1982-02-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The budget has only confused the matter of capital gains tax for farmers and small-business men, complicating it with drastic changes in annuities, forward-averaging reductions and RRSPs, to the point where it challenges the very survival of the family farm or business. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the government take immediate steps to make fair and equitable changes dealing with valuation day and capital gains taxes on farms and small businesses.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, the national beef marketing questionnaire produced by the Department of Agriculture late last year was sent only to those beef and dairy producers listed in the 1976 Statistics Canada census. There are now 267,000 questionnaires in circulation to 193,000 beef and dairy producers, and yet some producers are still not in receipt of them. Recognizing the need for a clear distinction between beef and dairy producers and the need for an accurate analysis, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That the Minister of Agriculture immediately consult with beef producer organizations to ensure that all farmers who sold cattle in the past year receive this questionnaire and that the results clearly differentiate between dairy and beef producers.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, more than one million Canadians are out of work. Additional thousands fear the loss of their jobs, homes and security. These Canadians were entitled to see leadership from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) based on compassion and concern during the first ministers' conference on the economy, but were subjected to a federal government whose position was based on stubbornness and intransigence. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Prime Minister and his colleagues be condemned for their bad faith bargaining, their political selfishness and stubbornness; that this House urges the Prime Minister and his colleagues to put an end to policies which have removed incentives from the private sector; and, further, that this House encourages the Minister of Finance to withdraw his ill-conceived budget and introduce a new economic package based on incentives, job creation and development of the potential to which Canada and its citizens are entitled.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the record high level of over one million unemployed and the failure of the government to take adequate measures to recompense municipalities for the loss of the Community Services Contribution Program, which allowed $1.5 billion for construction each year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
14698

February 5, 1982
That the government take immediate action to reintroduce this essential program.
If the minister will wake up!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, Canadian National's decision yesterday to eliminate 1,800 jobs on the heels of mass lay-offs in CN Express and VIA Rail demonstrates that the federal government supports the dismantling of Canada's railway system at the very time when soaring energy costs render this energy-efficient mode of transport more relevant than ever. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That this House demands that the Minister of Transport explain to the House and to the Canadian people how he can justify such a massive body blow to Canada's rail network in the name of austerity after Canadian National has reported a total net profit of some $400 million over the last two years.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PETRO-CANADA ADVERTISEMENT FOR WORKERS PLACED IN OVERSEAS NEWSPAPERS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I have in my hand an advertisement demonstrating that Petro-Canada is now going to Great Britain to look for workers to fill Canadian jobs. At the same time that this ad has been running in London, England, the number of young people seeking jobs in Canada has increased by 142,000 this past year. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the Government of Canada and its Crown corporations do their part in providing opportunities for Canadian young people who are desperately seeking jobs.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I also rise on an urgent matter regarding the mailing of pension and child tax credits, and I would ask for unanimous consent in the presentation of my motion.
Thousands of pensioners and low-income families who urgently need their income tax refunds and child tax credit allowances will suffer from delays in the mailing of cheques because Revenue Canada has instituted a freeze on the hiring of casual labour to help process income tax forms. In order to avoid this unnecessary hardship on people who are suffering severely from economic conditions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That this House instruct the government to begin hiring adequate staff to process income tax forms as expeditiously as possible.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the economy of Canada is sick unto death. Close to 2,000 businesses have gone bankrupt since the budget was read on November 12; millions of dollars of capital have left the country, together with expertise and equipment; over one million people are unemployed, and this figure is growing daily; the failing beef industry is sent a questionnaire; farmers and businessmen who want to expand are threatened with capital gains that would ruin them; even the elderly are refused the chance to invest in IAACs; and the budget has killed confidence and initiative. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That this House reflect the thinking of the people and demand that the government resign before Canada is completely in ruins. The Prime Minister has no mandate to reign over the dissolution of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 5, 1982


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, it is increasingly apparent that the government is using high interest rates, higher taxes, and, soon, wage and price controls as part of a plan to push our economy into a deflationary period, otherwise known as a depression, and that this is part of an organized conspiracy to destroy individual initiative and the free market system. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the Prime Minister be required to come clean with Canadians by admitting to the Canadian people that he and his troika are using high interest rates, increased taxation, mass unemployment and, ultimately, wage and exchange controls, as tools designed to force Canada into the status of a state-controlled society.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONGRATULATIONS TO UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES ON ELIMINATION OF INDIGENOUS RED MEASLES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In response to the announcement of the United States' success in eliminating indigenous red measles in that country under its compulsory immunization program, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain):
That this House congratulate the American authorities on this notable achievement and urge the provincial and federal health officials, as recommended by the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Pediatric Association, to commit this country to a similar goal of elimination of indigenous red
measles.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Oral Questions

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who will know that Statistics Canada reports today that more than a million Canadians, 1,096,000 Canadians, are out of work. That is the highest number since the Great Depression. The minister will also know that the seasonally-adjusted rate would be up a third of a per cent except that 68,000 Canadians grew so hopeless last month that they gave up even looking for jobs. Despite that suffering, the government remains committed to a doctrinaire budget based on figures it has admitted are false and that everyone in the country knows will make things worse.
This January 117,000 fewer Canadians were working fulltime than a year ago. It was the first time we have had a year-over-year drop in employment in 34 years. Will the minister put aside his stubbornness, this pride of his which is throwing Canadians out of work, and propose changes in the budget which will stop this massive loss of jobs for Canadians?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Have you no shame?


Miss MacDonald:: Ask John Evans what he thinks of the budget.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition asked me to put aside what he considers to be personal pride and to change the budget provisions in order, as he said, to improve the unemployment situation in the country. I assure the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that my concern for the unemployed is as great as his. The reason I have established the stance which I have adopted in the budget is to ensure that we can do something to reduce inflationary pressures in the economy which, in my view, are the main cause of unemployment.
It would be tempting, but I think foolhardy, to undertake short-term palliatives or quick fixes which might give the appearance of action but which, down the road, would add further to the unemployment situation. I assure the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that any proposal which can be brought forward that would be compatible with that basic objective would be very seriously considered by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



February 5, 1982
Oral Questions


EFFECT OF PROVISIONS ON FEDERAL DEFICIT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister just indicated that he intends to propose nothing, nothing at all, to help Canadians who are out of work or who face the prospects of going out of work.


