments, bound them in a text, and said: "This is as close as I can come to a conclusion. I put it out for nations of the world to look at and to then respond to it".
The GATT members assembled in Geneva on January 13 to make that response to the Dunkel text and to give their reaction. It is interesting to note that not one country of the 108 rejected the text as a basis to continue the negotiations to a successful conclusion. No one has rejected it. All GATT members have remained at the table to put their position. Canada has remained at the table to continue to put our position. The ambassador for Canada, Mr. Shannon, was quite clear in putting forward Canada's position.
The next important milestone or step will be March 1, as proposed today in the Dunkel text, where countries will be expected to table their revised offers on market access for agricultural products. They are still looking at the impact naturally at that time when all countries will put their market access proposals. Our trading partners, as will Canada, will have to put proposals forward. In general we are optimistic about some parts of the Dunkel text. On other points, particularly in regard to article XI and the strengthening and clarifying, we have grave reservations. We are continuing to pursue the
February 12, 1992

position that was developed by the government in co-operation and on the advice of the stakeholders, the producers, and the provinces which also have an important role in supporting the supply managed sector of our economy in Canada that has benefited agriculture over the years.
Between now and March 1 negotiations will proceed on four tracks. Discussions on any changes in the package will take place at the trade negotiating committee.
I know that people want to be realistic and realistically any changes would have to be agreed upon by nations before they would be taken to the committee. Mr. Dunkel has said he will hear the proposals but there had better be agreement before coming into the room.
There is no longer a table that countries will work at. They will work individually with other nations of the world in an attempt to make their point understood and have it accepted.
There will be legal drafting that will take place to clean up some inconsistencies in the draft text, but that will be done without changing the balance of the text and the market access negotiations on services will develop schedules of initial commitments that will be tabled.
The market access negotiations on goods will develop schedules for market access concessions as well as the commitments on export subsidies and internal support for agriculture.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, since the 13 of January there have been intense negotiations among our trading partners and that will intensify once those schedules are tabled.
Having expressed what we object to in the Dunkel text, there are areas of considerable promise for establishing a freer, more stable and less distorted agriculture trading community. The draft agreement would indeed provide an improved and more secure access into foreign markets. As well the U.S. section 22 import waiver which has been a temporary waiver in place for almost 40 years, as I
Supply
understand it, and the EC variable import levies would be removed. They would be as the text is written today converted to tariffs.
There is no doubt that the Dunkel proposals would allow for a better and more secure access for Canadian exports to foreign markets but the multilateral trade rules under which we in Canada benefit would be strengthened and would apply equally to all countries. That is an important point.
The agreement also defines non-trade distorting assistance or programs which governments can use to support farm incomes. That is a very important aspect in itself, but more important, once those programs are identified as being green in GATT terminology, they would not be subject to countervail. That is of particular importance to Canada because, as you know, in the agrifood industry we have to continue to have access to law in order to prosper. There has to be an end to the trade war.
Therefore, Canada like other members of GATT would have to adjust some of its support programs in order to implement the GATT proposal.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Shame.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I am pleased to honour the member from the Liberal Party into the debate. She cries "Shame".
Canada will have to adjust some of its support programs because it does not seem consistent with logic that you would say to other countries there are areas that we want you to reduce, that you subsidize and you distort trade, and in Canada we ask that we be able to allow to continue to subsidize and distort trade.
I say adjust because we are talking here, Mr. Speaker, about the export side of the agreement. When we take a look at the trade distorting subsidies, there would be a levelling of opportunity for support.
Support can be given to agriculture in the green category. It means that we will have to work to design programs that do not distort international trade, and indeed,-


Sheila Maureen Copps: We don't distort agricultural trade.

February 12, 1992
Supply


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The hon. member from downtown Hamilton with her agricultural expertise should maybe talk to her agricultural critic or watch as her agricultural critic makes his presentation.
The difficult thing to put forward is that we do have an opportunity on the export side, as other countries will, to adjust and support our agriculture sector of the economy in a non-trade distorting way. That will be recognized by the members of GATT if we are able to come to an agreement.
My hon. colleague would know about the Crow benefit, if you want to use it. It is one example. There are a number of ways. I identified them in a document that I sent to producers who were involved in transportation talks. There are a number of ways that we could adjust that benefit and have it maintained for the producers in Canada who have found it a very supportive program. It has indeed been a necessary program and should be maintained.
There is nothing to say that countries cannot adjust in some of these export examples. Any of the changes which will create a more fair and responsible trading environment is good news for our export industry, for our red meat industry, for our grains and oilseeds industry, and other areas of agriculture where we export products around the world.
We did not get everything we wanted even on the export side as other countries have said when you look at the-


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's all over.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, with the arrangement that the Liberal Party has made to divide its members' time, we will be able to hear from the member for Hamilton East. She will be able to give us her opinion and her thoughts on an important segment of the Canadian economy called agriculture. I hope she will be able to do it standing, rather than sitting.
If we could continue, the proposals do not reflect what we asked for originally. It does not mean that we will not continue to work for them. We have been able to do that in conjunction with other nations.
We asked for a total elimination of export trade distorting subsidies and that has not appeared in the Dunkel text. We must remember that Canada is one of
108 countries which are involved in these negotiations that have been going on for over five years.
The Dunkel proposal does provide some opportunities in the agrifood sector and we welcome them.
I expressed our grave reservations and our disappointment that article XI was not strengthened and clarified as we had put forward. Everyone knows that is a section of the agreement that basically at this time allows border control. That allows us to have the supply managed industries that we have in Canada.
The current proposal is to put tariffs or tariff equivalents in place of border control, which we find objectionable. In the proposal by Mr. Dunkel, although article XI remains, it could not be resorted to by countries during the implementation period, which we do not accept.
It is very important to remember that this is a basis for negotiation. Canada will continue where we find strength, and wherever we can, other partners to put our position as we have over the last five years.
We hope to have progress. We are working toward that. I mentioned today why I thought this debate was important in the House, so we could come together to send a message to the world. We remain committed to a stronger article XI, and that was on the advice of the industry.
Over the past years, there has been an erosion of the ability of article XI as it is interpreted today by GATT to protect our supply managed industries. I can only draw to the attention of the House that processed products, such as ice cream and yogurt, had a GATT ruling against our import controls. It is still an outstanding ruling. There was concern there could be countervail levied against other processed products of the supply managed industry and we would lose the ability to control imports at our borders.
Our position has been expressed by ministers. The Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, the Minister of State for Agriculture, the Minister for International Trade and myself on several occasions around the world, as a matter of fact, from Japan, the United States and Europe have continued to do that with the support of the industry and I believe, with the support of other parties in this House. We will continue to do that.
February 12, 1992

Our position has not changed. We have consulted with the industry throughout these negotiations. Our position was developed with the industry and that is the position that Canada has today. It is the position we are supporting in these direct negotiations with other countries.
We know from experience that supply management is an effective marketing system. It has worked and it has been working hard to evolve to market demands. It has shown its flexibility over the last number of years in being able to adjust to accommodate change.
One point I would like to draw to the attention of members is that the industry, both the processing and the producing, and the governments worked hard on the dairy task force, the poultry task force. They are designed to allow the supply managed industries to continue to adjust in the future.
Our position going into GATT was to support supply management. We have that position today. It is a position that I am quite comfortable in continuing to defend. In fact, we have intensified our consultation with government and industry which has been a constant factor over the last number of years in developing our position. I am confident that the industry is aware of the position that the government has presented on their behalf. They have been with us. They have been with us in Geneva and in other areas around the world where we have presented Canada's position, which is supported by the industry.
No one can be sure how the GATT talks will end. I know that members understand there is a benefit to freer and fairer trade in the world and there is much to gain. Although Canada is large geographically, it is not large when it comes to the strength of our economy. Canada does have a benefit in having trade law that allows us a way to defend against the pocketbooks or the treasuries of more powerful trading blocs.
As I have said, the next deadline is March 1. That date is important. It may not remain constant. It may shift. We have seen changes in the dates of this round in the past. As a matter of fact, it may be important to draw to the attention of the House that the original schedule for concluding the Uruguay round was a little over a year ago, about 13 months ago, December 1990. Because
Supply
people faced the reality that there could be a failure of a very important agreement to the international economy if there was a failure of this round, we have redoubled our efforts over the last number of months to present our case.
I can assure all members of the House that it is important to the Government of Canada. It so important that the Prime Minister is inviting national farm leaders to meet with him and government ministers on Thesday, February 18 in Ottawa to discuss the agricultural component of multilateral trade negotiations.


An hon. member:: Don't take credit for things you don't do.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, another Liberal speaks from his seat.
I would like everyone to understand how it is important to the government and it is important that we be able to come together, I would like to present a motion to amend the opposition motion.
I move:
That the motion be amended
(a)	by striking out, in the first paragraph, the words "call on the
government to support unequivocally" and substituting the
following:
"supports the government's efforts toward reaching";
(b)	by deleting, in paragraph (c), the words "in its present form";
(c)	by striking out, in paragraph (c), the word "was" and substituting
the following:
"is"; and
(d)	by striking out, in paragraph (e), all the words after
"governments" and substituting the following:
"in co-operation and at the request of affected industries to provide impact assessments."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair will take the motion in amendment moved by the Minister of Agriculture under advisement. We will now proceed with questions and comments.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, it is commendable that the government has agreed not to make this a motion of confidence in the government because we need to come together as a House of Commons to bring all possible pressure to bear in the

February 12, 1992
Supply
GATT negotiations which are going into the last eight now that we have this text, it is difficult to argue against crucial weeks.	what is in something unless you know what it contains.
I really am amazed at the minister's amendment because he proposes in paragraph (e) that economic impact studies will be provided at the request of the affected industry. We were told this morning by Waldie Klassen of the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency that their industry had asked for such an economic impact study and the government had not provided it. So I would be interested to know why the government is refusing to provide that to the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency when it is putting in its motion now, the amendment, that it will provide it.
In the second part of that same paragraph (e), the amendment is removing the provision that economic impact studies be provided to national legislatures. What is going on here? The government is always talking about freedom of information, yet it is removing from the motion before the House today that members of Parliament be provided with those critical studies.
If we are going to support the government in any agreement it reaches at the GATT, we have to know what we are voting on. I am just dumbfounded that the government would put down an amendment which would provide economic impact studies which it refused to provide to the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency and, I assume, to other groups. At the same time, it is removing the provision in the original motion that this information be provided to members of Parliament. Surely that is totally unreasonable.
I would like to ask the minister why the government has refused that information to the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency and why it is proposing in this motion to remove the provision of providing these economic impact studies of, in this case, the Dunkel proposals, to members of Parliament.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I would like to address my hon. colleague's last question. The amendment says "in co-operation with the industries affected". He will know that on January 9, some time after the Dunkel text had been delivered, which is a basis of negotiation, I contacted the heads of the supply management agencies, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and my provincial colleagues, the ministers of agriculture and said to them
Up until that point, we had never done an analysis of the tariff numbers. We tabled, as other countries did in 1990, some numbers, but they certainly were not the numbers that were put forward out of the Dunkel text. I said we would now like to look at the text and see what numbers come out of that text. We would provide the numbers to the agencies and then ask the agencies: "Are these the numbers as you interpret the Dunkel text?"
As soon as we did that, members in some political parties and some of the supply management agencies said: "Oh, the government is looking at tariffication because they have taken the numbers from the text." It is important to understand that we did not argue on numbers because we did not have tariffication as a government position. We do not today. What we did was argue for strengthening and clarification. You cannot argue for strengthening and clarification and then say: "What about the numbers?", so we did not until we had the authority of the agencies.
I still have not received, and neither have my officials, confirmation from any of the agencies that those numbers are the numbers that are found in the Dunkel text. No one has worked with us to say that these are the numbers that we find in the text.
It appears that some members in the supply management economy are saying that because we gave them numbers after we asked for authorization, that we have changed our position. We will not be doing impact assessments unless we are directly requested to do so by the supply management agencies. We should do them co-operatively, share our knowledge and our information because to do it independently would leave out an important partner.
That is the answer to the hon. member's question as to why we put forward the amendment.
The other point that I think has to be understood is that we sat down some two years ago and designed the position that Canada has presented and continues to defend and present. It was designed with the industry and will continue to be the position put forward by Canada, and the attempt to attract support will continue and for that we need the support of the industry.
February 12, 1992


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, there are more than a few questions that come to mind after listening to the minister's presentation. Nevertheless I will restrict myself to three brief questions.
The minister seems to imply that the concerns that many people are raising are premature and in fact perhaps paranoid. Therefore, I would like to ask the minister, in his honest assessment, who does he see as being the winners and losers in the Dunkel document as it stands now? If this were the basis for a final settlement who in Canada would win and lose?
The second question is about annex 7(e) and the whole question of the Crow benefit. Yesterday the negotiators said that 7(e), as it appears in the text, is not necessarily linked to the question of method of payment, yet the minister, by introducing these documents into the grain transportation hearings on the prairies, has clearly linked the question of method of payment to what is happening at the GATT, thereby undermining the support of grain farmers for the GATT process. He has further intensified those kinds of fears on behalf of grain farmers several minutes ago by introducing an amendment that would remove the Crow benefit in its present form from the motion before us.
The third question I would like to ask him is this. Although it may be a political question of whether economic impact studies are done, the Oldman dam decision has said that when policy decisions with environmental impacts are made by the government, there is a clear legal requirement that the government do environmental impact analyses. Are the processes in place to do those environmental impacts of changes at the GATT before the deadlines which the GATT process imposes upon us?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, first I would like the hon. member to point out where I suggested that people were being paranoid and premature in their concern. I would like him to point that out.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, perhaps while I look that up, the minister could answer the other two questions that I raised.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Maybe the hon. members would be able to co-operate. I would like to quickly attempt to answer the three questions.
Supply
Canada's objective, when we entered into this Uruguay round, was to get substantial reductions in trade distorting subsidies, in particular in export subsidies. These were positions we had developed with the industry. In the Dunkel text there is a clear definition of trade distorting agricultural support. It defines other domestic support, which is to be reduced by 20 per cent over six years. It calls for export subsidy spending to be reduced on the financial side by 36 per cent. It calls for a 24 per cent reduction in volume.
Those are benefits, and consistent with our objectives of where we-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The time for questions and comments has now expired.

Before resuming debate, the Chair wishes to inform the House that the motion in amendment moved by the Minister of Agriculture is admissible.
The debate will now be on the main motion and the motion in amendment.
Earlier today the opposition House leader requested and obtained unanimous consent for dividing his party's speaking time into thirds. In other words, there will be three Liberal speakers, each speech followed by a three-minute period for questions and comments.

In other words, I will give the floor to three Liberal speakers and between each speech there will be three minutes for questions and comments period.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Algoma for seven minutes.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today is perhaps one of the most important motions, and this debate is the most important before the House this spring for some 36,000 dairy, poultry and egg producers across Canada.
The motion itself speaks about the maintenance of the supply management system, the arrangements for import controls, retaining the Crow benefit, reducing export subsidies for our grain and oilseed producers in the international marketplace, and the need for impact statements.

February 12, 1992
Supply
This is more than just a discussion about a group of bureaucrats in Geneva arguing about the text of a 427-page document called the Dunkel report. It is about thousands and thousands of Canadian farm families who are scared to death that this government is going to sell them out during the final eight weeks of the GATT negotiations, that they are going to end up losing the provisions for import controls, the basic foundations of the supply management system. They are scared stiff that we are going to end up with a dairy and poultry industry in Canada like that in the United States, where most of the eggs are produced in Georgia and Alabama and the poultry products in California. Dairy farmers by the hundreds are going broke day by day.
That is why some 1,400 farmers paraded out of the Sir John Carling building last Friday. That is why some 2,500 farmers paraded before the meeting of the heads of governments on Monday of this week at the Lester B. Pearson building. They are concerned, and that is why there will be something like 22,000 or 25,000 farmers in this city a week from this Friday.
This is of incalculable importance to that industry. We are talking about a $10 billion industry, 36,000 farms and families, 22,000 employees and a whole dairy and poultry processing industry involving some 95,000 jobs.
This is a very important debate. It is a debate where we are calling on the government to use every diplomatic arrangement it can muster so that the final conclusion, if it is reached at GATT during the next two months, will be a retention of our supply management system.
It is a unique system. It is a system that does not flood the world market. It provides producers with a reasonable return on their investment, and it is a system that we want to keep. It is impossible to describe the adverse impact the report would have. Look at the figures provided this morning by the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency. It says in three years, if the Dunkel report is adopted, 86 per cent of Canadian producers will be out of business. Out of 2,411 producers only 330 would remain. Within two years the production of chicken would cease in Atlantic Canada.
It is unlikely that any processing plants would survive the first several years. Within six years, which is the end of the Dunkel proposal period wherein tariffs would be
reduced, there would be something like 39 producers left in the country.
The minister talks about providing impact studies. The Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency said that it had asked for them and the government had not provided them.
We are really under the gun as legislators to bring every ounce of energy and pressure to bear to ensure that these vital industries survive. Imagine 95,000 jobs. Imagine Atlantic Canada not producing any poultry products. That is the genius of this system. Areas without large populations and metropolitan areas can continue to have a viable family farm operation.
It would be impossible to exaggerate the importance of what the government must do. There is great concern that the government is saying the right thing but is not doing the right thing. I say to the Prime Minister that he should attend the meeting next Tuesday which has been called at the Skyline Hotel. He should rally the support of the five other nations which support our position, including Japan. He should get a joint statement from heads of government which calls on the other members of the GATT agreement to support our position. We do not want to flood the market. We want to give our producers a reasonable return on their investment. We want to retain the family farm.
After he has secured that joint agreement with the other heads of government that support our position, I say the Prime Minister should sit down with the President of the United States and the President of the European Economic Community and seek their support. After all, those are the two main trading blocs. They should secure a strengthened and clarified article XI in the new GATT agreement that is proposed to be put in place this spring.
So I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre:
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end to a semicolon and by adding the following words:
And that this House call upon the Prime Minister to involve himself personally in the GATT negotiations in the interest of Canada's dairy, egg and poultry producers by meeting with the President of the United States and with the President of the European Community in order to secure their support and to do so in cooperation with other countries that agree with Canada's position on a strengthened and clarified GATT article XI.
February 12, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair will consider the amendment just moved by the hon. member for Algoma.
On the three-minute questions or comments period, the hon. Minister of Agriculture.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the amendment that has been put forward by my colleague, the member for Algoma, is important and I am sure we will be able to discuss that amendment among colleagues.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House and the hon. member that the Prime Minister met with Mr. Lubbers and with Mr. Delors. He met and communicated with President Bush and has been involved over the last three months in supporting this position. He has argued reasonably and strongly on why this was important to Canada.
As I said, the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Algoma is important and I am sure I will be able to discuss it with confidence with my colleagues.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the minister's words. It seems to me that if the heads of five governments that support our position, including Japan which is a major trading nation, were to prepare a joint declaration that could be taken to a joint meeting with the two presidents of the European Community and the United States during these final eight weeks of the negotiations, or at the appropriate time during those negotiations, it would be a very important part of those negotiations.
Canada and Japan are members of the G-7. Their position is very important, especially when we look at how reasonable our position is. We are allowing increased access. We are reducing subsidization although there is practically none in that realm. We are not pushing surplus, cheap foodstuffs on the market and causing a problem. Our producers in many cases are being asked to solve a problem that they have not really created.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon in the House the minister made
Supply
fun of me and said that because I was an urban member, "the downtown member from Hamilton", I obviously should not have interest in this issue. I would like to point out that if we are going to win this fight it is urban Canadians across the country who have to understand what is at stake. I am unlike the minister who stood in this House and spoke in the past tense about supply management. I am one who understands that tariffication is not supply management and tariffication will mean the death of the family farm in Canada.
If that minister continues to stand in his place as a mealy-mouthed apologist for the Dunkel report, you can be dam sure that every member on this side of the House including the urban members will be there. Do you know why I want to be there? I would like to quote from a speech given by my colleague, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk.
This argument is not just about food and it is not just about farmers
being displaced. It is about the ability of a nation to produce food and
secure its supply of food for the present and for the future.
Effectively the Dunkel report would wipe out the family poultry business in Atlantic Canada. Within six years there would not be a single family business left in Atlantic Canada.

