1993-02-10

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, recently the owners of the Usen Fisheries fish plant in Souris announced it was closing for the winter, throwing hundreds of people out of work and devastating the economy of eastern Prince Edward Island.
Because of federal fisheries mismanagement, the plant owners decided it was more economic to process redfish in Nova Scotia. People in the area are worried about their future and they want action from the federal government.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has communities fighting communities over falling groundfish stocks. This is unfair and I call on the minister to ensure the future of the fish plant in Souris. The people of eastern Prince Edward Island want to work this winter but they cannot. The government must do everything possible to allow the plant to return to its former status as a year-round employer.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORM
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, section 30.1(5) in chapter IV of Bill C-105, which concerns changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, doubly penalizes the unemployed.
It means that a claimant disqualified from receiving benefits because he voluntarily left his employment or lost his employment by reason of misconduct would be denied the right to receive benefits at the time the event occurs.
It also means that later on the following year, for instance, if this person again becomes unemployed without being disqualified on the grounds of the manner of termination of employment he would again be penalized because his case could be examined under subsection 6(3) and not 6(2), in which case he would need 20 insurable weeks instead of the number of weeks required under the variable entrance requirement to be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Last October 25 through November 1 was the annual White Ribbon Against Pornography week. I was presented with white ribbons worn by concerned citizens of Our Lady of Mercy Roman Catholic Church in my riding of Sarnia- Lambton. These ribbons were worn as an expression of concern over the effects of pornography in our society.
Recently the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld the anti-obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code as they apply to publications, video tapes, movies and other pornographic materials. This law is important as it is needed to protect women and children against violent and sexual exploitation.
The federal government is now considering a law on pornography and children to protect the most vulnerable in our society from sexual exploitation and abuse.
I,	along with all members of this House, am committed to fighting the violent and sexual exploitation of women and children.

February 10, 1993


SUDBURY TAXATION CENTRE
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, the employees of the Sudbury taxation centre are fuming over the recently announced parking fee increase which will come into effect this April.
This marks a 33 per cent increase over the two and one-half years since parking fees were first implemented and this for a parking lot that is not accessible or usable by anyone else.
I want to remind this government that these are the same federal employees, most of whom are women, who have had their wages frozen for the next two years. Once this tired old government is through after the 33 tax increases, the GST, free trade, its assault on middle class families, the unemployed and in this case parking fee increases, the concept of disposable income will no longer exist for these hard working Canadians.
This government is an advocate, I believe, of disposable Canadians, not disposable incomes. I urge the minister responsible to reconsider his decision and for this government to give Canadians a break.


Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, it was just a few days ago that opposition members were screaming in this House that free trade with the United States was not working because the Americans had imposed modest duties on Canadian steel.
This was absolutely no proof that the FTA is flawed. In fact without the agreement Canadians would have no opportunity to fight arcane protectionist U.S. trade laws.
Today opposition members should be admitting that free trade works because Canada has just scored another important victory using the dispute settlement mechanism of the FTA. Canadian durum wheat exports to the United States are a success story at $65 million a year. Now a free trade arbitration panel has dismissed U.S. attempts to hurt Canadian producers. This is the ninth consecutive time that Canada has won using the terms of the free trade agreement. In addition, since the FTA was implemented, Canadian exports to the United States have soared while we have gained protection from
protectionism. The least the critics can do today is thank God for the FTA.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with others in welcoming to Ottawa members of the prairie pools who will be meeting with the respective caucuses later this day. They are here to discuss among other things the serious income crisis which is hurting Canadian farmers.
The agricultural industry is a fundamental pillar of the Canadian economy. Agricultural exports represent 7 per cent of all Canadian exports in a trade surplus of $3 billion.
Western grain farmers, Ontario com producers, the Quebec milk industry and the maritime potato farmers are living in very difficult times.
I want to tell them that for a Liberal government, farmers and agriculture will be a priority. Food security and maintaining rural life are essential to the future of Canadians. It makes good economic sense.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House and underline an important report by a dispute resolution panel under the free trade agreement on Canadian durum wheat exports to the U.S.
The report, which was jointly released by both countries on February 9, concludes that the Canadian Wheat Board's pricing practices for durum wheat exports to the U.S. are consistent with the rules set out under the free trade agreement.
This ruling demonstrates the dispute settlement process does work. Much has been said on the durum issue but what counts is the panel ruling. As a result of the free trade agreement we are able to deal fairly with the concerns raised in the U.S. Canadian durum will be able to continue to move into the market.
The government has always maintained that the Canadian Wheat Board operates within the rules set out under the free trade agreement. This panel ruling of February 9 confirms this. The Canadian Wheat Board on
February 10,1993

behalf of Canadian producers will continue to take advantage of all market opportunities wherever they may be.


MEMBER FOR ESQUIMALT-JUAN DE FUCA
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: A shattering event took place this morning on Parliament Hill. That noted feminist and advocate for gender equality, the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, made a mistake. Worse, this Canadian Phil Donahue, this British Columbian Alan Alda, this prototypical gender sensitive nineties liberated male made a mistake about me.
Knowing as I do the hon. member's utter devotion to furthering the cause of women in politics and knowing that in his long years in politics he has probably never been misquoted, I can only suppose that he attributed statements to me that I have never made without checking with me because he is too shy, too hesitant, too totally opposed to any hint of confrontation to even approach me.
I know he will say that he read it in print. I can understand that such a naive innocent would believe everything he reads. But I am here to put him out of his misery, quick.
My office door is always open. I can always be reached by phone. I even have a surprise for the hon. member. I would be prepared to speak to him in the lobby, not the lawn, not more than once a week, but I would be prepared to speak. I promise that he will never ever have to run the risk of being so totally wrong again.
I say to him, through you, Mr. Speaker: Dave, do you want to step outside?


Mr. Barrett:: Let's go.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, this issue was raised in the House last week by the member for Churchill. The Queen's Journal quotes the member for Halifax, saying that she supports the North American free trade agreement because it puts Canada in a good position. She said that NAFTA is much
better than the bad deal negotiated by the Tories and the U.S. in 1988.
However, my issue today is not that. It has to do with the Minister of National Health and Welfare's lack of commitment to increasing funding for AIDS.
We cannot afford to be short-sighted when it comes to funding for AIDS and HIV. The cost in human, social and economic terms is too high. Funding for education, prevention and research in HIV and AIDS is a wise investment. It should be a question of when we spend these sums of money, not if.
Canada can dedicate adequate funds now or we can try to cut comers and pay for the far higher social and financial costs that will come later as we deal with the unnecessary, tragic and costly illnesses we will have failed to prevent.
The minister is on record saying the government must be committed to long term action. I urge the government to follow the advice of its own experts and I urge the minister to heed his own words that the government must commit itself to long term and adequate AIDS funding now.


KASHMIR
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the tragic history of Kashmir.
A UN Security Council resolution in 1948 called for a plebiscite to determine Kashmir's future. That never occurred. Since then, tens of thousands have been killed or wounded. On January 6 of this year Indian forces killed more than 40 civilians and wounded approximately 100 more. This is in addition to the thousands of civilians over the past 40 years who have been subjected to arbitrary arrest, rape and torture.
In view of the world's disregard of Kashmiris' human rights and the resulting suffering, I urge the Government of Canada to strongly recommend that the UN Security Council actively pursue a solution that is in harmony with UN initiatives and the 1972 Simla accords.
Surely the principle of self-determination of which Canada has been a great supporter should be upheld in Kashmir. The long-suffering Kashmiri people should

February 10, 1993
Oral Questions
not be continually brushed aside simply because other world events occupy the world's attention.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, an Alberta RCMP officer has admitted to having sex with a woman in his police car while on duty and in his uniform. It is alleged that he may have asked for sex in exchange for not charging her with impaired driving.
Instead of focusing on the RCMP officer's abuse of power and appalling behaviour, an internal RCMP investigation checked into the young woman's sexual history. This so-called evidence was used to dismiss criminal charges against the officer who is still on duty over a year later.
I ask the Solicitor General to investigate this matter personally. RCMP officers must never be allowed to abuse their power. The Solicitor General must establish a fair method of looking into complaints against RCMP officers so these inquiries do not boil down to investigators conducting a witch-hunt on the complainant in defence of their colleagues.
Canadian women deserve much better than this.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, recently I was invited by Canada Post to visit its control centre for the Quebec City division and attend the daily postal service control session.
If the public were given the same opportunity it would realize how much the corporation has managed to do in a very short time comes in response to extraordinary changes in our economic and social environment.
Furthermore, after operating with a deficit for 30 years as high as $600 million annually they have managed to eliminate this deficit by introducing control systems. They can now offer Canadians an efficient postal service at a much more reasonable cost.
I can testify to the tangible, positive results Canada Post has achieved by streamlining its spending and focusing on customer service.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, what the Tories have done with the UI Act is a continuation of the destruction the Liberals started in 1978. The then Minister of Finance is now the leader of the Liberal Party.
We have noticed that the Liberals are silent on the reduction of benefits. Why is that? Could it be because the Liberals support the 3 per cent reduction just as they did when they reduced benefits more than 6 per cent in 1978?
At that time they used all the same excuses the Tories are using now to attempt to justify their actions. At that time the Liberals took the meat and potatoes off the table. Now the Tories are taking the bread and milk off the table.
No one should trust the Liberals to be any different from the Tories when it comes to attacking the unemployed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of employment my question is for the Prime Minister.
For several weeks the minister of employment has stressed that if someone is transferred or changes jobs his or her spouse is eligible for unemployment insurance if they move. However, according to the regulations released yesterday, the minister says that the community's expectation that married people will live together permanently is not an absolute principle for justifying someone who quits his or her job.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the principle that a married couple should stay together?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the hon. member and members of this House, I would say that she is drawing conclusions that are incongruous, to say the least, from a document that is only a draft which I have never seen and have not authorized and which cannot change the law. I could refer the hon. member to decisions of the Federal Court of Canada which clearly
February 10, 1993

say that under the law anyone who quits a job because there is no reasonable alternative is entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. That will not change at all.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister can twist and turn as much as he likes.
The fact is at the very time he was telling this House that sexually harassed women would be protected, that spouses could stay with their spouses in case of a job transfer, at the very time he was making these promises in the House his own officials were preparing regulations that did the exact opposite.
His own internal document says that a mother who has a child undergoing long-term treatment in a hospital in another city cannot leave her job to be near her child unless she can prove that no one else can fulfil her role.
How in the name of all decency can the minister ever circulate a document which would deny the necessity of a mother to be near a critically ill child?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is really concerned about twisting the truth.
The member refers to a draft document of the department as regulations in preparation. They are not regulations. They are directives that eventually I will have to endorse and approve. That has not been done.
I want to reiterate with respect to any person in Canada who has to quit his or her job because there is no reasonable alternative, we will ensure that person receives benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister shakes his head and says I am not telling the truth. The minister of trade accuses me of being in a kindergarten.
Will the Prime Minister review the documentation which quite clearly shows that in the case of a critically ill child the mother cannot be guaranteed benefits unless
Oral Questions
she can show that somebody else cannot actually be there to be with her child.
I know it is an issue of concern to the Prime Minister. Will he personally review the recommendations that are being circulated? Will he state categorically that any policy of the employment ministers department that would deny a woman the right to be with her dying child will be refuted forthwith?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know why my hon. friend in seeking to make a political point would trivialize a human situation by suggesting that an official of the Government of Canada would in any way, directly or indirectly, tolerate the kind of human condition to which she refers.
My hon. friend knows, or should know there are already 40 reasons considered to be legitimate for quitting a job. They are accepted as such by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and sustained by jurisprudence. These include: sexual harassment, dangerous working conditions, obligations to accompany a transferred spouse, obligation to take care of a child, any unilateral reduction in salary, unilateral changes in working conditions, discrimination on a prohibited ground of any type of discrimination, the refusal or loss of a right to union affiliation or participation in union activity, and so on and so forth.
It is a sensible, appropriate, humane and reasonable list of realities which makes sure that the presumption is always resolved in favour of the worker. What we have is a situation accepted by many industrialized countries in the world.
My hon. friend may have a valid point from time to time but she certainly is destroying whatever validity she has today.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Prime Minister that with those 40 points he mentioned, it is always the worker who has to provide the proof.
Right now in Montreal there is a two-year delay in appealing those cases.

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The changes that this government has

February 10, 1993
Oral Questions
already made to our unemployment insurance system have moved it closer to the one our southern neighbours have. In the United States the government does not fund unemployment insurance and benefits are not paid to those who quit their jobs.
Why does the government continue to lower our system in order to harmonize it with the Americans? Is that another secret promise made when the free trade agreement was signed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend is mistaken. I have just come from the United States and far from harmonizing downward, President Clinton and his wife have looked at our social programs and are trying right now to make theirs better and more like ours, using our unemployment insurance program as a model. My friend is mistaken. Our social programs are better than those in the United States and we intend to keep them.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I will let the people judge that the Prime Minister is mistaken. Personally I know that in the United States the American government does not help fund unemployment insurance and does not let those who quit their jobs voluntarily, for valid reasons, collect unemployment insurance benefits. We are now moving toward the American system and not the other way around. Why do that now that a free trade agreement has been signed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the provision that my friend mentions is indeed contained in French law, and France has a socialist government which is considered "generous". Are we harmonizing our unemployment insurance system with France?


Alfonso Gagliano: Not in Spain.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now he says: "Not in Spain".
The fact is that we have the most generous social programs in the world, I think. Some countries imitate us and some have other provisions, but the Government and Parliament of Canada are keeping the highest standards for protecting our people.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Today it was reported that the government intends to hire 300 unemployment police, also known as the Bernard macoutes, which seems to be a new federal policy. This would mean hiring another 300 people to hunt down the victims of the government's policies, at very high cost, because 300 people more with salaries and benefits might cost as much as $12 million.
Why is the government spending money to hunt down its victims instead of helping them?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the focus of the question of the Leader of the New Democratic Party was: "The government's plan to hire 300 inspectors, 300 police". That is false.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I quote a senior official of the employment department today who said: "There is no particular change in claimant behaviour", referring to unemployment insurance, and "it is just that if you put more resources in you catch more. It is like putting more police cruisers out on the highway. You are going to have more speeding tickets".
Instead of taking this approach to punish the victims and instead of forcing people to work in unsafe working conditions, why is the government not taking those funds to create employment in this country and stop punishing the unemployed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I just said that the prefatory remark of my hon. friend in French was false. It is false in English as well.
The question in respect of quotes from any anonymous employment official is one you will have to ask the anonymous employment official.
As Prime Minister I am happy to tell my hon. friend that the statement on which she based her question is false both in English and in French.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to note then that the Prime Minister is on the record as saying it is not the intention of the department to simply hire more people to punish the victims of unemployment. I accept his answer.
However, I have something to say to the Prime Minister concerning the proposed changes to unemployment insurance in general. It is clear, as it was from the previous questions, that the government is putting the onus on the employee to prove his or her case. This is
February 10, 1993

clearly an instance of the innocent having to prove their innocence rather than the opposite. If your spouse moves, you are going to have to hire a lawyer to see if you can get UI. If your child is sick, you are going to have to hire a lawyer to see if you can get UI.
I challenge the government to answer why it is proposing all these changes to unemployment insurance if, as the Prime Minister says, all of these exemptions already exist? Why not drop the changes and be fair to Canadian workers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend in her third question very generously accepts my answer and then proceeds to change the context.
In French the hon. member began by referring to 300 police who are going to inquire, les enqueteurs. There is no such thing. I have indicated in both English and French that is false. The entire question therefore I think ought reasonably to fall.
My hon. friend asks perhaps legitimately about concerns as to how the unemployed might be protected. I pointed out to the opposition spokesman that there are 40 reasons that exist and that are viewed as legitimate for quitting a job and continuing to receive unemployment benefits.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Then why change the law?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says why change it. It is because they range from sexual harassment all the way to a new position classification resulting in a lower pay for the employee. The protection for an employee is absolutely comprehensive.
The question that arises is a question that I suppose could be fairly debated: Is it appropriate in a society like ours that someone without provocation, without reason, without justification of any kind, quits and walks away from his or her job and asks ordinary Canadian taxpayers to pay for unemployment insurance.
It may be that we should have a social program to look after that kind of a situation, perhaps a universal social program. It is not unemployment insurance, it is not
Oral Questions
insurance against unemployment, it is a wilful act of an individual to walk away from his employment.
Therefore, I tell my hon. friend that the unemployed are totally covered pursuant to these changes, and I think generously and appropriately covered.


INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, talking about learning from other nations, hopefully our Prime Minister can learn from some of these. Europe has committed itself to a $30 billion infrastructure program; Japan has committed itself to at least a $40 billion infrastructure program; President Clinton, whom he met last week, will commit the United States to a $32 billion infrastructure program.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this question. Will Canada commit itself today to rebuilding its roads, sewers, bridges, towns and cities, and put thousands of people back to work?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to commitments by Europe. That, of course, is misleading information. It is totally misleading. At the Edinburgh summit certain amounts were discussed. They have not been accepted or implemented in any way in regard to stimulative spending; in fact, they are encountering an enormous number of difficulties.
President Clinton has yet to announce any program in the United States. However, someone who has announced this kind of a program, the Minister of Finance of Canada, expended $2 billion on a pro-active program on December 2. On a per capita basis that would amount to some $25 billion in the United States. They are talking about a $20 billion expenditure there.
I think we have done our share, although I would be happy to hear from my hon. friend about what more we could do and how we can finance it.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we will take the Prime Minister up on his challenge, if he would bother to read our position on the infrastructure program.
Canadian municipalities are looking for confidence from this government. Municipalities such as Halifax,

February 10, 1993
Oral Questions
Montreal, Toronto and Calgary, London are prepared to put their money where their mouths are, as are the provinces, in a one-third, one-third, one-third program.
If the federal government had the guts to have confidence in the Canadian municipalities and workers instead of penalizing the unemployed, we could put people back to work and rebuild our towns and cities.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that was quite interesting.
My hon. friend, in response to my inquiry about how it was going to be financed, said to read their position on infrastructure. That is like reading Ripley's Believe It Or Not. I thought in reading the position on infrastructure the member said that it would be financed out of the proceeds from their GST, the new GST.
I point out to my hon. friend we have a situation today where we have the lowest inflation rate that we have had in Canada in 30 years. We have the lowest interest rates that we have had in Canada in 20 years. We are going to lead the employment growth of the OECD and we are also going to lead in economic growth.
My concern with the otherwise intelligent suggestion of my hon. friend is what took place with our NDP friends in Ontario where they announced a billion dollar NDP job plan which created 675 jobs. That is not the way you create jobs. You create jobs by lowering interest rates and by lowering inflation.