Mr. Cousineau:: What do you propose, Joe?


Charles Joseph Clark: We heard Liberal backbenchers obediently applauding him. I can say that the 1,096,000 Canadians who are out of work were not applauding, and that the millions of others who face the prospect of having their families and their security interfered with by unemployment were not applauding. We have had experience on this continent with other governments that, for reasons of stubbornness and pride, pursued a policy which they knew was wrong. The House will not stand for the government leading Canada into an economic Vietnam.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister claimed that his policy is designed to reduce inflationary pressures. Yesterday his own colleague admitted that the unemployment figures on which the budget was based were wrong and that unemployment this year will be 100,000 above the budget projection. Since that means much lower tax receipts and much higher unemployment insurance payments, will the minister admit that the consequences of his budget may, in fact, reduce the revenues of the Government of Canada-that deepening the recession as his policy is doing may well lead to an increase in the federal deficit rather than a reduction in that deficit which he claims to be a keystone of his policy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is self-evident, at least to most people, that if there is a weakening in economic activity there is bound to be a decline in governmental revenues and there is also expected to be an increase in governmental expenditures. These are the automatic stabilizers that we have built into our system to respond to a decline in economic activity. There is nothing unusual about that. If it is the case, as 1 believe it to be the case, that the downturn is deeper than was projected in the budget, then obviously our revenues will decline and our expenditures will increase, and that will influence the budgetary situation. The underlying thrust of the budget still remains intact because these stabilizers adjust themselves with an upturn in economic activity.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER WITHDRAW BUDGET
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what we had yesterday was an admission by the Government of Canada that its estimate of unemployment on which it based its budget was wrong. What we have had now from the lips of the minister is an admission by him that the deficit forecast in the budget is likely to be wrong. What we
have here is a budget that is proven wrong on every count. The premiers indicated their unanimous view that it is wrong. Every Canadian you talk to, whether they have already lost a job or are going to lose a job, and knows that prospect hangs over their families and their futures, knows that this budget is wrong. Why does the minister continue stubbornly to impose this budget simply to protect and preserve his personal pride, when he knows the harm and the damage it is doing to hundreds of thousands of Canadians across this country? Why does he not put his country first?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: The minister laughs.


An hon. Member:: The minister smiles.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I must say, as the hon. member said, that the minister smiles.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He laughs.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can only smile at the rather contrived indignation and histrionics of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Mazankowski:: You had all the answers two years ago.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If he thinks in his mind that if he can come on strong like that he is going to make an impression, he is very much mistaken.
Once again the Leader of the Opposition has talked about economic projections. It is absolutely clear, as I have said so often in the House of Commons, that one of the most difficult things to do in an uncertain economy is to project events with any certainty. Public forecasters and private forecasters have been wrong on many occasions. That is one of the disadvantages of projecting for a long term down the road. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to take a look at the projections on unemployment, on the exchange rate and on inflation that were put in the short-lived budget of his government, to look at them now and see how many of those projections, which were honestly made, proved to be far from reality.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What kind of a turkey answer is that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the case very often. I ask the Leader of the Opposition not to create these artificial issues because they are much too trivial in the face of the real economic difficulties we have in the country.
February 5, 1982


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Trivial?


EVIDENCE NEEDED TO FORCE CHANGES
Charles Joseph Clark: The
Minister of Finance is now saying that 1,096,000 Canadians out of work is trivial. Trivial, that is what he is saying.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Charles Joseph Clark: He is saying he will not believe me, he will not believe the premiers, he will not believe the Economic Council of Canada or any of the literally thousands of people who have pointed out what is bad about this budget, and how destructive it is to this country.
Let me ask has the minister talked to the 1,800 employees of CN being thrown out of work? Has he talked to the 50 workers in Timmins-Chapleau thrown out of work just the other day? Has he talked to any of these people affected by this budget?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid 1 have to ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to keep to questions.


Walter David Baker: He was putting a very good question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1 apologize for letting-


René Cousineau: Apologize to Canadians.


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, I apologize to Canadians for this government. I apologize to Canadians that we have not been able so far to force this government to change its policies.
Let me ask the minister one simple question. Just how much evidence of the disaster he is causing does he need before he will change this budget?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has now asked four questions on the economy-


Mr. Huntington:: And you have not answered one of them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and I would draw to your attention, and to the attention of the House, that in all of these questions he has not put forward one single constructive proposal-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -in order to deal with the economic situation. He is treating this subject as an occasion for rhetorical outbursts without any relevance whatsoever to the seriousness of the situation.


Mr. Beatty:: You have no ideas. Resign, MacEachen.
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I ask the Leader of the Opposition, if he has sound ideas, if he has alternatives, to bring them forward, and we will examine them.


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He has asked four questions and we have had nothing but indignation and rhetoric.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, let me put a very precise question to the Minister of Finance. The first ministers this past week have been demanding a made-in-Canada interest rate policy. Well, Madam Speaker, we have had a made-in-Canada interest rate policy for the past six months. During this period the target range set by the Bank of Canada for Ml in its monetary policy to fight inflation has been far higher than the actual results, and normally you would expect the bank to reduce interest rates to force the level of money supply back into the target range. For some reason the bank has not done so and the result is that, while we have had some drop in interest rates, they have been about two percentage points higher than they need be.
My question to the minister is very simple. Would he explain why we have had interest rates 2 per cent higher than they should have been?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: First of all, Madam Speaker, I do not accept the validity of the hon. member's observations-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You never do.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that we have interest rates higher than we should because of the monetary aggregates. It is true that Ml has been below the target range because of obvious lags. During that period of very high interest rates the Ml decreased; it will increase as a result of the lower interest rates which have prevailed in the last number of months. That is the major reason, the question of lags, and it is not a desire on the part of the central bank's management to stray away from that basic guide. It is merely a question of lags.


QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I do not think the minister understands what has happened. I suggest to him the main reason for this shortfall is because the dollar has been under pressure as a result of Canadian and foreign investors' total lack of confidence in the government's policies, the energy, foreign investment and budget policies. It is for this reason the dollar has been under pressure and the Bank of Canada has been forced to keep interest rates much

February 5, 1982
Oral Questions
higher than they should be just to maintain the level of the Canadian dollar. I say to the minister that that has probably cost about 100,000 of the jobs lost this past year.
Again, my question is very simple. Will he consider changing these policies, and will he explain to the home owners, businessmen and farmers who have lost their businesses, and the people who have lost their jobs as a result of this, why he is continuing these policies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, once again the hon. member is very vague when he speaks of continuation of these policies. He asked a question about the monetary aggregates.


Henry Perrin Beatty: You are making a fool of yourself, Allan. Sit down!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I gave an answer to that question, and the hon. member dropped it and began to talk about the Canadian dollar and the impact of that on interest rates.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That's one you want to sidestep.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He drew in the National Energy Program, he drew in the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and he then drew in the budget. One has attempted to give an answer to this melange of ill-assorted economic nostrums that the hon. member has mentioned.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I also have questions for the Minister of Finance. It is becoming more clear every single day that one cannot bring about economic recovery on the backs of unemployed people in Canada and that it is fundamentally wrong to ask 1.5 million unemployed Canadians, or whatever the actual figure may be in numbers of millions, to carry the burden of this social and economic exercise that the Liberal government of the country is pursuing.
I simply ask the minister, given that unemployment figures today are now in excess of one million, as Statistics Canada defines them, and given that there is hidden unemployment which now ranges upwards to 745,000 Canadians who have given up looking for work and who do not appear in the statistics, and given that that is now 15 per cent of the work force of Canada, how much longer will those people carry the burden of this exercise of government? At what point in time will the Minister of Finance be prepared to admit that it is fundamentally wrong to ask those people to carry the burden? When will he change, and bring a policy into the House of Commons which will begin to put this country back on the road to prosperity?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member has asked a serious question. Let me tell him that the unemployment rate, which is seasonally adjusted, has dropped this month from 8.6 per cent to 8.3 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is still a very high level, but I should remind the hon. member that in the United States the unemployment level is 8.9 per cent, and that every one of our industrial partners-


An hon. Member:: It's their fault.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -is experiencing abnormally high levels of unemployment.


Mr. Nielsen:: Stop trying to catch up!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The reason is that we are in the midst of an international recession. The hon. member is now asking me, in order to overcome an international recession, to undertake in Canada a major stimulus and to spend $5 billion to $10 billion now, in order to have a short-term effect. I think that if that were done it would take about six or seven months to work through the economy, at a time when we expect an international recovery. At that time we would be able to participate in the international recovery and have more jobs and more growth than if we took action at the present time, which would add to our difficulties and make it impossible for us to share, as a country, in the recovery which is bound to come.


Walter David Baker: Allan, you are all by
yourself.


Erik Nielsen: Don't you feel lonely?


MEASURES TO MEET NEEDS OF CANADIANS
Ian Deans: I want to say to the
minister, through Your Honour, that he cannot seasonally adjust the hardship that unemployment is creating for those people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I suggest to the minister that if there is an international economic recovery then we will benefit from it, in any event. However, the fact is that within the confines of this country there are any number of projects which could be undertaken now which will ultimately have to be undertaken, anyway.
I ask the minister, given the housing shortage, given the real problems in the farm implement industry, given the difficulties in the forest industry, and given the difficulties from coast to coast in areas which affect the domestic economy of Canada, is there no measure at all that the government can promote
February 5, 1982

which can meet both the need of Canadians, on the one hand, for those services and products, and meet the need of Canadians, on the other hand, for jobs?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked another question.


Erik Nielsen: Glad you noticed it!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In his question, he has not even mentioned the fact that Canada has a very high inflation rate at the present time. Our inflation rate is higher than the United States. Our wage settlements are higher than the United States; they are increasing while wage settlements in the United States are decreasing. In all his questions the hon. member has not yet realized that the main reason we have high unemployment in this country today, and the reason the world has high unemployment, is because we have been unable to bring down inflation. Every item he has put forward at the present time-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Tell us how you would bring it down, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and every proposal is intended to add to inflation and to make our unemployment problem more difficult.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That's what you are doing.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the result of the hon. member's proposal today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Your policies are doing the same thing, Allan.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RECONSIDER DIRECTION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Ian Deans: I want to suggest to the minister that the results we are seeing today are the results of the dogmatic attitude of the minister. It is not a matter of whether it adds to inflation. How, in heaven's name, does building a house, that people need and that they can afford to buy, add to inflation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I suggest to the minister that the inflationary policy and direction that he is pursuing have not brought down inflation. All they have done is to make it impossible for Canadians to buy the products that Canadians manufacture.
There is now a wide range of political opinion, from all of the premiers, to the opposition parties in the House of Commons, and the commentators who watch politics, that the policy which the minister is now pursuing almost relentlessly,
Oral Questions
without any concern for the effects on individual Canadians, is not an appropriate policy. Given that fact, I simply ask the minister that he reconsider the direction he is taking in this country. I ask that he consider the effects on those 1.8 million Canadians. I ask that he no longer pursue his policy and that he find, in our domestic economy, the necessary tools to create the kind of employment that people want, in order to get this country moving again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked me to reconsider the policy. What I am constantly doing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -is listening to viewpoints, as I have done
for the past three days at the first ministers' conference.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Sure showed it!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member is asking me to consider the plight of the currently unemployed. I really am doing that. However, what he is asking me to do now is to adopt policies which would not reduce unemployment; rather, he is asking me to introduce policies which would add to the unemployment list.


Ian Deans: No, no!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is precisely what the hon. member is doing.


Ian Deans: Not so!