We already know the devastating impact this will have on Quebec farmers, as announced by the UPA. We know what the effects are.
A nation that cannot feed itself is a nation that is prey to the vagaries of not only the international marketplace but in 50 years from now if we cannot feed ourselves we will be a country that could go to war for food.
We can opt for the option of vertical integration. We can opt for the option of having 39 producers left out of the 2,411 chicken producers in Canada.
We might get some short-term dividends. We might get some short-term gains but in the long term what that will mean for consumers in the riding of Hamilton East is they will be paying more for every chicken in their pot.

February 12, 1992
Supply
The lessons of the family farm, the lessons of arable land, the lessons of the environmental questions of the 1990s are not the lessons of the vertically integrated big companies. They are the lessons learned by family farms that have stayed in the family from generation to generation to generation.
Ralph Ferguson has a legacy for his children and his grandchildren, and that legacy is to produce food, food that for Canadians is still the second least expensive in the world, to produce that food and to allow his children and his grandchildren to continue to produce it.
Is that the view of Cargill? Cargill has to answer to its shareholders who are looking for annual dividends, understandably.

However, there is a difference between our country and the United States. The minister referred to those among the 106 countries at the GATT talks that are against us. There is one country the Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture will have to persuade to change its mind.
f.English]
You can talk about the 106 countries. The country that we have to get to is sitting south of the border. It is the good friend of the Prime Minister. Yes, he went fishing down in Kennebunkport. He went fishing for a job. And he came up flat, not only in his own personal ambitions, but also he came up flat for the farmers of Canada.
The Minister of Agriculture has failed once again to explain to the House. Yes, we know that the Prime Minister has spoken to several international figures on this issue, but he has failed to get his message across.
Since January what specific initiatives has this government and this Prime Minister taken to get the message across that we are not going to take it any more? We are not going to allow Canadian farm families to go the way of the dodo bird. That is what the Dunkel report would do and that is what this minister who publicly is stating his support for supply management, but who privately is already-

He is already clearing the way for tariffication, although surely he must know this means the end of the family farm in this country. Yes, I am an urban member.

You can sit there with that smarmy face and smirk at me. I am an urban member of Parliament, but like every Canadian I believe there is something that makes us
different from the Americans. It is that we have developed a system to protect our food supply, not only for this generation but for future generations.
We threw away our capacity to be sovereign in a number of areas with the trade deal. Remember, the government said: "Oh, yes, but we'll be able to get everything so much cheaper. Come on board, consumers, because we are going to be able to profit from this trade agreement".
In my province alone, one-third of the manufacturing jobs have gone down the tubes. Now the government is asking us to follow once again.
Well, I say one thing. I congratulate John Wise who had the guts to leave this government before marketing boards were put on the table. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the last election-

-he gave us every assurance that this system would never be tampered with. But he knew.

He knew that what Eugene Whelan began was going to be put to death by this government either privately or publicly. On this side of the House, we will get every member. I do not care if you are from downtown Hamilton, from downtown Wawa, or from downtown Prince Albert. We need your help to fight this fight and we need to convince this government that it has to get through to its friends in Washington to let them know that in Canada, we reserve the right to be different.
We reserve the right to remain Canadian. Above all, we want sovereignty in our food supply.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to draw to the attention of the hon. member who just concluded her address that in the Cairns group, of which Canada is a member, there are some 14 member countries: Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Columbia, Fiji, Hungary, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand.
We cannot allow anyone to think that there is just one nation that we have to convince to accept the position that Canada has. We cannot convince the members of the Cairns group to support Canada's position. That does not mean we have stopped. That does not mean that we will not continue. What it means is we do.
I agree with the hon. member. We need the support of everyone in this Chamber and we need the support of people outside. It does not help the cause of trying to get support from countries to say that there is one country or it is one person's responsibility.
February 12, 1992

It is a position we developed jointly with the industry supported by all parties in this House. I am sure when it is voted on today, the motion will receive the support of all parties in the House. That will continue to strengthen the ability of Canada to carry the message forward and have our position accepted.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of the fact that the Cairns group comprises more than one party.
The minister should also be aware of the fact that his own official said yesterday that it was the Americans who were the stumbling block.
We know that this is an American and European fight. We also know, contrary to the minister's statement a few short minutes ago, Canadian supply management has not been responsible for the dumping problem. We are not part of the problem. We should not be the sacrificial lambs in the solution.
The minister said earlier that in fact some of the reasons for these changes had to do with dumping. I did not talk about dumping. The minister himself defended the potential eventuality of tariffication by suggesting that something had to be done because of the unleashing of forces of the international marketplace.
The minister should be aware that quite clearly, supply management in Canada has been a domestic solution to a domestic supply issue. It has not touched, nor has it dumped, nor has it impeded, nor has it infringed, nor has it in any way abutted on to either the American or European agricultural problems.
We have been dragged in and fingered as part of the solution. The minister's officials said yesterday quite clearly that the Europeans are prepared to come and support us if we can get the Americans onside.
I want the minister to go back to his Prime Minister and tell him: "Mr. Prime Minister, your strategy up to
Supply
last January has failed and failed miserably. Your trip to Kennebunkport yielded nothing. Now is the time to rethink your strategy and we want to know specifically what you are going to do-"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. After considering the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Algoma, the Chair is now ready to rule on the matter. This motion is inadmissible because it brings up a new concept foreign to the amendment.
In other words, the subamendment exceeds the scope of the amendment and is therefore inadmissible. I may refer hon. members to Beauchesne's, sixth edition, citation 580 (1).
(1) The purpose of a sub-amendment (an amendment to an amendment) is to alter the amendment. It should not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment but it should deal with matters that are not covered by the amendment. If it is intended to bring up matters foreign to the amendment, the Member should wait until the amendment is disposed of and move a new amendment.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is my understanding that members in this Chamber could come to an agreement as to what would be in order. I think that is well within the rights.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would rather not get into a long discussion but clearly the main amendment and subamendment deal with article XI of the GATT negotiations. This is simply proposing ways in which article XI may be amended.
Because you have suggested that it may be out of order, since the minister has already indicated his support, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House as proposed.

February 12, 1992
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Of course, as hon. members know, I already ruled this subamendment out of order, but in the final analysis, the House is the master of its proceedings. If there is unanimous consent to agree to discuss this subamendment, despite the rules governing this House, the Chair will willingly comply, provided there is unanimous consent.
So I ask the question.

Is there unanimous consent to have the amendment to the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: So the debate will continue on the main motion, the amendment and the subamendment. The hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre has seven minutes.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, I consider myself privileged to have the opportunity to support the subamendment presented by my colleague from Algoma, who is very knowledgeable about agriculture. For many years, he has been a great defender of farmers across Canada.
Today, as my colleague from Algoma said, we might be having one of the most important debates of the year, given the consequences of the GATT negotiations in Geneva.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the Minister of Agriculture explain the process of the GATT agreements and I would especially like to say not only to members here in the House but to many people listening that we must not forget that there is a great deal of history behind our system of supply management. Like many here, I remember a time-and I am speaking especially about the farmers I knew on dairy farms in Quebec-before the system of supply management when it was very difficult for our farmers to pull through.
We know that and I am convinced that many here certainly have relatives or close acquaintances who live on the land or are descended from people who did. They must be aware of the sacrifices our farmers have made in the past, seven days a week and 52 weeks a year. They made tremendous sacrifices to keep the family farm, and it was difficult to interest the younger generation in farming, not only because of the hard work involved but
also because the rewards were often few and far between.
About 20 years ago, after much urging and lengthy negotiations, common sense finally prevailed. People realized it was time we had a system that would see to our farmers' basic needs by guaranteeing a minimum base price for their products, to ensure they run an efficient operation, and I must say most of them do. In Canada during the past 20 years, we have built a supply management system that is sound and people-oriented, a system that works within the GATT rules. This countxy has put a lot of money and effort into ensuring that our farmers receive a minimum price for their products, while at the same time providing a system that is fair to all 10 provinces. That was a major achievement.
Many countries see us as a model in this respect. The system was unique in that it did not cause a surplus on the international market. There was no so-called dumping by this country. It was a system that did not upset the applecart and guaranteed domestic supplies, which is extremely important. For years, security has been synom-ymous with defence and arms, but I think we can say, Mr. Speaker, considering the events of recent years, that agricultural self-sufficiency is also important, and I would even say it is more so than national defence.
We have seen a system develop that has served us well, both the country as a whole and the farm community. And now, after 20 years, for reasons we do not readily understand, this whole system is being challenged. Why? We are not too sure. So we send representatives to defend the system and to explain the benefits of our supply management system.
I find it hard to understand why the government has been unable to convince our partners at the GATT talks that our system is a viable one. I wonder about a lot of things, Mr. Speaker. I see the Minister of State for Agriculture here in the House, and I would like to ask him this: Do our two representatives who are negotiating for Canada have what it takes to defend this system? When I read documents from Geneva, I see that churches throughout the world, including the organization of Protestant and Catholic churches, have sent representatives to protest against the Dunkel report. Did we see this in the Canadian media? Did anyone mention this? There is a lot of opposition to the Dunkel formula, but nevertheless there are some countries, including the United States, that want to force on us a situation that world church leaders call a recipe for world-wide food shortages.
February 12, 1992

My point is that thanks to 20 years of hard work, the Canadian people and Canadian fanners, have set up a system unequalled in this world.
And I say, Mr. Speaker-and I am sure we can get the unanimous consent of this House for sending a clear resolution to all GATT participants-that Canada, that this country's representatives cannot approve the Dun-kel report because it does not make sense and goes against the interests of all farmers across this country. We should not have to pay for other people's mistakes.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my hon. colleague from Gatineau-La Lievre. Indeed, I believe we do agree on how important marketing boards are for Quebec and Canadian farm producers. For one thing, my colleague will certainly recognize that our current position is the position Canada stated in April 1990, and later made clearer and more detailed in the fall of 1990. My hon. colleague should recognize or realize that everyone is in agreement. I can understand his passionate plea. However, would he not agree that, as we speak, the Canadian provinces, including Quebec, the federal government, the producers' organizations, the processors' organizations, the Canadian agrifood industry from coast to coast, are all behind this position? Does he not think it would be in the best interests of our Quebec and Canadian farmers that we stand united on this issue and back the Government of Canada and its negotiators in Geneva? Will he not agree with me that the Canadian position has obviously not changed and has the full support of the Canadian farmers?


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, the minister seems to be saying the right things, but the actions do not match the words. Like the minister, I say that with all the support we have, farmers and organizations in all the provinces agree to support supply management, but that poses a problem. I find that it is perhaps the last effort, but our partners in GATT will have to be unanimous and be firmly convinced that it is a necessity for Canada, such a northerly country, where
Supply
farming conditions are exceptional, not to accept less than what exists. They must also understand that we are at a point of no return, if you will, with our agricultural system and we cannot accept a change. I am convinced that they cannot neglect the resolve of all 10 provinces and members of this House which we can show all our partners.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Resuming debate. I would like the first speaker for the New Democratic Party to tell us how his party intends to proceed: will they take 20 minutes each or share their time? The hon. member for Chambly.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, we will make the following clarification. I intend to speak for 10 minutes, with a five-minute question period, and then I think my colleague will share the rest of the time with me.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on my colleague's motion regarding GATT.
The first thing that comes to my mind when we talk about GATT and the negotiations of our federal government is a Quebec saying to the effect that they talk a lot but do little. I think that pretty well summarizes our fear about how the government negotiates.
Mr. Speaker, since September 1986, the 108 member countries of GATT have been involved in a new round of more ambitious negotiations to liberalize international trade throughout the world. We were rather surprised to read in the press that the Dunkel report provided for a tariff system to replace our supply management system. It was a surprise, but we were very worried to find that out, because remember that the Dunkel report, which takes its name from the director-general of GATT, is meant to summarize the state of negotiations and serve as a basis for settling this new round of negotiations called the Uruguay round.
To properly understand the issues, Mr. Speaker, you must see how the Dunkel report deals with the question of subsidies, which we are used to as a part of supply management, especially in Quebec, because for a long time we have spent, I believe, almost $800 million a year on all sorts of subsidies for our farm sector.

February 12, 1992
Supply
The Dunkel report then affects some elements that could really put Quebec in a tight spot, and I will give you examples. It provides sanctions for equity investment such as the Societe generale de financement, the Caisse de depot et de placement, the Societe de developpement industriel, Soquip, and so on, have. That means that the action taken by our provincial government can be subject to sanctions. I know that the federal government talks about theoretical sanctions. I remember that the last time we heard about "theoretical sanctions" was during the free trade negotiations. Unfortunately these theoretical sanctions became real sanctions-talk to the people at Norsk Hydro or to the people in British Columbia about softwood lumber.
The loan guarantee programs in Quebec, which are another form of intervention often used in our province, can also be subject to sanctions. Sanctions might also be taken against tax incentives and tax credits in Quebec, according to the Dunkel report. I am sure that the minister of consumer affairs is aware that this includes the stock savings plan as well as flowthrough shares, the occupational training tax credit and even the tax credit used to launch the solidarity fund.
I speak of these programs as activities that can be denounced and subject to sanctions in the Dunkel report because they are called specific subsidies. When they are specific, they can be denounced by any other country that signed the agreement. Unfortunately this could be disastrous for Quebec, not only because Quebec is different in that we have a variety of programs to support our agricultural industry, and also for consumers because if all these sanctions are applied, with free trade, foreign companies and the whole foreign agriculture industry will surely find the field quite open for unfair but legal competition.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's motion is extremely important and I think it is quite clear, unlike the government's negotiations at GATT. We are very clear in our motion, which reads as follows: "That this House calls on the government to support unequivocally any final GATT accord that-" and this is very simple, since it does at least two things- "provides for the maintenance of viable and effective management programs as an essential element of Canadian agricultural policy". Second, Mr. Speaker, we ask the government to support unequivocally any final GATT accord that: "ensures the ability of Canada, through a clarified article XI, to control effectively imports of milk, eggs, hatching eggs, chicken and turkey, and products containing a majority of supply managed products".
Mr. Speaker, I agree that Quebec's farm sector is not the only one affected by these problems. They affect Canada as a whole, including city dwellers as customers, and people in rural areas as producers. As a consumer advocate, I have tried in recent weeks to find out whether our production system makes food and food products more expensive than they would be in the United States. I have often heard people say this, but today, a Nova Scotia poultry producer told me that in 1982, they got $1.16 for every chicken; 10 years later, in 1992, they are still getting $1.16 for every chicken.
I do not think we are paying too much for our food, but I wonder whether food is cheaper in the United States. Of course it is cheaper. However, I left the United States because I did not want to belong to a society where the individual does not count, and where the traditional farm does not count, where instead people are intent on vertical integration, big business, so-called agribusiness. Mr. Speaker, after giving up the United States to come to Canada and become a Canadian citizen, I would hate to become, oh, irony of ironies, an American living in Canada, after all those 23 years. This is just too much
I have a stake in this debate because I experienced what is happening to the United States, and I experienced what is happening to Canada, and frankly, there is no point in living like Americans and having the kind of businesses Americans have. We have something better here. Perhaps members on the other side of the House do not accept this because it isn't enough. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that we have a standard of living, social security, medicare and all kinds of programs that make our country different from the United States. I think that one of the reasons why the current GATT talks have caused so much dissatisfaction and even outrage across Canada is that Canadians realize they are about to lose what they had gained.
February 12, 1992

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say in conclusion that I hope this government will not be "all talk and no action".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We are now in the
five-minute question and comment period. The hon. Minister of State for Agriculture.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I listened to carefully to my hon. colleague whose comments focused on several elements of the Canadian agricultural policy. He made some interesting points and I must say that I share his view completely, especially concerning the difference between the Canadian and American lifestyles. I think that we can only be in total agreement on that. I will tell him in jest, Mr. Speaker, that he should discuss the use of the expression "all talk, no action" with his colleague, the premier of Ontario. It might be of help to Mr. Rae in planning his policies for the future.
I would like to come back to a point the hon. member barely addressed and that is international trade. He described the free trade agreement with the United States as a major catastrophe. As my hon. colleague may be aware, statistics are available for the first two years after it was implemented and they show that, in the agrifood industry alone, Canadian exports to the States have increased by 30 per cent. In spite of his party's doom and gloom predictions, free trade has contributed to bringing our trade balance with the United States down from $700 million to $300 million within two years. That is not bad. I just wanted to quote these figures to my hon. colleague for future reference.
I would like him to comment on this and to know if he still thinks, as I do, that the Canadian position at GATT-which he seems familiar with-accurately reflects the feelings of the Canadian farmers, provinces and government, in other words, if you and I fully support this position and that we have no reason to tear each other to shreds. Do we agree on that?