TAXATION
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora -Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As you all know, the government has a legal and moral obligation to pay its fair share of municipal taxes. Canadian taxpayers do not have the option of cutting back on the amount of federal, provincial and municipal taxes they pay when times are tough. Neither should the federal government have the option to do so.
Why is the government refusing to abandon its arbitrary plan to cut $80 million in revenues from municipal coffers by freezing grants in lieu of taxes?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works will be in the House on Monday. I spoke to him late last evening in regard to this matter. He has been meeting with the mayors and leaders of Canadian municipalities. No doubt he will be happy to respond in greater detail to my hon. friend during the course of the next week.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he can do this for us.
If it is true that leaders of municipalities and the minister are meeting and that there is a lot of work to be done on the calculation and the formula itself, will the Prime Minister undertake to ask his officials to work in consultation with Canadian municipalities? At the same time as a measure of good faith, will he cancel the freeze on grants in lieu of taxes until this whole situation is cleared up?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister just said, the Minister of Public Works met with municipal leaders yesterday and that was not what they asked for. They understand the situation.
We have doubled payments to municipalities in lieu of taxes in the last six years, from some $217 million to $438 million, almost half this year. They understand the fiscal situation the federal government is experiencing as well and they are prepared to co-operate. The minister had a very good meeting with them yesterday and is committed to meet with them again very shortly in this regard.


DAVIS INLET
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the opposition welcomes the government's announcement of yesterday that it intends to move the Davis Inlet Innu community over to the Labrador mainland.
My concern is why it takes so long for the government to act and why it only acts in response to negative reports in the international media. There are hundreds of aboriginal communities across Canada that have substandard housing, inadequate sewer and water systems, high levels of unemployment, substance abuse, family violence as well as the highest youth suicide rate in the world.
February 10, 1993

When will the government live up to its moral and legal obligation to bring the standard and quality of life of all of Canada's aboriginal communities up to the level enjoyed by other Canadians?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member paints a very bleak picture. Fortunately it is not a true one.
Speaking of action, it was my decision to study the possible relocation of the community at Davis Inlet. I received that report a little over six weeks ago. I took recommendations to cabinet and the government has acted in the appropriate way.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. The government is only too ready to quote the UN development report on the standard and quality of life of member countries. From the point of view of Canadian white males Canada ranks first, but from the point of view of women it drops to eighth position.
This year's report will cite Canada as one of the crudest countries in the world from the point of view of aboriginal ethnic groups. What steps does the government plan to take in the International Year of World Indigenous People to improve the reputation of Canada as one of the crudest countries in the world for aboriginal people?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is befitting of this member to mischaracterize Canada in this way. One step Canada could take would be to better educate members of Parliament who are spreading untruths about Canada's reputation in this respect.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the minister feels strongly about a dispute in facts here, but he will want to be sure that his language does not take us into the bounds of something unparliamentary.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I will be careful of my use of language. I do believe the hon. member should be careful of his use of figures.
Oral Questions
Among the nations of the world, Canada extends more generous benefits in housing, in infrastructure, in education, in social programs and in constitutional guarantees and land claim settlements than any other nation on the face of this earth.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. He knows that the U.S. export enhancement program has cost Canadians farmers $2.5 billion. We also know that there is a bill before the U.S. Congress calling on its government to use EEP on U.S. exports to Mexico, thus directly attacking a Canadian market.
We also know that the problem of EEP was never a priority in the NAFTA negotiations. That was confirmed at committee by a chief Canadian negotiator.
My question for the minister is this. When is the government going to stand up for Canadian farmers and confront the United States of America on its export enhancement program?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: It is
interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the member did not make reference to the way we confronted the U.S. over the durum panel that was announced yesterday where essentially Canada won all five counts.
The member is absolutely right that we do not like the over-all effect of EEP and we have said so pretty directly to the Americans. Again, if he wants to be fair about it, he should also point his finger even more accusingly at the Europeans who we estimate will spend over $7 billion on export subsidies this year as compared to the Americans who will spend about $500 million.
The real solution to this is to deal with it at the GATT. This government has been putting a lot of pressure on in trying to get a solution there.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, net farm income in this country is expected to drop almost $1 billion this year. Farm bankruptcies are up alarmingly and half of those bankruptcies are in the grains sector.
Faced with this economic crisis, farmers cannot understand the government's preoccupation with a continental barley market. Most farmers do not want it. If the

February 10, 1993
Oral Questions
minister has any doubts about it he can ask members of prairie pools who are in Ottawa today.
When is the government going to get its priorities straight and what is it going to do to attack the current farm income crisis?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the member should know that farm bankruptcies are down in 1992 over 1991. They are still plenty high, but they are down. They are going in the right direction. They are at about the same level that they were eight or nine years ago. That is not necessarily good news, but it is not totally the bad news that the member wants to put out.
With regard to the study of barley, all we are doing is responding to the suggestions of many producers and many farm organizations suggestions that we study an over-all continental market that would provide an opportunity for individuals to sell into that market. That is nothing new. That is a question that has been asked, we think veiy legitimately, by many producers. We are trying very hard to address that question with an over-all panel.
The other thing the member should know is that one of the suggestions that was made in the review committee that looked at regulations is that the Canadian Wheat Board consider marketing Canadian flour, milled from wheat. For the hon. member, it is spelled f-l-o-u-r, not flowers, but flour made from wheat. That is one of the things that we are also considering.
Be careful, Mr. Speaker, when this member attacks us on how we have supported the board, because we have shown-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burin-St. George's.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. He will recall the high seas protest by a couple of boats from St. Pierre last month off the coast of Newfoundland. As a result, the fishery there for Newfoundland in particular is still very much in limbo. Grand Bank fishermen cannot go scallop fishing.
At the same time, people from St. Pierre continue to use our ports, our airports and to shop duty free, tax free in Canada. In a few weeks the St. Pierre groundfishery is going to begin and that is going to aggravate an already explosive situation.
What is the Prime Minister prepared to do? What tough measures, if necessary, is he prepared to take against France if St. Pierre continues to thumb its nose at our codfish quotas?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is unavoidably detained outside Ottawa.
I will take notice of the hon. member's question. As soon as the minister returns I am sure he will want to provide him with an answer.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister. Since he is answering today for the minister of fisheries maybe he could tell us about the latest bit of good news, that the minister of fisheries has seen the error of his ways on the groundfish licence cancellation. The bad news is that he is about to compound the error by freezing those licences.
I want to ask the minister of fisheries, through the minister who is answering, why it is that the government and the minister are letting those people twist in the wind, those people out there who have had no landings in their name because the landings were in the names of their skippers and those people who had disastrous fish landings? Why are the minister of fisheries and the government gunning for those people whose only sin is that there is no fish to catch in the first place?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, again I will take notice of the hon. member's question and when the minister returns he shall answer.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions my party has demanded that instead of spending $4.4 billion to buy military helicopters the Government of Canada should send our existing fleet out for a complete retrofit at a considerable saving to the taxpayer.
February 10, 1993

My question is for the Prime Minister. Given that the Government of Canada has just sold seven of its Chinook helicopters to the Dutch government, which has in turn contracted with Boeing to retrofit those helicopters at a cost of $12.25 million each, will the Prime Minister explain to the Canadian taxpayer why this government insists on spending $88 million per helicopter for new ones instead of recycling the existing fleet?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the problem quite frankly is that our fleet is so aged that it could not perform the job required.
We are building new frigates. Those frigates are basically useless or very low utility without helicopters. It does not make sense to have a new ship and a 40-year old helicopter that cannot operate in bad weather.
We also need new search and rescue helicopters. The EH-101 after exhaustive evaluation is the best helicopter and the most cost efficient way to satisfy our defence requirements in terms of the frigates plus our search and rescue requirements.
A briefing was given to all political parties and everybody interested. I do not know if the hon. member was at the briefing or not, but if he had been there he would know that his question today is superfluous.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I think there are a lot of people who believe that the minister's answer is much the same.
The minister should be aware that not only has the Dutch government recognized the value of retrofitting existing helicopters, but the U.S. government has recycled over 800 of its Labrador and Chinook helicopters with the completion date being next year for the final round.
Given the recognition by the Dutch government and by the United States government that this kind of equipment can be recycled safety and efficiently, will the minister, before Canada sells off any more of its fleet at bargain basement prices, cancel the helicopter deal and put them back in the air in the right way?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there has never been any question that we can
Oral Questions
recycle. The fundamental fact is that we end up with a more costly option in terms of performing the duty.
We can recycle the Labradors for search and rescue, yes, but the cost would be more than acquiring new EH-lOls and we would end up with old helicopters.
The hon. member knows that it is entirely possible to recycle his 1950 Ford, but at the end of the day he ends up with an inferior vehicle than his 1992 one, and it costs more in the end. It is simple economics: we do the most cost effective thing and that is what we are doing.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORM
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Section 30.1(5) of chapter IV concerning unemployment insurance doubly penalizes the unemployed. If someone becomes unemployed again, without disqualification on the grounds of the manner of termination of employment, he will again be penalized because his case may be examined under subsection 6(3) and not under 6(2).
My question is this: Will the minister confirm to the House today that someone who is unemployed would be penalized again, since his case might be examined under subsection 6(3) and not subsection 6(2)? Workers should not be getting a double whammy. Will Bill C-105 be amended to reflect this?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, the question raised by the hon. member is the result of an error at the drafting stage. It was not our intention to penalize people who leave one job for another job. The bill will be corrected to reflect this as soon as it comes before the House for second reading.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

February 10, 1993
Oral Questions
The number of Canadians from Vancouver to St. John's infected with AIDS continues to rise. Canadians need $55 million a year for the next five years to stop the spread of this deadly disease.
What possible reason could the Prime Minister give to deny this request?


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this government supports and assists the needs for AIDS research and help.
This morning the minister met with four major organizations from the AIDS group. He has listened to their concerns very carefully and will be taking a plan to support them to cabinet in the very near future.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, meeting with groups is not enough. AIDS workers have a detailed plan to address this crisis today. Why can the government not make a firm commitment today to support their efforts? AIDS workers cannot do more with less, they can only do more with more.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, with regard to compensation and an assistance package for AIDS coming up in the fiscal year, there will be arrangements made.
We know we need research. We know that we need to assist them. Education and prevention have to be number one for all of us. We will be there. I can assure the hon. member that the minister has his message and will take it to cabinet.


JUSTICE
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and concerns the Stephenson inquest.
Today the minister's aide, Brian Mclnnis, is reported as saying that the minister will ask the Law Society of Upper Canada to advise him on the propriety of the billings of the Stephensons' lawyer and the value of independent lawyers at inquests and that "the door is still open".
I ask the minister in the name of fairness and compassion to be crystal clear to this House and to the Stephensons. Has he reconsidered his categorical refusal to contribute to the Stephensons' legal costs?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as I have suggested in the House and on other occasions, I have every sympathy for the Stephensons.
I have suggested that I am fully prepared to have this matter reviewed by the Law Society of Upper Canada or the Canadian Bar Association to determine whether, for example, the cost of engaging such counsel should be municipal, provincial or federal; whether there should be independent legal advice before such an engagement is taken; and whether, the account should be taxed.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I take it that is an undertaking by the minister with respect to the Stephensons' legal costs and not the matters generally.
The problem is that the minister's answer illustrates the frustration ordinary Canadians have with our legal system. If the murderer Fredericks had been alive during the inquest, he would have been represented by an independent lawyer paid for by the taxpayer.
This government paid the inquiry legal bills, about two-thirds of a million dollars, for former cabinet minister Sinclair Stevens. Since the legal fees of a murderer on the one hand and a cabinet minister on the other are paid for by the taxpayer, will the Solicitor General listen to the ordinary Canadians who formed the juiy and help pay the legal fees of two other ordinary Canadians, the Stephensons?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there was just one error in what my hon. friend told the House. He neglected to say that legal aid in this country or the payment of legal aid is a provincial matter.


HIGH RISK OFFENDERS
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Solicitor General. It is in regard to the issue of the public's right to know when high risk offenders are released into the community.
February 10, 1993

The Solicitor General is to be congratulated for the initiatives he has already taken to protect our families and communities. Last fall he significantly changed our laws to restrict parole for high risk offenders. While these actions tell Canadians that their safety comes first there is still much to be done, particularly in relation to the release of high risk offenders such as child sex abusers into unsuspecting communities.
What assurance can the Solicitor General give Canadians that their personal safety really does come first and that where necessary their right to know will override a convicted felon's right to privacy?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there are in fact some dangerous offenders, high risk repeat sexual offenders and others, for whom there exists in the legal system a gap, that is where they do not respond to treatment, either they do not want it, they do not accept it or it is not possible, and at the end of their sentence they are released into the community.
I am of the view

and I think it is shared by members on all sides of this House-that we should take action on this matter. I can assure my hon. friend that I have discussed it with my friend, the Minister of Justice, and that we intend to proceed in the very near future with action in order to correct this gap in the legal system.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and concerns the funding for a commuter railway through the northeast sector of greater Vancouver, one of the most rapidly growing areas of Canada.
Three days before the 1988 federal election a Conservative minister and a provincial Social Credit minister announced shared funding for such a project but after the election it disappeared. The new government of British Columbia intends to make this a priority and even CP Rail is now on board.
Will the minister, for the good of the environment, for jobs and for the economy, reaffirm the federal government's previous commitment to this project, contribute one-half the cost, and agree with me it is time to get on
Oral Questions
with actually driving the first spike rather than talking about it?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that when he made his announcement on July 29, 1988 the Minister of State for Transport at the time said: "The minister emphasized that federal funds will be available after provincial officials complete operational and infrastructure agreements with CP". We have not seen any action in this area lately.


PLYWOOD INDUSTRY
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian plywood producers are outraged at the recent announcement of the minister of trade that the Canada-U.S. plywood standards dispute has been resolved.
As the minister knows the harmonized standard recommended by the binational panel has been completely ignored by U.S. plywood producers and as a result the playing field is now tipped largely in favour of the U.S.
Will the minister demand that negotiations be reopened so that Canadians exporters can gain fair access to the U.S. market? Will he demand that U.S. producers immediately adopt a harmonized production standard, and will he impose a freeze on tariff reductions until U.S. producers decide to play fair ball with Canada?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, my friend refers to the interests of some parts of the industry. Other parts of the industry have been pressing the government for four years to resolve this issue. We resolved almost all of the issue as a result of negotiations last year.
There is one outstanding item in relation to the size of the knot-hole and the standard related to that. That matter is under discussion right now with the Americans. They have committed to us to resolve it as quickly as possible. I am sure that my hon. friend will support us in the discussions we will be having with the Americans to continue that process.


Mr. Speaker:: I will take a single question from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, followed by a single question from the hon. member for Halton-Peel.

February 10, 1993
*

Ways and Means CHRISTINE LAMONT


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I would like to pose a question to the acting minister.
This morning in a TV interview, when asked about the very tragic report that Christine Lamont had contacted tuberculosis in a Brazilian jail, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that she would only act if there were more positive tests.
We know that any further tests taken in the unsanitary conditions of a Brazilian jail could lead to more disastrous and deadly diseases. I want to ask the acting minister on behalf of the government what steps the Government of Canada is going to take to ensure that Christine Lamont will receive proper care and, if clearly diagnosed with TB, whether she will be immediately brought back to Canada.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is appropriate on the floor of the House to be discussing Christine Lamont's health conditions. Le me simply say that from the information we have received, it is premature to draw the conclusions that my hon. friend has just drawn. What we have offered to the family is to have them come and meet with the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the expense of the government. We hope they will take up this offer and have those discussions soon.


BILL C-105
Mr. Garth  Itirner@Halton-Peel: Mr. Speaker, union bosses are marching in the street right now saying proposed changes to the UI scheme are heartless and that the Tories are fighting a recession on the backs of the unemployed. Nobody seems to be talking about whether or not the changes would help the economy or trade jobs.
My question is for the minister responsible for small business. Can he tell the House how independent businesses are reacting to the provisions in Bill C-105 which Canada's big unions seem intent on stopping?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker,
independent business people, small business people, male and female, have two characteristics in common. First of all, they are usually too busy running their enterprises to march down the streets for photo opportunities. The second characteristic is they are creating jobs. They have created 81 per cent of all the new jobs in this country in the last 10 years.
The CFIB members in an opinion survey about the UI changes made just three suggestions. When asked about freezing of premiums at current levels, 82 per cent were in favour. When asked about suspending UI premiums in order to have new hiring, 76 per cent were in favour. When asked about no benefits for employees who voluntarily quit without reason, 81 per cent were in favour.
These are the people, 1.6 million-


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find there is consent to call immediately for concurrence in Ways and Means Motion No. 25.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the minister. Is there agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


WAYS AND MEANS
John Horton McDermid: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Access to Information Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Federal Court Act, the Income Thx Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and related acts laid upon the table Wednesday, December 9, 1992, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.

February 10, 1993

Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: In ray opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to -Assiniboia) Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Madam
Wmcsard	Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the

February 10, 1993
Routine Proceedings
honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 45 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
11TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee has considered the definition of serious harm in Section 99 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Chapter 20, Statutes of Canada 1992, and the committee agreed to make recommendations for a new definition.
Under Standing Order 109 the committee requests comprehensive response within 150 days. However, I hope that the minister will report much sooner than in 150 days.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

| Translation \



PEACE MEDAL ACT


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-402, "an act respecting the establishment and award of the Peace Medal to Canadians serving with a United Nations Peacekeeping Force".


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present this bill, an act respecting the establishment and award of the Peace Medal to Canadians serving with a United Nations Peacekeeping Force.

The purpose of this bill is really quite simple. It is to create a peace medal to honour Canadians who participate in peacekeeping activities anywhere in the world.
Canadians have long held the tradition of serving with the United Nations throughout the world. They are held in high esteem across this planet. In fact, Canadians were among the peacekeeping forces who won a Nobel Peace Prize for their involvement in peacekeeping a few years ago. That is something of which we are all proud. As well, there are currently peacekeeping forces in a number of countries such as Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovi-na and other parts of what was Yugoslavia.
In this particular case the minister would award the peace medal to any eligible person to commemorate an act performed as part of peacekeeping in the world and someone who gave his or her life to keep peace in the world or died from a cause attributable to his or her service with the United Nations.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Duhamel 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.



PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT


Guy St-Julien: for leave to introduce Bill C-403, "an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act".


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Conservative member for Etobicoke-Lake-shore for supporting me today in tabling this bill.
I am presenting this bill on behalf of the taxpayers in Abitibi. Its purpose is to require the member for Abitibi to disclose to the House of Commons his expenses that are directly related to his parliamentary duties.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Saint-Julien moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
February 10, 1993

Routine Proceedings
Bill read the first time and printed.



SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I move:
That seven members and nine staff persons of the Subcommittee on
International Hade be authorized to travel to Charlottetown, St.
John's and Moncton to hold hearings on the North American free
trade agreement on February 10 to February 17, 1993.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Mr. Plamondon:: Madam Speaker, I am prepared to co-operate with the new parliamentary secretary, but we were not advised of this motion. We will give our consent today, but in future, we would prefer some advance notice of the various motions to be presented in this way, as has been the custom for some time.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has concluded there is unanimous consent. The House has heard the terms of the motion as moved by the parliamentary secretary. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, further to what was said by the hon. member for Richelieu, I would like to give the hon. member the assurance that in future I will do what I can to keep him informed of the motions to be tabled in this way.