MINES AND MINING
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my questions, as well, are directed to the Minister of Finance. Investment capital is flooding out of this country from the resource of exploration sectors of the mineral industry. The major mining giants of Canada are declaring record losses. Lay-offs and pending lay-offs in the mining sector will amount to hundreds and even thousands if corrective action is not taken soon. We now see that the withdrawal of the northern living allowance will cost mining personnel thousands of additional dollars in cities, like Labrador City, in coming years.


An hon. Member:: It's not withdrawn.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Why has the government proposed to withdraw the 25 per cent special resource allowance, which would discourage Canadian mining companies from upgrading iron ore to the pig iron stage, iron ore which is heavily used and

February 5, 1982
Oral Questions
consumed in Canadian industries? This will lead to an additional excalation of the cost of steel to the automotive industry and every other Canadian manufacturing industry, because that 25 per cent resource allowance induced Canadian iron industries to supply our domestic demand for iron. Why has that been included in the budget? Does the minister not realize the tremendous increase in unemployment which that will create?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker. If the hon. member is referring to the steel industry, as I think he is, if the steel industries continue, as I expect it to do, to invest in the industry, the changes in the resource allowance will not for quite some time in any way affect their taxable situation.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, the minister is totally wrong. The Canadian Mining Association has made that point quite clear. The inflationary pressure on the steel industry is going to be of tremendous magnitude and will lead to additional unemployment in the automotive industry. The minister knows that.


RETRAINING OF DISPLACED MINERS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Why is there no immediate strategic program to begin to retrain young people being displaced from the mining sector, when the mining association and others are predicting that within three years we will need some 3,000 to 5,000 additional trained and skilled people in that sector, and these young people are presently contemplating going on U1C and welfare? Why does the government not come forward with a program at the mine sites where they are presently employed in so that they can learn new skills and be prepared when that demand comes within two years time?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is obviously mistaken when he says there are no proposals to do that. If he had been watching more carefully he would have recognized that in the early part of January we put forward a very extensive set of proposals for a new national training program that will allocate our training funds to those areas of the economy where the jobs are. We met with the provincial governments. We received agreement from those governments to begin studying how we can revise that program. We hope to have a new program by this spring. Therefore, those proposals are well in hand and are proceeding very well. In the meantime, we have introduced a number of supplementary measures, particularly as they relate to the mining community, to provide for alternative employment and for additional training places. I will be glad to provide the hon. member with that information so that he can bring himself up to date.


Madam Speaker:: I ask hon. members to try to be shorter in their questions. We are a little over ten minutes late in the usual progress of our question period. I would like to get more members in. That is the choice for members to make.


Erik Nielsen: And the answers, too.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, Communist leaders boast that they can take over a capitalist country without firing a shot. May I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether there is a policy within his department by which he encourages state ownership of land?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: No.


ADVICE GIVEN TO FARMERS IN SASKATCHEWAN
Stanley James Korchinski: Why then is an official in the Farm Credit office in Prince Albert telling farmers who are appealing to them for cash, after the $50 million being offered to them, to sell their land to the land bank?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the land bank is a provincial land bank. I have no knowledge of any Farm Credit official giving that advice. If he is doing that, he must have good evidence that it is probably the best way for them to recoup some money for the land. I cannot imagine that happening in Saskatchewan. When one looks at land values, how they have increased and how valuable land is becoming in Saskatchewan, why would anyone turn it over to the land bank in Saskatchewan to sell it? I cannot imagine that because purchases of land there are higher than they have ever been. There is a demand by other farmers for land in Saskatchewan.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the prime minister. It concerns the first ministers' conference this week. This week the provinces rejected the Prime Minister's proposal for wage controls to be placed on public servants. I would ask whether he would be prepared at this time to give this House an assurance that neither now, nor in the months ahead, will he impose wage controls on federal public servants, or on anybody else unilaterally, as he did once before.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker-


February 5, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Lumley and Axworthy didn't applaud.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Only two? I think it is important to set the record straight. When the hon. member says I imposed wage and price controls unilaterally, that of course is not the way it happened. He will recall that in the summers of 1974 and 1975 the ten premiers had assembled. They lamented the inflationary state of the economy and begged the federal government to take action. The action we took was only possible because it was judged by common opinion in Canada, notably that of the premiers, that we were in a crisis situation. The hon. member knows enough about the Constitution to know that we cannot control wages and prices nationally unless there is a crisis. That crisis, as it was defined by the courts, was accepted as a crisis because the provinces had, generally speaking, supported our action. Indeed, they co-operated with the federal government in applying wage and price controls. So much for the record.
I want to point out to the hon. member that the objective of our proposal yesterday was to show collective leadership in Canada, hoping that the ten premiers and the federal government would take some action collectively to come to grips with the danger of a wage explosion, and to do it in such a way that we would not penalize those at the low end of the wage scale, since we offered that they would have compensation in line with the increase in the cost of living, but those at the top end, those who, I believe, have caused some complaint in the House, would be absolutely frozen. We were hoping at this time of economic leadership that we would also have the support of the opposition parties, since it would have the effect of tackling the cause of our economic malaise. It would have the effect of-


Erik Nielsen: How about the length of the answers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for Yukon is distressed with the length of the answers. He would prefer the histrionic shouting of his leader, I guess, when it comes to having exchanges in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My answers are answers to questions. The histrionics of his leader are speeches that should not be made during the question period.