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I am always impressed by the statements made by this government, because those are really statements with which nobody can disagree. However, it is not with your words-
Supply


Philip Edmonston: I will get to those figures later, but I first want to talk about your words. Nobody can disagree with the government because it says things precisely so as to get the greatest possible approval from people. But we are somewhat concerned, and we do not make this up since this feeling prevails everywhere in Canada and in every farming sector, and the minister is well aware of that. The problem is that in these negotiations actions do not follow words, which is to say that you intend to say one thing but do another one.
The minister is asking me if I think he is a liar. Not at all. I think he is mistaken because I find that people in general believe the minister talks a lot but does little. That's all. I did not say that he was a "liar".
I want to say something important about figures. It is true that the agrifood industry, that is the whole agricultural sector in Canada, experienced an increase in its sales to the United States. That is a fact. But I can tell you today that in Quebec people who were so much in favour of free trade now realize that it was not in their best interest, and the majority of them are now opposed to free trade. That is a complete reversal of opinion. In fact, whether it is with Mexico or any other country, Quebecers are fed up of hearing the words "free trade". The only thing they know is that this free trade has created unemployment, even when the government talked about implementing a manpower training program, that is some kind of retraining to help workers who lost their jobs get some training for other positions. However, nothing happened.
So you better not talk about free trade in Quebec now because unlike in 1988, the majority of people no longer support free trade. I would like to say another thing to the minister that answered before-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order. The five minute period is up.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, until I heard the minister speak earlier this afternoon I retained some small degree of hope that perhaps the pessimists were wrong and Canada really was going to maintain its supply management system. I say "Canada", not the farmers but Canada itself. However, after listening to the minister, I fear that all is lost from that point of view.


Pierre Blais: I have figures here.

February 12, 1992
Supply
The free trade agreement has been mentioned. When we were discussing it some three years ago we were reassured, guaranteed by the government, that the marketing board system would be maintained under the free trade agreement. It lasted for just over two years. Now we know, from what the minister said today, that he too has abandoned any hope of maintaining our system of orderly marketing.
What of the minister's choice of language? He has confidence in the system. He could only have been referring to supply management. He is willing to defend it. Supply management is not something that needs defending. Perhaps it should be sold but certainly not defended as though it were something that was lacking in some ways, as though it were something wrong. It is the best system of marketing in the whole world. Canada has been a world leader in developing its system of supply management. Supply management means exactly what the words say.
The minister said that we may have to adjust some plans that interfere with world markets, but supply management does not. Supply management could, but it does not when it is working properly. It works properly in Canada and the minister knows it. In saying he is willing to defend it, he is saying that he does not really believe in it strongly enough to go out there and sell it, to tell the rest of the world that Canada, the United States notwithstanding, is determined to maintain its system of supply management and orderly marketing.
Supply management means exactly what the words say: we manage the amount of supply. We make sure there are just enough of the various commodities under supply management to ensure that the home market is supplied. As I said, we could adjust it upward to supply an export market if we wanted to, if there were a demand, if the world needed it somewhere, if we had an agreement with some country. We could do that. It is that flexible and can react very quickly.
With our system of supply management we are able to maintain the quality. The quality of Canadian food is not surpassed anywhere in the world. We are able to reduce the cost of supplying this food. One of the speakers said earlier that the cost of food to Canadians is the second lowest in the world. That is in large measure due to our supply management system.
We do not have surpluses that we have to dump somewhere. Each commodity looks after its own production so that the amount required for fresh consumption, whether it be eggs, milk, broilers or turkeys, is just enough to supply the fresh market plus enough of a margin, which is processed by the appropriate marketing board, so that there is an ample supply of top quality food available for Canadians. We do not export any of those goods to any degree unless there is a market that has to be filled. We can react very quickly to any shortfall anywhere else. We can increase the production of any of those goods.
The price the producers receive is not outrageous. I was an egg producer during the 1950s, about 40 years ago. The cost of producing those eggs has increased fifteenfold since I was an egg producer. The cost of all the feed, the cost of everything, apart from the labour put in by the proprietor, has increased fifteenfold. The number of birds that a person looks after has increased fifteenfold. The price of the product to the consumer has increased 15 per cent. That is the case with eggs and it is similar for all the other commodities which are supply managed.
It is not possible to do it with everything. It is very difficult to do with it tree fruit because it perhaps could take five years for a tree to come into production. It is very difficult to do it with grain because the amount of production is so unpredictable, and so is the world demand. We just do not know.
We should not be tinkering with our system of supply management. We should do everything we can to maintain it. The minister did not talk too much about the other agricultural products. Of course the one on the table is grain and oilseeds, but supply management does not work there.
Even there it is not a case of support. He talked about supporting, but we are not supporting grain farmers. If we were going to support grain farmers, the best thing we could do for them would be to let them go broke and get off the farm.
Most of them are certainly not doing any more than barely making a living. We are not giving them prices that will enable them to make a good living. We are not giving them prices that will enable them to buy equipment right now. They do not even buy enough fertilizer.
February 12, 1992

They are not able to farm the way they know they could if conditions were right. Those are not support prices. We are not supporting the farmers. We are simply paying the farmers to produce wheat because we need to export it.
Why do we need to export it? We are paying some $27 billion a year in interest charges to foreigners for money they have lent us. We have to give them something. Loonies will not do, so we give them wheat. We give them oilseeds. They are the second largest source of export for Canada.
We are not looking after the farmers. We are not doing it because we like the farmers. We are doing it because we need those exports.
Our system does not need defending. We should be selling it. There are producers of everything all over the world who would like to get into our system of managing the supply for their own needs, of orderly marketing so producers can make a respectable living.
Even then they do not have control of the price. They are accused of holding up the prices, of holding people to ransom. In most of the marketing boards that have any authority to set prices there are people involved in the mechanism of setting prices who have nothing to do with production.
They are there to provide consumer input on prices. I am not sure about the other provinces but I know that, for example, in B.C. the chairman of the milk board for the longest time was a chartered accountant who knew nothing at all about producing milk. He certainly knew how to calculate.
The price of milk the producer received was calculated very closely so that the producer got the cost of production and enough margin to cover the rest of his expenses.
That is the way it is with the other boards. There are people involved in the price setting mechanism who know the costs. They get all the information. They know if there is any need for the price to change one way or the other, up or down. They set the prices very carefully. The farmers still have to do all the gambling on what will happen with respect to weather, diseases and so on.
They are totally at the mercy of diseases from time to time that can wreck people individually, and yet not the industry. Production is country-wide, from Newfoundland to Prince Edward Island to British Columbia.
Supply
Every province has some degree of supply management. Certainly the farmers in the province from which I come, British Columbia, depend to a great extent on supply management to make it possible for them to make a living, to make it possible for them to produce exactly the amount of milk, eggs, broiler hatching eggs, broilers or turkeys required by the market in that province.
We have never heard of any embarrassing surpluses. We have never heard of any shortages and we have never heard of anybody paying more than a fair price.
I am not saying that it cannot be bought cheaper somewhere else, but farmers are getting the cost of production and enough of a margin for it to be reasonable. That is fair to them and it is fair to the consumer.
We should not be defending our system of orderly marketing, our system of marketing boards. We should be out there making it possible for the farmers in other countries to learn from our experience and adopt similar systems so that they will be treated fairly and consumers in their countries will be treated fairly.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in my friend's comments with respect to the sale and the selling of marketing boards. He knows as a member from British Columbia that over the past two years, at any rate, the tree fruit industry in the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia in particular but throughout the Niagara Peninsula and the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia has been pushing for an apple marketing board. It has to some extent agreed that is the way apples should be marketed as the other system has worked fairly well, as he has pointed out, in the sale of eggs, broilers, chickens, turkeys et cetera.
I am wondering whether he would like to comment for the benefit of the tree fruit farmers of Canada. With his experience as a former Minister of Agriculture in the province of British Columbia, and with his vast experience in the marketing system, does he see the marketing board system as he knows it as a system for future marketers and producers of apples? Does he say that such a policy would assist the farmers in my region in the Okanagan and the Similkameen valleys to continue viable production of apples at a reasonable price?

February 12, 1992
Supply


David Stupich: I thank the member for the question. I watched the development and the interest being shown by tree fruit producers for some sort of a marketing commission. I want to offer them every encouragement to take control of their own destiny to the extent they are able to.
One of the features of marketing boards generally is that they will not interfere in markets of other countries. Of course we know that a lot of the tree fruit product is exported in the case of British Columbia to specialty markets.
I would encourage them. The farmers then would be selling their fruit on the fresh fruit market which is where the bulk of the return comes from. The farmers, as with every other marketing board, accept the responsibility for taking off the market the surplus that is then processed, for example, apples to apple juice, apple pie filling, whatever.
In any case the farmers pay for the cost of that. They are getting a lesser return for the product. They own the processing plants that process their product whether it is apples, eggs or poultry meat.
I have watched what is happening. I encourage them, but the inference I took from what the minister said today was that if they were able to accomplish it, by the time they got it working the government would have pulled the rug out from under their feet and would have sold out to the U.S.A.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today. One thing this debate is doing, and especially the discussions of the past few weeks, is to make us realize that the Canadian agrifood industry is facing major changes not only in Canada but all over the world.
To use a common expression, the agrifood industry is once again at the crossroads. More than ever, it is critical to follow the development of consumer markets. Under pressure from all sides, technologies are developing incredibly fast. Eating habits are also changing, becoming
more varied. Companies develop new business strategies with a view to positioning themselves in the context of market globalization. That is to say that the stakes are high and extend far beyond our provincial borders, even our national borders. Of course, our agrifood industry is affected by all this. It has no choice but to adjust to these changes, and I think most of the people in this industry are willing to take up this challenge.
In fact farmers, processors and food retailers to name but a few are ready to do whatever it takes. Since their production is their livelihood, they are sensitive to market fluctuations. They know that if they make the right decisions, they stand to gain a great deal.
There are driving forces within this industry striving to innovate and to be competitive. As I mentioned earlier, in spite of the doom and gloom scenario predicted in 1998 of what might result from the free trade deal with the United States, here we are with major increases in our exports, i.e. between 25 and 30 per cent, for the first two years. In the dairy and poultry industries as well our exports have increased, which means that things are never as bad as we are led to believe.
Mr. Speaker, one thing is sure and that is that our agrifood industry has constantly improved. Many of the agricultural products we export compare favourably with any other in the world. It would be even more so if international trade rules applied equally to every country. That is why we are working so hard to make things move at GATT. When I say we, I mean members of the cabinet, but also our negotiators, people who support us, and I should add people in the provinces, in the food industry, in agriculture, and even, to some extent, a large number of members of this House who, despite the fact that speeches are sometimes partisan, seem nevertheless to support the Canadian position, which has the advantage of being supported by everybody.
Moreover, our message is clear. It is clear to us, it is clear to other members of GATT and it is mainly clear to the stakeholders in the Canadian agrifood industry. Need we repeat a thousand times, Mr. Speaker, that our position reflects in every detail what came out of the
February 12, 1992

Supply
consultations we held with the industry? It is not the position of the Canadian government we are defending at GATT, but the position of the Canadian agrifood industry. It is our producers who came up with this historic compromise, whether it be in the grain industry, in the area of minimum access to market, in the supply management sectors for milk and poultry. I repeat, this is not just the position of the Canadian government, of cabinet ministers, of members of this House; this is the position of farmers. This is the position of provincial governments. Naturally this is the position our government endorsed, and the position I am proud to defend.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian system of supply management was set up according to GATT rules. This system today, just like yesterday, is a success. Many countries came here to look at it as a possible model for them. This a marketing model of which Canadians are justly proud. With this system our producers receive a fair reward for their labour. For their part, processors and consumers can expect a regular and constant supply of quality products at reasonable prices.
Clearly, just like in any other industries not under supply management, it is necessary to make periodic adjustments to follow changes in the marketplace. I believe people in the industry are willing to adapt, to co-operate with us in government, to make the system of supply management more responsive to the marketplace. This is what we did, Mr. Speaker, when we reviewed agricultural programs.
As I just said, the supply management system is based on GATT rules. One of the contentious issues at the talks in Geneva concerns article XI, which provides for the control of imports for supply management.
Mr. Speaker, we have noticed in recent years-and it must be mentioned-that this article XI on which we relied heavily, particularly for our supply management system, had a deficiency which may not have been foreseen 40 years ago, when the GATT was signed. However, if you read the report of the GATT panel on yogurt and ice cream, you have no choice but to acknowledge that article XI, in its present form, does not adequately protect products marketed under supply management systems, particularly processed products. And since we find ourselves with an agricultural economy in which new processed and over-processed products now represent a greater share of the market, those products must be protected through a supply management system; otherwise it will become increasingly difficult to maintain the system.
Mr. Speaker, that is why, in response to a request from producers, we drafted a new article XI that accurately reflects their needs and that should enable us to protect our Canadian system.
It is somewhat insulting-that is how I feel, Mr. Speaker-that other countries want us to give up that article or that protection so that they can change their own system, which is based on exceptions, whereas ours is based on written rules that seemed clear at the time and that enabled us to have a system. It is not right to penalize Canadian farmers because other countries want to go back to rules that are more in line with those of international trade.
I do hope that it will be possible to make our partners, the other members of the international community, understand Canada's position. We are not asking for favours. We are a trading country that always abided by the rules of international trade. So have the provinces, the producers and the processors. I believe that this is the way to behave.
The Canadian government refuses to be forced, after 20 years, to change a system that works. Canada does not unload food surpluses on the other members of the international community. Canada disciplined itself; it reduced its own domestic supplies and limited its activities to its own market. In exchange, it asked for control at the border. What Canada asks again today is the right to be able to maintain control over access to its market, based on Canadians' capacity. Mr. Speaker, Canada is asking for justice.
I ask all my colleagues in this House to support Canada's position, as you have done, and I thank most of the members who rose to indicate their support. The government is not alone in this. We must transcend the party lines, we must go beyond mere partisanship, in order to support Canadian producers. For once, we have the ability to transcend the political discussions, Mr. Speaker, and to work together-
The Prime Minister announced today that he will meet farm leaders early next week. Together we will develop our strategy. Together we have defined Canada's position, and our government is open to all suggestions regarding its strategy. We will probably have to go back to Europe to meet some people who might be able to help.
Mr. Speaker, as long as the agreement is not signed by all 108 member countries, we will fight to make sure that what we want in order to preserve our marketing agencies will find its way into the final report Mr. Dunkel will be presenting. That is the goal for which we have

February 12, 1992
Supply
been working so hard and so relentlessly for almost two years.
True, we have not succeeded yet. We are honest enough to admit it. We have not succeeded yet. The fight is fierce, but that is exactly why, Mr. Speaker, we must work side by side. We do not have any other choice, but only in a great country like Canada is such historical consensus possible. I am sure we will be successful and that will make Canadians, each and every one of us, very proud.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Minister of State for Agriculture that farmers are concerned. They are concerned for their futures, they are concerned for their livelihoods. I know he understands that. I know he is aware of the tragic situation that will occur if the Dunkel proposals go forward.
I have a few questions for him dealing specifically with the proposals. I am wondering if he can assure farmers that if Dunkel is accepted and if the government fails to live up to its commitment to retain supply management, his government will be prepared to provide programs to farmers in order for them to survive. I am sure he is aware that if the Dunkel proposals come forward that there will not be a farm left in Canada in the next 10 years.
I am wondering if he can tell me what the Dunkel proposals would do to our safety net or our crop insurance. The minister and his officials said yesterday that they figured it would have no effect on them.
I am wondering if the minister can explain to us how this would be. I am wondering if he knows what new proposals the Prime Minister has taken. My hon. friend from Hamilton East said earlier the Prime Minister did go out and he did, supposedly, go around the world and he did go to the United States and ask President Bush if he could support us in this area. The minister knows that the Prime Minister failed because what we got was Dunkel. With Dunkel we will have no supply management left in Canada.
I ask the minister what he is doing or what else the Prime Minister is doing to help solidify support around the world for this. It is said we are going to need the support of 106 countries on this. We need one country's support right now and the minister knows that. We need the support of the United States.
I am wondering what specifically the Prime Minister is doing in Washington to get this support.
The minister is also responsible for consumer affairs. The minister knows that his department, or a department within the Ministry of Agriculture, gave the Consumers Association money to do a study on supply management. When they came out and criticized supply management in the papers and they condemned our system of marketing we heard nothing from the minister, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture.
It concerns us on this side when we hear this. We know what the ministers have been saying. They support supply management. However, they are not responding to these specific attacks on our system, especially those attacks from Canadian newspapers and from other groups within Canada that may not agree with us. The minister has been somewhat quiet.
You can see why it is not only us but a lot of farmers throughout Canada who are somewhat sceptical of whether or not this government or these ministers are really behind supply management.


Pierre Blais: My hon. colleague has raised a lot of questions. I will try to address a few of them.
I have not heard much from the member about this study from the Consumers Association of Canada. I stood up many times regarding the fact that from the consumer's point of view the increase in the price of dairy and poultry products was below the price index over a period of four or five years. I mentioned that many times. Maybe I should send the member a few of my speeches. Maybe he got them but I could make an exception and send him other copies of my speeches.
February 12, 1992

We should get back to the Dunkel report he mentioned. Canadians expressed concern about the Dunkel report as far as the agriculture side was concerned. We expressed concern the day we got the document, or maybe a couple of days after. The Americans expressed concern. The Europeans expressed concern as well. We have only one signature on the Dunkel paper right now and it is Mr. Dunkel's signature.