PETITIONS
Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I have a petition that requests there be no goods and services tax on books and reading materials.
The petitioners point out that reading is a cornerstone of our democracy, of increased productivity and competitiveness, all things that we hold in priority and hold dear in our nation. They ask that the goods and services tax be removed.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I have another petition which asks that the Parliament of Canada monitor very closely the use of foul language and violence on television and radio.
The petitioners believe that such use counteracts the efforts being made by many families in Canada and they point out that foul language and violence are not needed to inform or to entertain.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, I have a total of 17 petitions signed by residents in the riding of York West which I have the honour of representing.
The petitioners call on the government to rescind the recent legislation that was given Royal Assent, namely Bill C-91, which will basically do away with the compulsory drug licensing system that we have had in this country for years, which worked on behalf of consumers, which kept health costs down and which encouraged a Canadian pharmaceutical industry to flourish in this country.
The petitioners ask this government to rescind Bill C-91 and to allow both generic and multinational corporations to coexist to the advantage of the Canadian consumer and the Canadian health care system.


Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, I would like to table a petition from the residents of

February 10,1993
Routine Proceedings
Saint-Mathieu, Amos, Val-d'Or, Landrienne, Saint-Felix, Sainte-Germaine, Val-Senneville, Saint-Marc-de-Figuery, Vassan, Saint-Dominique-du-Rosaire, Dubuisson, Malartic and Riviere-Heva, in Abitibi, who say that violent films on television are dangerous and therefore unacceptable because they act as a stimulus for violent behaviour.
The petition also says that all toys that incite children to play violent games are unacceptable and their manufacture should be banned.
Consequently, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass the appropriate legislation in order to eliminate violence in our society and thus protect our children and give all citizens a better quality of life.


Mr.   Brian@: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to table three petitions which include the names of hundreds of Canadians in and around the riding of Elk Island. These petitioners live in places like Fort Saskatchewan, Ardros-son, Bruderheim, Sherwood Park, North Cooking Lake, New Sarepta and Edmonton.
These people believe that the Young Offenders Act in itself is inadequate to deal with the problems of youth crime. They also believe that this act must be strengthened or replaced by legislation that will act as a stronger deterrent to criminal activity by our nation's young people.
Therefore the petitioners respectfully pray and call upon Parliament to strengthen or replace the Young Offenders Act with legislation that will be a stronger deterrent to youth crimes.
These people are most concerned with repeat violent young offenders and recommend harsher penalties including work camps. In cases dealing with theft or property damage, they suggest financial repayment to the victims.


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present to the House a petition from hundreds of London-Middlesex constituents opposing the location
of a halfway house for 35 federal inmates on Huron Street in London, Ontario.
These inmates on conditional release from prison will be serving the remainder of their sentences at the proposed halfway house for crimes such as rape, robbery and murder. My constituents are concerned for the safety and welfare of their children and others in their community.
I implore the Solicitor General to take these concerns into account and review this proposal before any further action is taken.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 36, it is an honour and a duty to present today a petition signed by approximately 100 Canadians mostly of Vietnamese origin living in Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal.
The petitioners call on Parliament to do what it can to establish a democratic and pluralistic government in Vietnam after free elections, to pressure the Hanoi government to respect human rights and release all political prisoners, prisoners of conscience, respect religious freedom and specifically to respond to the very reasonable demands made by the Vietnamese Buddhists, and finally to make representations to the UN High Commission for Refugees designed to ensure that refugees in southeast Asian countries are treated with fairness and dignity.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, my second and last petition is also under Standing Order 36.
It is an honour and a duty to present today a petition signed by approximately 30 Edmontonians. The petitioners call on the House and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to voice Canada's disapproval in the strongest possible terms to the Government of India for its continuing violations of human rights with specific reference to the earlier imprisonment of Mr. Justice Agit Singh Bains.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36.
February 10, 1993

The petitioners from Barriere, British Columbia, point out their deep concern regarding the intention of a firm called Multinational Resources to divert part of its major river into a number of other channels which will eventually end up in the San Diego basin.
Therefore, they call on the government to take whatever steps are necessary regarding the North American free trade agreement to ensure that water is made exempt.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by a number of residents of the city of Nelson in my constituency of Kootenay West- Revelstoke.
The petitioners ask that this House express its concern for the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000. They point out that the House of Commons expressed itself in those words on November 24, 1989.
The petitioners further point out that the Minister of National Health and Welfare on May 7, 1992 said that there is no plan exclusively to cope with the problem of poverty among children.
The petitioners finally ask Parliament to take the necessary action to reaffirm its commitment to seek the elimination of poverty among children in Canada by the year 2000 and to develop a plan for the implementation of this commitment.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36, to associate myself with literally hundreds of signatures from people in Beaver River towns such as Vilna, Smoky Lake, Waska-tenau, Kikino, Lac-la-Biche, Beilis, Cold Lake, Grand Centre, Medley and Bonnyville.
These people are concerned about further changes to the Young Offenders Act, not just the token changes we saw less than one year ago in this House. The majority of Canadians support equal treatment of criminal offenders but with legislated age shelters from criminal law for very young adolescents.
The petitioners believe that chapter 15 of the charter of rights guarantees equality rights. They are asking
Routine Proceedings
Parliament to revise the laws of Canada, to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act with a lowered maximum age of 13 years.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Madam Speaker, first let me concur with the remarks made by my colleague from London-Middlesex and the petitioners who he has represented with regard to the correctional services.
I have a petition from the sisters of Mount St. Joseph in London, Ontario, who are calling upon this government to urge the Prime Minister to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada in accordance with Brazilian law. In light of the recent health concerns with regard to Christine Lamont it becomes even much more urgent.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 426 and 430.


Mr. Peterson: Regarding the Community Futures Program for the last year (a) how many communities were assisted by this program (b) how many communities applied for assistance under this program (c) what was the total amount of moneys dedicated to this program?


Bernard Valcourt: Regarding the Community Futures Program for the last year (1991-92) (a) 231 communities (b) N/A (communities do not apply; they are selected by EIC) (c) $155 million.


Mr. Nowlan: With respect to the final report of the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation, what were the fees, salaries, wages and expenses of (a) the executive director, Dr. Janet Smith (b) the chairman, Louis Hyndman and the vice-chair, Marie-Josee Drouin (c) the other commissioners, Marc Gaudry, Susan Fish, John B. Hamilton, John F. Helliwell, William P. Kelly, Maurice LeClair and James D. McNiven?

February 10,1993
Point of Order


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation
Remuneration and Expenses for Commissioners and Executive Director
1989 - 1992
As at November 30, 1992
Commissioners	Honoraria	ExpensesLouis Hyndman	$ 261,000	$ 90,197Marie-Josee Drouin	64,200	17,490John F. Helliwell	80,000	39,076John B. Hamilton	106,750	42,710Williams P. Kelly	129,000	24,957Susan Fish	189,750	45,754Marc Gaudry	236,250	84,062James D. McNiven	129,750	52,912Maurice LeCIair	147,250	38,784
Executive Director
Janet Smith
Salary Range - DM-2-	119,400-145,200 (on appointment)
124,400-151,300 (effective June 1990) 128,100-155,800 (effective June 1992)
Expenses	$ 133,991


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Arseneault:: Madam Speaker, as you know, closing a community's post office always creates a controversy. I ask for documents in connection with a statement that the post office in Pointe-Verte in my riding would be closed. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would be prepared to respond to my request as soon as possible, since the announcement has just been made by Canada Post. I would like to have these documents as soon as possible.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we will proceed as quickly as possible to give him the answer to his question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, at three o'clock today I gave notice to the previous Speaker that I wanted to raise a point of order. The Chair recognized members opposite, the vote took place, and the Speaker left the Chamber. I guess he did not want to give too much credence to my point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member would understand the Speaker did leave the Chair when the vote was announced. I do not think it has anything to do with his giving credence or not to the point of order the hon. member is about to raise. I do not even know if he knew what it was about. I was told the hon. member would be raising a point of order and I am happy to recognize the hon. member at the first opportunity.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
February 10, 1993


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I do not think there is any necessity for the Chair to be overly sensitive about my remarks. I was not attempting to impute motive at all but merely to state the facts as they were.
Earlier this day and indeed on previous occasions on the floor of the House of Commons we have repeatedly seen ministers of the Crown and more particularly the Prime Minister make numerous references to various items and reading documents during Question Period.
Although there is no provision in the Standing Orders, there is a provision in Beauchesne's. Citation 495.(1) states:
A minister is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or
other state paper not before the House without being prepared to lay
it on the Thble.
I seek the direction of the Chair. Would the Chair want members of the opposition to continually rise on points of order after Question Period to have the respective ministers table those documents? Or would the Chair wish to take notice of the provisions in Beauchesne's and remind ministers when giving responses to questions and quoting from documents that they ought to table those documents so members will be in a position to examine them in full as to what the ministers are saying?
I ask for guidance from the Chair. If the Chair wishes, members can rise on points of order, but I thought a better way to facilitate our deliberations would be if the Chair were to take it upon itself to do this.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I respect my hon. friend opposite as he well knows. He is a man of some experience in this House and a man of considerable learning.
I am wondering whether his point today was triggered by the incident yesterday when the hon. member for Kamloops read from a newspaper ad and got into some discussion with the Prime Minister about the contents of that ad. The Prime Minister invited the hon. member for Kamloops to table what he was reading from. For whatever reason it appears that was not done and the Prime Minister tabled his own copy of the newspaper ad.
Point of Order
With reference to government documents which my hon. friend suggests ministers may be reading or quoting from, I know he is some years away from office on this side, in either direction one would look. It is the practice of ministers to read quotes from notes that are prepared for the purpose of Question Period. The long established practice is that ministers are not compelled to table that kind of note in the House.
I appreciate my hon. friend knows the Standing Orders very well. He accurately pointed out that there is no reference to any such necessity in the Standing Orders. I respect his quotation from Beauchesne's. I think the Beauchesne's quotation is designed to reflect on state papers and other official documents.
In the case of multiplicity of our practice here on this side at this time, it is merely working notes that are quoted from. I do not think there is any need for such a tabling to take place.
Finally, I do not want to be argumentative or provocative. That of course is not my nature. But I did hear my hon. friend, the opposition House leader, suggest that if what he was seeking was not complied with or if it was not followed through that there was an implicit threat of a plethora of points of order. I ask my hon. friend what has changed.
It is a time-honoured practice in this place that ministers quote from prepared notes. I do not think the front bench here has departed from that practice. Therefore, first it is unseemly to hold out such an implied threat and second, there is no real need for any points of order on the matter since the practice has not changed.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I find it rather humorous that the hon. parliamentary secretary and government Whip in his remarks would resort to such a tactic. I have seen it done in other institutions when one has a relatively weak case, one will deviate from the substance of the issue raised and try to take something in through the back door.
Madam Speaker, for your information, today the Prime Minister in response to a question raised by the deputy leader of our party said that there were 40 reasons with regard to denying unemployment insurance benefits. Quite rightly the Prime Minister could not read out the 40 reasons.

February 10,1993
Point of Order
The Prime Minister did have a document which no doubt was prepared with great diligence and great care by senior officials paid by the taxpayers of this country. We would think that in the interests of those concerned about the subject matter it would only be appropriate to make that kind of document available to the House. It is in no way trying to impede or lessen the enthusiasm of ministers opposite who may be trying to give indefensible answers to superbly crafted questions, nor is it in any way to suggest to the Chair that there is an implied threat of a plethora of points of order. It is merely, if the parliamentary secretary and government Whip will recall, and if he does not recall perhaps he will refer to the "blues", seeking the guidance of the Chair as to how we might best proceed.
I am not suggesting this in order to be argumentative, to use my colleague's remarks, but I am asking the guidance of the Chair as to the best way that we might proceed in order to have a fuller examination of all of the things that are being referred to in documents which are held by ministers and the Prime Minister for the purposes of Question Period.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I think I understand the new point my friend is now introducing. It is that when a minister or the Prime Minister begins to quote from a document or note or whatever that he then be compelled to table the entire document regardless of whether the material contained in it is pertinent to the question being asked. In other words, the document may contain information far beyond the scope of the question being asked.
I would ask my hon. friend whether that is truly his intent because the consequence could be to deprive the opposition of a great many lines of questioning. I would submit that if there are 40 reasons in a particular document that the Prime Minister is referring to and he gives a couple of them every day that would provide the opposition with 20 questions. I do not know whether the opposition would want to abnegate the possibility of asking 20 questions.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks and then perhaps allow the Chair to reflect on my suggestion, with the following caveat.
I have listened attentively to the member opposite and he has made reference to repeated opportunities for the purposes of Question Period. One could turn that
around on the hon. member and question the veracity of the statement in the first place.
Perhaps one could conclude if one was a reasonable person, as we are on this side of the House, that perhaps the 40 reasons, when only three or four were given, are non-existent. If they do exist perhaps the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary would then have no reason to hide them from members of this House and then he would want, in his so-called co-operative and non-provocative manner, to try to provide that information to the House in order that members from all political parties could attest to the veracity of the comments made by the Prime Minister.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the comments made by the hon. opposition House leader and to the answers given by the parliamentary secretary. It has been the practice in this House as long as I have been here, and for many more years before, that the the Prime Minister or ministers refer to briefing notes prepared for them by their departments.
If in this case the Prime Minister was quoting from what could be called a state document then I am sure the right hon. gentleman will have an opportunity to table it at the next sitting.
The Chair will review the debates and report back.
However, the best way is for members to make specific requests when a minister cites a document. As I said before, a minister is not obliged to table briefing notes. However, a member can ask at the time whether that document should or should not be tabled. Nevertheless the Chair will watch the tape and will also examine the "blues" and, should it be necessary, will get back to the House.


David Charles Dingwall: I thank the Chair for the Chair's intervention. I would just hope that regardless of whether the Chair does or does not find sufficient merit to my suggestion that at least the House would be apprised and the reasons for that decision would be given if there are cogent reasons to be given.
I would hope that my hon. friend opposite would want to confer with the right hon. Prime Minister and perhaps provide the information to the House, which I am sure is readily available, and then we can all attest to the
February 10, 1993

veracity of the remarks of the right hon. Prime Minister, soon to be the former right hon. Prime Minister.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Charles James Mayer: the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-54, which amends the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act to provide enabling legislation for the establishment of promotion and research agencies for farm products.
Promotion and research activities will contribute to a more competitive and self-reliant agricultural sector by helping producers help themselves in responding to market opportunities.
Bill C-54 was passed by this House on May 1, 1992. The Senate then passed the bill on June 11 with two added amendments. This House must now give due consideration to those Senate amendments. One Senate amendment was simply a necessary technical correction. However the other amendment removed the eligibility exclusion of farm products regulated under the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
As a result of this amendment all producers in Canada, including wheat and barley producers in the Canadian Wheat Board designated area, will be able to propose the establishment of promotion research agencies for farm products.
This amendment has received support from organizations such as the Prairie Pools, the Alberta Barley Commission, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Wheat Board. The amendment does not affect the existing authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. I want to make that very clear.
Government Orders
For these reasons the government supports the amendments made by the Senate.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, the amendments to the check-off legislation, the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, which come from the Senate today are ones that the government attempted to make in the standing committee when C-54 was before that committee. Unfortunately the Speaker ruled them out of order because they went beyond the scope of the bill at that time.
This legislation really provides for check-offs for agencies to be established under the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act that would allow these agencies to do promotion and check-offs for research by various farm commodity groups. It is legislation that we supported.
When this legislation came to the committee it was not clear whether groups like the prairie pools and other agencies really favoured this legislation or not.
When those representatives appeared before the committee that dealt with this bill, it became clear they thought it would be desirable to make it available for farm groups dealing with wheat and barley which are under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. They would have the same opportunity to establish this kind of promotional agency.
The amendment put forward in the House was not acceptable to the Chair. It provided for an override of the legislation as it had come to the committee by an Order in Council. When the legislation went to the Senate, they were more ingenious; they simply removed that portion of the act which prohibited promotion and research agencies being set up under the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. We all know that under parliamentary procedure we can remove things from acts but we cannot add amendments which go beyond the scope of the bill.
The Senate put that forward and we have the bill back in the House. It is generally supported by many farm groups. Some do not support it. There is an ongoing concern that it is a way for the government to set up agencies to do the promotion and research government departments should be doing. In the Department of Agriculture we have seen cutbacks in the funds for research so there is some justification for that concern.