QUERY RESPECTING PROFIT AND INTEREST CONTROLS
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister's response was notable for its omissions. I would point out that he did not reject the unilateral imposition of wage controls on federal public servants. I would also point out, as he implied that wages were the cause of inflation, that workers' wages have fallen behind inflation for four years in a row. So much for that argument.
Oral Questions
Since the Minister of Finance talked about a principle of equity in his budget, can the Prime Minister explain where is the fairness in the concept of imposing wage controls on public servants but no price control or excess profit controls on the banks, or any corresponding controls on interest rates which are killing the home owners of this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right, of course. I did not answer his question about controlling the federal public service. I was. told by members opposite that my answers were too long, and that is why I interrupted my answer.
If the House will hear me out, I would like to deal with that question. It is not the intention of the federal government- that is the reassurance the hon. member is asking for-to freeze or impose wage controls on its public service. The intention for which we asked the co-operation of the provinces was to give a collective sign that we wanted to keep the wage pressures down.
Now, the reason we, as the federal government, talked about that aspect was that it had been raised by three premiers in their opening statements. I repeat to the hon member, that is why my setting the record straight was important, that in normal circumstances we do not have jurisdiction over the control of prices, wages and profits. That is under provincial jurisdiction. That is the law of contract that comes under Section 92, property and civil rights. We do not have that jurisdiction.
The only way that prices and profits could be controlled, and I pointed this out to the Premier of Saskatchewan who raised the same objection as the hon. member, is if he would decide in his province to keep prices and profits down. He is not doing it in areas of his jurisdiction, nor is the Premier of Manitoba. They are both socialist premiers and they seem to disagree with the approach suggested by the hon. member. They are more apt, as are members on the opposite side of the House, to blame the federal government because it is not doing something about interest rates. However, they are not prepared to undertake the control of the cause of inflation in their own provinces. That is the point I want to make.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In recent months it has been clear that decisions have been made by cabinet which would indicate the government's nuclear policy and its position as far as the Candu system is concerned. There have been decisions such as the agreement on uranium with Europe, the Mexican tender, and the dia-

February 5, 1982
Oral Questions
logue about electricity exports to the United States. What is of concern is that this is a back door technique taken by the government.
Would the minister explain to the House, and to those of us who understand the importance of the Candu system and recognize the failing high technology Canadian industry, what his nuclear policy is, or will he tell us why he is afraid to expose that for public review?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, at the first opportunity 1 would be happy to make the statement for which the hon. member is asking. As a matter of fact I appeared before the parliamentary committee a few weeks ago and there was not one question on the issue. I will find opportunities to give the hon. member any information he requires. Question period may be an appropriate opportunity to do so if he wishes to ask a specific question.


INTEREST RATES APPLICABLE TO EXPORTS
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. In the spring of 1981 he indicated in a public forum that he was not prepared to consider specifically lowering interest rates in deals for nuclear exports. In the past few months it has become very clear that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has encouraged and convinced him to reconsider that position. He is now offering a Mexican deal which could cost Canadian taxpayers $300 million a year.
If the Minister of Finance was able to reconsider this and understand the need for support of that Mexican deal, why will he not recognize and reconsider the needs of 350,000 Canadian farmers, hundreds of thousands of Canadian home owners, and thousands of Canadian businessmen who are being crushed by the weight of his high interest rate policy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, with regard to the particular business transaction to which the hon. member referred in his introduction, he should address that question to the Minister of Trade.
I would say to the hon. member that I did attempt in the budget to provide relief to farmers in financial difficulty through the Farm Credit Corporation. I attempted to provide relief to home owners who were in a very difficult situation as a result of high interest rates, and I attempted to provide relief to small-business men in financial difficulty through the Small Business Development Bond. These were serious efforts to meet the problem which the hon. member has mentioned.
Indeed, if I recall clearly, he was one of the members of the House of Commons who urged me some time ago to apply the Small Business Development Bond to farmers and unincorporated businesses. I took his representations to heart and included those provisions in the budget.


EMPLOYMENT
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Petro-Canada is now trying to fill Canadian jobs with workers from England while at the same time 142,000 desperate young Canadians have been trying to find employment during this past year. When can we expect some detailed information, and I emphasize "detailed", about the new National Training Program?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as I explained to the hon. member's colleague earlier, we have already put forward a very detailed set of proposals which were issued on January 6. We have had very extensive discussions and consultation with the provinces which deliver many of those programs through their training institutions, and with industry, as the hon. member knows.
We are now awaiting the response from the provinces so we can proceed with the introduction of a bill and the signing of new agreements under the training program.
We do have very clear guidelines for oil companies in Canada, They must give preference to Canadian workers when they are available, when they have the appropriate skills. We have been particularly stringent in ensuring that the major resource companies which are developing the big projects give that sort of preference. However, we cannot stand in the way of progress if we do not have the skills here. We must allow them to import workers from abroad. That is why we feel it is important to convince the provinces, and I would ask the hon. member to aid in that respect, to urge his provincial members to work with us in developing a revised training program so that we can ensure that young Canadians will have the necessary skills for existing jobs and so that we do not spend money on training for jobs which do not exist.


ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAMS
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I have looked at the detailed information which has come from the minister's office. I have looked at the proposals which were sent to the provinces. There is not the detail necessary to determine how effective the program will be.
Information which I have received from Statistics Canada indicates that from 1971 to 1980 unemployment insurance benefits increased by almost 500 per cent. Over that same period adult occupational training programs decreased by 75 per cent. How does the minister justify that?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I do not justify it because I do not believe that those statistics are correct. The fact is that we have been adding a substantial number of positions under the occupational training program. This year alone we will be spending close to $860 million and training close to 300,000
February 5, 1982

Canadians under the support of the federal government, which makes us the largest supporter of training than anyone in the country, including the provinces. I do not think the hon. member's Figures are accurate.


ACCESS TO UNITED STATES MARKET FOR TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last year Canadian telephone equipment manufacturers sold approximately $800 million worth of telephones and related equipment to the United States. Is the minister aware that at the present time there are two bills before the U.S. Congress which could have the effect of severely restricting, or closing down, the American market to Canadian sellers? What is he doing to protect Canadian interests?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, officials of both External Affairs and my own department, under the direction of the Minister of State for International Trade and myself, are keeping closely in touch with the situation. We are prepared to see that appropriate representations are made to protect Canadian interests.