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


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am veiy happy to have this opportunity to deal with agriculture, and particularly the present GATT negotiations. Since I have been elected to this House to represent the constituency of Beauce, in Quebec, I have worked hard and taken a keen interest in agriculture, as the representative of a semi-rural semi-urban county which qualifies as the kingdom of small and medium sized businesses. But beside these farm manufacturing firms, we have at least 3,000 producers of pork, eggs, poultry, particularly dairy products, and so on.
As the years went by, I have learned here in Parliament and in the various committees, that our government has worked very hard to support the Canadian and Quebec agriculture. Today, we hear prophets of doom say that in the present GATT negotiations, which have lasted more than a year, this government has sold us down the river. I wonder where that information comes from, because the Government of Canada has always fiercely supported our farmers, whatever the type of farming they do and in whatever region of Canada they live.
Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, the federal and provincial ministers of agriculture have stated again their complete and unshakeable support of our government position which is to bring to a successful conclusion these GATT negotiations. And, when I speak about the provincial and federal ministers of agriculture, I include all the heads of the various producers' unions across the country.
Canada's position within the GATT negotiations, developed in co-operation with farmers' associations and
Supply
the provinces, essentially strives for a clearer definition and a strengthening of article XI, a substantial reduction of trade distorting grants and an easier access to international markets.
I must add that the Canadian position has never changed on that matter. In representing the Beauce region fanners, I have often stressed the importance of protecting the supply management system essential to milk, egg and poultry producers. I have stressed, for my colleagues and for the government, and my comments were well received and accepted, the fact that we recognize the absolute necessity of working closely with the agrifood industry if Canada's well-balanced position is to progress. Other members from regions where there is an active farming community have said the same. I was assured that government would do its utmost till the end of the negotiations to have Canada's position accepted and I myself have seen that it has indeed made great efforts, particularly during this past year.
Today, all the premiers have been made aware of this. Canada's Prime Minister has made an enormous contribution to the protection of agriculture-


An hon. member:: Well done.


Gilles Bernier: It is indeed noteworthy and I am sure our three ministers responsible for agriculture would agree: the Minister of Agriculture, the minister specifically responsible for protecting the grain farmers and the minister protecting the farmers from Quebec.
There were negotiations; we know that the Prime Minister, contacted Mr. Kohl from Germany, Mr. Mitterrand from France and Mr. Bush from the United States on numerous occasions to make sure that our message be understood and not misunderstood.
The GATT negotiations are not over. We sincerely hope that the Canadian position will be recognized.
On January 13, not long ago, in Geneva, our negotiators reminded Mr. Dunkel of that. They also made him aware of our dissatisfaction concerning the recent agricultural proposals. What is important for the farmers from the Beauce area in Quebec is that we preserve the supply management systems and the other fundamental pillars of the Quebec agricultural policy, such as the crop insurance, the income stabilization insurance and the farm credit.

February 12, 1992
Supply
For many years, Mr. Speaker, the Beauce farmers and the Quebec farmers have endured bravely and have made sacrifices. It was not easy to work in the farm sector 25 years ago. I must tell you that you could not decently live on farming 25 years ago, I mean, in general.
But Quebec fanners organized themselves, they put in place some programs and systems of protection in order to improve their lot and also the quality of their products.
In the past, when you were a farmer, you could not live on farming alone. You had to have another occupation. For example, in my region, you could be a lumberman and do part-time farming because you could not live on farming alone. We became more sophisticated, we became professionals and I must tell you that by making sacrifices, we managed to put in place programs which, today, are copied or should be copied by many farmers in other countries.
With this system that we put in place, our farmers have now the right to get a fair income for their labour. On the other hand, processors and consumers can expect greater quality products and a permanent supply. And all that at a reasonable price.
So, with discipline, we were finally recognized as bussinessmen. We adopted systems and implemented programs which are interesting but expensive, expensive for all governments, federal or provincial, as well as for farmers. Thus, governments and producers paid the price. Up to now, our farmers have made too many sacrifices, their grievances cannot simply be ignored.
I want to tell you that the member for Beauce is well aware of the situation and so are his colleagues in the Quebec Conservative caucus, who show a remarkable interest to this issue. I do not need to remind you that their constant concern is to carry the message from Quebec farmers to strategic places. So the farm community can count on us.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that some prophets of doom try to tell us that the govemement stays put and has abandoned Canadian and Quebec farmers. That is not so. We can prove that our negotiators in Geneva are vigilant. Indeed, for the Quebec members of the Progressive Conservative Party, agriculture is a great cause. Even our members from regions like Montreal, for
instance, or other large cities, which benefit from agriculture although there is no permanent and functional agricultural sector in these areas, since farms are located in the rural parts of Quebec, support us firmly and they also support our Prime Minister and his claims. You must know we will not neglect any action which would allow us to hope for better conditions.
As a matter of fact, the negotiations are hard and tedious, but I must tell you our negotiators are very well aware of our Canadian and Quebecer farmers' needs. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I assure you the farmers can be confident they will have the entire support of the present government.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the speech of the Minister of State for Agriculture and, just now, to the one of the hon. member for Beauce, but I can see that both avoid the real question which is not to determine if the position of the farmers and provinces is the right one. That position is generally supported by this House, as we will see tonight at the time of the vote. The real question is what the government has done about that position. What are the results of the GATT ongoing negotiations? What has the government done?
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what we find out now, two years after the beginning of the negotiations, is that this government has made only seven allies among 108 countries. That is what it is telling us just now, only a few weeks before the end of those negotiations. Has the government really done its homework? That is the question. Has it got tangible results to show us? That is the real question.
I heard the Minister of State say that the Prime Minister talked to President Bush. The Prime Minister talked to everybody. I do not want to know if he talked to them, I want to know if he influenced them. Did he call them to say hello? Not only did he talk to them, but did he make himself clear? That is the fundamental question. Unfortunately, according to the results reported by the government, it seems everyone the Prime Minister called hung up on him. The truth is, the Prime Minister has failed to find a single ally among all these people in spite of all his calls.
February 12, 1992

When I look at the members across the way, they have all committed themselves strongly to the farmers. They are the ones who committed themselves to strengthening article XI. Did they deliver the goods? That is the real question. That is the question farmers are asking.
The Minister of State for Agriculture said he was ready to put his seat on the line. We will see in these coming weeks whether he has that kind of courage and whether he brings back the substantial results he promised.
What do experts say? UPA President Jacques Proulx who knows a lot about this whole issue said last week that this government is but a bunch of fumblers both politically and in negotiations.
Mr. Picotte, the Minister of Agriculture in Quebec, is beginning to wonder about the results our federal negotiators will get. Do you know what our greatest fear is in Quebec, Mr. Speaker? That our farmers will be but a bargaining chip in GATT negotiations. We are afraid that our farmers will be sacrificed for the sake of a GATT agreement.
Here is the question I would like to ask of the hon. member for Beauce. If we do not win that fight for supply management, will Canada sign the GATT agreement nonetheless?


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time we have heard the hon. member for Shefford get carried away and take a position that is extremely partisan, considering the subject is an international one. My point is that it is extremely important for all members of this House, irrespective of their political allegiance, to support the government, and I think we have the support of the vast majority of parliamentarians for our current negotiations at GATT.
When we talk about getting the support of 108 countries, we must not forget that for many of these countries, marketing boards are an entirely novel and revolutionary concept. They do not understand what it means. Take Mr. Lacombe, president of France's farm producers, which is more or less what Mr. Proulx is in Quebec. When someone mentioned GATT article XI and protecting marketing boards to Mr. Lacombe, he did not even know what we were talking about. He just was not interested. He did not have the same problems with GATT that we have here in Canada.
Supply
So the important thing here is to establish a solid common front in this country. We are supported by all provincial premiers and agriculture ministers. We are supported by all presidents and executives of the UPA in Quebec, for instance, and all other farm associations in Canada.
These people realize that Canada has done a great deal to convince all those delegates from 108 countries. We have made several gains. A number of people now encourage and support us. More remains to be done, and the negotiations are continuing. It isn't over until it's over, so we have to be very careful.
Several days from now, the Prime Minister of Canada will meet the country's farm leaders and once again submit Canada's position and ask for their support. We ask the members of the Bloc Quebecois, who claim to represent the interests of Quebecers, to support our position with enthusiasm, because our position-


Jean-C. Lapierre: No problem.


Gilles Bernier: No problem. Thank you. We have the Bloc Quebecois' support for the vote. Thank you.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, to understand the uncertainty in the minds of the dairy and poultry producers today in Canada I have to reflect back to the minister's statement of September 18, page 2312 of Hansard, when he said: "The policy of this government is that article XI should be further clarified and strengthened. That position has not changed and will not change until the government says it will change".
It left the door open. Then, on page 6369 of Hansard, a plan is referred to by the Prime Minister. He said that the Tories are now working on a plan to offer better protection than the present formula.
In looking at these statements it is not much wonder that the dairy and poultry farmers of Canada are fearful of what lies ahead. They are fearful that their system, which is the best in the world and has not contributed to world surpluses, will be traded away in secret, behind closed doors.
Of course, we heard the Minister for International Trade a year ago. A year ago last October he chastised the Minister of Agriculture in this House for giving the farmers such huge subsidies: $8.8 billion worth of subsidies.

February 12, 1992
Supply
Of that, $2.2 billion went to dairy farmers. That was a concocted figure. The actual figure was $267 billion to the industrial milk producers of Canada. The fluid milk producers got nothing. The difference was the difference in price between what Canada's dairy farmers received and what the U.S. farmers received. They call that a "subsidy".
Look at the difference between the industry in Canada, a healthy, vibrant industry that supplies the Canadian consumer with ample quantities of excellent products at reasonable prices, and the system of utter chaos in the United States, where literally thousands upon thousands of dairy farmers are being forced out of business.
I was very upset when I saw a newspaper headline in today's The Ottawa Citizen quoting a statement by David Simpson, executive director of the Canadian Consumers' Association and the Consumer's Group, that he: "foresees lower prices under proposed GATT rules".
Another headline in The Montreal Gazette on February 11 said: "Dairy industry mooches off Canadians who are stuck buying expensive milk". They claim in those articles that the average dairy farmer in Canada, of whom there are 38,000 in fact, is getting $15,000 in subsidies each.
That is absolutely wrong. It is absolutely wrong. Not once have I heard the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs get up and correct the record. Rather they hand out another $790,000 to the Canadian Consumers' Association to attack the best marketing systems in the world that have served us so well.
I have to ask the minister why he is not taking the lead to correct these erroneous statements. Why does he not defend his producers at home here in Canada? Is he using the same laid back tactics in defence of our marketing board systems at GATT?
I wish to point out to the minister that we did a study in my office last summer. We called it "Compare the Share" and it showed where the largest increases in price to the consumer took place.
During the last 10 years 2 per cent milk increased 19 cents a litre at the farm gate but 73 cents to the
consumer, an increase of 97 per cent; cheese showed a very moderate increase to the producer and the manufacturer, but at the retail level an increase of 86 per cent. There was a 29 per cent increase to the chicken producer and 87 per cent to the consumer. This is almost double the rate of inflation and this government and the Bank of Canada jack up interest rates to control inflation, letting this go by. Yet our Canadian farmers get a return on capital invested that is about one-half of the five year average return of capital invested in the food distribution sector. How do you justify this?
I am going to give the minister a copy of that study and, hopefully, he will come to the defence of our Canadian farmers here at home, set the record straight and remind Canadian consumers and the Canadian people that they have the second lowest food costs of any nation in the world. In fact, only the United States has lower prices, and only slightly lower at that.
Let me quote from an editorial just this week in the Thumb Farm News of Imlay City, Michigan. The editor, a former employee of the USDA, said: "What is frightening for the United States consumers is that we are on the threshold of food shortages in the United States". Is that the system we are going to adopt if we move toward tariffication?
Canadian consumers through our planned marketing systems have ample supplies of high quality food at reasonable prices. We have the best system in the world. We must maintain it. Tariffication simply will not work.
These systems were established under legislation passed in this House and in provincial legislatures across this land. What right has this government to trade away these systems established under a democratic system of government, behind closed doors, in secret negotiations in the interests of the transnational trading corporations.
On February 21, thousands of farmers are coming to this city due to the uncertainty created by this government. I ask the minister to reflect for a moment on what happened in the Ottawa Valley at Crysler Farms in 1812. Do not sell these producers short. Their livelihoods and the livelihoods of their families are at stake because the government has pushed them to the brink.
February 12, 1992

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have to indicate that I concur with the position of the prairie pools and my colleague from Thunder Bay on the continuance of the Crow benefit in its present form.


Mr. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the member from Lambton-Middlesex the chance to correct the statement he made during the speech in which he said that the dairy farmers of Canada get $267 billion. I know he meant million dollars. When he stands up, he will indeed correct that.
I want to ask the member if he would say that we, as a nation, should stay out of GATT if we are not able to get what we need for the supply managed industries in Canada.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I thought I said $267 million. If I did say billion, it was an error and I acknowledge it.
The government held the position and that is the position it sold to producers that it was working to clarify and strengthen article XI. That is where I stand and that is what I am going to hold the government to.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague from Lambton- Middlesex. I can say that during this debate, and I say this clearly and unequivocally, there is no better person on this side of the House to lead and give guidance to all of the members, not only on this side, but on the other side with his extreme knowledge about this very complicated problem, a problem that is so vital to our community.
I meet too with the milk producers in my riding, Rudy Butenhausen, Alan Struther, Bill Vanderweiss and Steve Matazuski. They are, to a person, in agreement with what we have just heard from our colleague. Needless to say, I support that position wholeheartedly.
I want to ask our previous speaker what his interpretation is of the motion that is on the floor with respect to the Crow benefit or the western grain transportation subsidy in its present form. Does he think that this, in its present form, means just the amount of money or a change in the plan?
Supply


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly concur with the position of the prairie pools that the benefit should continue in its present form. What else? I think we have to go further. I am sure the member from Thunder Bay will agree with me that the government should seriously consider wiping off the debt accumulated by Canadian seaway. We are competing directly against the Mississippi waterway that is maintained by the U.S. Department of Defence, as it maintains part of its interstate highway systems and interstate railway systems. If we are going to compete with equal tariffs on the seaway, we should put it on an equal basis of that of the U.S. Mississippi waterway.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on this motion and the amendments that have been made to it dealing with the future of 40,000 farm businesses in Canada and a total of approximately
100,000	Canadian jobs because of the spin-offs through the communities.
My comments on the motion today come at a time when the future of an industry that I personally have grown up in and am still involved in is in jeopardy. We stand at the conclusion, hopefully a successful conclusion, to the GATT talks and the Uruguay round amendments to the GATT agreement.
Yesterday at the Standing Committee on Agriculture one of Canada's top negotiators stated that this GATT round holds much promise for agriculture. He went on to say how the round would provide predictability and certainty for Canadian farmers. What he failed to explain is why there is so much unpredictability in the agrifood industry today because of this round of talks.
I cannot express enough the effect that this uncertainty has had and is having on the rural community, on those 40,000 families, on their extended families and on the business community they are involved in. There are many families throughout this country today who do not know whether they will even be in business 12 months after this agreement takes place if this government is not successful in getting a strengthened and clarified article XI.
There is rationalization taking place in the processing industry. That has caused enough turmoil in our agricul-

February 12, 1992
Supply
tural community and in that sector of the Canadian economy. That all started with the free trade agreement with the United States. Now we have another agreement, that if we are not successful as a nation in getting what our Canadian farmers and our Canadian consumers need out of this, it will be further devastating to the agricultural community.
We stand to lose an industry that has been both a tremendous benefit not only to the producers but to Canadian consumers. If this government cannot deliver on what it has been telling the producers it believes in, what the producers believe in and what we in the opposition believe in, there will be very, very severe problems from that. I would go on to say that the sovereignty of food supply in Canada will, without doubt, be in question.
Last week and again this week a large number of farmers from a wide area of this part of Canada were here in Ottawa. They were here on Friday, they were here on Monday and they are going to come again. I am pleased to say that a goodly number of those people travelled over three hours on a bus to be here from my riding of Prince Edward-Hastings. They were here to express their anger, their concern, their frustration and their sadness with this government's inability to date to negotiate a fair agreement at the GATT and to secure a strengthened and clarified article XI.
Why are they that nervous? They know from the assessments they have done, for example, that if the proper agreement is not reached at GATT and is not amended in the proper way, within three years the estimates are that 86 per cent of our poultry and chicken producers will be out of business, that half of our egg producers will be out of business and Canadians will be dependent upon someone else other than Canadians for much of their staple food items, many of them.
The tragedy of this is that the Canadian dairy, egg and poultry producers should not even be involved in this. There are problems in the world in the trade situation and the agriculture situation today. We know that. The European Community and the United States are pouring in Niagaras of subsidies in trying to win markets away from Canada and from each other. These problems are not the result of the supply managed commodities, the dairy, egg and poultry producers in this country.
My question is, why are these individuals, these people, these businesses being asked to be part of a solution when they are not part of the problem? That is not fair, Mr. Speaker, and they realize that. They have done their jobs well for themselves, their communities, their bankers, Canadians, the consumer, and the rest of the world. They have not dumped surpluses on the rest of the world, so why should they be penalized for being good, proper and doing it well?
This whole negotiation is about international markets. Canada's supply management system was developed by the Liberal Party. We will stand by that system, we will stand by those producers and we will insist, as our amendment says, that the Prime Minister get more involved than he has to the present date in getting the proper deal for the farmers.
Again, Mr. Speaker, they are not part of the problem.
The Prime Minister said in the past that he has talked and the Minister of Agriculture said today that he had talked to the President of the United States on the phone. This is not enough. We are not going to get the necessary impression across over the telephone. When the leader of the Liberal Party is speaking to the President of the United States on Friday, I know that he will tell the President of the United States the feelings of Canadian farmers and this party, and he will be able to get that point across, as it should have been and must be done on behalf of Canadians.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his comments was saying that the producers of dairy products and poultry products should not be involved in these GATT negotiations. I would like him to remember back to a time when ice cream and yogurt became an issue. Is that not the reason that we are discussing this issue today, because of the supply management areas, because we are not protected under the present article XI? Does the Liberal Party not support the clarification and strengthening of article XI? I would like the member to comment on this.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is having fun playing with words. When I said that they should not be involved in this, they should not be involved in this because they are not part of the problem.
*
February 12, 1992

The government across the way told producers during the free trade debate: "Leave it with us. Article XI is protected. You are going to be okay. We have done this and we have done that". It knew all along that it did not protect the producers in the supply management sector in the free trade agreement the way it said it had.
What is worrying the producers today is that the great negotiator and his team from across the way have not got a very good track record on conducting negotiations. They have not been strong. They have not put the coalition of the other countries together successfully. There are more countries in the world than just the six that they keep listing that have some sort of supply management. They have not been successful in convincing the rest of the countries at GATT that a supply management system and control of production of that type of product does not cause problems in the world trade situation, that it solves problems.
They just have not worked hard enough at it. I hate to say this but I had some producers say to me the other day: "Lyle, I think they are all fluff and there is no stuff and they haven't got their heart in it. They're saying it but they don't believe it. They're free traders. They sold us down the drain on the free trade agreement and now they're sacrificing us again".