February 10, 1993
Government Orders
Groups in some parts of the country such as beef producers already have promotion agencies. The advantage of this legislation is that the check-off can be applied to imports of beef. We have a very healthy exchange in the market between Canada and the United States. If beef producers in Canada are having a checkoff applied to them to promote the sale of lean meat and so on, that check-off should apply to meat which is being imported just the same as for domestically grown commodities such as beef. That is the only fair way.
This legislation has a lot of support across the country because it puts that caveat or provision in the law wherein imports will have the same check-off applied and will benefit from the promotion that is being carried out by that commodity group.
The amendment today would apply to promotion and research into commodities produced under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which is barley and wheat, now that the government has removed oats from the responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I might say that the base legislation is not being changed. It is legislation that provides us with supply management and marketing boards. There is a very great concern that in the whole article XI of the GATT negotiations just how strongly the government is supporting those commodities under supply management. When the Prime Minister came back from his meeting with President Clinton last Friday, there was no indication that he had even raised the question of supply management or the GATT negotiations.
A year ago this Friday, February 12, a unanimous motion was passed in the House calling upon the government to take action to secure the support of the President of the United States and the European Community to strengthen our position for legislation which is the basis or the foundation for some 35,000 producers of supply managed commodities in the dairy and poultry industries.
There is very great concern, especially with the special briefing that was provided only three weeks ago by the chief negotiators for the Canadian government. They said that their position was apparently being weakened. They had even less support for the joint resolution that was passed by the House on February 12, 1992. They called on the government to expand its support among
like-minded nations. It did not really do that because the support we had then was something like five or six countries. Now it is apparently down to only two, and we are not sure that the Prime Minister really took any effective action in his meeting with President Clinton on that issue last week in Washington.
To maintain our position and go forward on that whole issue we need his support and the support of the European Community, the main people involved in the GATT negotiations, although other countries are involved as well.
We support this amendment to section 39 by the Senate. We want to see it passed and this check-off legislation come into effect. It has been before the House now for over a year. This amendment would do what was attempted in the standing committee when the legislation passed there. I hope it will be passed and it will go forward so that the legislation can be implemented.
These agencies that will have an international aspect to them will be available to various commodity groups across the country. In a global market situation we need agencies that can promote those commodities and provide a check-off equally for commodities being imported as well as those being produced at home.
We are supporting this amendment as it has been returned to us from the Senate.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the motion as presented from the Senate. I believe it has misinterpreted the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. I believe it already had the power to spend money on research and promotion.
Promotion is its chief reason for existence. It is a marketing agency that promotes Canadian wheat and Canadian barley of various types and for various uses around the world. In my opinion it now has the power to introduce research projects which will produce and test new varieties and new plants to meet the requirements of consumers around the world.
Therefore I did not see any use for this particular amendment. The Conservatives and the Liberals in this Chamber and in the other Chamber have decided that such a change needs to be made so I will not oppose it for an undue length of time. However I wish to state my position quite clearly before we allow this bill to be passed in a moment or two.
February 10, 1993

It seems to me the basic reason behind the particular amendment was a second-thought position of the government. It originally decided to leave wheat board grains alone, understanding I presume that the wheat board would do an adequate job of research, development and promotion of various types of crops in the wheat and barley areas.
That position changed and the reasons given usually had as part of the argument the fact that the Alberta Barley Commission would like this amendment, the barley growers would like this amendment and the wheat growers were anxious to have such an amendment.
This gives the minister and those organizations the option of attempting to get a check-off on all wheat or barley as the case may be to aid in the promotion of the organizations and their particular usage for research and promotion.
I made the point previously and I will make it briefly now. That type of promotion and research is an extremely inefficient use of farmers' funds. I pointed to various similar groups in existence where the amount that actually arrives for real research is much less than 50 per cent of the funds collected. Most of those funds are used to promote the organization and its causes rather than to do any real research in making a better grain or better product or better commodity.
I still feel that the best source of funds would be for the Canadian Wheat Board to finance such projects internally. It already has the administrative ability and I believe the legal ability to do this.
The Canadian Wheat Board in the past has financed such diverse changes as hopper cars to improve the transportation system. It has financed the education of young doctoral candidates studying disciplines useful to the wheat board in its marketing and research capacities. It has gone into the promotion of different varieties of grains in the wheat and barley classifications. I believe it could have carried on quite well without this amendment.
However, as I said, the Liberals and Conservatives in both Houses by a very large majority have decided they want to give these opportunities for various commodity groups to take check-offs, even though the money will not be spent very efficiently. That decision has been made.
Government Orders
I am in a minority and recognize that I am defeated and will permit this bill to go through, even though I still oppose the idea.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to talk about this bill. My colleague from Algoma put it in the context of farm marketing boards and they are living in a great deal of uncertainty these days.
The feeling in the agriculture industry is that the government is softening its position. A discussion like this is very timely right now. It is just a week or so short of a year when we had a rally of about 40,000 farmers here. I think it was on February 21 last year.
Since that time I believe the government has been using a lot of double-talk. It is saying: "Oh yes, we want to strengthen Article XI at GATT. We want to lend strength to that". Why does it not just come out and say: "We want to support you, plain and simple. We are behind you. We will go to the wall with you on this". Instead of that it is being fuzzed over a little bit by double-talk.
There is a great deal of uncertainty out there. I have a letter-and after listening to the discussion between the government Whip and our own House leader a few minutes ago I will be glad to table it-which was sent to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and also to the new Minister of Agriculture. It is pleading with them, asking them to give some sort of new endorsement of support. That is the basis of the letter. As interesting as the letter is, it is the letterhead that is worth noting. The letter comes from the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency, the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency, the Egg Marketing Agency, the Tiirkey Marketing Agency and Dairy Farmers of Canada.
Those are five agencies in Canada that are making a little money now. It is one of the glory spots in the agricultural industry. Not every aspect of agriculture is making a little money. Why are they making a little money? It is because they have an organized, controlled marketing system. It is worth supporting and I hope when those ministers receive their copies of that letter dated February 1 they will give some measure of guaranteed support to those who are negotiating on behalf of the marketing boards.

February 10,1993
Government Orders
The government has done this in the past. I have a quote from The Globe and Mail of December 7, 1991: "Canada's farm marketing boards will survive international trade talks now taking place in Geneva". That quote was made by the current Minister of Agriculture. Of course, he was not the Minister of Agriculture then. Would he say that today? I wish he would. I think there would be certain assurances if the new Minister of Agriculture would make that statement which he is attributed to have made a couple of years ago in The Globe and Mail.
I have another one from the current minister of fisheries who at that time said: "Canada intends to continue its supply management system". I wish that the current minister of fisheries who was in a different role when he said that-it is a quote from The Globe and Mail way back-would come out today and make that kind of statement. That would seem to be reassuring for an industry that is operating in terrible uncertainties right now. In addition to the five agencies asking for an update, a current renewed approval from this government, we find that the government is hedging. It is talking from both sides of its mouth on this one.
All the farmers are asking for is the kind of assurance they thought they were given about a year ago. My colleague from Algoma referred to that also. All parties in the House said they supported farm marketing boards.
We are at a critical stage in the negotiations. What would be wrong with saying that again? There are about
36,000	dairy farmers waiting to hear it. There are about 2,300 or 2,400 poultry farmers waiting to hear it. It does not have to be a flamboyant statement, just a statement, a repetition of what was said here approximately one year ago. They are not going to settle for anything less than that. They thought they had the assurance of the government at that time and they just need reassurance.
There is a clipping from the National Farmers Union with reference to the Japanese government and its position on imported rice which says that the Japanese government has maintained a staunch defence of its highly protected rice market regime which it considers essential not only to national food security but also to the social objectives of its agricultural industry. I think we have social objectives for our agricultural industry and they are just as important to Canadians as the Japanese social objectives for its agricultural industry would be.
I do not know why the government is hedging on this. It would seem to me it would not be unusual to come out and repeat the kind of assurance that it has given farmers who are working under the marketing boards
and also working under a great deal of uncertainty in that industry these days. They are looking for reassurance from the government.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Madam Deputy Seaker: Motion carried on divison.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

Charles James Mayer: that Bill C-95, an act to continue the Farm Credit Corporation and to repeal certain acts in consequence thereof, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resources envelope.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-95. We hope this bill will be passed in all stages today rather than going to the Committee of the Whole House. We will see how the time goes.
Bill C-95, the Farm Credit Corporation Act is replacing the old Farm Credit Act passed in 1959 and the Farm Syndicates Credit Act passed in 1964. This bill will update FCC's legislation and give the corporation the flexibility to adapt its financing instruments to the evolving needs of the farm community.
We all know from our debate yesterday and other debates we have had in this House before that it is very necessary. We know and recognize that the parliamentary committee is changing, not only in this country, but throughout the world.
Bill C-95 is another example of the ongoing commitment of our government to the farm sector in Canada. There is no greater symbol of the strength and resilience of this country than the Canadian farm. The preservation and development of rural Canada has always been a priority of this government. This is another part of the Growing Together paper that was started by one of our previous ministers of agriculture after the last election.
February 10, 1993

The working groups on farm finance and management recommended that the Farm Credit Act be amended to increase FCC's operating flexibility in their 1991 report. This recommendation was supported by all interested groups during the consultative process.
Bill C-95 will give the FCC the latitude to offer financing instruments to assist farmers to compete in a global marketplace. This legislation will allow the FCC to broaden its target market and widen its range of services to better serve farmers and rural Canada.
I would like to highlight some of the key elements of the proposed legislation and show how it will strenghten the agriculture base in Canada. The Farm Credit Corporation will be able to focus its attention on value added production and diversification into other entreprises located on the farm, as well as traditional farming operations.
Part-time farmers and farmers with other full-time occupations will be eligible for loans in recognition of the shift to alternative sources of income. It will also provide those who are working in the hope of becoming involved in agriculture the opportunity to supplement their income when they first start to farm. It was a problem in previous legislation when the corporation was unable to make loans in those situations.
Today those who wish to enter farming on a small scale basis with the hope of eventually becoming full-time farmers will be able to qualify. This will be of great assistance to them.
Financing will be extended to the agribusiness areas which supply and serve farm businesses. Such entreprises as farm supply businesses and abattoirs, for example, could qualify for financial assistance. In addition, agricultural support industries, such as livestock trucking businesses and grain cleaning facilities could also be eligible for this financing. I am sure there are many other areas which we have not even thought of.
For the FCC to adequately serve these new markets, the corporation's mandate needs to be expanded beyond its traditional role. The Farm Credit Corporation will continue to contribute to growth and stability in rural communities through financial services for value added financing, diversification through non-farm businesses, agribusinesses and the rural development initiatives.
The Farm Credit Corporation will play a vital role in co-ordinating other federal farm finance initiatives directed by rural development, as well as co-operating
Government Orders
with other financial institutions and organizations in supplying financial services.
To tap into these new markets and deliver these new services, the corporation will consult the farming community to offer products tailor-made to the conditions inherent to farming.
This new act will also increase Farm Credit Corporation's administrative flexibility to respond quickly to changes in the marketplace. For example, the corporation will be able to set and offer interest rate changes more quickly in response to the financial markets rather than waiting for an Order in Council each time the bank rate changes.
It will enable the Farm Credit Corporation to accept a greater range of security instruments rather than being restricted to primary security of mortgages on rural property. For the farmer this will mean a greater range of options to meet his financial requirements with the corporation.
Finally it will allow the Farm Credit Corporation to increase the limit on loans offered to meet all of the projects and objectives we have mentioned.
The government is proposing the deletion of subsection 4(5) during the clause-by-clause review of this bill. It had been included to provide greater certainty of the corporation's jurisdiction over its own property.
However, this constitutional question is now before the courts and will be decided there. Therefore ths clause is no longer necessary in that legislation.
There is perhaps no better way to illustrate the need for this legislation than to set examples of actual situations throughout the country where new financing tools can be matched with the initiatives of innovative farmers.
In Horsefly, British Columbia, a community of 426 people, cow-calf operations are the mainstay of agriculture and one rancher is teaming up with a local abbatoir to supply beef to nearby communities.
In working with both the rancher and the abbatoir operator the Farm Credit Corporation could develop a financial package to suit their specific capital needs.
Cut Knife, Saskatchewan, is a town of 600 people located west of North Battleford serving 135 area grain farms. Cut Knife entrepreneurs plan to build a flour mill and a pasta plant adding value to the production of wheat in the area. The corporation could assist in meeting the special finance needs of these vertical

February 10, 1993
Government Orders
integration product projects of local farmers and business people.
In Winnipegosis, Manitoba, the capital requirements for agriculture, including commercial fishing and fish farming, must be met to maintain existing operations and provide the basis for expansion.
Financing this activity could be achieved through a memorandum of understanding between the corporation and an agency like the Manitoba Agriculture Credit Corporation of western economic diversification. In La Patrie, Quebec, a village of 357 in the eastern townships silviculture plays a key role in maintaining the rural community.
The Farm Credit Corporation could finance equipment purchases using loans to terms approximating the useful life of equipment on the security of promissory notes, cattle mortgages or lease to own arrangements.
My farm example takes us to Drummond, New Brunswick, where the economy is based on agriculture and forestry. Farm operations are expanding to include the production of fresh broccoli for export. The FCC's ability to lend beyond the farm gate in this community would provide producers and processors with financing for packaging and marketing initiatives.
These are but a few examples of the potential revitalization that will be assisted with the passage of the Farm Credit Corporation Act.
This legislation would allow the Farm Credit Corporation to continue to provide an effective alternative source of credit for the current and future needs of Canadian farms with the flexibility to grow and keep pace with the industry it serves.
This proposed legislation will allow the Farm Credit Corporation to deliver the products needed by the farming community and thus fulfil its mandate.
It would also enhance the competitiveness and profitability of Canadian farmers while creating vital economic activity in rural Canada for the benefit of all Canadians.
We are always trying to find ways to enhance the income of farmers and we believe that this is another tool that will be beneficial to the future of agriculture for the long-term planning and viability to meet the balance
of the years in the 1990s and to prepare ourselves for the challenges that will be there in the year 2000.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words this afternoon on Bill C-95, the Farm Credit Corporation Act.
This is a major change and rewrite of the farm credit act, the former act, and we support the bill in principle because we think it does a lot of the things that perhaps should have been done four, five, or six years ago.
I listened to the parliamentary secretary and he told us a great deal about the kinds of things that could be done under this new act. What he failed to mention was that essentially over the last five or six years we have seen the Farm Credit Corporation effectively going out of business. If we look at the number of loans in 1987-1988, not going back to how many there were in 1984 or 1985 when this government came to power, we see there were 72,182. In 1991-92, which I guess is the last fiscal year report, we see that the number of farm credit loans out there is 59,845. That is a very dramatic drop from the number of 13,000 less mortgages.
Clearly if that is the direction this government is moving regardless of the fact that we have a new act that is going to be more flexible and have a number of advantageous arrangements, if the amount of dollars is going down as it has gone, the amount of mortgages it holds has gone from $4.7 billion to $3.5 billion. That is a dramatic reduction in the amount of money that is made available.
I think the idea that legislation will provide for further processing off the farm or a group of farmers work together is very commendable because it provides more flexibility and gets us into the further processing which has been dramatically reduced in the last four or five years in this country.
I think farmers and groups will want to know if the government is willing to put more money into the industry, not take it out as it has been doing for the last five years. In fact the reduction in the number of mortgages of 13,000 is just about the number of farmers who have given up during the last five or six years and left the land completely because they simply could not
February 10, 1993

Government Orders
live with the kind of pressures that were put on them by the Farm Credit Corporation and by this government.
Clearly when we look at this legislation that is before us today I would say we have one of the most desperate situations that we have ever faced in this country in terms of agriculture. We only have to look at the situation that we saw a couple of weeks ago in Saskatoon when 13,000 farmers gathered for a rally to protest the lack of support by the government in terms of stabilizations programs.
We only have to look at the rally that was held just a week or so ago in Lucknow where 1,000 farmers gathered to protest the lack of action by the government. Underlying all that in the field crop area is the concern that Ontario corn producers feel, wheat and barley producers feel and grain producers feel in Saskatchewn. We have the uncertainty of the whole supply management sector.
We hear reports from the chief negotiator at the GATT negotiations that the government is weakening its position. If a GATT agreement is reached after the French elections next month, and while it could be that the whole underpinning or the major underpinning import controls for the whole supply management sector will be blown away in the next few years, the value of quotas will tumble to a fraction of their value and perhaps the most stable and successful sector of our Canadian agriculture industry could be destroyed.
We are pleased to see the government bringing in this legislation which is a major rewrite of the farm credit legislation but it does not really solve the problems and the tremendous uncertainty which producers face across this nation this winter.
The legislation, Bill C-95, comes mainly from the recommendations of the farm financial task force. They made a lot of recommendations. As I go through the legislation and Bill C-95 itself I see a number of the recommendations of the 1988 agriculture committee when they made recommendations about support for finances for agriculture. So it comes about from many of those changes. It will clearly provide a great deal more flexibility in the lending arrangements for the Farm Credit Corporation. The act removes many things which are really provided for in the Financial Administration Act, some of which were apparently in conflict before.
The Financial Administration Act controls many things such as the approval of the Minister of Finance for borrowing and the approval by the government of bylaws that are passed by the Farm Credit Corporation. It provides for the auditor to be appointed by the Governor in Council. Of course, it is often the Auditor General. It provides for the tabling of annual reports and corporate plans. That is the legislation that was passed in June 1984. It is the Crown corporations legislation under the Financial Administration Act. That has all been stripped away in this major rewrite of the Farm Credit Corporation Act.
Some of the powers under the new act are very similar to the existing legislation, for example it covers the cost of loans and mortgages for land and buildings. It provides for loan guarantees, which is a new feature. I do not believe that was in the previous legislation. It provides for personal property and consolidation of debts. Many of these things were in the existing legislation but often were not used unless incredible pressure was applied on the government.
Many people who have gone through the farm debt review process say that the government agencies, whether the Farm Credit Corporation or the Alberta government agency, are the toughest to deal with, often more difficult than the banks and that is pretty tough.
A major change is that this legislation also provides for the diversification of enterprises, whether it is a slaughterhouse or a seed processing plant or any new further processing. It is my understanding that the majority of the funding must relate to primary production. That is clearly an important step forward.
Producers are asking: "If we are going to have this funding for further processing will there be additional money?" When we get into major processing plants, if that money is going to be taken away from primary producers then there are other sources for that further processing. The government and the minister in committee will have to make it clear that there must be more funding.
The reduction in funding has totalled $1.2 billion over the last five years. If we keep squeezing the amount of money that is available then there is really nothing to be

February 10, 1993
Government Orders
gained because although there may be funding for a further processing plant in one part of the country it just means that several dozen or a hundred primary producers will not have any money in some other part of the country. It must be clarified by the government that there will be additional money available.
The free trade deal and the government's policy for further processing has been a disaster. In the Canadian food processing industry 100 processing plants had gone out of business since the free trade deal was passed in the fall of 1988. The government's own estimate, and this figure is almost six or eight months old, was that 34,000 jobs had been lost. I am happy to see this legislation and I think there will be an opportunity to provide this.
However we must compare that with the pressure that is put on Canadian food processors by the FTA and by the government's own taxation policy. In 1987 the government had a fast write-off for new further processing industries for food products of 50 per cent declining balance. That has been reduced to 30 per cent. Even the government's own agriculture competitive council is recommending that it be returned to the 1987 level. It also recommends that there be fast write-offs and improved incentives for agri-research because we are dealing with a global industry. If the incentives are greater in western Europe, Ireland, or the United States our producers will clearly have a hard time competing.
It is therefore important that the government not only provide this funding for further processing but also provide the fiscal and monetary policy to encourage that industry to survive. It is the second largest industry in the country and clearly incentives must be provided. If we lose further processing industry for food products we obviously lose that market. That is a major problem.
Under this legislation the FCC will have the power to set its own rates. That is beneficial. The way in which the FCC is currently run is unfortunate. It continues to lose its market share of the farm loan industry. Its rates are higher than those of the banks. We must wonder what the policy really is.
Under this act the board of directors will be increased. There will be more flexibility for security, and that is beneficial because a very large percentage of our producers work off the farm in addition to running their primary production units.
The other area that is beneficial, and I believe this was also recommended by the farm financial task force, is the provision for a grievance between the provincial government lending agencies, the private sector and so on.
It is interesting that in this legislation it provides that the headquarters of the FCC would be in Regina, Saskatchewan or any other place in Canada. The Tories lost most of their support in Saskatchewan in the last election. One just wonders, and God forbid that they be re-elected, that if they lost the rest of their support the headquarters would move to some other location. Regina has worked out to be a very good location because of the tremendous agriculture potential and work in that province. It is interesting that they have left the headquarters' location rather open. Later I will discuss why they might be doing that.
It is interesting that appointments to the enlarged board will be made by the Minister of Agriculture as approved by the Governor in Council while the chairperson and the president will be appointed by the Governor in Council. The procedure for the appointment of these directors and senior officers is the same as currently stipulated in the existing legislation. However, the proposed legislation takes away the power of the Minister of Agriculture to remove directors at any time, as deemed appropriate. It also eliminates the power of the Governor in Council to remove officers of the corporation at any time judged suitable.
It is amazing that the power of the government to remove people has been taken away. If we examine the Votes and Proceedings at the end of December we can see that there were some 54 Order in Council appointments and on February 3 there were 105 Order in Council appointments. We wonder if the government has some intention to lock people in for as long as possible.
There were such outstanding non-partisan appointments made on February 3 as Brian Peckford and William H. Neville to the board of directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Obviously the gov-
February 10, 1993