PROTECTION FOR CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, what assurances can the minister give to Canadian workers and telecommunications manufacturers that their interests will be protected and that there is no possibility of their losing several hundreds of millions of dollars of sales per year?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, at any one time in the United States Congress there are hundreds, if not thousands, of bills, and I think that to say that any one of them will actually become law is carrying things somewhat too far.
I want again to give the assurance to the House, and to the workers in question, that the Minister of State for Trade and I have instructed our officials to be in close touch with the situation and to make all necessary representations.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the CNR announced it was laying off some 1,800
Designation of Ministers
people across the system, including over 200 in the Transcona shops, as a result of a downturn in revenues, a downturn which can be attributed to the slowdown in the economy brought on by the high interest rate policy of this government.
My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. What does the Minister of Transport have to say to all those young people in my riding who are losing their jobs just at a point when their mortgages have either come due or are coming due and when things would have been difficult anyway? Are they to be lectured by a cynical, burned out Prime Minister in the same way the premiers were last night, and is it the policy of this government to allow Crown corporations which are making profits to lay workers off and leave undone the considerable amount of work waiting for willing hands to do?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the first thing I would tell them would be to read what I said yesterday on this same subject, which was a bit more nuance than what the hon. member is saying now.
The other thing I would tell them-


Charles Joseph Clark: Let them eat nuance.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -is that we are on the verge of a major railway main line development in western Canada. I would tell them that there is $1.35 billion in the budget for that, so my message would be extremely encouraging, and I am sure it would be very well received.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), his House leader and his former House leader-the three of them-raised a point of order and expressed concerns. I told them I would look into their concerns, which I did not share and still do not share, and come back to them with some answers.
I am prepared today very briefly to tell those hon. members what the situation is. I suppose the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition followed my recommendation-


Charles Joseph Clark: On motions.


Yvon Pinard: Would the right hon. member prefer to hear this on motions? It is a point of order, Madam Speaker. I prefer to speak now.


Charles Joseph Clark: No, no. It is a statement on motions.


Yvon Pinard: I suggested to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that he look at the statute and have someone explain it to him. I am sure he has done his homework, but nevertheless-


Charles Joseph Clark: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-

February 5, 1982
Designation of Ministers


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot hear two points of order at the same time.


Charles Joseph Clark: You don't have one now.


Madam Speaker:: The minister rose on a point of order, and I am listening to his point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Having risen on this point of order, 1 believe it is necessary to provide some clarification and allay the ill-founded fears of the Leader of the Opposition, his House leader and his former House leader.
He implied that the new ministers of state were acting more or less illegally, and I immediately referred him to the Government Organization Act, 1970, and related matters. 1 invited him to look at the relevant provisions, to read them very carefully and to have them explained if necessary. I shall, if l may, add further clarification. I am referring to Chapter 14, Sections 13 to 24, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, 2nd Supplement. Two things are regulated under this act. First we have the creation of ministries of state, usually followed by formal appointment of ministers responsible for the new ministries. Such decisions require the approval of Parliament. In order to properly interpret an act, we must read all its provisions, and reading further, we find that Section 23 is concerned with the second type of action, namely, the appointment of ministers of state with the responsibility of assisting other ministers. Thus, we have here two distinct types of decisions: 1. the creation of new ministries of state, which requires the approval of Parliament; 2. the appointment of ministers of state with the responsibility of assisting other ministers, which does not require parliamentary approval.
As a result of the latest reorganization announced by the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), two cases were raised by my colleagues opposite, concerning Mr. Lapointe and Mr. De Bane. Mr. Lapointe was appointed Minister of State under Section 23, with responsibility for assisting the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in matters relating to tourism. There is also the case of Mr. Lumley, who was appointed Minister of State under Section 23 with responsibility for assisting the Minister of State for Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), and we had Mr. De Bane, who was appointed Minister of State under Section 23 of the same act, with responsibility for assisting the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan). However, it has become regular practice, a practice that was in fact followed by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please! I am very much tempted to interrupt the minister. He rose on a point of order to provide
clarification that was requested yesterday. That is fine. If there is a brief exchange and it takes place in a normal fashion on both sides of the House, I think I can allow it to continue. But if the minister intends to discuss the subject at length, I am sorry, but I feel a fairly short statement would settle the matter quite satisfactorily. If the minister intends to be brief, I shall allow him to go on. Otherwise, I shall have to ask him to find some other procedure for providing the information he wants to give to the House.


Erik Nielsen: May I speak to that point, Madam Speaker?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker-


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I submit to the Chair that it has always been the practice that when extensive changes, or even minor changes, are made in the ministry the Prime Minister makes a statement on motions which then can be responded to by opposition parties. I suggest to the government House leader in all sincerity, and in a spirit of co-operation, that this kind of thing should have been done in this instance, and could still be done, on motions, and that would be the proper way.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I was recognized on a point of order. I intend to be brief and to finish my statement in a few moments. I am merely answering a request for clarification of a matter that was raised yesterday. In concluding, I simply want to say that the procedures criticized by my colleagues opposite were in accordance with Section 23 of the act I just mentioned. The procedure consisting in creating new ministers of state will be subject to parliamentary approval, but meanwhile, the situation is as follows: Mr. Gray is Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, as shown on the list appended to Hansard, and Mr. Lumley and Mr. De Bane are Ministers of State, each with specific duties designated as is customary and as the Leader of the Opposition did himself when he was Prime Minister.
Finally, Madam Speaker, until legislation is passed to ratify the creation of new ministries of state, the ministers are designated as they appear in Hansard, to which reference was made yesterday during the debate on this subject. I should like to say once and for all that there is nothing illegal about all this. The procedure is based on the legislation in question, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, Chapter 14, Sections 13 to 24, and in the case of ministers of state with responsibility for assisting other ministers, they were appointed under Section 23. The latter procedure does not require parliamentary approval, and I hope I have succeeded in taking away any lingering doubts among my colleagues opposite.
February 5, 1982


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I had no idea the government House leader would raise this matter today.


René Cousineau: You asked questions yesterday.


Erik Nielsen: I am glad the hon. member who interjected is awake and alive-for a change-to the fact that these questions are being put.
The government House leader has given a rather lengthy and, I must say, complex reply, including the citation of numbered sections of the Government Organization Act. I would like to read what he has said in Hansard, and I trust I will be allowed the liberty on Monday to respond, should I choose to do so.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 object. Yesterday, these people got upset, they raised a point of order claiming that they were aware of the situation, and now they want time to look into it-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order!




Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, 1 have a duty to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. The purpose of this petition, which is signed by 125 concerned Canadians primarily of the Polish community in Kingston and the Islands, is to protest in the strongest way possible the statements made by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) regarding the imposition of martial law in Poland, statements which they feel give aid and comfort to the enemies of democracy in Poland.
The nature of this petition is to demand a retraction of these statements and to urge that the Prime Minister join with other western leaders to denounce the imposition of martial law and the influence being exerted by the Soviet Union to suppress the fundamental rights of Polish citizens.
It is my hope that the Prime Minister will be attentive to these pleadings and that he will carry out the proposals put forward by the petitioners.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Order Paper Questions


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, contrary to what I announced yesterday concerning the order of business in the House, today we shall proceed immediately with consideration of the Cana-grex bill. The bill was on the agenda for today, but I had indicated that before considering this bill, we would be bringing in Ways and Means motions. I had also promised my fellow House leaders to give them a copy of the bill so they would be able to look into it during the weekend. However, 1 am unfortunately unable to meet this very legitimate request. Therefore, as a courtesy to the House, we shall not bring in the Ways and Means motion today. We shall be doing so next week, and consideration of the borrowing authority bill will be postponed at least one day to enable my opposition colleagues to examine it. The order of business is therefore as follows: today, we shall be considering the Canagrex bill; Monday, as announced, the House will be considering a bill to amend the National Housing Act; Tuesday, we shall continue consideration of the National Housing Act, and if the borrowing authority bill has been tabled and the Ways and Means motions approved, we shall probably be starting consideration of the borrowing authority bill on Wednesday. Thursday, as 1 just said, we shall be resuming debate on the National Housing Act. Actually, the only change is that today we shall not be bringing in Ways and Means motions, and instead of considering the borrowing authority bill on Tuesday and Wednesday, it will probably be only Wednesday.


Walter David Baker: On the point of order. Madam Speaker; now that we are on House business, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman could tell me if it is the intention of the government to introduce the new Crown corporation act before the end of February or, if not by that date, when?


Yvon Pinard: I shall consult the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) and my other cabinet colleagues, and I hope to be able to provide further clarification within the next few weeks.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,700, 2,989, 2,990, 3,004 and 3,548.

February 5, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is the government updating the study originally commissioned by the government to Mr. Carl Snavely into the actual costs of moving grain and, if so (a) what is the name of the person or firm hired to conduct the study (b) on what date did it commence and what is the expected completion date (c) what is the anticipated or Final cost (d) in which year does the update apply?
2.	Did the Prime Minister on February 13, 1981 state "We have made a decision not to deal with the Crowsnest Pass freight rates until there is a very strong demand from the representatives of western farm groups and other groups to touch the Crowsnest rates" and, if so, in light of the statement and in light of the government's current fiscal restraint program, for what reason is the government proceeding to contract out a study to update the actual costs of moving grain, which will touch upon the Crowsnest Pass freight rate?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes.
(a)	Snavely, King, Harris and Associates, Inc.
(b)	May 1, 1981-started; December 31, 1981-completion.
(c)	$155,500 (final cost).
(d)	1980.
2.	Yes. In relation to western railway capacity and the railway financial situation it is important to have accurate, up-to-date figures on losses related to statutory grain rates. The current study will maintain the three-year update interval and will be directly comparable to the two previous studies. The study will also identify changes in railway system efficiencies that have occurred since 1977 update.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a Post Office constructed in the village of Mallorytown in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville and, if so (a) on what date (b) what was the name and address of the contractor and the amount of the contract?
2.	Were tenders advertised publicly and, if so, what were the names of all those who tendered and the amount of each tender?
3.	Were tenders invited rather than publicly advertised and (a) if so (i) who decided the identity of those invited (ii) who submitted tenders and in what amount (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes.
(a)	Contract was awarded February 23, 1968.
(b)	Contractor: A.L. Strigley Construction, Ontario Street, Gananoque, Ontario
Contract amount: $29,300.
2.	Tenders were advertised publicly, and following is a list of tenders received in an answer to public advertisement:
Alfred Louis Strigley (A.L. Strigley Construction, Gananoque, Ontario, $29,300; I.H. Bradley Construction Ltd., Prescott, Ont., $35,915; Fort Construction & Equipment Ltd., Prescott, Ontario, $37,500; Raymond Riis Construction, Brockville, Ontario, $37,618; Baldock Engineering & Construction Ltd., Ottawa, $39,747; D.C. Snelling Limited, Prescott, Ontario, $40,178.
3.	Not applicable-See part 2 above.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a Post Office constructed in the village of Delta in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville and, if so (a) on what date (b) what was the name and address of the contractor and the amount of the contract?
2.	Were tenders advertised publicly and, if so, what were the names of all those who tendered and the amount of each tender?
3.	Were tenders invited rather than publicly advertised and (a) if so (i) who decided the identity of those invited (ii) who submitted tenders and in what amount (b) if not, for what reason?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1. (a)
Yes, a building was constructed as a built-lease project during fiscal year 1970-71.
(b) Kigiak Management & Development Company Limited, 88 Metcalfe Street, Suite 605, Ottawa, Ontario. $6,060.60 rental per annum with a 15-year lease commencing June I, 1971, with two five-year options.
2.	Public tender call-date of opening: 1970-09-10. Only one offeror: Kigiak Management and Development Company Limited-$6,060.60 rental per annum.
3.	Not applicable-See part 2 above.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the government intend to extend the leases for box holders who had boxes in locked box lobbies closed during the 1981 postal strike for the same number of days as the length of the strike in order to compensate the box holders for money paid to the government for a service not available to them and (a) if so, on what date will this be announced (b) if not, for what reason?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Instructions were issued by Canada Post that leases for boxes in lock box lobbies closed during the 1981 postal strike were to be extended in accordance with the Manual of Financial Procedures, Part III, Chapter 19, paragraph 16 (2) (a) and (b), which are as follows:
16. "(2) In such cases the rental period may be extended
(a)	by one month if the elapsed time is from 15 to 30 days' duration only; or
(b)	by one month for each 30 days of elapsed time and an additional month for the remaining elapsed time, provided it exceeds 15 days."
(a)	No announcement was necessary because all customers who qualified were given the above-mentioned extension.
(b)	Not applicable.