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a point and ask a quick question here.
I have been receiving a lot of calls from my constituents and constituents in the province of New Brunswick who are concerned about these GATT negotiations. Quite clearly, they want a strengthened article XI. I ask the hon. member this: If we do not get that, what effect will that have on the agricultural industry in Atlantic Canada?


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, we were given the figures this morning by the players in the industry that their estimate is, for example in the turkey production, that within five to six years there would be absolutely no turkey producers in Atlantic Canada. There would be a tremendously reduced number of all the producers.
I don't think I have to say anything more to the member.
The numbers would go, as would the spin-off, the community and the role that they play. The sector that has held Canadian agriculture together financially, that
Supply
has made it economically viable in the last few years is the supply management sector. We cannot afford to lose that stability.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to have the opportunity tonight to be able to speak to the motion and the amendments on the table and to add my voice and that of Atlantic Canada to the debate on agriculture and the GATT, particularly article XI and the role of supply management.
It is an unfortunate but growing trend in Canada that when we have an industry or an institution that is successful, which has become part of the Canadian way of life and which has become an integral part of the economic or social fabric of the nation, then that is the industry or institution we have to meddle with, we have to reorganize, privatize or dismantle it. We seem to have an obsession to either tamper with or not defend or defend half-heartedly those areas which are most successful. We seem to be ashamed of our success. This is the new world order.
Such is the situation we find ourselves in today with our agricultural sector. Our dairy, egg and poultry industries all operate successfully with little or no government support. These are supply managed industries. Now these particular industries find themselves in jeopardy. The GATT negotiations threaten to replace the supply management system.
This change, if it comes to pass, will force our supply management producers to sacrifice a lifetime of effort and investment in order to satisfy the demands of others, particularly the Americans, so they can gain access to our markets.
While the official Canadian negotiating position calls for clarification and enhancement of article XI, there is a growing concern and suspicion in the country that the government's position may be softening. Rumours persist that Canada may agree to abandon supply management boards. This was stated by Lome MacNeill, chairman of the P.E.I. egg marketing board, when he said: "I am veiy scared that Ottawa will not be there for farmers. Tariffs would eliminate small producers very fast". This is typical of sentiments expressed by farm leaders and management board people across the country. I do think that over the past weeks the producers have been able to stiffen the backbone of the government in this regard.

February 12, 1992
Supply
There is an underlying fear that the government is already preparing tariffication schedules and thus weakening our negotiating hand before we actually have to decide whether to sign the GATT.
Producers believed the government was fighting hard on their behalf until the minister said in St. John's, Newfoundland, and I quote from yesterday's edition of the farm newspaper Farm and Country: "At the dairy farmers of Canada meeting in St. John's, Newfoundland, when the minister was pressed to say whether or not article XI would be protected, he is quoted as saying I cannot guarantee that article XI will prevail". This came as a shock to the dairy farmers of Canada. They believed everything was fine. They thought that as of last December. If the Dunkel report had not come out what would have happened at that time was that the government would have signed the agreement without even the supply managed producers knowing that it was going to sign away their particular commodities on the altar of free trade.
This prompted Peter Gould, who is an Ontario Milk Board economist, to say that he just cannot see the logic in Canada playing the tariffication card before the GATT poker game even starts. He goes on to say that people are saying Canada is the Boy Scout in international trade. This is very unfair to Boy Scouts. It tarnishes their image. He goes on to say that Canadians are dupes. Gould says: "We give things away before we have to". Gould and others say that the government is doing a sales job on tariffication to make it palatable to Canadians. He says: "You have the Easter Bunny, you have Santa Claus and you have tariffication. You might as well throw in the Tooth Fairy along with them".
It is essential that intervention be made at the highest level in order to lay these fears to rest. It is imperative that the Prime Minister meet with his counterparts in the U.S. and the European Community again. He must defend our supply management system when the very survival of our dairy, poultry and egg industries is at stake.
I do not think our farmers should expect or have to settle for anything less than our national leaders going to the wall to defend their interests and by extension the national interest of all Canadians.
I wish the Prime Minister and our negotiators success and support in these final negotiations.
While this is a national problem I would like to direct most of my remaining remarks to the situation in Atlantic Canada and what the impact on that region will be if our system of supply management is scrapped in favour of tariffication.
Producers are asking for clarification of article XI, not tariffication.
In Atlantic Canada the national problems are compounded by our distance from supplies and from markets. Loss of our supply management system would be a devastating blow to those industries and to the economy of Atlantic Canada.
In the words of the Milk Marketing Board chairman, Gordon MacBeath, "It would mean the end of the dairy industry in this country. We would see massive imports of dairy products from the U.S. into central Canada, and under pressure to keep their markets in central Canada, these central Canadian dairies would start moving into the eastern markets. It would be the end of the small dairy holdings."
Farm organizations throughout Atlantic Canada, the four premiers, the four agriculture ministers, and the four members of Parliament are all on record supporting in strongest possible terms the concept of supply management. They insist that Canada must not agree to the tariffication proposed. It is their considered opinion that it would be tragic if the future of supply management is not secured in these final negotiations.
Just to conclude, I would like to say that the move to tariffication would, in essence, deliberately create in our country a region which would be virtually incapable of producing basic foods. Contrary to the argument that supply management fosters inefficiency and higher prices, we will find that food prices in Atlantic Canada will actually increase.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Egmont for its presentation. I think the concerns that he has identified among farmers from his region are similar to those of fanners
February 12, 1992

elsewhere. However, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is five minutes to midnight in these negotiations. Suddenly, after two years of telling us that everything was going fine, that everything was under control, that we had nothing to worry about, that it was doing a fine job, at five to midnight the government tells us that it is panicking. It is forced to admit in this House, at the request of the opposition, that it has only six allies among 108 countries. Yesterday, Mr. Germain Denis, the international trade assistant deputy minister, told a committee something that worries me a lot and that leads me to ask myself whether the government has a double agenda, that is, it would take a very tough public stand, but once at the negotiating table over there, it would be shy as a child. Mr. Germain Denis, the assistant deputy minister at international trade, who is very honest, no doubt, said: "We must understand one thing about this agricultural issue. Whether in our exporting industries or in our supply management industries, the status quo is not the correct solution."
I always thought that after the struggle of our farmers during the last 30 years, the status quo in milk, eggs, poultry was acceptable and viable. I would like my colleague from Egmont to comment on that statement of the assistant deputy minister. There seems to be two kinds of speeches, one for the public and one for discreet negotiations with a double talk, a double agenda. What are my colleague's views on that? Because the results are so minor that they worry me.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the feeling that the producers were receiving in January of this year that even though they put their faith and trust in government that they would fight to keep it.
They could not believe themselves that the United States or the rest of the v/orld in fact would ask us to make such a sacrifice in the name of world trade.
We had put our entire trust in GATT. I know during the past election we said that the free trade agreement did not protect supply management systems and that we would put our faith in GATT.
Now we are finding that our negotiators at GATT and the government really have not been able to convince the rest of the world, particularly the United States, that we are not the problem. Our producers in Canada and supply management are not the problem.
Supply
The government has already caved in on the pharmaceutical side. Surely it can use that ace with the United States in particular saying: "We have already agreed to your GATT position on pharmaceuticals. Why can you not in turn, & this is a deal, say that Canadian farmers and supply market products will be able to have a waiver or an exception in this regard?"


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, my riding is Perth-Wellington-Waterloo which comprises all that great county of Perth and parts of the two great counties beside it, Wellington and Waterloo.
Indeed, it is a great county in the supply management area. In my riding I have over 1,000 supply managed milk producers and I would think between 75 and 100 supply managed poultry producers. Of course, all the milk and poultry producers are under the supply management scheme.
We are debating a very serious matter here today. It is indeed what I told the producers in my riding would happen at the end of all of the debate we have had for five years on the matter of supply management and article XI.
We are at the crisis time. This is the time when the real answers would be coming out. It was not particularly the free trade issue at the time. As the last member said, it was a matter of GATT and here we are. We are at the final end.
You would have noticed if you were in the House a little while ago or watching. I asked a question of a senior member of the opposition which was in government a long time ago and I hope never will be back there again. I asked the member: Do we need a GATT agreement?
He would not answer. He ducked the question. He simply would not answer the question. That is not a privilege that we have. We in government have to look at the greater good. Indeed we must have a GATT agreement; we must be part of it.
We have serious other problems in agriculture that demand that agreement as well. This does not take away my support for our position which was hammered out between the Government of Canada and the supply managed producers that we should stick with their position and our position right to the end.

February 12, 1992
Supply
Indeed, this might be a degree of a hazard, because if we were losing on the matter-and I believe that we are going to win on this matter at least to a degree-and we cannot debate the other factors that might come into the agreement, we could very well lose some advantages there that we could have gained had we been part of the negotiations.
I feel today and felt this particularly earlier in the debate that we have people who know something about the farming community. Certainly members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture have been speaking, but we heard about all farmers, all family farms.
I want to say that we are abusing a large number of other family farms, in fact, the majority of family farms that are not supply managed. We must keep in mind here, as a group, that the farmers are divided between supply managed farmers and those who are not. Those who are not are the majority.
That does not say, however, anything against the importance of this particular segment of the poultry and dairy operations and of the importance of supply management. Supply management has given us stability in the farming regions, particularly in my region, that was not seen 25 and 30 years ago in my capacity as a veterinarian serving these farmers.
I saw the lack of stability. I saw the people who geared up, bought the tanks and equipment, bought the cows, fixed their bams, to sell to a market in Toronto. I saw them lose that market just on a whim. I saw them fighting for price on a product that was perishable, that would not stay fresh for very long.
Now under supply management they have stability. That stability has generated a stability in rural life as well. As we go along the country roads-my farmers remind me of this regularly-in Ontario and indeed, I am sure anywhere where we have supply managed products, you see very fine, properly maintained buildings. Our dairy and poultry farmers are able to put together a stable structure and keep it up.
They are able to practice sustainable agriculture because they have a decent return on their production. Supply management has allowed them a stable rural structure.
Supply management has kept the family farm stronger than it would be otherwise. The words family farm are overused, but terribly important. The family farm as we know it is a matter of a family owning and supplying all the labour for that farm. But in the case of the family farm under supply management there are about 2.5 people working on that farm. I assume they must be supporting something like 2.5 families on average.
I would suggest that is probably the future of supply management with or without the agreement. Farms are going to get bigger and the family farm will be a place where several farm families work and have a decent life with time off.
Supply management has given us a safe and secure supply of milk and poultiy products. There is little direct subsidy. We heard a figure of $267 million going directly to manufactured milk producers. What they get out of the market is based on a border that is relatively closed, not totally closed, to the import of our product and on a cost of production formula. There may be some degree of subsidy going into the products in that particular respect.
I want the non-farm people to know this because it is important. The amount of money our supply managed farmers get in any form is equal to or less than that which American farmers get through their system. They supposedly have no subsidy yet there are many areas in which they do get it. Supply management provides a product, stability and a secure and safe supply without excess subsidy which other countries would supply.
When I looked at the motion this morning, I found I was going to have difficulty in supporting it. I have two or three areas I might mention before I sit down.
I noticed that the term unequivocally was used. It did not say: Do not support an agreement that does not include this. It says: Support this if it is there. It was not strong enough that we really want to push right to the very end to support our position on supply management.
February 12, 1992

I noticed as well that in the original motion somehow the drafters of the motion in the NDP talked about milk, eggs, hatching eggs, chicken and turkey but left out other products with potential supply management possibilities. I would mention in particular the apple industry. I would think the maple syrup industry would be a logical one in Quebec.
I felt the motion lacked in that particular regard as well. The area I was particularly concerned about in this motion was the fact of the Crow benefit. Somehow the NDP, and indeed we have heard it endorsed by a speaker from the Liberal Party, would prejudge how the Crow benefit should be paid. Do not consult. Do not go to the farmers as a whole. TMk only to their supporters and prejudge how it would be paid. I maintain that we must talk to the farmers and we must come up with a consensus about the best way to handle this benefit. We must make sure they still get the same amount of benefit or an adjusted amount as it increases.
I want to say that I am totally behind this motion as amended. I was a little concerned about the subamendment from the Official Opposition that directed how the Prime Minister would get involved. We know he is involved. We know of his concern for agriculture. We know he will be there on the front lines but they seem to be pinning it down on a particular type of meeting and I was a little concerned there.
I am willing to support this motion. We in the government know how important supply management is to the agricultural industry in Canada. We will carry forward our joint position right to the end in these trade negotiations to get a successful ending.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a very defeatist speech from the Tory chairman of the committee on agriculture. From beginning to end, the chairman admitted defeat. He repeated several times: "If we do not succeed at GATT, if we lose-" Mr. Speaker, I wish no one such a negotiator at such an important moment.
Tonight, if I were a milk, poultry, or egg producer, I would feel terribly insecure after listening to the speech of the Tory chairman of the committee on agriculture. He certainly must be knowledgeable. All the information that he gets has led him to throw in the towel. I think this
Supply
is unacceptable from government members who have taken such formal commitments to their farmers. In 1988 they even campaigned, with their hands on their hearts, promising to strengthen article XI, and touring the countryside, they said: "Your lands and your farms are not in jeopardy, we will protect them."
Just now, the Tory chairman of the committee on agriculture said: "But if we have to, we will sign anyway, even if we have to sacrifice you on the GATT altar". What about this policy position, Mr. Speaker? He told us: "We will hold on to our principles until the signing".
I ask him: In the end, if you do not keep your commitments to Quebec and Canadian farmers, as far as supply management is concerned, will you sign anyway? Will you throw away your commitments, and will you sacrifice the farmers?


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, we have seen a great example of what one of the speakers on the other side called playing with words. Regardless of how realistic and proper one is in one's statements, someone like this member will stand up and play with words. At this particular time he chooses not to be in the real world but in whatever world but that he exists in there.
Our farmers deserve and need support. I will fight to make sure that they get support in this particular regard. If we fail to get this support I will challenge anybody to say that we have the power to reach out and shake the European Community and shake the Americans and say: "You must come to our way". If we do not get the support in this particular fashion, they must have support in equal kind in whatever way we can provide under the trade agreement.
I am fully in support of their position and I am fully in support of them having their proper support.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member for Perth-Wellington- Waterloo said that he will support the motion plus the amendment and subamendment. The subamendment does call upon the Prime Minister to involve himself personally in GATT negotiations in the interest of Canada's dairy, egg and poultry producers by meeting with the President of the United States and the President of the European Community in order to secure their support and co-operation.

February 12, 1992
Supply
The member said that we have been debating supply management and the protection of this system for five years. Elis government has been in power for seven years, and after five years his Prime Minister could not convince more than five other countries to support this great supply management system. This is another Canadian institution which other countries would love to have but do not have. Here is a government again dismantling it just as it has dismantled a lot of other Canadian institutions. Here is another Canadian institution that it wants to dismantle.
I speak from experience because my parents farmed for 22 years in Saskatchewan and could not support a family of six children. They had to abandon the farm and move to another way of life. Finally, for the last 20 years we have had some stability in the pricing system because we can control supply. I would like to veiy specifically ask the member this. If his party cannot convince more than five other countries to support this, what is the government's strategy after that?