emment is taking great care in these appointments and seems to be getting ready for something or other.
It is interesting that in this legislation the power to remove people is being removed, whether it is the Governor in Council's power to remove officers or the minister's power to remove members of the board of directors.
There are a number of beneficial elements of this legislation. They represent a number of recommendations. There are a number of things that could be improved, and I hope they will. I am sure there will be other recommendations when this bill goes before the legislative committee and we have heard from an appropriate number of witnesses.
It seems to me that the idea of an advisory board should be provided for in this legislation. There does not seem to be any provision for that. I know that the Minister of Agriculture has had an ongoing battle with the advisory board of the Canadian Wheat Board and perhaps that is why the government wants to remove the advisory board of the Farm Credit Corporation. It is useful to have an advisory board.
The argument is made by the government that the board of directors is larger but the board of directors has a statutory corporate responsibility to defend whatever it is doing. An advisory board is closer to the grass roots. It does not have that corporate responsibility. It is able to be a sounding board to reflect the feeling of the producers. There should be provision for an advisory board.
It is interesting that the Farm Credit Corporation would be able to make loans to non-Canadians and to people who are not even residents of the country. With the credit crunch that so many farmers are feeling in this country at this time, and especially if we are going beyond the farm gate and providing funding for the food processing industry, it seems to me that we should at least provide that these funds are available to Canadians or at least to Canadian residents, to landed immigrants.
Even though the board of directors is substantially enlarged, almost doubled, there does not seem to be any provision that a set number of the directors be primary producers. Even though this legislation is providing for further processing plants it seems to me that the primary concern should be and must be primary producers and that the funds available should be made available to
Government Orders
primary producers. I hope that additional funds will be provided to compensate for the fact that this is going beyond the farm gate and that it will not just have the same amount it has now because that would obviously take funds away.
The government has already chopped something like 25 per cent or 30 per cent of the funds available under the Farm Credit Corporation Act in the last five years. It should be providing additional funding as it is undertaking a responsibility beyond the farm gate.
There is no provision in the act for an appeal board. It seems to me there are always human personality clashes in any sphere of human activity. The FCC representative may fall into a situation where personalities get in the way of sound business decisions and it seems to me there should be provision for an appeal board. I hope the government will consider that when we get to a legislative committee.
The other area I want to look at is whether this legislation is strictly what it seems or whether it is the first step toward privatization. The Nielsen task force report in 1985 suggested that the government should consider privatizing the FCC, possibly into an agriculture co-operative.
Whether the government has this in mind or not, nobody knows for sure. Only the government knows. It would not be surprising. The government has moved to privatize practically every other Crown corporation. After all Erik Nielsen was sort of the philosopher king of this government for many years. His move to privatize everything that moves is clearly the direction in which the government is moving.
I cannot help but wonder if a number of the provisions are designed to ultimately be there for privatization. There is the fact that the government has moved the headquarters to Regina. That is clearly set out so it would be easy if the government proposes at some stage in the future to sell off the agency. The headquarters could easily be moved to where the rest of the banking industry of this country is located.
A number of things about this bill suggest that the government is moving toward ultimately privatizing the Farm Credit Corporation. I think that would be extremely undesirable. The Crown corporation should be expanded. It should be designed to provide special arrangements for Canadian farmers and not be just

February 10, 1993
Government Orders
another agency of government with no special responsibility except the bottom line. The agriculture committee recommended that in its report several years ago and I am sure it will be the view of the committee reviewing this. The record of the banking industry in this country as far as producers are concerned is not that great. It is a tough situation. We want to see the Farm Credit Corporation setting an objective and producers given the benefit of the doubt. We do not see that necessarily.
The rates of the FCC are higher than the private sector. Its share of the market is going down. As we see from the figures that I quoted earlier its contribution to Canadian agriculture is dropping all the time.
We support this bill. We think there can be improvements made in it. The farm community will have suggestions which will be useful to us. We want to hear from witnesses in the private sector as to how this legislation can be improved. We want to see some amendments in the legislative committee but we are pleased to support it.
We are aghast at the government's general and cavalier attitude toward the dramatic reduction in farm income that we are facing in 1993. It is almost a $1 billion reduction. We have seen the government's support programs already dropping. We assume that something will happen there.
If you look at the government funding over the years, especially for those commodities in the grain and oilseed sector, it usually comes to a peak in an election year, as happened in 1987 and 1988. It came to a peak last year compared to previous years but even that was dramatically lower than 1987 and 1988 even though world prices for grain are not much better.
We hope the government will recognize the desperate situation that thousands of producers are facing this year and provide those support programs that are required to stabilize the industry to see us through this difficult time.
We hope that the predictions of the chief negotiators at the GATT negotiations will be false and that the government will stand up and support those producers in the GATT negotiations. Otherwise we will see thousands of producers who have been self-sufficient and doing a
great job in their commodity areas of poultry and dairy facing the same kind of dismal situation which so many grain and oilseed producers have faced for these long years.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill to create a new expanded Farm Credit Corporation which I approve of in principle.
It was a bit more than a decade ago in this House that I recommended to the then Minister of Agriculture, Eugene Whelan, that a farmers' bank was something that would be useful, given the situation that existed then. An expanded Farm Credit Corporation would have been able to provide credit to put in crops, to finance livestock, to finance buildings and the expansion of the farm itself, as well as the equipment and the wherewithal to expand off the farm into businesses which were integrated into the farm either forward or backward. It was a dream that I proposed to the Minister of Agriculture at that time.
That was just over a decade ago. Unfortunately we may be too late, but it is better late than never in this case. It is long past the time that the Farm Credit Corporation began to act in a way that will make it of more use to farm people than has been the case in the past.
Farm Credit, as I saw it 10 or 11 years ago, was well positioned to play the role that needed to be played in the strapped financial times farmers were facing. They were already evident in the early 1980s. Most of their credit advisers had a fairly good background in agriculture-much better than most of the banks had at that time-and they would have been well positioned to have assisted farm families in making the shift into the kind of adjustments that took place in the 1980s.
Unfortunately the Liberal government at the time did not see fit to act. It is good to see, although it is in the dying days of this Parliament and of this government, that the Conservatives have now decided to put such an agency in place.
I am not certain this new agency can still be competitive. The banks, both private and public-public meaning the Federal Business Development Bank-and the various provincial organizations that provide financial and banking services have a leg up on this new organization.
February 10, 1993

The Farm Credit Corporation is on very shaky ground at the moment financially. It will retain the backing of the Government of Canada which is a good thing because in its most recent past, if it had not had that backing it would have technically been as bankrupt as many of its clients have become. Therefore it has a big challenge in front of it to carry out the mandate this bill will give it.
I see the corporation being involved in providing loans for farms to expand into the farm supply side of their business, to allow farmers, either singly or with neighbours, to set up machinery agencies, fertilizer plants, fuel supply centres. Some of this is already being done in most of the farming areas of this country through co-operatives. This provides other options for those small communities where perhaps the co-op has failed or where there is a new alignment.
Its greatest possibilities lie in the further processing of farm products. This sort of financial institution would have been given consideration by individuals in my community who have recently set up a food processing plant which turns pea flour into a product that resembles potato chips but, of course, tastes a bit more like peas. It is healthier because it has a higher protein content and is finding a fairly good demand in the market at the moment.
Peas are grown in the area and in the future I can see the grinding of peas into flour for this further processing into what we call a chip continuing in the future.
There are a great many projects being planned and designed in the rural part of Canada I come from. Feedlots that make use of the grain to produce ethanol as a sideline with the feedlot using the by-product from the ethanol production are in place now and more are being planned. Having a source of funds from the Farm Credit Corporation is a further place for such institutions to get financing. Alfalfa dehydrating plants and further processing of food also have possibilities.
As I said at the beginning of my comments, farmers and provincial governments have provided new ways for people to act co-operatively. A number of farm communities have already figured out ways to set co-operative structures in motion that have attracted the attention of the financial institutions, including the six or seven large
Government Orders
chartered banks, to the point where some of these banks are now offering such co-operative ventures credit at less than prime.
I only mention this because it seems to me that this new expanded Farm Credit Corporation is going to have its work cut out if it is going to be a competitive institution facing the experience other lenders and other credit institutions have developed in the 10 or 12 years that the federal government sat and did nothing with regard to the expansion of powers of the Farm Credit Corporation.
I do not think we should spend a lot of time reviewing this legislation.
I approve of the parliamentary secretary's statement when he opened this debate in which he pointed out that the government intended to withdraw subclause 4(5) of the bill. It was an unnecessary part of the legislation and would probably result in a lot of political wrangling.
It is quite clear from my point of view as a federal member of Parliament who understands the need for strong federal powers over financial institutions that the final power rests with the federal jurisdiction in that regard. I do not think it had to be reasserted in legislation. That is spinning wheels and creating unnecessary verbiage and unnecessary conflict. I am pleased to see that it was withdrawn.
I will cut my remarks short so that we can go on to further stages of this bill. I believe it could be dealt with in all stages before this day's session is finished.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings and then the hon. member for Kent who will split 20 minutes.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to make some comments on Bill C-95 which is redoing the Farm Credit Corporation legislation, the act covering it.
As my colleagues have said before me I will say from the outset that I support the bill in principle. There are some ways the bill could be improved. I am not excited about the fact that it may go through all stages today because there is some work that could and should be done on it in committee. My recommendation to my

February 10,1993
Government Orders
colleagues and to the House is that indeed that should happen.
It is an important piece of legislation. I do not think we need to rush it through today. I am not saying I want to drag my feet on it, but we need to have at least a meeting or two in committee on it.
As we know it is permissive legislation and there are some good changes. One of the questions I raise is that I am not so sure that we need 12 members in total on the board of directors. I will leave it at that. I just raise that question. I am not sure we need that many.
Without going over the good things the bill does point by point, it expands the way in which moneys can be used that are borrowed from the Farm Credit Corporation by including value added parts of the industry and enterprises. In the minds of some people it may be moving away a little from what we think of as traditional Farm Credit Corporation loans for barns, machinery and land, to what I will call cottage industries, as long as they are on the farm and one of the spouses wants to get involved.
We know there is an incredible amount of stress, strain and financial pressure on the farm community today. In far too many cases one spouse has to go off the farm. As I said in the House yesterday, the average Canadian farmer feeds 120 people, but one member of the average Canadian farm family has to go off the farm to make enough money to feed the family. This will make some money available for a cottage-type business or industry that might spin off from the farming operation.
It also makes it possible for an individual to use other assets to guarantee the loan, whether that be another property some place else. In the past it had to be a first mortgage on the assets the money was being borrowed to buy. If an individual with a full-time job wants to start a farm business or livelihood in a smaller way and he has a piece of property some place else or has some investments he can use them.
It also gives the FCC the power to set interest rates. I might make a comment here that I hope with the new powers and the flexibility it will have the FCC will make the banks nervous.
There have been times in the past when maybe the FCC has been a little too lenient when it has lent money. Quite frankly there was a period of time a few years ago when the FCC was seen as the lender of last resort.
Probably some of the files it started at that time, we can say with hindsight now, were not good investments.
As the previous speaker just said, some chartered banks are lending money to agrifood operations at less than prime. If some changes in the Farm Credit Corporation can bring a bit more reality to the chartered banks and other lending institutions and therefore a little more support to agrifood and the farm community, it is way overdue. That should take place.
I become very upset every week when I get calls at my office from farm businesses that are struggling. They are working hard. They are doing the best job they can do and they say, basically with no notice, that their bankers phone them up and say their operating loans are cut. They just start tightening that old vice and the first thing we know they have restricted business to the stage that it just cannot survive any longer and we have lost it. Not only have the people lost their incomes. We in the agrifood industry in Canada have lost that input and that production.
There are a couple of places where there should be some improvements. I am not at all happy with the fact that there really is not a proviso in the legislation, unless I have missed it, for an appeal board for people who are not happy with the way they have been dealt with. I think that provision should be there.
If there are to be twelve members or directors in total, one being the chairman, one being the president and ten being directors, three of those directors should definitely be primary producers. That stipulation should be included in the make-up of the board of directors. I am not saying it would not happen, but I think the industry and I would feel more comfortable if it were there.
I have discussed the next one with the minister in the last few minutes. I do not know what the answer is. It is being checked out, but I think we should follow it up. I know there is concern-it is a concern of mine and of some other people I have talked to since this legislation has been out there-that this legislation makes farm credit loans available not only to Canadian citizens or landed immigrants but to non-Canadians and nonlanded immigrants.
People could come into Canada from another country and avail themselves of the benefits of the Farm Credit Corporation. I do not know where that fits in as far as the charter is concerned and what that would do, but it definitely does concern me and others who have brought it to my attention. In a nut-shell the feeling is that Farm
February 10, 1993

Credit Corporation loans should be available only to Canadian citizens or landed immigrants.
I do not have any other comments I would like to make. This is a move in the right direction. It is a little overdue. The industry needs a lot of help. There is a lot of uncertainty, uncertainty whether it be over GATT, whether it be over the future of the Western Grain Transportation Act, whether it be over the future as to whether barley will be in or out of the Canadian Wheat Board. I could go on and on.
Farmers want some more certainty. This is a piece of legislation that can start giving that. I stress again that I feel very strongly it should go to committee for a bit of work there and then back to the House in the not too distant future. Mr. Speaker, as you said, I will share the rest of my time with my colleague from Kent.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today during debate on Bill C-95 respecting the Farm Credit Corporation Act.
I am personally inclined to support this bill, especially since many of the changes proposed in it are the result of the farm finance task force. Farmers have had input into this bill and I believe that on the whole they are in favour of it.
The major concern I have with Bill C-95 is the fact that it will seem to act just like a bank. The Farm Credit Corporation should be there for farmers. It is a lending institution of last resort.
If Farm Credit Corporation offers interest rates at the same or even higher levels than banks, what is the point of having a separate organization for farmers? I say that as a farmer. I have seen too many farmers go bankrupt in my day for many reasons, not the least of which being that the banks and farm credit were unwilling to take a risk and lend to a farmer in trouble.
Yes, the money has to come from somewhere, and I would be the first to applaud greater efficiency in the use of tax dollars. Farm credit uses tax dollars while banks do not, but we must support our farmers. They are faced with Mother Nature, low commodity prices and
Government Orders
global competition. We ought to use every means possible to ensure that Canada remains self-sufficient in food and retains the ability to export quality grains and oilseeds to world markets.
I think that a lot of people in Canada need educating on the importance and greatness of agriculture. Too many take it for granted. They go to a restaurant, shop at a grocery store and perhaps never once think about how that food got there in the first place.
Canadians would dramatically increase their appreciation of agriculture the day our farmers shut down and we were faced with a famine or food shelves were not stocked the way they were used to seeing them. This is not Russia; this is Canada. We must maintain and improve our farmers' ability to grow crops and food while helping to ensure a fair market price.
One of the things I favour with this new Bill C-95 is the fact it will allow farm credit greater flexibility in long-term financing. This is so important to farmers because no loan officer can base their figures on one, two or even three crop years.
If that were the case, no farmer would ever get a loan as they could be faced with drought one year and floods the next. We see that in my own riding of Kent. It seems to me that the aim of Bill C-95 is to extend and strengthen the mandate of the Farm Credit Corporation. Market conditions and the farming economy in the nineties are much different from those in the fifties and sixties.
We are competing in a global market so this legislation must have a global outlook. Today there is more emphasis on added value in the agrifood sector. This is an important departure from the existing Farm Credit Act which only allows the FCC to lend money for agricultural purposes.
For example, farm syndicates would now be eligible for FCC loans. As well, the expansion of financial services as outlined in this new bill will permit loans to people who lease farm land but do not own it. This is an important addition. If our farm land is being used for agricultural activities we ought to help the farmer to the greatest extent possible, even if he is just leasing the land. He is

February 10,1993
Government Orders
making good use of the land so the farm credit option should be available to him. Bill C-95 does that.
One thing that should be clarified is that the new legislation does not require farmers to be Canadian citizens to get an FCC loan. Why not? It is Canadian tax dollars used on Canadian farms. Is this the new globalization when foreigners can buy up our land and then be eligible for loans? I would like to know the government's thinking on that one.
The Liberal Party believes that an FCC loan should be available to a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant.
Something brand new in this bill is the notion of giving the FCC the power to make guaranteed loans to farmers or a group of farmers for business related to their farming operation to allow value added production. Bill C-95 expands the availability of financial services to this kind of production. The loan would be conditional on proof that the input is going into farm production and where the output is part of farm production.
As long as the inputs and outputs of a diversified operation can be seen clearly, the proposed legislation will allow the FCC to provide a loan to a business located off the farm but within the rural sector.
Under the law presently in place the FCC could only make a loan to a business venture on the farm, but subclause 4(1) of the bill does not come right out and say that the value added part of the farm operation must be located in rural Canada to get an FCC loan. The legislation does not set any boundaries on population size to distinguish between rural and urban centres and yet this same subclause says the bill is for the benefit of rural Canada. Why is there not a clarification on that?
The original mandate of the Farm Credit Corporation was to lend money for agricultural purposes only. Bill C-95 is a significant departure from this. The new bill proposes to include loans to farm businesses that diversify beyond the farm gate for value added production.
I feel the result of this move while logical at first glance could mean a large percentage of FCC funds being transferred away from helping our primary producers and instead to further value added production facilities.
Clause 4(2)(a)(iv) fails to explain how the FCC will deal with problems which could arise when dealing with laws under provincial jurisdiction. For example, if a farmer obtains an FCC loan to diversify into ethanol production and then later he decides to diversify again into the distribution of ethanol blended fuels, how can we justify FCC financed oil tanks on farm land zoned as agricultural?
There are still kinks to be worked out in this bill. That may come through actual implementation.
One of the major changes in the proposed legislation is found in subclause 4(2)(g) which gives the FCC board the power to set interest rates charged on loans. Under the current law it takes six to seven days for the Governor in Council to set interest rates and fees for guarantees. Now FCC loans charge a higher rate of interest than the banks in keeping with the greater risk of farm loans.
We still must address the real problem which is the government's economic policy. Even though the FCC increased its lending by 86 per cent last year, it continues to lose market share to banks and credit unions. Many banks have adapted well to the marketplace with agricultural specialists, regional head offices and bank managers trained in farming pursuits.
Something that bears closer scrutiny is that under subclause 4(2)(h) the FCC must operate on a break-even basis. No farm credit program will be allowed if it is losing money. The only way the FCC could operate a money losing program would be for the federal government to provide farm credit with equalizing payments.
Something that is a positive move is the reduction debt to equity ratio. The current debt to equity ratio is 25 to 1. Subclause 12(3)(b) imposes a limit on liabilities to 12 to 1.
Under the current legislation the FCC would be allowed to borrow up to $28 billion, whereas under the new rules the FCC would be limited to between $13.5 billion and $16.8 billion. The reason behind increasing the FCC's capital limit and imposing a lower limit on liabilities is that the government is interested in Farm Credit growing through its own profits like any other private corporation. I certainly do not have any problem with that.
February 10, 1993

We are all very aware of the problems with agriculture today. The number of family farms has dropped steadily over the years with roughly 280,000 farms remaining today, down 13,000 from 1986.
The total farm debt has reached a staggering $23 billion. The ability to repay that debt is compounded by a farmer's low income. In 1991 farm bankruptcies reached 441, double the number from 1980. It is amazing to note that the average Canadian farmer has about $525,000 invested in the farm, yet only realizes $15,707 in annual farm income, of which over half is producer support payments by the Canadian taxpayer.
The GATT discussions are very important to farmers, especially in my area of southwestern Ontario. The future of supply management is in doubt. Marketing boards account for over a quarter of total farm cash receipts and supports 38,000 farm families.
We have a grain subsidy war on our hands and I know the new Minister of Agriculture shares our concerns. He knows that the impact of the grain subsidy war on the price of Canadian grain between 1985 and 1990 resulted in the loss of $4.7 billion in farm revenues on the export of 90 million tonnes of grain. Now under the free trade agreement we have opened the border to U.S. wheat.
I believe that the FTA failed to protect traditional Canadian grain markets from U.S. subsidy programs such as the Export Enhancement Program. According to the Canadian Grains Council, between 1985 and 1990 the EEP has resulted in the loss of $2.5 billion in grain sales.
In conclusion, the level of desperation in rural Canada is increasing tenfold. As established farms face foreclosure, farm families are under tremendous stress and rural communities are in decline.
Bill C-95 goes some way to increasing the flexibility required to handle the unique needs of the farmer. It moves the system into the globally competitive nineties. If in the long run it helps farmers more effectively and efficiently than the old Farm Credit Act, then I am all for it. Despite some of its imperfections, I am pleased to support Bill C-95.
Government Orders


Jim Jordan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I notice our colleague from Saint-Denis has joined us. I just wanted to remind all sides of the House that he has been here a long time.
It was 29 years ago today that our colleague from Saint-Denis was first elected to the House of Commons. He is one of the senior members. In a by-election on February 10, 1964 this very shy and reserved man who is reluctant to speak very often came to the House of Commons. I have a lot of admiration for him, the rather multi-dimensioned guy that he is.
I am sure that all sides of the House would like to congratulate our colleague from Saint-Denis as he starts the second half of his political career.


Mr. Boyer:: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. In recognition of the dean of the House, I would like to say on behalf of Progressive Conservative members and certainly myself that ever since being in this House the hon. member has been if not an institution at least a very familiar part of the scene and the setting, the debate and the mood that is always created here by his participation and his guidance.
It is not only for his 29 years of service in the House of Commons that he is recognized as dean of the House, it is also his contribution to the public debate of our country, as well as the years of long service.
I can remember as a student at Carleton University in the mid-1960s joining with some other young Liberals, and I think even a few young New Democrats, in an organization of young Canadians interested in politics. We held a meeting at the Chateau Laurier Hotel. In came this effervescent young member of Parliament and he was introduced as the newly elected member for Saint-Denis. That was my first encounter with the hon. gentleman.
The point of order was introduced with a reference to the first half of his political career which is now 29 years in the House.
The riding of Saint-Denis has grown accustomed to longevity in its elected representatives. The hon. member's predecessor, Azellus Denis, was first elected to this House of Commons in 1935. He served here for a full 28 years as well. When Mr. Denis retired from this place, he went on to the other place, the red chamber along the corridor and served there for another 28 years. He found

February 10, 1993
Government Orders
political heaven after and on the basis of that, I think the incumbent for Saint-Denis is already one year overdue to find his reward in political heaven.
Wherever that might be and with whomever he might associate as a colleague, they will be as fortunate as those of us who are currently members of this Parliament to be present with the hon. member who has brought a lot of distinction as well as good humour, wisdom and passion to the public affairs of our country.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating the hon. member for Saint-Denis on his anniversary. I do not envy him his 28 years. It is not something I anticipate for myself but I do appreciate the hon. member and the contributions he makes.
Those of us who have come in after him particularly appreciate the very kind way he has of making new members feel comfortable when they first arrive. He was one of the first members I recall running into. I imagine it is just part of his personality that he greets all new members. He probably does not even remember, but it was very much appreciated to have one of the longstanding members welcome me to the Hill, someone from the other end of the country so to speak.
At that time he was quite close to the then Prime Minister. I think he was his parliamentary secretary. He was one of the members who travelled a great deal for three or four years. He kept Canada in front of a lot of countries. I am sure with his personality and his elegance he made a fine impression on all he met on behalf of Canada.
The member has been a credit to the House. While it is up to him whether he wishes to stay another 28 years, I am sure that he has been looking down the hall at the other chamber. I am not sure he will get 28 years there as his predecessor did, but we wish him well at any rate.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments to those of hon. members who paid tribute to the hon. member for Saint-Denis. When the hon. member started his career in this House, I was a very young man at the time, but I have always appreciated and admired the excellent job done by the hon. member for
Saint-Denis. I may add that he has always very ably represented his constituents, the entire Montreal region and of course Quebec as a whole.
As a member of the delegation that attended the canonization of Mother d'Youville in Rome, I had the pleasure of making that trip with the hon. member for Saint-Denis. I must say that the hon. member was very well known in Vatican circles and at the Holy See, and it was a privilege to have him with us on that occasion.
For the past few months I have also had occasion to sit with him on the House Management Committee, where his advice and comments are always of very high calibre and much appreciated. Therefore, on behalf of all Quebec members sitting in this House, I would like to pay tribute to the hon. member of Saint-Denis and wish him a long life in this House. Should he consider continuing his career in another House of Parliament, I would be delighted to support him in this endeavour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have another member here.


An hon. member:: What does this have to do with agriculture?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Somebody just asked me what this has to do with agriculture. He is going to mention all the agriculture ministers he has met and seen leave.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join with the House in expressing congratulations to the member for Saint-Denis. I am sure it has nothing to do with the real stuff of agriculture that we are talking about here today. It is about a member who has really made an outstanding contribution to this House.
I think back to the mid-1970s when I had the opportunity of serving as the vice-chairman of the external affairs and national defence committee. The hon. member was the very distinguished chairman of that committee and led it through some very difficult and complicated hearings, not only in Ottawa but outside the country. I came to appreciate his contribution tremendously. I think that he brings a sense of balance and a
February 10, 1993

sense of the best traditions of this House. Often there are issues that seem to be inflamed and a few words from the hon. member seem to cool the situation.
I think the work he has done on the Member's Services Committee is also important because it is not strictly a matter of legality or a matter of quick judgment, but a matter of putting this in that committee in an historical perspective. I think he always does that, certainly with our caucus. Although I have not had an opportunity to attend those meetings, I am sure he brings that same balance and judgment to the deliberations of the committee.
Our time in the House of Commons often is judged not so much by the years but the number of elections. The hon. member has gone through nine elections and that is a great many. I think it is very fitting that if his predecessor had 28 years in the Chamber and 28 years in the Senate then it would be very fitting for this member to serve 29 years in this House and 29 years in the upper House so he would one up him by that amount."
I am sure we have very powerful representatives on the government side who might want to speak to the Prime Minister about this. I know the hon. member is very close to the Prime Minister on issues such as this.
There is another issue this member really brought to the House. I travelled with him on committees dealing with the Constitution in the early 1970s when he was able to put the national perspective with regard to the two founding nations of this country and bring some good will, good sense and judgment. That is not always easy. However, members like the member for Saint-Denis are able to bring out the goodwill that exists on the national level and makes our country really function. He has done a great job in that regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think it would be unfair if we did not let the shy and very modest member from Saint-Denis reply, as he wipes the tears from his eyes.


Mr. Prud'homme:: You are right, Mr. Speaker. I must say I am very touched by this tribute from my friends in the House.
Government Orders

Needless to say, I am thankful to the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr. Jordan, which is how I always refer to him, was the first to rise and draw your attention to my presence in the House.

Yes, indeed, it was a great day then and I want you to know it is still a great day.
I always remember when I was introduced in the House by the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, a man for whom I had great respect. My colleague from Algoma, who was last to speak, is a faithful and remarkable successor to Mr. Lester B. Pearson.
When I came into this House I held Mr. Pearson a little bit in order to pay a salute, just a short salute like this, when I passed in front of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. It was quite surprising for people. Some say it was even surprising to me, maybe it was nervousness, but I thought that was the only way to act in the great political system called the British parliamentary system. We are not and should not be adversarial all the time.
I am very touched by the kind words of the member for Leeds-Grenville. Yes indeed I remember because I make it a point when I see new members coming in. When I came into this House, I came alone. Everybody thought that I knew everything, but I had to find my way around. I said that if I had a chance to stay longer the first thing I would do is to go and see every member from every party and say: "If you need anything, if I can be helpful, not push, but if I can be helpful I would be honoured and delighted". I have done so and I remember.
I cannot say I remember speaking to the student, but I spoke to many students. I thank the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Yes I think it is a great occasion for parliamentarians to share with the young people of this country, trying to build this country, and we are still trying today.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Manicoua-gan for his kind words. I have the pleasure of sitting with

February 10, 1993
Government Orders
him on the House management committee and I must say it is a very rewarding experience.

At the same time, I am still here. Do not announce anything. I hear the good voice of my esteemed colleague who like many here represent exactly the definition of what they call civility. This is something that seems to disappear but civility is important.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me these few moments. I was away this afternoon because the duties of a member of Parliament include going to funerals, and that is what I did this morning. I am very rarely absent, but one has an obligation to one's constituents. Elio, a restaurant owner who started his business, incidentally, when I was elected for the first time 29 years ago, lost his mother, so I was at the funeral, and yesterday I attended the funeral of Marcel Leger, a great Quebecer with a great affection for the Acadian people. Reconciliation is still possible.

If I had to say a very few words to my younger colleague and to Canadians at large I would say that this is a great institution. I am not shy to be a member of Parliament. I am proud to be a member of Parliament of Canada. We should stand up for our noble institution and we should never hesitate to exchange, as I like to do, with each other. We are all elected so we must have a reason to be here. We learn so much from each other.

I think it is essential for parliamentarians to know each other beyond the official speeches, beyond their partisan role playing because we have an incredible task-and thanks to you I can say this-which is to build this country, because it is a country that is evolving, a country that belongs to youth. We have a responsibility to hand it over to them in good shape.

I appreciate this moment. I thank all my colleagues and you, Mr. Speaker, for your graciousness because I know the subject is agriculture. I would like to say something on agriculture. I never hesitated, as a city boy, to go on a radio hot line to say that if we do not protect
our agriculture, we will be dependent on other countries. I do not want my country to be dependent on others. That is why we must make the link not only between colleagues but a link between the people of the city and the country. We must protect the people on the farms. My people, my family, comes from the farm. I know what it is to work hard. We must stand up and talk to people in the cities. It is in their own interest to have a very strong vibrant agriculture in Canada so that we will not be dependent.
I can link the celebration of today, thanks to your graciousness, with the debate that is taking place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I knew he would come back to agriculture.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On behalf of all my colleagues in the House, all colleagues here who were not here at this time but were probably watching you on television, we wish you Godspeed, lots of health, and hope it will not be today, but tomorrow or the next day that you will be going to the red chamber.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, it was not very long after the member for Saint-Denis came into this House of Commons that I had the honour to meet him. Before he leaves, I hope he will listen for a moment.
It was at a political convention and he was true to his word. Of course I was involved in agriculture being a farmer. The hon. member for Saint-Denis at that very first convention demonstrated to me an individual who had a very broad outlook on life. I admired and respected him and I can assure him that my admiration and respect continued to build.
I want to say it was an honour in later years to sit with him in this House of Commons as a colleague. If there is anyone in this House who demonstrates the sincerity, passion, elegance and the sense of pride that he spoke about a few moments ago that is clearly understood by this country, it is the member for Saint-Denis.
That is a sense of pride that I believe we as Canadians have to rekindle if we are going to achieve the greatness of which this country is capable.
February 10, 1993

I too want to add my congratulations to Marcel Prud'homme, the hon. member for Saint-Denis. Marcel, I mean it sincerely.
Bill C-95, the bill before us today, amends the Farm Credit Corporation Act. This act has assisted thousands of farmers, myself included, over the years. I was a client going back a lot of years ago when I first started and later expanded.
It is a good organization and provided a service that was badly needed because back in those times we could not get a mortgage from the banks. I am happy to say that over the term of that mortgage, I believe it was 25 or 30 years, through a lot of scrounging, a lot of improvising and a lot of worry, we were able to meet our commitments. Only once or twice over that time span did we have to ask for a delay, but when we asked we were always granted that request.
I have been upset in more recent years when I see younger farmers struggling to make ends meet. I would like also to point out that we have a lot to look at in this act. As was noted in the report of the Auditor General, this is the second consecutive year the Auditor General did not have sufficient evidence to conclude that the allowance for loan losses, and consequently certain other items in the FCC's financial statement, were fairly presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
I want to repeat that last part, that the Auditor General found there was insufficient evidence to know if the FCC's financial statements were fairly presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
I am afraid that this bill may very well lessen the corporation's accountability to Parliament and may well lessen the ability of the Auditor General to investigate the accounting practices of FCC.
I have been approached by many producers, not just from my own constituency, but outside my own constituency. They feel they have been dealt with unfairly by the FCC. They were led to believe that all these people like themselves are malcontents and trouble makers. I am very sorry and shocked to hear this.
Just last week I was contacted by a producer who has been unable to get a proper accounting of his mortgage account history. This is a client of a corporation that has
Government Orders
to respond to the Parliament of Canada and he cannot get an accounting. He made repeated requests for the information. Until my office called the local office he was told he could get this information only by filing a court request. Yet when we requested this information we were assured that it was sent. But FCC continues to stonewall and did not send the requested information. It sent some but not what was requested.
I am beginning to feel that on this and previous situations, my role as a member of Parliament may well be infringed upon when I am asked by a constituent or someone outside my riding for specific information and ask for it in writing.
In fact I want to go back a few years to the 1988 five-year plan required by the legislation that was supposed to be tabled in this House within 15 days of the next sitting of Parliament. I had to wait three years for that corporate plan and so did this House. It was not received until nearly three years later. I suggest that my rights as a member of Parliament were infringed upon by not being able to have that information.
This particular producer wants an exception to end the date of mortgage and reamortization application of payment, with the rate of interest and how that interest is calculated in a statement from the FCC, not just a summary of the amount owing. Surely this is not too much to ask from any institution.
I do not see anything in this bill that will ensure that producers have a right to their own information when dealing with FCC. This bill really should be increasing the accountability of FCC to Parliament and to producers, not reducing it. It is most essential that accountability be available to all of the borrowers.
One also has to wonder about the removal of the provision that a future Minister of Agriculture can remove members of the FCC board. If this is so, can the government appoint a new batch of members? I also object to the removal of the stipulation that half the members of the FCC board be agriculture producers.
In another case, an individual who deals on a regular basis with FCC cases sent me a fax the other day with some interesting figures. He did an analysis of information we sent him on request. He points out that the FCC claims to have a 75 per cent rate of success in dealing with the Farm Debt Review Board. However, that figure refers to cases resolved, but resolved does not refer to cases where the applicant is allowed to continue in the

February 10, 1993
Government Orders
business of farming, but the FCC getting some sort of settlement.
In this person's mind the figure is a 72 per cent failure rate in Ontario and a 74 per cent failure rate across Canada, as only 28 per cent and 26 per cent of Farm Debt Review Board cases involving FCC result in the producer being left with a farm operation.
I do not see anything in this bill either that would direct the FCC to deal fairly and openly with the Farm Debt Review Board. All too often I have been running into the FCC using a bait and switch tactic with producers before the Farm Debt Review Board. That is the case where the producer believes they have a deal struck to make a settlement with FCC and makes the financial arrangements to do that from another source only to be told that the deal is all off now. We have something else in mind. The FCC made one deal before the hearing and another deal at the last minute, either after or during the hearing itself.
A constituent of mine whose case I raised primarily in this Chamber, in an attempt to get the FCC to deal fairly with him, wrote me a letter in November 1992 notifying me that 1,350 days after the last Farm Debt Review Board and attempting to reach a settlement with FCC, a court ruled that FCC could not liquidate him without going to court.
I want to read a section of this letter into the record that describes dealing with FCC in flesh and blood terms. I want to point out that this particular client is severely handicapped. He writes:
As with every major fork in the path the family has been forced to travel, the timing is contrived to enhance the maximum stress damage to the cohesion of the family and the individuals carrying on the struggle.
To schedule such decisions for Christmastime is no coincidence. It is also no coincidence that in an Ontario Court of Appeal before the proceedings began, the lawyer for FCC called my father a loser while looking at my father and within my father's hearing range.
That a Crown corporation answerable to the Parliament of Canada, and directed by the Minister of Agriculture, would put a family farm through a war of-5.5 years-that a Crown corporation answerable to the Parliament of Canada and directed by the Minister of Agriculture would spend or lose between $1 to $2
million doing it-are actions that the family demands be stopped,
ended, explained, corrected, compensated, published and prevented.
This is another case reported to me. The FCC arrived at the farm gate with several police cruisers just as the children of the affected family were waiting for the school bus. This type of tactic is devastating for the children, the parents and the community. Think of those children trying to explain to the other children in that school bus or at school what a group of police cruisers were doing at their farm gate just as they are going off to school when the Farm Credit Corporation was serving a foreclosure notice.
Such tactics are not acceptable for any organization, let alone an organization that operates under legislation passed in this House and supervised by this institution.
FCC is the largest single holder of land in Canada. I notice that as of December 31, it has acquired over 1,000 properties but it has over 2,500 properties on hand worth $240 million.
When you look at this sort of accumulation of properties, one has to ask about the state of mind of the people who are being forced off the land by this institution through no fault of their own.
The number of properties acquired by FCC from 1986 to 1991 increased from 324 in 1986 to over 1,000 in 1991 alone. The dollar value of properties climbed from $14 million in 1984 to the $240 million I just mentioned. That is an increase of 1,700 per cent.
This is outrageous. I worry about what lies ahead. I am sure the provisions in this bill to allow the FCC to lend money to non-Canadians so that it may dispose of the land that it has accumulated is not coincidental. Land has been accumulated from hard working Canadian farmers who are losing it not because of their own doing but because of government policies and world market conditions over which the individual has no control.
I want to go back to that letter I received in November 1992 asking how "a Crown corporation answerable to the Parliament of Canada and directly responsible to the Minister of Agriculture that put a farm family through a five and half year war with all the stress and that a Crown corporation answerable to the Parliament of Canada and directed by the Minister of Agriculture would lose between $1 and $2 million doing it". These are actions
February 10, 1993

that this particular family demand be stopped, ended, explained, corrected, compensated for and certainly be prevented in the future.
We know that times are difficult. I spoke in this House yesterday on the direction agriculture is going in the world today and that more and more huge corporations are taking over the world's food production. We see it in Canada now with two of these firms involved. I have to worry about what is going to happen not to these farmers who are having their battles now but also in the years ahead.
I suggest that we cannot hide our heads in the sand and ignore that this problem exists. As Canadians who have watched the situation develop we have to recognize it and force it to a halt. We have to make sure that food producing and processing in Canada becomes a matter of national security. I also suggest that the cases I spoke about are going to continue to multiply until such time as the Canadian producer receives a fair share of the Canadian consumer's food dollar. That does not exist at the present time.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly to Bill C-95.1 want to address a specific area of concern relating to this bill that is found in clause 4(1). I would just like to quote it.
The purpose of the Corporation is to enhance rural Canada by providing specialized and personalized financial services to farming operations and to those businesses in rural Canada that are related to farming.
I am well aware, as are colleagues from both sides of the House who spoke previously, about the tremendous amount of anxiety in the rural agricultural community and the need for any amount of support, particularly at this time of tremendous need.
Next to my riding of Stormont-Dundas, is the riding of my good friend and neighbour the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. We have a very pro-active group called the Seaway Valley Energy Co-operative that has been working very hard toward constructing an ethanol plant in the Cornwall area.
Cornwall is not in a rural area. It is a small community of approximately 47,000 people and as such would qualify, I am sure, as a small yet urban centre. We have an opportunity in partnership to recognize the needs of our agriculture community and the potential an ethanol
Government Orders
plant would present for both the agricultural sector and job creation in the urban centre of Cornwall.
More specifically there is one site where regrettably a closure took place late last year. This particular plant offers a very sound potential site for the location of such a project. I have some serious concerns that without a clearer definition, specifically, what is a rural sector?
I would hope if the Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Co-operative people wish to make a request to the FCC for funding that they not find themselves being disqualified on the basis of the plant itself being located just adjacent to our rural area, but being of course situated yet in the city of Cornwall in an urban setting.
I might add that last week Mr. Robert Smith who is the president of this Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Co-operative Group, received some positive news from the province which allocated some funds for a feasiblity study. We would hope that in fact this is only the beginning but certainly a step in the right direction for this initiative which would serve the needs of the rural sector of my riding and also the need for good employment opportunities in the city of Cornwall.
I do not want to delay the debate any longer. We welcome this piece of legislation and we recognize the need. Certainly any assistance that can come forward to our agriculture community at this time certainly is well appreciated by all of those stakeholders.
Once again I would hope that we would be able to clarify in that particular section of the bill as to what the interpretation might be if in fact someone came forward and asked for assistance for a loan or for a project which will go a long way into assisting particularly our com growers and so on. At the same time it is a tremendous positive input into areas related to our environment and of course in the area of employment. I welcome this opportunity to put this on the record.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to stand here today and debate Bill C-95, the Farm Credit Corporation Act.
Farm groups across this country and farmers themselves have over the last several years experienced drastic economic problems. There is no question that all we have to do is look at the financial record of what has been going on to see a real need to revamp or change our