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, we are not in a position really to consider a strategy after that for the very reason of this play on words. How can we consider another issue than the supply managed industry that we have at the particular time. We cannot talk about these other items because if we do, we will be seen to be backing off our main objective. I really wonder whether the hon. member's family was in a group that was supply managed. Was it poultry or dairy? It was probably what we would call cash crops in the east. I digress. I and the government insist that we carry through with our main objective. Then if we fail at that point we will have to look at what other alternatives there are to support our farmers totally and properly, as they deserve. I have confidence we are not going to fail.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate.
Having looked at the motion, I see five facets to it. I am going to limit my remarks in the time available to two of them. One is the matter of the Crow benefit. The other is the export subsidies.
In regard to the Crow benefit, members will recall that this historic benefit, dating from 1897, called for the transportation of prairie grain to export at a rate of half a cent a ton mile. "Half a cent a ton mile forever" was the expression that was used in the prairie schoolhouses for many years. Members will know also that that ended back in 1983 with the passage of the Western Grain Transportation Act, which enshrined the then value of the Crow benefit to prairie producers at what now amounts to some $720 million. That $720 million covers about two-thirds of the cost of shipping the prairie grain to export. The other third is borne by the prairie producer.
There are nice arguments ongoing as to whether this Crow benefit should continue to be paid to the railways as specified under the Western Grain Transportation Act or whether there should be a change in the method of payment so that the moneys would go to the actual producer.
That is a bit of a side issue here in the context of the discussion of the Dunkel proposals and any possible GATT accord. -
Over the prairies and other parts of Canada at the present time there have been a series of transportation discussion meetings. These were commissioned as a result of the unanimous agreement of the agriculture ministers of the country back at their meeting in Kana-naskis in July of last year. The 10 provincial ministers and the federal minister agreed that a number of agriculture-related transportation issues would be put out to the farm community for discussion. Among them was the matter of payment of the Crow benefit.
The fact is that the method of payment of the Crow benefit is not really part and parcel of a GATT proposal. It is true that if the Dunkel text was accepted and if a final accord is reached along those lines there could be a reduction in the amount of the Crow benefit. This would be a phased-in reduction over a period of six years. The Crow benefit could however still remain and the method of payment could remain as is.
I think it is a little bit of a side issue to talk in terms of retaining the Crow benefit in its present form in the wording of this particular motion. The fact is that nothing in the proposed GATT wording calls for a change in the method of payment at all.
February 12, 1992

I do want to also address the matter of the export subsidies. I come from a grain-producing area in southwestern and south central Saskatchewan. I would guess my constituency grows the largest amount of wheat for export in the country, certainly the highest quality wheat.
I can say unequivocally that the sale of grain for export is the engine that drives my area and, I believe, drives the Saskatchewan economy as a whole. That is a fact that has been recognized, not just by the government federally, but by successive provincial governments within Saskatchewan. The fact is that agriculture is the number one item and the number one priority. It has been treated as such by this government.
We have faced over the past number of years a very unfortunate diminution in international grain prices as a result of the disastrous export subsidy wars which we have seen between the superpowers, the European Common Market and the United States. The world price for wheat has sunk to the point where it has been in the $2 range with predictable effects on our farming communities in Saskatchewan and across Canada.
This government has supported prairie agriculture through a series of initiatives from the 1985 drought, Special Grains I, Special Grains II, the western grain stabilization changes, crop insurance, the Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program, the FSAM I and II programs and, of course, the establishment of the long-term measures, NISA and GRIP, which were designed by the agricultural community to address the need for more certainty, more stability and the need for producers to know what their bottom line would be from year to year. Those programs are in their phase-in stage and I believe in the long term they will provide a level of stability that is very much needed in that sector.
The tragedy is that we had to have recourse to various ad hoc programs over the past number of years. The farm community does not like these programs. They do not like the programs, government does not like the programs and certainly the taxpayer of the country does not like the programs.
The problem is that when we come up against the United States and the European Community in providing support for farmers, it is very difficult because we are caught on this double-edged sword. One side of the sword is our dependence on export markets; 84 per cent
Supply
of our wheat is destined for export. The other side of the sword is our limited population. We have 27 million people in this country compared to some 330 million in Europe, 250 million in the United States. Farmers are tremendously dependent on exports and, at the same time, we have a very much smaller population able to find the money with which to subsidize the programs.
The programs that we have put in place cost the Canadian taxpayers, in their opinion, too much, and at the same time, do not support to the producers in the way in which, I am sure, all members in this House would like to see.
What is the root cause of it? It is pretty obvious. It is the intervention of other governments in other countries into agriculture. If we could get these major powers out of agriculture, out of this business of harmful subsidies, then I believe that our producers can compete with the best of them. There is no question that our Canadian producers can grow grain at lower cost and more efficiently than virtually any other area in the world with the possible exception of certain parts of the United States.
The objective clearly has to be to try to work internationally in any way we can to try to bring down these harmful subsidies. What I see in the Dunkel draft proposals is a considerable amount of hope. This may well be the light at the end of the tunnel for an area of our country which has been hard hit over a number of years.
The Uruguay round has been going on for better than five years. Some 108 countries have been at the table. All of them want the same thing, Every single country at that GATT table wants to have things wide open where they are strong and competitive and they want to close it up tight where they are weak or perceive that they are vulnerable to competition.
Canada is no different; 107 other countries feel the same way. What that tells me, Mr. Speaker, and I think it must be obvious to everyone is in that process of bargaining, you are going to get some of the things you want but you are not going to get everything you want. You reach some form of compromise. There is no way that Canada is going to achieve every facet, every possible objective that it has had on the table over the past five years.

February 12, 1992
Supply
In brief, the Dunkel proposals call for reductions of something like 36 per cent on expenditure outlays and 24 per cent of the volume of export subsidies. These cuts applied to the average annual amount on the base period from 1986 to 1990, put in plain terms, means a reduction of the European Community support by something in the order of 40 per cent. In terms of the dollar amount of the U.S. export subsidies, it is perhaps 50 per cent.
That can be nothing but good news for a grain and oil seeds sector that has been very hard hit. I do not believe that it would be in the interests of this country, or indeed of members of this House, to insist that Canada achieve every possible element of perfection in a possible GATT agreement.
The fact is that this draft text-I assume it is getting near the final stages because after all, these countries have been at the table for five years-if it is accepted by all of these 108 nations I think will be good over all for Canada.
Canada cannot unilaterally walk away from a process like this and leave 107 countries at the table. It cannot say: "Fine, you go ahead. We are going to drop out. We are going to leave the civilized world. We are going to function as a pariah group on our own. We are going to be at the mercies of the winds".
I think that would be a completely and utterly irresponsible approach. I have faith in our negotiators and I have faith that in the process the best interests of Canada are being pursued. Recognizing that we cannot possibly achieve every single element that we would like, all of the participants in this process are going to have take some water in their wine. All are going to come away with something less than they wish. That is the nature of negotiations, the give and take. On balance and looking at these proposals, I believe that over all, they are beneficial for Canadian agriculture and for Canada.
Hopefully it will be possible to strengthen them. Hopefully it will be possible to make the proposals better. However, I say that we cannot unilaterally walk away from an agreement that I believe over all is positive for Canadian agriculture.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I found myself agreeing more than disagreeing with the hon. member who just spoke until he got to the end and said that over all he felt that this agreement in its present form would be good for Canada.
My assessment, and that of many other people, is that this agreement in its present form would do for the structure of Canadian agriculture what the free trade agreement has done for the structure of manufacturing in Ontario. It is something we should all be alarmed about and something that we need to fight vigorously to resist.
There are two questions which I would like to address to the hon. member. In his remarks he mentioned the WGTA and the Crow benefit. I took from his remarks- and I hope I interpreted them correctly-that the amendment which the government made to our motion removing the words "in its present form" means that we can make the technical changes to WGTA which might be required under a GATT agreement and does not mean that this government is going to try to piggy back in changes to the method of payment under the guise of the GATT agreement. I think our negotiators have said very clearly that that is not the case.
Second, I would like to ask the member a question with respect to the Prime Minister's involvement in this issue. We have heard discussion today about the Prime Minister meeting with farm groups on February 18.
I assumed that the meeting that people were talking about was the Prime Minister accepting the long-standing invitation of the supply management groups to meet with them to address their concerns.
However, I have just found out that the Prime Minister has called a meeting of his own to which he has invited farm leaders from all sectors, including the grains and oil seeds sector and the suspicion is-the member might tell me that this is unfounded-that this might well be an attempt to divide and conquer the farm community. The concerns of the supply management people will be diluted in those discussions by the input and the presence of people who do not have the same concerns with this particular GATT agreement.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first point regarding the WGTA benefit, I must tell the hon. member that I had the opportunity during the break in January to attend eight of the transportation hearings that were in my riding and benefited very much from them. I was able to hear the points of view of producers across an area of some 25,000 square miles and from what I heard from producers in my area was that the majority of them would favour retaining the Crow benefit in its present form, that is that it continue to be paid to the railways. Indeed, I have conveyed what I have heard to my colleagues down here.
February 12, 1992

At a couple of those meetings I also was put in a position of having to intervene and was able to point out that the GATT proposals may have some impact on the method of payment in the sense that there might be some reduction in the global amount but that nowhere in those proposals did it call for a change in the method of payment.
As the hon. member knows, there are at the present time across the country some 137 of these workshop style meetings that were initiated by the federal and provincial governments. I might say in passing I think it is unfortunate that the provincial government in Saskatchewan chose to back out of this process because I am not sure it was the responsible position to take. In any event these hearings are ongoing. The input received from producers will be gathered, summarized and presented to the various ministers across the country. No doubt further meetings will be convened among the 11 agriculture ministers and some decisions may or may not be taken. That, after all, was the whole purpose of this hearing process and this entire exercise.
The hon. member also raised the matter of the Prime Minister's involvement in regard to the GATT accord and these various agricultural issues. It is the hon. member's party which posed this motion which speaks to about five items. It talks about GATT. It talks about the maintenance of a viable and effective supply management. It talks about article XI. It talks about the Crow. It talks about export subsidies and environmental impact assessments and so on.
He talks about dividing and conquering, but the fact is that I think this motion is intact. There are five aspects to it, and I think it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to meet with farm leaders across the country so that he can talk with them about the five items which the hon. member's own party has put on the floor.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I was involved in the supply marketing system in the dairy industry for most of my life. I remember what it was like before supply management and where it put us. It is important to note that supply management controls supply and orderly marketing.
In this case it means that farmers produce food for a fair price and are not in financial trouble. It is important to note that today the Canadian chicken agency indicated
Supply
that within three years 86 per cent of Canadian producers would likely be out of business. Of 2,411, only 330 would remain.
Within two years they expect that the poultry industry will have ceased in Atlantic Canada.
I urge the government to support article XI and supply management. It is the backbone of the mixed farming industry in Prince Edward Island and Atlantic Canada, and it is a system that takes care of itself. It supplies food. If we look at the United States and the great difficulty the farmers are having there, if we look at the great difficulty in the Soviet Union where they do not have enough food, I think it is very important. We have the best system in the world today.
I urge the government to press forward and support article XI and supply management.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I think we seriously have to ask whether the government is credible in this debate today and whether the government is levelling with us. The evidence would indicate no to both questions.
I say that because the agriculture minister this afternoon certainly put his remarks in the past tense, indicating that he feels that the Dunkel report is a finished job and will become part of a new GATT agreement. In other words, the government has caved in. It has thrown the towel in.
The member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assi-niboia, who just finished speaking moments ago, certainly sounded as if he had thrown in the towel. He pretty well said: "That is all we are going to get, we had better take it".
There is another piece of evidence to indicate that the government has caved in. At the agriculture committee meeting yesterday and again today when department officials or members of this government spoke, they were very happy to talk about the consequences of a new GATT agreement, that is if it has to do with the WGTA, the farm safety net programs, or consequences dealing with subsidies or prices. They will talk your head off about those possible consequences resulting from a new GATT deal including the Dunkel report.

February 12, 1992
Supply
However, if you ask them about the impact on supply management, they suddenly become mute. They do not say anything. They do not give us any information. Has one member of the government stood up today and described the possible consequences to supply management if the Dunkel report is accepted? Not on your life. They will not say anything.
We asked the government for any results of impact studies. We asked last week. It started off saying that there was not even an impact study requested. Of course we know that is not true.
Why will it not give us this information? It is because it knows dam well that it would be embarrassed with the results if they were made public. What would be the impact on self-sufficiency of food in this country? That is a very responsible request. Should we not have that information? Food is very important to us. A country should be able to feed itself. Yet when we ask the government if it has done a study with respect to self-sufficiency in food, the answer is that apparently it has not. To me, that is sheer irresponsibility. Has there been an impact study on the environment? No.
I do not think there has been any kind of impact study, or at least it is withholding the results with respect to the so-called numbers. We get the numbers from the supply management people but we get nothing from this government.
If we lose supply management, let us face it, it is the end of orderly marketing for that sector of agriculture. It is the end of orderly marketing. It is the end of stability in that sector of agriculture. There is no doubt about it.
What we will have, and let us put it in straight words, will be dog eat dog, the law of the jungle. It will be a wild, unfettered open market system. That is what we will get.
We have had one of the most responsible, stable, productive sectors of the agricultural economy and we are going to do what? Give it away. That is what it looks like. We will lose the family farm. It will be replaced by huge, greedy, gluttonous corporate farms. We will be closer to the American style. We will be closer to the
United States model, which is dominated by chaos and a lot of impoverished farmers. Is that the kind of system we want? It certainly looks like it to me when you listen to the government members speaking.
What we have in the way of supply management in this countiy is the envy of the world. In 20 years the system has grown tremendously. It has been tremendously successful. It has given consumers a strong supply of food at veiy good prices, the second best in the world. In the last 20 years the market has grown 50 per cent. To me, that is a mark of success. Are we going to blow it?
Australia did away with supply management. I have a piece of news for those consumers who might think that if we could just do away with supply management we would get lower prices. Look at the Australian experience. It has not had lower prices.
What is at stake is a $10 billion industry, and possibly as many as 100,000 jobs are at stake. Let us not forget the value of quotas or the value of the investment. It has been estimated that if we lose supply management, if the Dunkel report goes through as is, quotas now worth billions will be lost overnight.
The reason we proposed our subamendment is simple. We want the Prime Minister involved in these negotiations.
The Prime Minister should be embarrassed. He goes around telling the world he is a good friend of George Bush. In fact he even goes boating with him at Kenne-bunkport. He is a member of the G-7. He got George Bush to help him try to get the United Nations job. Why is he not calling in a few IOUs. Why is he not getting George Bush onside? The man should be embarrassed. That is why we are proposing this subamendment, to get the Prime Minister involved, to make him put his money where his mouth is. He stands up and says: "We are for clarifying and strengthening article XI". If that is the case, get to Bush and get to the President of the European Community.
I have just one more remark, Mr. Speaker.
February 12, 1992

Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will give you 30 seconds.


John Harvard: There is still time. Let us not give up.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie would have sent a clear message that all of the parties and all of the members in this House unanimously support Canada's supply management system.
The amendment moved by the minister watered that down so we are now really congratulating the government whether it achieves anything or not.
Would the member who has just spoken consider this amendment to be yet one more piece of evidence of Canada's selling out its sovereignty on the altar of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement?


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure whether I caught the intent or the import of the question. However, it seems to me that giving away supply management is consistent with what this government gave away in the free trade deal. It is the same ideology, it is the same approach to marketing. It says: "Get government out of the way, get democracy out of the way, let us have an open market system and we will leave it to the big boys. Because after all the big boys are our friends and we have to help our big friends". That is what is behind this whole thing.
From day one I have been very suspicious of the government's motives. I have been very suspicious of the government position because I think, when you come right down to it, it does not want supply management. It wants dog eat dog, the law of the jungle. That is what it wants.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate tonight. As we are entering the final weeks of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations, otherwise known as the GATT, the question the Canadian public should be asking after this debate is whether the Prime Minister, the two agriculture ministers, our Canadian negotiators and this government, are doing, have done, and will do everything possible to retain article XI.
Obviously article XI must remain in the GATT. Certainly the farmers who are here this week and who will be here next week do not believe that the government has done everything it can possibly do. We do not believe it.
Our amendment tonight is that the Prime Minister see President Bush, see our allies in Europe and say how important article XI is to this country, to our farmers, to our communities which are dependent. Article XI, for those at home who are just tuning in, relates in the GATT to our ability as a country to secure a constant supply of domestically produced milk, eggs, chicken, and turkey with stable prices.
It is an uncertain time for Canadian industry. The farmers in the east, in the Atlantic, have the most to lose if article XI is not in the GATT. We are so far away from the big markets and we are so close to the United States we could be overrun by those products.
It has been said here in Canada the production alone of these farms goods; milk, dairy, eggs, and poultry is a $10.2 billion dollar industry.
In Atlantic Canada the dairy, egg and poultry industries in 1991 employed 6,250 people. The returns for that in 1990 in those same industries, dairy, egg and poultry, was $642.4 million. This accounts for 36 per cent of all Atlantic cash receipts.
Over 50 per cent of Nova Scotia agriculture is based on products of supply managed goods. In my own riding of South West Nova-and the most recent statistics are still only 1986, these are not today's-but if you go by 1986, the last census taken, there were 79 supply managed farms.
This is only 13 per cent of the farms in my riding but they accounted for 30 per cent of the total farm sales in South West Nova. Those farm sales were $30,794,837 and every dollar counts in South West Nova as it does in all of Nova Scotia when you think of how many jobs have been lost in the area.
We are not talking beef. We are not talking pork. We are not talking mink, fox or fruit. We are talking dairy, egg and poultry in a very small area of Canada.
Supply management has given Canada a prosperous, productive agricultural sector. We have developed sup-

February 12, 1992
Supply
ply management with our domestic needs in mind only, not to go after other markets.
The fact that article XI is on the table at all is because of the absurd subsidy war between the United States and Europe. It has been estimated that if the Dunkel agreement goes ahead and quotas are eliminated, our supply managed farmers will face a massive drop in the value of their assets. I do not want to go into that because my time is limited, but this does not consider the immediate impact of quota on farm financing.
Bankers have often used 50 per cent of quota value as collateral for loans. Taking this indirect value into account, it has been estimated that under tariffication, which is what we will have in this industry if this government does not get to work fast, dairy farmers could face a drop of between 35 per cent and 40 per cent in the value of their farm assets.
According to the report that was given to us by the backgrounder here today, the industry will be particularly hard hit from the start in the maritimes and in the west. Producers and processors will be forced out of business. I take that as a direct quote on the east. It will affect all of Canada. We will not be able to compete if there is no article XI for our own domestic needs to be supplied here in Canada.
I said earlier that the question Canadians have to ask and have to ask every politician in this House is: Is this government, is our Prime Minister, actually doing enough for Canadians? I say that in light of the motion that is before us tonight, and I would like to re-read it.
We would like to see, and our motion amended the main motion before this House: "that this House call upon the Prime Minister to involve himself personally in the GATT negotiations in the interests of Canada's dairy, egg and poultry producers by meeting with the President of the United States and with the President of the European Community in order to secure their support and to do so in co-operation with other countries that agree with Canada's position on a strengthened and clarified GATT article XT'.
Now I only want to say two things in the two minutes that are left to me. We cannot afford as a country not to put all our effort into maintaining article XI, because we do not have the same conditions that they do in the United States. Our climate is different; we have fewer
people; and we have transportation costs that are very high for most Canadians, if they have to pay the actual cost.
We came up with a beautiful plan called supply management. I do not understand why our Canadian supply management has to be questioned under the GATT. I do not understand why our ministers of agriculture, the two of them, and our Prime Minister and our negotiators cannot from this day on be talking to our allies in Europe and in Canada. We are not hurting them with our supply management. It is a subsidy war perhaps that is going on between the United States and Europe in their agricultural forum. Why take it out on Canada's supply management?
You know we have allies that we should be going after. We do not see the Prime Minister meeting with Japan; we do not see him going after other allies that are with us on this problem. We don't see him doing anything.
That is why, as I said before, the farmers are here today. That is why they are meeting next week. Unless we impress on the Prime Minister and his ministers of agriculture to go out and start negotiating to keep article XI, I am afraid our agricultural industry will be very much depleted.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for South West Nova on an excellent speech which was very moving and factual.
In my riding of Kent I have many who are in supply management and the marketing boards. They are very concerned about the government's attitude in the GATT negotiations, and especially article XI. They feel that the government is not putting their whole thrust into fighting for the farmers.
The farmers are extremely upset. I have had many meetings in my office with the confederation of agriculture, the milk marketing board, the poultry board throughout the last few months. They feel that the government is not going in good faith and fighting on their behalf.
Being in the farming business myself, it worries me immensely because I will come up short. Maybe it is a little greed on my side. But we have the best farming operations in Canada-and I live right on the American border so I know what we are competing against with the Americans-I know the way they are being abused.
February 12, 1992

I would like to ask the hon. member if she has talked to many of her constituents and heard their feelings, their gut reactions to what the government is doing on the GATT deliberations.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many of the supply managed farmers in Nova Scotia and they are concerned. They know we live very close to the American border.
It was very interesting today. One of the representatives of the group that met us in caucus, a Mr. Crone I think, from B.C., said he lived right at the border, the 49th parallel. He saw his American neighbour's farm not in the same condition as his own farm because the American farmer was on a laissez-faire type of farm endeavour and we had a supply managed operation.
He could see exactly what his farm would be like if it would happen to him next year when there is no article XI.
Just ask the pork producers, I have a good many of them in my riding, what free trade has done. We were to have a mechanism that would protect us. It has not protected us. The pork producers have spent millions of dollars to impress upon this government that it must work harder to keep article XI and they received a slap in the face. That was not going to be followed in the U.S. Who wins in this game with the Americans?


M. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity today to be part of this debate. I must say, however, that this situation is of great concern for the constituents of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. In my riding, according to Agriculture Canada, there are 109 milk producers, as well as many poultiy and egg producers. So if GATT creates problems in my riding, if farmers lose their livehood, they of course will suffer but so will the whole of our society, because they make up such a large part of our community.
The supply managed industry generates some $10 billion in revenues in Canada. Some 100,000 jobs are at stake here today and some 40,000 family farms are in danger. Why? Because our government is failing. That's why. Since 1987, Canada has been taking part in talks to amend the multilateral GATT agreement, the famous Uruguay round. What are some of its purposes? Well,
Supply
Mr. Speaker, first, the nations want to include agriculture in the GATT provisions and in doing so, put an end to the export subsidy war going on between some countries. I think everybody wants to see that subsidy war come to an end. But that is not the point. What will be the cost of putting an end to that war? We must sacrifice some innocent people because, evidently, in the egg, milk and poultry industry, exportation is not an item. There is practically none. So they did not cause the export war, at least not the producers of the commodities that I just mentioned. And even so, Canada is not to blame in this export war, which is mainly between the United States of America and the European Common Market. In any case, the producers I just listed are not part of it and of course have nothing to gain and eveiything to lose.
In December, Art Dunkel, the president of the GATT negotiations, tabled a document which included all the articles on which the parties agreed; in cases where there was no agreement, he chose a middle position himself or a position of his own and put it in his report, which he then circulated. What does that document include? It includes a tariff system to replace article XI of GATT which allows us today to have quantitative restrictions at the border. Of course, those tariffs will be lowered by about 6 per cent a year or 36 per cent over six years. The tariffs will eventually be eliminated, in some cases in the short term, in others it will take longer. Of course, nothing will prevent U.S. imports from flooding the Canadian market and undermining the whole credibility of the supply management system we have in Canada.
The hon. member for Algoma put it well just now. He asked the Prime Minister to get involved personally in these negotiations; he demanded that he telephone or contact the President of the United States, the President of the European Common Market and the other parties so that Canadian producers of milk, poultry and eggs, who have nothing to do with that subsidy war, will not be the victims. What the hon. member for Algoma asks is quite reasonable. It is now up to the Prime Minister. It was up to him from the beginning, but it is not enough to telephone George Bush in Washington. The Prime Minister himself should have gone there and elsewhere to ensure that 100,000 jobs and 40,000 family farms in Canada were not jeopardized. Now we are at the eleventh hour of the last day and what should have been done has not been done. Of course, since it has not been

February 12, 1992
Supply
done, or at least not done well enough, our producers are now threatened.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, I asked whether, in light of the Dunkel report, the government had at least found out what damage would be done by these measures. I asked whether there was an impact study. The minister said on page 6768 of Hansard yesterday:
-no formal request for an impact study has been received-
I have in my hand a letter dated January 10, 1992 and signed by the president of the Canadian Milk Producers Federation, who says:

"We therefore urge the federal government to provide us with such an assessment". In the previous sentence it describes that assessment as an impact assessment. Why were we not even given by the minister yesterday, and I will put this kindly, accurate information about whether such an assessment was sought and was done?
I have my opinion about it. Such an assessment was done but the government will not share the results with this House or with anyone else. If the day comes when it signs that agreement the way it is then it will have to plead guilty to causing all that damage, the proof of which will be in the assessment in question. That is why the government will not provide it.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to tell the Prime Minister that the 109 dairy fanners in Glengarry- Prescott-Russell want to continue to operate their family farms. All they want is the government's co-operation and our support. They want to continue to earn their living honestly. It seems to me that is quite a reasonable request.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell spreading all kinds of gloom and doom and expressing all kinds of fears which in my opinion are not justified, just like his Liberal colleagues and NDP members have been doing all evening.
Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Could he
mention in the House a single instance, a single statement, either in the press or on the radio, by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of State for Agriculture, that says that Canada is abandoning its position on protecting the interests of Canadian farmers, on asking for clarification and reinforcement of article XI, and on protecting marketing boards? Could he quote a single statement to that effect? I want to hear a statement in which government representatives at GATT indicated that we were abandoning those positions, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I go by the results, not by the hon. member's questions. The result is the Dunkel document we have today, which is a threat, not according to the hon. member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell but according to the marketing boards for milk, turkey and egg producers, the chicken marketing boards and the board for hatching eggs and roasters. All these boards have told us about the potential impact of the Dunkel report. The point is not what the Prime Minister did but what he did not do. He failed to do his duty. He did not do what he should have done to protect agriculture.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to join in this debate today because for the farming community I represent this is a veiy important debate.
We want the people in the Fraser Valley to know that this government and members on both sides of this House are in support of what Canada is trying to do in the GATT negotiations.
To begin with, I would like to restate the government's position in the GATT talks. Canada went into the Uruguay round of negotiations in 1986 with four principal objectives.
First of all, we were seeking substantial reductions in trade distorting subsidies, particularly export subsidies. Second, we wanted improved, predictable and more secure access to export markets through a reduction in tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
February 12, 1992

Third, we wanted clearer and fairer GATT rules that apply equally to all countries, including a strengthened and clarified article XI-I will have more to say about this point later-the elimination of countries' specific exemptions and better disciplines on the use of countervailing duties. [DOT]
Fourth, we wanted to see the development of a framework of rules to prevent the abuse of health and sanitary regulations as disguised barriers to trade.
It bears repeating that this position was drafted with the full co-operation of all parts of the agrifood industry. In our recent discussions with industry representatives they have asked us to hold firm to this stand, and we have agreed.
I, along with a number of our colleagues this morning, met with the leadership of the marketing agencies. In the clearest terms possible, this was Canada's position in 1986 and it is Canada's position now. It will be our position when the negotiations conclude.
The negotiators have been back at work in Geneva for almost a month now, working with the draft text prepared by Arthur Dunkel, the GATT Secretary-General and chairman of the agriculture negotiating group.
Canada has joined with the other 107 GATT members in accepting this draft as the basis for negotiations because we believe it holds considerable promise for establishing a freer, more stable and less distorted agricultural trading community.
Reductions in trade distorting domestic support and substantial cuts in subsidized exports would create a more level international playing field.
This would help to bring the agricultural trade war under effective control and allow Canadian farmers to compete on fairer terms. It would also have a more positive effect on grain and other agricultural commodity prices in the long term.
We would still be free to support our farmers through programs that are best intended for Canadian agriculture. There are no limits on how much government support can be provided if it meets the "green" criteria. "Green" support measures will be free from countervail.
That is a thumbnail sketch of what is proposed in the Dunkel text as a basis for further negotiations. However,
Supply
we are disappointed that the draft text does not call for the strengthening and clarification of article XI, the section of the GATT agreement which allows us to impose border controls on supply managed products.
Instead, Mr. Dunkel would have us replace our current import quotas with tariffs and we would be unable to impose any import quotas during the implementation period. Mr. Dunkel has told us that he believes comprehensive tariffication without exception is the only possible way to reconcile the United States and the European Community.
In his view it is the possible way to secure an agreement. I want to re-emphasize that Canada does not agree with Mr. Dunkel's assessment of the situation.
While we are treating the Dunkel paper as a basis for negotiations, we have remained as committed as ever to a clarified article XI. Our ambassador made this point very clearly on January 13 when the talks resumed.
Our experience with supply management tells us that it is an effective marketing system that does not distort trade. We continue to believe that the best way to protect supply management is through a strengthened and clarified article XI. I should point out that article XI, as it stands, is not an acceptable alternative.
Recent GATT panel rulings have raised a number of uncertainties as to which processed products are eligible to receive import protection under article XI. In the past several months, the Canadian government has worked tirelessly to promote our position with Mr. Dunkel and the other GATT members. The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, and the Minister of State for Agriculture have met their counterparts from the United States, the European Community, Japan, Korea and other GATT members.
In replying to a question from the opposition last week asking whether he had been part of the GATT talks with other heads of state, the Prime Minister said as reported in Hansard for February 5:
I have met with everybody from Art Dunkel to President Bush, to President Mitterrand and to the president of the European commission. We had a meeting with Jacques Delors that lasted in excess of three hours precisely on this point. We made the case, chapter and verse, about its importance not only to the nation but to each individual producer. We are going to make it again.

February 12, 1992
Supply
At every opportunity we have pushed for support for the Canadian position, specifically the strengthening and clarifying of article XI of the GATT. Between now and March 1, when all participants are to table revised offers on agriculture, the negotiations are moving ahead on four tracks.
The trade negotiations committee is discussing possible changes to the package. The major delegations will have to agree here to any significant amendments. Inconsistencies and omissions in the draft text are being addressed by a legal drafting group without changing the balance of rights and obligations. Schedules of initial commitments on services are being developed in market access negotiations. Market access negotiations on goods are developing schedules of market access concessions as well as commitments on export subsidies and internal support for agriculture.
When the country schedules are tabled on March 1, intensive negotiations among trading partners will likely begin again. All parties agree that the round should be wrapped up by Easter. That will leave us just over eight months to prepare for implementation, which is to begin on January 1, 1993.
Speaking as the member from the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, when I go to farm meetings I am surprised at the age bracket of the people who attend these meetings. There are many young farmers getting into agriculture in Canada. I know they are concerned about what is happening at the GATT talks as we are concerned here in this House tonight. I want to assure them that we are doing everything in our power to make sure that we have a successful conclusion to this round of negotiations.
This is the first time that agriculture has been part of the GATT negotiations on all levels of the GATT, which started back in 1986. Our negotiating stance has not wavered since 1986 and it is consistent to this day. We ask for the support of the agriculture community and members from both sides of this House so that Canada's position is maintained on a consistent basis as we all want to ensure that we keep the supply management system we have in agriculture in our country.
The Government of Canada is committed to supply management and we are committed to the strengthening and clarifying of article XI.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: I have a very brief comment, Mr. Speaker. I am so very pleased that my colleague again has emphasized the government's position, that we are asking for strengthening and clarification of article XI. This has always been the position we have taken.
We also realize that Canada needs a successful end to the Uruguay round in order to enhance Canada's prosperity, to bolster exports, to improve the rules for trade, and to eliminate or reduce trade distorting effects of subsidies.
We realize all of this but we are still asking for strengthening and tariffication of article XI.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the hon. member. Before I do so I want to make a brief comment on this very important issue.
I have spoken in the House several times on the importance of the supply management system. My riding is in Prince Edward Island and in my province supply management products account for 17.6 per cent of the total cash receipts.
I talked to many farmers there and they are genuinely concerned about the lack of action on the part of this government.
Again, I call on the government to pull out all stops to ensure that the supply management system is protected and that article XI of GATT is strengthened and preserved.
I want to ask the hon. member why the government has not done an impact study when the dairy farmers of Canada have asked for such a study.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, this morning when we met with the agriculture people and asked each of the groups if they wished to participate with us in doing an impact study, every one with the feather industry said yes. The dairy people said they would have to go back and check to see whether or not they could.
I am reporting what was said in a meeting this morning with 17 or 18 others. We are not debating that question right now.
February 12, 1992

The dairy people, while they may be asking us to do an impact study all by ourselves, did not wish to participate in the impact study. Whether or not they have changed since then, I was also very concerned with the ad that the dairy people of Canada ran this past week. It would serve to let people know in our country that they think that maybe the government is not fighting on their behalf. This is a sad situation.
Everything that can be done is being done and will continue to be done.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, during the member's remarks I noticed he said that one of the advantages of the current Dunkel proposal would be better prices in the long run for grain farmers.
He should be aware of the half a dozen or so projected results that I have been able to see, none of which originated in Canada by the way. Yes, they usually project some increase in export prices but when you get down to the grain farm which in our case is quite a way inland, incomes are very much lower with deals that do away with the subsidies.
The effects on land rentals are quite dramatic downward. Land and rentals are worth about one-half under a full desubsidization. The only advantage and the one that keeps grain farmers in the discussions is that we will be spelling out some rules, I hope, so that countries like the United States and the European Community, big players, cannot come in and unilaterally change the terms of trade by government actions which will now have to comply with some GATT rules.
The GATT is not going to increase incomes to farmers. We will have to rely on El Nino or some dramatic weather change to do that. This political change is not going to mean better incomes for farmers. In fact, it will have the opposite result.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a comment. As a person who owns a dairy quota and now understanding what supply management means and also being part of the government, certainly my representations and my understanding must be different on what we are doing, from what the member from Glengarry- Prescott-Russell was saying and the kind of accusations he was making.
Supply
The government, from the Prime Minister on down is fighting diligently and persistently for the retention, the upgrading, the clarification and the strengthening of article XI.
I attended the meeting with the supply management people this morning and certainly they did not say that we were not and I do not think they said it when they went across and met with the Liberals in their caucus that this government was not working hard to have article XI retained.
The statements they are making certainly cannot be attributed to the supply management people because certainly they did not say that to us this morning. They wanted our help. They wanted to work together with us on it and that is the important thing, that we all work together on the retention of article XI, the strengthening and the clarification. We all want to do that.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, this debate rings with a familiar sound. It was in the 1960s that a group of us came back to this Parliament between Christmas and New Years to pass the National Farm Products Marketing Act.
Tonight we are debating whether we are going to retain the very farm management system that that act set up with the farm marketing boards across Canada.
The Americans are very adept at using non-tariff barriers to go against other industries in this nation, but here they want to destroy the farm management system in this country and get rid of those non-tariff farm barriers at a time when the farm community of this country is in dire need.
There is a lot of concern out there in this country and this government had better realize that it has to fight with everybody else on this issue.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.

February 12, 1992
Private Members' Business


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that some people were caught unaware by the decision and the timing of it. I suspect the hon. member anticipated being here for 8 p.m. Perhaps I could ask the Chair to suspend until then.


Mr. Hawkes:: It is a government member who is doing Private Members' Business. He is looking forward to this evening very much. If the House could suspend until his arrival or until 8 p.m. it would be appreciated.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of reform that was exhibited earlier this day by the government House leader, we would certainly subscribe to the views of the chief government Whip.


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am sure many members in the House will recall that I have argued on many occasions that these types of motions ought to be passed by the House without the government falling.
I am glad to see today that we have fulfilled one of the expectations of the McGrath committee report and had a free vote, in this case a unanimous vote on an opposition day motion. I look forward to further fulfilling those expectations in future votes of this kind in this Parliament and in future Parliaments.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting to the call of the bell?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will suspend the House until 8 p.m.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 7.52 p.m.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, a full review of the media's portrayal of violence toward and abuse of women and children, should be held by an appropriate committee of the House of Commons with the aim of making recommendations as to how better to protect innocent Canadians from being exposed to such portrayals without interfering unduly with artistic freedom and freedom of the press.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I indeed feel very fortunate to have the opportunity to speak to the House today on my private member's motion No. 534, introduced on May 23,
1991.	The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, a full review should be held by an appropriate committee of the House of Commons of the media's portrayal of violence toward women and children.
February 12, 1992

This review would make recommendations as to how we might protect innocent Canadians from being exposed to such portrayals without interfering unduly with artistic freedom and freedom of the press.
My comments will speak to the issue surrounding violence and abuse against women, violence against children, violence on aboriginal reserves, violence in rural communities as well as the media's coverage and the media's portrayal of these issues at the national and local level.
I wish to preface my remarks by indicating that the statistics I bring forward are not presented for sensational effect or drama. They are stated to bring to the attention and awareness of Canadians the magnitude of the problem of violence in our society.
My statistics have been gleaned from various sources, including Health and Welfare Canada, the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, transition house directors, aboriginal groups, Canadian publications, including the newsletter of the Federation of Women Teachers Associations of Ontario, as well as recent American and Canadian studies.
Canadian research indicates that the incidence of violence against women and children has escalated. In Canada in 1989, 119 women were murdered in domestic relationships. Most publications say that one in ten Canadian women is battered by her male partner. The Smith study from Toronto in 1987 suggests the number is closer to one in four women who is physically abused by her male partner.
The insidious part of all of this is that 80 per cent of the children in those homes witnessed their father's violence, thus leaving indelible scars on their developing personalities.
The Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres tells us that every 17 minutes a Canadian woman is raped. An alarming 84 per cent of assaulted women are raped by someone they know. Date rape is the newest form of violence for women to fear. The attitudes of young people toward date rape are disturbing.
Results of recent studies at Toronto high schools and York University found that 54 per cent of high school boys and 42 per cent of girls sampled said it was acceptable for a boy to hold a girl down and force her to have sexual relations with him if he had spent a lot of money on her, they had dated a long time, or she had led him on.
Private Members' Business
In another study, 65 per cent of the young men and 47 per cent of the young women thought a man could force a woman to have sex if they had been dating for more than six months.
Mr. Speaker, children are victims too. The true extent of physical and sexual abuse is difficult to determine because it is usually the most extreme cases which come to the attention of the authorities.
The Canadian Medical Association estimates that
8,000	children are badly injured by abuse every year. The Badgley report in 1984 claims that one of three males and two of three females have been victims of unwanted sexual acts before they reach the age of 21.
Statistics do not describe the scars that abusers leave on their victims. Men who battered consistently report that they had witnessed their mothers being battered and received physical abuse themselves. Violence was learned as a source of power and control in their first social group, the family.
The predicament of children who are captive in violent homes is terrible. In their study, "Children of Battered Women", Joffe, Wolfe and Wilson quote the work of L. Walker, and I quote as well:
Children who live in a battering relationship experience the most insidious form of child abuse.
Whether or not they are physically abused by either parent is less important than the pyschological scars they bear from watching their father beat their mother.
They learn to become part of the dishonest conspiracy of silence.
They learn to lie, to prevent inappropriate behaviour and they learn to suspend the fulfilment of their needs rather than risk another confrontation. They expend a lot of energy avoiding problems.
So continues that study.
Not every child exposed to wife battering becomes violent. But it is probably safe to say that children who witness violence will experience psychological consequences. Wife battering is a problem with so many implications that it can be believed as the invisible core of violence in our society.
Family violence and abuse affects everyone including all social, racial, cultural, religious, economic and professional classes. However, aboriginal family violence and abuse is becoming a major concern in Canada. Studies indicate that family violence is escalating dramatically in aboriginal communities. Often aboriginal people do not view the problem as one of offender-victim relationship so much as one of community dysfunction of which family violence is but one symptom.

February 12, 1992
Private Members' Business
Consequently, solutions should be viewed in terms of holistic community-wide healing processes which must be planned, developed and implemented by and with aboriginal people. At present, many social service personnel on reserves find they have neither the training nor the resources to deal with the dramatic increase in the number of disclosures of physical or sexual abuse. Indian communities must seek to empower themselves to resolve their problems. To achieve this end, they require long-term commitment from governments and their own leadership.
Violence against women and children is not limited to big cities across Canada. It is also a reality in rural Canada. Patterns are changing in rural Canada. Rural abuse has taken on a new dimension at a time where the economy of rural areas is bleak. All of the horrors of city family violence are right there along the gravel roads of rural Canada. Small communities are under stress, families are in conflict, alcohol and drug abuse are significant factors. All of these difficulties may well be the setting and may well be setting the stage in rural communities for ongoing abuse in families where there has been little prior history.
How does the media factor in all of the above, Mr. Speaker? The statistics would suggest the media contributes to and supports the culture of violence that the child sees in the home. Studies by Molnar indicate that in 1982, 3 to 11 year olds were exposed to 15 hours a week of violent cartoons. Carlsson-Paige and Levine found that by 1987 it had escalated to 43 hours a week. That was likely before the Ninja Turtles too I would suggest.
The average child could spend the equivalent of 22 school days a year watching violence on television. There is the potential for television to teach children a view which includes violence as an acceptable solution to resolving conflict. Friedrich-Cofer and Huston in 1986 concluded that television violence definitely affects aggression.
It should not be too surprising then that dating violence has become a problem in Canada. Young people from 12 to 17 years of age are the primary consumers of pornography in Canada. Check and Lacrosse in conducting surveys of attitudes toward pornography in metro Toronto high school students reported that 35 per cent of
those sampled reported watching scenes of rape, torture and bondage.
It would seem imperative therefore that those engaged in media programming as well as all forms of media reporting be made cognizant of the significance of their industry as to how it impacts as a role model upon our children and youth.
Solutions to the problem of violence and abuse must come from all sectors of society, including government at all levels.
The members in this House are aware of the initiatives which have been undertaken by the government over the last number of years to deal with the questions of violence against women and children in our communities. Many organizations outside government should be lauded for having joined forces with us to implement such initiatives as the Child Sexual Abuse Guidelines for community workers. I am proud to say that this protocol was developed by working professionals across Canada and it was indeed shared by a constituent, Laura Car-ment, who is the regional director of Child and Youth Services, Mental Health Services, Saskatchewan Mental Health in Regina.
The recently announced $136 million federal initiative on family violence will give all jurisdictions in Canada the opportunity over the next four years to develop programs to address the specific needs in their communities. There is, of course, support for the Canadian panel for violence against women established by the minister responsible for the status of women, to investigate the extent of violence in our society and to determine workable solutions.
There are those in Canada who would suggest the minister should ultimately call for a royal commission on violence against women.
These are laudable programs and initiatives, but we can and we must do more to address the problems of violence against women and children in Canada.
As the federal government, we should seek to form new partnerships with other levels of government, nongovernment organizations, professional associations, community groups and the private sector, to identify, treat and prevent problems of violence and abuse.
February 12, 1992

It is with this thought in mind that I put forward the view that the media has a pivotal role to play in facing the problems in being part of the solution in dealing with violence against women and children.
Since the media is one of the primary distributors of the message, I believe it is essential that the media should be enlisted to work in concert with our national goals and framework to deal with the problems of violence against women and children in our capacity to prevent family violence.
There are many questions which must be asked, and these are just but a few. Does the media have a code of ethics or protocol regarding the programming and reporting of scenes of violence and abuse against women and children. Would advertisers consider boycotting programs that display such violence? Would viewers consider boycotting both programs and advertisers who display and/or condone violence and abuse against women and children? These and other related questions constitute a major concern to me and I urge this House to give this matter serious consideration.
I would also at this time like to thank my wife, Shirley, for the role she played in the development of my interest and concern in this subject. Together we have a vision of Canada as a country that takes true and compassionate care of its children, its seniors and those who are defenceless against brutality, a country in which the vulnerable among us can live in dignity and safety, free from violence. I hope everyone in this House will share this vision with us.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to stand in this House tonight and support the motion by my hon. colleague and good friend, the member for Regina-Wascana. I certainly support very much the motion that he has brought forward.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of our burgeoning technological society today is the predeliction for violence in the media, and in particular in that most influential of the media, television. It just happened that last weekend Halifax was getting its third major storm in a week and I could not step outside my house. I was flipping around the television channels and on every commercial channel, as opposed to say Newsworld or some of the other news channels or the movie channels,
Private Members' Business
you had cartoons for children. In every one, every single one-and it was around nine o'clock on a Saturday morning-there was what I consider, and I would suggest what most people in this House would consider to be, an undue amount of violence.
My hon. friend mentioned the teenage mutant Ninja turtles-if I have the title correct-and those characters are extremely popular with very small children. Preschoolers in general are the ones who seem to be taken by that. On another channel there was some sort of a space cartoon where people were being decapitated, men and women both, by some sort of monster. One had a sort of eerie response to the fact that across this country children were sitting in front of those television sets, captivated by this, and getting a message that nobody really seriously could want to send to them.
We know that television is the most pervasive and popular of the media. As my hon. friend has said, we know that on average Canadian spend 23.4 hours per week in front of the television. Children spend a disproportionate amount of time in front of the television. In fact they spend more time in front of the television sets than they spend in school.
Mediawatch reported the most disturbing facts in its review of programming on R-rated television. Here are some of the figures. Women are more likely than men to be depicted nude and as going from fully clothed to either partially nude or nude. The body parts of females were far more likely to be shown in a disassembled manner than the body parts of males. That is tidying up the language. What a disassembled manner means is that women were more likely to be shown dismembered on television than men were.
Of the programs that contained a combination of sex and violence, 92 per cent had a female victim. Males were abused in only 8 per cent of cases. Women comprised 63 per cent of the instances of violence in English TV drama and 62 per cent in French TV drama. They composed an equally high percentage of those shown in what could be considered a somewhat subservient or a lot subservient manner. For example, if someone was being shown in a bathing-suit, underwear, skin-tight clothing or in a bathtub or shower scene, or grooming or unclothed, in all of these women were 60 per cent of the characterizations.

Private Members' Business
Even the media's portrayal of violence against women and children seems to go over the edge into the sensational. God knows we have enough actual incidents in our society of violence against women and children, but there is a tendency in the media today to take even these horrific situations and make them worse.
Rather that report on the daily incidents of violence against women and children, the reports tend to focus on usual aspects of this violence. For example, one only has to look at the coverage of the Polytechnique massacre and the explanations that were offered. One only has to look at the way some of the media reacted to this.
I know that my colleague from New Westminster- Burnaby, as well as the hon. minister, will remember in the report of the subcommittee on the status of women something I will never forget. It is the Maclean's magazine ad in the week after the Polytechnique massacre. It was brought to our attention in committee by a journalism professor from Carleton University. I will describe it, because certainly I read the issue of Maclean's that week and did not even notice it.
On the left-hand side is the study about the Polytechnique and there is a photograph of the flowers in the snow in front of the building that people left there that December day. On the right-hand side is an ad for the House of Birks, Canada's most famous and nation-wide jewellery and gift store. In the House of Birks ad is a head and shoulders of a woman and she is blue. In the medical term she is cyanotic. There is a chain hanging around her neck. It is quite artistic. It is quite sophisticated and, when we really look at it, it is quite frightening because in actual fact living women do not look like that; dead women look like that.
This was something that every one of us, I would wager, looked at that week and did not notice. As I said, I did not notice it. None of us noticed it until it was brought to our attention by this journalism professor. When we have something like that brought to our attention, we realize how even those of us who are attempting to fight this, for whom it has become an almost daily part of life to be arguing against these images and these symbols, can become toughened to the
whole scenario. How much worse is it for small children to be influenced by images of this?
I realize that my time is running short and I want to close by again reiterating my support for the hon. member's motion. I would also like to say that I particularly liked the closing portion of his motion which says: "Without interfering unduly with artistic freedom and freedom of the press".
Of course freedom of expression and artistic freedom are very important. However, I do not think that any of us-I know that the member would agree with me on this-would stand here and say that artistic freedom or freedom of the press would be impinged upon if we said that the time has come to stop the brutality and the degradation of women, children and people in general in the commonplace production of media events.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to rise to support this motion put forward by the member for Regina-Wascana.
It is important for all members of this House to reinforce our commitment to eradicating violence against women and children. This is one step we can certainly take on the road to reaching that goal.
As the member who spoke before me said, the status of women subcommittee dealt with a number of issues around violence against women. This is one issue that was discussed at our committee hearings.
Some of the witnesses who appeared before the committee expressed concern about the powerful role of the media in socializing young people. They recommended that a component of the high school curriculum for young women and men should include the study of media representations of violence and the effect it has on all of our behaviours.
Judith Posner of the Association for Media Literacy informed the committee that violent imagery is portrayed by a variety of media, most of which is mainstream. Many of us think that it is not mainstream media that portrays this violence. However, most of it is mainstream: popular films, fashion advertisements, rock videos and pornography, which the member mentioned specifically in his motion.
February 12, 1992

The common themes or depictions in violent media images typically show an imbalance of power between men and women, as well as the presence of coercion. They intimate that women enjoy pain, violence and subjugation.
In certain popular slasher films, girls and women who are independent are more often the victims. They are usually the victims. Independent young women are shown to be brutally murdered in these films. The message is that you will pay a price for your autonomy and your independence.
It is important to talk about the incidents of violence in our society. Rarely does a day go by in this country in which Canadian media do not carry reports of sexual and physical assault perpetrated by trusted persons and strangers against girls and women.
The frequency with which incidents of this nature are reported in the media would leave most Canadians to conclude that violence against women is indeed a serious problem in Canada. In fact, the gravity of the situation is far greater than the number of cases in the news reports would suggest.
Research has shown that most women who are victims of violence do not report their victimization to the police. As a result, the actual incidence is largely invisible and absent from official crime statistics, and by extension from media coverage. Indeed, sexual assault and wife assault are two crimes known to be significantly under-reported relative to other crimes of violence.
A Canada-wide survey published in 1985 found that fewer than 40 per cent of female sexual assault victims and less than half of wife assault victims had made a report to the police.
Studies show us that women's reluctance to report violent attacks against them is related to a fear of retaliation that would result in further violence or death, a lack of confidence in the police, the courts, and feelings of guilt and embarrassment.
The national reporting system in Canada, the Uniform Crime Reporting System, contains statistics on criminal incidents in Canada. However, this data base includes only crimes reported to police, and records of reported incidents of wife assault are listed as general assaults.
The UCR does not contain descriptive information about the relationship between victims and offenders or about the circumstances of the offence which would
Private Members' Business
identify incidents of violence against women in the family.
It is very important that we talk about the numbers of people who are victims of violence in our society, the children and the women. The member for Regina-Was-cana has mentioned it but I will reiterate some of the statistics.
In 1989, 12,970 sexual assaults were known to the police. Between 1983 and 1989 the number of complaints of sexual assault made to the police increased by 93 per cent. Every 17 minutes there was a sexual assault committed in Canada and 90 per cent of the victims are female. One in four women will be sexually assaulted at some time in their lives, half of those assaults before a young woman reaches the age of 17. Between 63 per cent and 83 per cent of female victims will be sexually assaulted by someone they know, someone they trust.
There are between 14,000 and 18,000 sexual assaults in the province of Quebec alone every year.
We know that the incidence of assault against women, of violence against women, is higher for aboriginal women and disabled women. It is higher for any woman who is doubly disadvantaged in our society. The more vulnerable a woman is the more susceptible she is to violent attack.
Part of the motion presented by the member reads: "to protect innocent Canadians from being exposed to such portrayals". I would suggest that it is also important that we protect the women and children from the effect these portrayals have on the way we are treated by our society.
It has long been denied that there is any connection between violence in the mass media and actual acts of violence against women and children. However, it has been clearly shown that violence is on a continuum. Seemingly small incidents of sexism such as sexist jokes allow people to feel they have the right to put women down. This opens the door to greater acts of sexism and discrimination, right on up to physical violence and unfortunately sometimes to murder.
The portrayal in the media of women as objects, the portrayal in the media of women as subordinates of men, and the portrayal of women being violated have profound effects on our attitudes in society. They have profound effects not only on children but, as the member for Halifax said yesterday, we all become somewhat immune to the barrage of sexist advertising and the violence in the scheme of that advertising.

February 12, 1992
Private Members' Business
I am pleased to support the member's motion. I congratulate him for bringing it forward and I look forward to it being debated in committee.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to this motion that reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, a full review of the media's portrayal of violence towards and abuse of women and children, should be held by an appropriate committee of the House of Commons with the aim of making recommendations as to how better to protect innocent Canadians from being exposed to such portrayals without interfering unduly with artistic freedom and freedom of the press.
I also congratulate the preceding members who have spoken on the issue for the passion with which they support the motion.
The member who introduced this motion, the member for Regina-Wascana, has identified for us in a nutshell the magnitude of the problem of violence against women and children. This is truly an indictment of a serious ailment that exists in our society.
He has identified in an outline the causes and he has identified the media's portrayal of violence as a cause of violence against women and children. In so doing he has identified another group of causes of violence, those that are not media induced.
I should just say that this House has heard on several occasions the many non-media causes of violence, such as poverty. It is known that those who live in poor neighbourhoods, those who are poor are exposed to unusual behaviour which contributes to violence.
Recently I am told that there has been the depiction on one of our postage stamps of the picture of Satan. Now that to me, not in a religious sense, introduces the question of cult. It is known medically and psychologically that cult can contribute to violence. We know the tragic results of such a phenomenon.
We have to appreciate that children's games available to the public can damage the mental faculty of children and contribute to violent behaviour. It is known; it is a medical phenomenon.
As we look at the causes of violence, both the non-media and the media causes, another question has to be asked as to what is the interactive role of both, that
the sum of two influences can be more than just the additive sum, but in fact an interactive sum that accentuates the gravity of the problem.
So the question then naturally has to be asked: What types of portrayal by the media inflict adverse effects on children? To begin with, a committee that will study this problem naturally will review the literature available to it.
I am conscious of one study done at the Children's Hospital of Winnipeg, where I used to be. In fact, it concludes that violence portrayed on television does truly contribute to occurrence of violence among children.
Second, has there been any nation-wide study in Canada about the magnitude of this problem that we may not know? If such a study has not been done yet, certainly the federal government must be challenged to undertake such a study, to invite proposals for such a study from among our experts in the field so that we can undertake to define the actual magnitude as well as the available solutions that already exist.
A third question I would like to ask also is: What good value, if any, does violence portrayal serve? Is there any at all? That must be answered. Having said that I am conscious that, by and large, our media are very responsible, that they truly have at heart the welfare of our citizenry. Equally there are those who are motivated by greed, motivated by money and deliberately induce media violence. That, of course, must be looked at.
Violence is a major public health problem. Indeed, it is a major public health hazard that destroys not only the present, but the future generations as well.
So I welcome this motion and if, in fact, we would not take a vote on this motion, then I will make an undertaking to this House that I will bring this to the attention of the standing committee on health and welfare and to the subcommittee on health so that this issue, indeed, does not die after this motion has been debated in this Parliament because there is a bigger question. What can government do to solve the problem once identified, and meanwhile, what services do we provide so that those who have already been victims may now be attended to, healed and cured, so that we will only be attending to the future victims.
February 12, 1992


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe that we, as parliamentarians, must make a statement on this issue.
While negotiations or discussions have taken place with members of the other parties, I believe that unanimous consent may be obtained to adopt the following motion and because of the expressed interest in the media's role, the motion reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture do undertake a full review of the media's portrayal of violence towards and abuse of women and children with the aim of making recommendations as to how better to protect innocent Canadians from being exposed to such portrayals without interfering unduly with artistic freedom and freedom of the press.
This is moved by myself, seconded by the member for Westminister-Burnaby.
Private Members' Business


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, it was indicated that the motion was seconded by the member for Burnaby. I would just like to be assured that the member from the Liberal Party has been consulted. Do I get that assurance?


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 8.35 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 13,1992