February 10,1993
Government Orders
financial institutions which do serve us, the farmer in this country.
I do support the move to change some of the financing institutions. I certainly would like to see a guarantee of better interest rates, a guarantee of more money and a guarantee of better financial situations for our farm community. All one has to do is realize that the total farm debt in Canada today has reached a staggering $23 billion. The total net farm income was 53 per cent lower in 1991 than it was in 1989.
In 1991 there were 441 bankruptcies. The average farm family income in 1990 was $36,900 of which only 42 per cent, $15,700, was earned on the farm. We can see in that situation off farm income provided the farm community with a much higher income than the farmer working on the farm with an investment of $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 or $100,000 could make. It really is a sad situation that we see today with extremely low commodity prices.
We see a very difficult time suffered by the farm community and not a great deal done to help ease that situation.
Many farmers in my riding really face the fact that bankers, the Farm Credit Corporation and many others have put extreme pressure on them because they are not able to service that debt on many farms.
The average Canadian farmer has roughly $525,000 invested in his farm and he realizes only $15,000 of income from that huge investment. The economic statement of 1992 cut $63 million from the western grain transportation costing the farmer a great deal more money.
The future of supply management which accounts for 28 per cent of the total farm cash receipts and supports
38,000	farm families is currently at risk because of the negotiations at GATT. That causes a tremendous amount of concern in those supply management farm families who are so concerned about the status of their livelihood today and in the future.
We really have failed that farm community as a government. We failed the farm community at the federal level. We failed the farm community at the provincial level seeing year after year very difficult structural problems.
Then, looking at some of the free trade negotiations, they really failed to protect the Canadian grain farmer from subsidy programs that the U.S. supports its farmers with. The NAFTA right now is causing a tremendous amount of threat to many of our basic producers.
As we look at the income side of farming, we see a dramatic problem that I believe this government has to address. I am pleased at this point to say that possibly there is some address here to the side of financing in the farm. There is still going to be a problem if this bill passes of raising moneys on the farming situations that we see today to pay those loans the Farm Credit Corporation may be giving our farmers.
Farm groups seem to be satisfied with many of the proposals that have come down in this piece of legislation. Therefore I feel that we should in this House support that piece of legislation. However there are some difficulties and I think those difficulties may be more clear when we start to look at the expanding practices of loans that may come about with this legislation.
The proposed bill will certainly create an over-all boader focus in the farm community and financing will be available to, as one of my colleagues stated earlier today, some cottage industry on the farm, support processing in the farm community or other activities that will be going on as diversified businesses in farming operations.
I think a great concern must be said about the numbers of dollars that are going to be available for the farm community. Will they be as high after this bill passes as they were before? I have my concerns if these loans become too diversified and move too far away from the basic producer, the basic producer may not have the access to loans that he previously would have had under this piece of legislation.
There are some areas of this new legislation that must be clarified. Does it require farmers to be Canadian citizens? As long as the input and output diversification operations are clearly identifiable the purpose of the legislation will permit the FCC to provide loans to businesses in off-farm rural sectors. However will these off-farm rural sectors start to become operations in the middle of metropolitan Toronto? Could they possibly become operations which may be moved into the urban sector and leave the rural sector in a difficult situation? Certainly, I talk about very, very large centering areas that I may have a great deal of concern about. I would
February 10, 1993

hate to see corporations like Campbells, Heinz, and other large institutions find it more advantageous to locate in metropolitan Toronto than locating in the rural communities where they are today.
I certainly realize that they have moved out of a smaller community to move into that area, which does cause me some concern. Certainly it is not to get their base product from the rural community. It is looking more at possibly importing tomato paste to move into a metropolitan area in order to service that way.
I also have some concern about loss of operations within the rural sector, within the rural communities, moving more to the large metropolitan areas.
In looking at the legislation. I believe that setting interest rates is very important. I hope as we look at the new board and its individual powers that it will take veiy careful consideration to be competitive with the banking institutions that we have in this country and have competitive rates for the farm community.
One of the problems that I have seen in the past few years is the increasingly higher and higher rates that farmers have had to pay to service loans. That has become a very important problem in dealing with the structural debt that farmers face. It is my hope that with the new structure they will be able to handle farm debt and keep interest rates in line with most lending institutions, banks, or even give the farmers a bit of a break in that area.
My final concern is that the Farm Credit Corporation will become very independent, as I see the structure being created. The 12-member board will be appointed by the government but there is no area within the legislation to take away or alter those appointments at a later date. I know of nothing in the legislation which would allow changes to occur in those appointments after they are made, which causes me a bit of concern about how independent and almost self-serving that board may become in the future. This may create some difficulty, a board that could not be controlled otherwise.
Private Members' Business
I appreciate speaking on this bill today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe that is all for this afternoon.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, the government would be quite prepared to move forward with this bill if the House so desires to Committee of the Whole. However if that does not receive unanimous consent it will go to a legislative committee.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, we would prefer to see it go to a legislative committee as provided in the order.


Murray Cardiff: In that case, Mr. Speaker, as it is only 6:45 p.m. we could move into Private Members' Hour, if that is the disposition of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resource envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will call it seven o'clock. It being seven o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6) the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 30, 1992, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crawford that Bill C-301, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act (financial information), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to take part in the debate tonight on the bill put forward by my colleague the hon. member for Kent, Bill C-301.

February 10, 1993
Private Members' Business
I want to commend him on the work he has done on this bill. I see a need for such a bill. I did not only recognize this need as a member of Parliament but as a taxpayer before I ever became a member of Parliament. We always shuddered when we thought of some of the waste that was reported in the Auditor General's report.
If passed this bill with its innocuous sounding title, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act, it would radically change the manner in which the Canadian government spends its money.
The bill is a common sense bill, as my colleague from Kent says. It only makes common sense that there should be a a bill like this in the statutes of this institution because it would ensure the strict monitoring of spending by the federal government, particularly in the areas of project cost overruns.
This bill would require long-term planning on the part of cabinet ministers. They would be required to present to Parliament a detailed report showing the objectives of any proposal, the costs, the method by which this cost had been computed and its effects on the economy, the environment, employment and social programs.
Too often money for proposals is announced before the specifics of the proposal are known. This often leads to cost overruns and inflated price tags.
The Auditor General, in tabling his second report on government operations, said we needed truth in budgeting. He said: "Too often Parliament is asked for spending approval in advance with no idea what the final tab will be. Things are done on a two-step basis, a little bit now and a little bit later. We want to get away from that".
This bill would fulfil the Auditor General's intent to have truth in budgeting.
If we examine the reports of the Auditor General over the last few years we can certainly see the need for such legislation. For example, in 1991 it reported that science, industry and technology gave out $28 million to companies involved in the defence industry productivity program rather than let it lapse at the end of the year. Then it reported later that the companies involved had never asked for the money nor did they realize why they were receiving it. This is ridiculous.
This bill we are debating here this evening would stop this kind of year-end spending. If we have money left let us return it to the Treasury rather than spending it or losing it in next year's budget. We might need it next year. This attitude is prevalent in the bureaucracy.
This bill would also address situations such as one discovered by the Auditor General involving Transport Canada. In October 1988 Transport Canada entered into a 41-year lease agreement with a developer for construction of a $20 million hotel adjacent to Halifax International Airport. This project has since been terminated and only a foundation has been constructed because the department did not verify the company's financing arrangements. Important revenues were lost and future liabilities concerning this land will remain with the department.
If the department had followed the process outlined in this bill in all likelihood the error would have been caught.
I would like to offer another example from the Auditor General's 1990 report that shows why it is important that ministers, not just departments, are covered by this bill. The Auditor General found in 1990 that the Laprade Fund had been inappropriately managed since 1987 when authority for the fund was transferred to the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, now the Department of Science and Technology.
In 1986, $87.3 million was set aside for contributions to economic development projects that would create permanent jobs. Approval for the funding of these projects was left in the hands of the departmental minister and one other minister. The Auditor General found that there were cases in which the ministerial approval given, the level of support given, was more than department analysis identified as necessary for that particular project to proceed.
The Auditor General also found that in one case the project was split in two and as a result received double the amount of funding approved. It is also interesting to note that all project funding went into ridings held by government members, which can only be classified as patronage.
Another boondoggle that might never have occurred if all government spending was required to be approved by the rigourous process proposed in Bill C-301 is that of the case of sky-rocketing computers.
In his 1989 report the Auditor General found that the on-line secure information communication systems program had cost overruns of close to $100 million. The project was budgeted to cost $111 million. As a result of the fact that performance specifications were not included in the contract for the project's automated
February 10, 1993

switching system the budget increased to $208.6 million in 1989.
In his 1991 report the Auditor General noted that in spite of warnings in 1987 and its inclusion in the 1989 report this particular project was not operating and the cost was an additional $53 million.
Lastly I would like to point out that if implemented this bill would stop the awarding of polling contracts without scrutiny by Parliament. It was reported in The Ottawa Citizen on January 15, 1993 that $3.2 million in polling contracts were awarded without competitive bids. It was also reported that in some instances contracts were signed after the surveys were done and the pollsters had submitted their bills.
According to The Ottawa Citizen most of the work went to two firms, Decima Research and Anderson Strategic Research. Both firms had close ties to the government. It is to put an end to such practices that a bill such as Bill C-301 is needed.
In conclusion, I would not deny that this bill requires some amendment, perhaps in committee, and that some of the details will need to be ironed out. However the principle and intent of this bill is sound. Therefore I am proud to be supporting this bill and encourage all members on all sides of the House of Commons to do likewise because, as the member for Kent says, this bill is indeed a common sense bill.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and to Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-301, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act.
First of all I must say that as far as I can see the purpose of this bill is to embarrass the government by shortening the time frame for the tabling of public accounts. For instance, the bill proposes that these should be tabled in October instead of December and that the Auditor General have the authority to comment on long-term planning. I listened very carefully to the hon. member who spoke before and who referred to this bill as a common-sense bill and a measure for expenditure control.
Private Members' Business
I am sure that in the House spending control has been dear to the hearts of all parliamentarians for the past 40 years. However, as hon. members are aware, it is not always easy.
It is high time the House considered this bill, which was given first reading on October 24, 1991. Hon. members have had plenty of time to analyse its implications.
Before considering the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Kent, perhaps I might briefly recall the history of this act, which dates back to 1951. It is still a very important piece of legislation and regulates a large part of the internal operations of government that form the basis for its financial administration and public-sector accounting.
To ensure the legislation remained appropriate to the needs of a government constantly adjusting to today's modern and complex world, the act has been amended on several occasions. On the last of these occasions, in May 1991, an in-depth review of the act resulted in amendments to some 70 sections.
The amendments were a response to recommendations by the Auditor General, to which the hon. member referred earlier. The Auditor General had made several recommendations. Recommendations were also made by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. The purpose of all this was to simplify the administration of public finances and bring it into line with private sector practice, to reduce the paper burden by taking advantage of computer applications-now everything is computerized to clarify certain terms both in English and in French and, last but not least, to save taxpayers money. I am sure parliamentarians on both sides of the House will agree with these goals.
However, the amendments being proposed today do not fit that mould. They are basically concerned with three aspects: the special warrants issued by order of the Governor in Council and subject to his signature, long-term planning, and the date for tabling public accounts.
As I said earlier, it is not always easy to table public accounts. As hon. members are aware, there are times when public accounts are always being held up by one of the departments. They are also aimed at providing Parliament with more specific information on the way public money is spent and bringing the time frame for

February 10, 1993
Private Members' Business
tabling the accounts more into line with practice in large publicly-owned companies.
Although at first glance these amendments seem to be desirable, I do not think it would be appropriate to adopt them. It would not be reasonable to set conditions that would inhibit the ability of the government to govern effectively and to provide accurate and quality information to this House. Let me explain.
Let us consider the first condition, which concerns subsection 30(3) of the Act. It deals with special warrants, issued by order of the Governor in Council and signed by him, to authorize payment of funds from the Treasury. The amendment to this subsection would provide that for every warrant, in addition to a detailed statement of the purposes to which the payment was applied, there should be a statement indicating the amount and the reason for the urgency.
I would remind the House that these warrants can be issued to provide the government with funds only when three conditions have been met. First of all, Parliament must not be in session. Second, there are payments to be made which are urgently required for the public good. Third, there is no appropriation to which the payment may be charged.
Some members of this House are concerned about the irresponsible use of these warrants. Actually, they are seldom used, since the occasions on which all three conditions are met are few and far between. The last time the government resorted to the use of special warrants was in 1989 in a rather unusual situation. Members will recall that following the 1988 election Parliament sat for only three weeks. Before it adjourned, however, the House had been informed of the need for further supply in the 1988-89 fiscal year. The government tabled supplementary estimates on December 16,
1988.
Later, when Parliament was not sitting, the government asked the Governor in Council to issue four warrants, on January 19, February 16, March 23 and April 1. Parliament was recalled on April 3.
Issuing these four warrants when Parliament was not in session was not at all different from the nine other cases when such warrants were issued since the Financial Administration Act was passed in 1951, 42 years ago. Considering that all in all successive governments have
issued such special warrants only 13 times, we cannot really say that the system has been abused. I believe that I can also say in all good faith that in the case with which we are concerned, the government acted responsibly in using public funds and respected the spirit and the letter of the Financial Administration Act.
The other point I would like to dwell on concerns the date when the public accounts should be submitted to Parliament. Bill C-301 would make the time limit for presenting them October instead of December.
I would remind you briefly that the public accounts show the spending on each item, government revenues and other payments credited or charged to the Treasury. They are reported to this House by the President of the Treasury Board no later than December 31 following the fiscal year-end, or if the House is not sitting, within 15 sitting days of that date.
Under the proposed amendment, subsection 64(1) of the act would be changed so that the date would be October 30 instead of December 31.
The government fully realizes that the deadline of December 31 for submitting the public accounts to Parliament is late. By then nine months have passed since the fiscal year-end. The question we might ask is whether it really takes nine months to report Canada's financial situation.
The government is the first to admit that this delay is too long. That is why it has always given high priority to having the public accounts tabled well before that deadline. Indeed, in six of the last ten years, the public accounts were tabled in the first week of November. However, we think it would be pointless to set the highly desirable deadline of October 30 in the act, and here is why.
The information in the public accounts requires a great deal of thorough, time-consuming research. This research is delayed and hindered by all kinds of difficulties. Also, the information in the public accounts comes from the departmental accounts which are not closed until two or three months after the fiscal year-end.
The departments and Treasury Board are not responsible for other difficulties that are due to circumstances beyond our control. For example, it sometimes happens that certain points are discussed with the Auditor General's office and are not settled until he tables his report. In the past this report has been tabled in October, but it
February 10, 1993

has also not been tabled until the end of November, as it was this year.
The process for drawing up the public accounts is both long and painstaking. It is detailed work and moving up the deadline for tabling the public accounts by nearly two months would only compromise the process.
I note that I do not have much time left. In a way the purpose of this bill is much more to embarrass the government than to come up with good figures. That is why I would ask the House not to go ahead and pass this bill because its purpose is much more to embarrass the government than to have accurate financial statements.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party and lend our support to Bill C-301, brought forward by our colleague from Kent. It is indeed a rare occasion that a private member's bill gets this far. One that has been labelled a common sense bill, it is only appropriate that it gets this far, and let us hope that it gets a little bit farther. I will start by dealing with what I consider to be some negatives for 30 seconds and then get on with 9 minutes plus of positives.
As the previous member indicated, I suspect this is going to take some more time for the government. It is going to create more work for the Auditor General. It is going to be a continual internal audit on behalf of the government. It may have to create more bureaucracy to deal with the mechanics of the bill, but the bottom line is that it will bring forward fiscal responsibility and accountability. We know the public demands those now.
Indeed it is an appropriate bill. If I may just read one of the clauses so that if anybody is listening he or she can relate to the common sense of the bill, clause 42.2 reads:
Where the Minister is informed that the cost of a program on which he has laid a statement before Parliament pursuant to section 42.1 will exceed the estimated cost shown in the statement for any year, the Minister shall lay before Parliament a statement showing:
(a)	the amount of the excess cost for the year,
(b)	the reasons for the excess,
(c)	the alternates that have been considered before concluding that
the excess is unavoidable.
Private Members' Business
One might ask for a concrete example or several examples and say: "Does this happen? Just how bad are the overruns when the government loses control of spending?"
I want to cite a statement I made in May 1991 talking about cost accountability at external affairs. It was noted that the estimates for external affairs revealed that between 1987-88 and 1990-91 construction sites in Algiers, Buenos Aires and Tokyo all experienced severe cost overruns.
For Algiers the increase was 169 per cent; for Buenos Aires, a mere 200 per cent; for Tokyo, 478 per cent; the Canadian pavilion in Seville, 50 per cent; the Canadian embassy in Washington, the cost overruns for those buildings out of one department of this government was $102 million. To go from the ridiculous to the sublime, the Canadian government said that it had to put a gate up at its embassy in Washington and that the gate was going to cost $170,000. This is a very special gate. We found out that it was too heavy and that it would not swing so we had to replace the gate. Perhaps that shows some of the fiscal irresponsibility of the government.
It does happen. It happens on a regular basis. What is the problem with making the government fiscally responsible and accountable to Canadian taxpayers? I am sure if they were told about these overruns on a regular basis as they happen they would be horrified. It does continue. We can go to whatever lengths are necessary to bring fiscal responsibility to whatever government happens to be in power at the particular time.
The Museum of Civilization is a classic, something of which Canadians can rightly be proud. In 1982 the estimated cost was to be $80 million. In 1985 it had risen to $122 million. In 1987 it went up another $46 million to $168 million. When we are in so deep we cannot really say: "Well, let us not proceed with this museum"; we have to finish the job. In 1988 it was just another $8 million because the designer of the building said: "Look, this building is more expensive than we thought it would be and I need my royalties to go up a little higher; my charge is going to be a little higher". It was another $8 million. In 1989 the cost of that museum started at $80 million. It finished at $340 million and it is not yet complete.

February 10, 1993
Private Members' Business
I was called over there a year and a half ago and they said: "We think the building is leaking". After $340 million, the building could have a leak in it. In fact some said there was a faulty structure and there was danger that the building was going to shake and collapse. Heaven forbid. That is veering off the point, but it went from $80 million to $340 million, a cost overrun of $260 million, and the museum is not yet complete. Once we get in that deep we cannot get out. That is the reality of the situation.
Right at the very end they wanted to get the museum opened so they said: "We had better hurry up and get all these things finished". They had to toss in another $11 million to get it ready for opening day. Unfortunately on opening day some ammonia fumes got into the museum and they had to postpone the opening. I do not know what it cost to get rid of the ammonia and straighten things out. I am sorry to have picked on such a prized structure but nevertheless that is reality. It really points to the fact that a bill like this one would bring direct accountability and fiscal responsibility to the government.
I urge the government side to support the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party in approving this bill and getting it to committee. Some say it is not perfect. Let us deal with it. Having had a bill destroyed in committee yesterday, I really appreciate that the member would like it at least to get into committee. I think it is a bill worthy of support. It should be retained, studied and supported.


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate of the motion of the hon. member for Kent. I know he has put a lot of thought into it. I know his heart is in the right place. I would like to make some comments though and draw some attention to some aspects of the particular bill that need particular consideration.
Bill C-301 seeks to amend the Financial Administration Act in three areas: special Governor General's warrants, long-term planning and the tabling of public accounts. Some members may feel this is a worth-while bill to support. However many others will recognize that these changes may not be in the best interest of this House.
Allow me to respond to the concerns of the hon. member with regard to section 30 of the Financial
Administration Act which authorizes the use of special Governor General's warrants during periods in which Parliament is not in session.
Members of this House will recall how in May 1989 the House debated the government's use of special Governor General's warrants in the context of the 1989 Main Estimates. At that time the government's actions were not only determined to be in full compliance with the Financial Administration Act, but they were also determined to be fully justified.
The provision to use special Governor General's warrants under prorogation and dissolution has been provided for in our legislation since 1867. In 1951 the first Financial Administration Act was passed. That act broadened the provision to use the warrants during periods when Parliament was under extended adjournment.
The changes made have not fundamentally changed the original criteria governing the use of special Governor General's warrants. They have only clarified the scope of their application. The provisions of the Financial Administration Act which govern the use of special Governor General's warrants sets out three conditions under which the warrants may be used.
They are: Parliament must not be in session because it is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned; payments are to be made which are urgently required for the public good; and there is no other appropriation to which the payment may be charged.
I would like to review for the hon. member the circumstances surrounding the use of Governor General's special warrants in 1989. As most members of this House recall, that session of the 33rd Parliament lasted for almost two years before the general election of November 21, 1988.
Parliament was convened a mere three weeks later to complete the business of the previous Parliament. Even though the Speech from the Throne made it clear the purpose of the opening session was to deal with free trade, the government clearly informed the House of the need for further supply in the 1988-89 fiscal year by tabling Supplementary Estimates (B) on December 16, 1988.
Later when the House adjourned and subsequently prorogued, the government requested the Governor General to approve special warrants in accordance with section 30 of the Financial Administration Act.
February 10, 1993

The issuing of the four Governor General's special warrants in 1989 cannot be construed in any way to be a breach of rules or convention. Each of the three conditions as required by the Financial Administration Act for the issuing of warrants were satisfied.
The government's use of those special warrants in 1989 was consistent with the nine other instances that special warrants were used since the Financial Administration Act was passed in 1951. The government in no way extended the scope of the special warrants since the items covered by the 1989 warrants were similar to the items financed through Governor General's special warrants in 1979 and again in 1980.
I would like to make some comments regarding the proposed changes to section 30(3) of the Financial Administration Act. These changes would require the President of the Treasury Board to present a detailed statement for each warrant issued within 15 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session of Parliament.
As members of the House are aware, the President of the Treasury Board can attest to this urgency in the report to the Governor in Council. Information regarding the urgency of warrants is not required in the president's report to Parliament.
The question still remains as to whether there is a proven need for Parliament to have this additional measure to monitor expenditures. I suggest that the ministers who are accountable to this House for their decisions are the best judges of whether or not the appropriation is of an urgent nature.
Allow me to state now some observations regarding the proposed changes to section 30(5). As stated in the Financial Administration Act, the issuing of warrants must only occur when urgently required for the public good. It is the government's belief that by changing the definition of adjournment within section 30(5) from 15 days to 90 days we are not acting in the best interests of the public.
It would be a grave mistake to paralyse the government by restricting the ability to issue Governor General's special warrants when Parliament is not in session. In fact, it has been recognized that access to these warrants is necessary from time to time and under carefully delineated circumstances for the good and orderly functioning of the government.
Private Members' Business
History has demonstrated to us that these warrants have been issued in order to carry out urgent repairs to public buildings or to pay employees their due wages. I am confident that members of the House will realize the need for conducting timely repairs, should they be required, to public properties where the public is served while the House is not in session and to pay employees for doing so.
The next point I wish to address is the proposed addition of sections 42(1) through 42(4) to the Financial Administration Act. This amendment proposes that when new programs are established the government must table information regarding the long-term cost profile of that program as well as give the Auditor General the opportunity to review and to comment on this information.
This proposal has numerous flaws. Perhaps the most critical of these is that the proposed amendment would appear to be in conflict with section 7(d) of the Financial Administration Act. Parliament under section 7(d) has delegated the authority for long-term resource planning to the Treasury Board. This proposal would thus create ambiguity and work toward undermining the role and accountability of Treasury Board as the authority for solid financial planning practices within the government.
A concern also arises from the proposed requirement to table information relating to the establishment of new programs. Such public disclosure may have the effect of jeopardizing the intended result of new programs by impairing the effectiveness of the program delivering mechanism and reducing the benefit to the public. Surely this is not in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers who contribute their hard-earned money toward such programs.
This proposal also calls into question the role of the Auditor General. The proposed amendments significantly alter that role from one of being an important accountability agent within the system of government to one of being an active participant in government decision making. Decisions of this nature are to be made by the ministers.
Similar to auditors in the private sector who provide an opinion to the board of directors and shareholders, the Auditor General's responsibility is to provide an opinion to the Government of Canada and the taxpayers. The responsibility for delivering this opinion is assumed at the end of a specified period of time, not at the point before the period commences. The Auditor General's resources are already well used as it is. Any new

February 10, 1993
Private Members' Business
responsibilities would only increase the costs of the audit office which are already touching $60 billion per year. This proposal would undermine ministerial responsibility for resource management by introducing another level of governmental decision making.
The government is charged with the responsibility of delivering programs which are deemed to be in the best interests of Canadians. During the development of these programs the government consults with many groups including business and academia to design the best possible programs. The cost of these programs during these times of restraint is a fundamental consideration.
Keeping this in mind, the Comptroller General is already consulted with regard to the sound financial management of governmental programs. There is no need to spend additional taxpayer money to set up a system to second-guess a decision which has been made by those who have the responsibility to make those decisions. I see I am nearly out of time.


An hon. member:: Thank goodness.


Robert Nelson David Hicks: I regret that these comments were necessary. I regret this to hon. members opposite but I think these observations are necessary and I hope they are taken to heart. As hon. members have assumed by my comments I cannot at this time support the bill.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise in the House today to support this private member's bill, Bill C-301, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act as proposed by my colleague for Kent who through this bill has brought some long-awaited fresh air and common sense to this House.
Perhaps, like me, it comes from the member's municipal background where one needed to but could not run deficits and get heavily in debt. In fact you had to balance your budget and be fully accountable for expenditures each and every day to the taxpayers. I believe his roots do come across in this particular bill.
A colleague from Sault Ste. Marie started to talk about the over-expenditures in the Museum of Civilization. After the next election we will probably be putting a lot of Tories in that museum so that future Canadians can view the period between 1985 and 1993 as one of the
most dismal in Canadian history, but we will let the electorate look after that.
I want to talk about a different perspective on this bill because it embodies the real essence in the purpose of what private members' bills are all about. It speaks for the people of Canada and to a government that no longer listens.
Listening to government members I have found it rather curious that it would be the Conservatives who are voting against the bill for fiscal responsibility and the Liberals and the NDP who are proposing the bill for fiscal responsibility. One would think the government would be in favour of such a bill.
Bill C-301 is a call for the federal government to be accountable to the people of Canada for the tax dollars that it spends. The federal government's yearly tabling of the budget and the accompanying estimates is no longer sufficient to accountability. The tabling of the budget and the estimates only provides for a minimal amount of debate by members of Parliament.
I believe that the Prime Minister and his cabinet are the key decision makers and that members of Parliament are really sitting on the sidelines giving brief comments on the most important decisions that the federal government makes each year.
The Auditor General in his recent report concluded: "There is a general widespread breakdown of management controls including fundamental parliamentary controls. Canadians are worried about the impact of the annual deficit and the accumulated national debt on their standard of living".
That statement rings true in many respects. This bill does not only address the issue of the government's accountability to the people, it also addresses the issue of responsibility. Who is responsible for the fiscal decisions of government? As members sitting in this House, we are accountable to our constituents for these decisions. However, how can we take responsibility when much of the information which is provided to us is not given to us by the decision makers, those in cabinet?
This bill will ensure that members of Parliament can act responsibly for their constituents. Canada is faced with a population that no longer trusts its politicians. We know that. We make promises every time there is an election. We arrive in Ottawa wanting to change things
February 10, 1993

for the better. We are accountable to our constituents who elect us.
How can we fulfil this accountability when the government we represent is not even accountable to us in this Parliament? This bill addresses this concern because it requires the government to cost out fully all the programs and expenditures before they can be implemented. Any cost overruns would require special authorization.
An important implication for this bill is that it will force the government's cabinet ministers to plan for the long term, not the short term for political expediency but for the long term. That is so people will know what the plans are, how much it is going to cost and what in fact the benefits will be to the population.
As parliamentarians we do not want a government introducing sweetheart deals or sweet deals just before an election. I believe the public is sick and tired of that kind of government. We want and they want a government that is fully accountable for the implications on the federal expenditures, the taxpayers' dollars.
This bill forces cabinet ministers to present to Parliament and the people of Canada a detailed account of the cost and the effect on the economy, the environment and the employment of any new program.
All detailed financial statements would also be referred to the Auditor General and the House of Commons public accounts committee for closer inspection.
Let me give an example. We have heard that in the public accounts committee this very day there is a tremendous amount of debate on the GST as to what those numbers really are. The members from this side of the House on that public accounts committee will tell you they are absolutely frustrated in not being able to get the right numbers as to how much GST was collected, how much GST was rebated or credited back and how many tax dollars this government is really taking in by this very bad tax that we intend to eliminate in the next election.
There are some valid points on this particular bill that bring back the whole concept of accountability and
Private Members' Business
responsibility which I believe are the hallmarks of democracy and parliamentary representation.
We are spending tax dollars on behalf of the Canadian public and therefore we must account for our spending practices. As members of Parliament and caretakers of the public purse, we must have the power to do this job effectively. The only way we can do it is for members of Parliament to have meaningful input and meaningful debate on government expenditures, on long-term planning and government tax policies. I believe that this private member's bill will do this.
I compliment my colleague from Kent who I believe has put forward a common sense bill, as he has pointed out. More important, I believe it is a bill that every member of this House should support because it talks about parliamentary reform and making members of Parliament truly what they are, representatives of the people they represent.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate some instruction from the Chair as to the time limitations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have 10 minutes. This is a private member's bill. It is 10 minutes debate and there are no questions or comments.


Robert Alfred Corbett: I certainly am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on Bill C-301 dealing with amendments to the Financial Administration Act. My interest is specifically with regard to the final section of the proposed bill.
At the outset I should relate to the Speaker that I am particularly interested in this bill because it is of specific interest to those in my community who are involved in the small business community.
I think it is terribly important that we have an opportunity to participate in the development of the organization of Canada's economic development in a small business way. Let me say that I think it is important that this bill be given at least a fair hearing in this Chamber. Clause 4 states:

February 10, 1993
Private Members' Business
Section 64(1) of the said act is amended by striking out the words
"December 31" and substituting therefor the words "October 30".
The change to the Financial Administration Act that is being proposed here is to move forward the deadline for tabling the public accounts from the present date of December 31 to October 30.
I think that there are all kinds of opportunity for all of us to appreciate. We can as small business people and as the small business community particularly can make suggestions to the government as to how it might improve or make things more appropriate from the perspective of dealing with our particular businesses and more substantially from the point of view of how we should deal with our day to day regime.
However, it is also important to recognize that the government has responsibility to the fiscal community as a whole. That is why I would suggest that we have to take into account the entire aspect of this particular bill.
Mr. Speaker, the government, as you are well aware, is always open to new ideas about ways in which management processes can be improved and government can be made more accountable to the Canadian public. These new ideas come from a wide variety of sources. I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that views are commissioned by the government and come from recommendations of parliamentary committees, one of which I am a member, the transport committee, audits by the Auditor General and in some instances even from members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which we have often said that we were open to. Hopefully we will have an opportunity of hearing more constructive suggestions as we move along.
Today we are debating a suggestion for changing the timing of the tabling of the public accounts which was made by means of a private member's bill put forward by a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the hon. member for Kent. While we welcome the suggestions of the hon. member and we applaud his diligence in the pursuit of improved management processes in our country we do not always necessarily agree. That is what our democratic society is about and certainly is what this House is about. We do not always agree with ideas that are put forth. This is an excellent opportunity to suggest alternatives.
The hon. member's suggestion to bring forward the tabling debate of the public accounts from December 31 to October 30 is an example of what we on this side of the House, and myself as being a private member, not a member of the government but a member of a party who supports the government, are not in concurrence with. We do not agree with the idea and would like to put forth our reasons why.
In order to understand why we disagree with the hon. member on this point it is important to understand the context in which he is proposing to make changes to the Financial Administration Act.
I should explain that the Financial Administration Act provides the legislative basis for financial management and control in government. I hope that the House will bear with me because I am not a technical person, a technocrat, or someone who is intimately involved with the department. I do not have intimate knowledge but I can only share how I feel about this particular bill. Therefore I will ask the House to bear with me as I go through the process.
The act originated in 1991 and in that year there was passage of Bill C-91, which was entitled an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
That is obviously material that would be well beyond most of our capacities to be able to digest. It is certainly beyond my capacity to digest as an ordinary civilian who is only interested in being the representative of the people in my constituency of Fundy-Royal. The entire concept is something that we should all be concerned about. I know that we should talk about things that are somewhat more considerate of the people who we represent.
Let us go back to things that are entitling us to develop conversations with reference to the bill itself. The delays, which I am told are not important, that we have been encountering in the past years have been primarily caused by external factors mainly beyond government control.
The Auditor General has been involved with things that are of interest to all of us. We should be cognizant of his report. I would suggest that a deadline of October 30 could impede the full resolution of issues that we want to deal with in the House. For this reason I am totally
February 10, 1993

opposed to the tabling deadline of October 30. I would have to vote against any suggestions before the House saying that we should change that deadline to October 30.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support my colleague. I certainly wish I could understand what was said by the member prior to me. Perhaps we can look at Hansard in the morning and an editor will have made it cohesive and understandable. I say that in jest. He is our colleague and I think he said at the end of his speech that he truly supports the legislation that my colleague from Kent is putting before this House.
I compliment my colleague from Kent who has brought this legislation forward. He has put this private member's bill through the whole tedious procedure that private member's legislation has to go through. His success on being able to get it on the floor of this House and to have it at this stage is truly a credit to his ability as a parliamentarian and a hard worker. I am truly honoured to be able to call him my colleague.
As I stand in the House I do not see anyone to my left. There are supposed to be 40-some members but there are not many members representing one party here tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must bring this to the attention of the hon. member. I know he has been around here for a long time so he should not make these types of statements in the House. I am sure hon. members are watching the hon. member on television and they will probably be down here very shortly and getting up on a point of order.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I mentioned any particular group or anyone in particular who was missing. I apologize if I offended the rules of the House.
I want to also compliment my colleague from Kent for the hard work that he has been doing and the leadership he has been providing. He comes from an area of Ontario that is very important in the agricultural industry which is so important to our country. It is sometimes lost in our discussions that Ontario produces the majority of the agricultural product in our country. It is an industry that needs assistance. We know that people in the agricultural industry are frugal in their operations
Private Members' Business
and they would expect that feeling to be carried on in government.
The essence of what we are discussing today can be expressed as accountability and responsibility of government actions when it comes to the spending of the taxpayers' money. It can be summed up best in the speech my colleague from Kent made in the House when he introduced the bill. I would just like to paraphrase some of his words.
He said that the notion of big government not managing our money properly is coming from farmers, factory workers, students, housewives, small business owners and teachers. The list goes on and on. "I hear throughout this country as I travel that members of Parliament on both sides of the House are not paying enough attention to the way that this government overspends. This bill will go a long way toward restoring accountability to federal programs. It is what the people of Canada are telling me. It is what the people of Canada want implemented in so far as spending is concerned".
One of the fundamental reasons for problems that existed as we were beginning to become a nation was that we were upset with the foreign power coming in and providing what I call taxation without representation. That is fundamentally what we have here today. The government takes a program and allows cost overruns in the exorbitant amounts that we have been hearing about today, without having to refer the matter back to the House of Commons for further approval. In essence it is bordering on the statement that elected members of Parliament have no say in how the government is spending its funds. That is just not what was intended in the parliamentary system. My colleague has proposed legislation that is trying to correct the dilemma we find ourselves in.
When we talk about accountability and reliability, I would like to just spend the balance of my time on one issue, the goods and services tax that was introduced.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think it might be just about time to call it 7.45 p.m.
The time provided for Private Members' Business has now expired. The hon. member will have seven minutes in this debate the next time it comes up.

February 10, 1993
Private Members' Business
Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 7.44 p.m this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). The House adjourned at 7.44 p.m.

Thursday, February 11, 1993