Mr. McGrath: 1.	Is the mortgage interest component of the consumer price index based on a five-year moving average of mortgage interest rates?
2.	Is Statistics Canada aware that a significant number of mortgages that have been taken out or renewed in the past five years have terms of less than five years?
February 5, 1982

3.	To the knowledge of Statistics Canada, what is the current average term to renewal of a typical mortgage?
4.	In the opinion of Statistics Canada, does the mortgage interest component of the Consumer Price Index adequately reflect movements in mortgage interest costs?
5.	What would be the impact on the (a) mortgage interest component (b) consumer price index, of using a (i) one (ii) two (iii) three (iv) four year moving average?
6.	Will changes be made to the mortgage interest component in the near future and (a) if so, what will be the nature of the changes (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports:
1.	The mortgage interest component of the consumer price index is based on a model which uses a five-year moving average for calculating changes in mortgage interest costs. These costs are affected by changes in both mortgage interest rates and dwelling prices during the 60 months which precede the current month.
2.	Statistics Canada is fully aware that in recent years there has been a growing incidence of mortgages being renewed with terms which are shorter than five years. Such mortgages, on the other hand, would constitute only a small proportion of mortgages used in the CPI because the CPI is supposed to reflect changes in all mortgages. (Refer to part 4 of question.)
3.	There are no complete current statistics on mortgage contracts which would allow for computation of the average term of new (or renewed) mortgages. According to our knowledge, the most recent information available is that which is compiled by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation which is presented as a table below. This information does not yet include 1981 data and covers only loans approved in conformity with the National Housing Act (i.e. excludes conventional mortgages). Please note that changes in the distribution of new or renewed mortgages, according to terms, are not representative of changes in the distribution of all mortgages currently existing, even though they affect the latter (Refer to parts 2 and 4.)
4.	The treatment of owned accommodation is likely to be the most complex and controversial problem in the field of consumer price indexes. There is not and likely never will be, an ideal and universally satisfactory solution to this problem. Particular statistical offices apply various approaches and some even entirely exclude the owned accommodation component from their CPI.
The Canadian approach is based on the assumption that the CPI should reflect, as well as possible, the price-induced
Order Paper Questions
changes in the purchasing power of urban consumers. The purchasing power of home owners changes when, among other things, the mortgage interest costs which they assumed change, which are in turn determined by price changes in mortgage credit (i.e. interest rates) and for mortgaged dwellings. These are affected, however, not only by current prices but also by former prices and their mix depends on the distribution by age of all mortgage contracts currently in force.
According to Canadian practice, the above mix is approximated by a 60-month moving average of interest rates and dwelling prices, with inter-month proportions being kept constant from one CPI weight update to another (presently, four years). Mortgages older than five years are not taken into account, because they amount only to about 25 per cent of the total outstanding mortgage debt (according to both the 1974 and 1978 family expenditure surveys). On the other hand, a shorter moving average would eliminate a substantial proportion of mortgage contracts in force and could result in quite volatile price indexes.
Therefore, while it is true that the share of mortgages having shorter renewal periods is increasing, the impact of this not being reflected in the current CPI is to an unknown extent offset by the fact that the CPI does not include mortgages assumed more than five years ago, some of which have fixed rates for the entire life of the mortgage.
The approximation technique used for calculating changes in the mortgage interest is certainly not perfect, this being mainly attributable to the unavailability of appropriate and timely data. Statistics Canada is confident that this approximation technique is nonetheless adequate for measuring a very complex phenomenon.
5.	Because of the complexities and enormity of the task associated with recalculating the mortgage interest component of the CPI as stipulated in part 5 of the question, the answer will only become available in two or three months.
6.	As part of its continuing effort to incorporate refinements to the CPI, Statistics Canada has and will continue to review new alternatives to the treatment of home ownership in the CPI. With specific respect to the mortgage interest component, the feasibility of using average mortgage interest rates which would vary according to the current mix of mortgages, by age, is in fact currently being studied.
Because of the extremely complex nature of the problem it is not possible at this point in time to specify the exact nature of the changes which will be brought about, nor their implementation date.
Year of the	Full-	FiveContract	Term	Years1968	35,300	-1969	27,155	7,3411970	20,214	31,3521971	8,242	59.1481972	6,051	57,5441973	2,566	42,755
Four
Years
Three
Years
Total
Two	One	Number ofYears	Years	Contracts
35,300
34,496
51,566
67.390
63,605
45,321
New Mortgages

February 5, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Year						Total	
of the	Full-	Five	Four	Three	Two	One	Number ofContract	Term	Years	Years	Years	Years	Years	ContractsNew Mortgages	1974	1,386	30,807	32,1931975	664	61,366	-	-	-	-	62,0301976	131	69,230	-	-	-	-	69,3611977	220	53,815	-	-	-	-	54,0351978	177	31,258	-	-	-	-	31,4351979	2,484	14,077	5	2,326	3	146	16,5611980	2,922	8,957	33	1,807	101	981	11,879Renewed Mortgages	1979	13	43.960	96	19,428	11	163	43,9731980	-	23.522	156	9,545	1,301	8,170	23,522
Source: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 2,511 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 2,511 be deemed to be made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	What is the number of permanent fisheries protection officers for (a) Yarmouth (b) Shelburne (c) Queens (d) Lunenburg (e) Halifax County and. in each case, what is the number of additional personnel required by season?
2.	What is the total (a) yearly budget for salaries (b) yearly budget for expenses (c) figure for fresh and salt water surveillance for each County?
3.	What was the number of trout stocked in each County for each year 1975 to 1981?
4.	Are proposals being considered for the relocation of staff or for the jurisdiction of duties from one office to another in each County and, if so, what are the proposals?
5.	(a) Has an amount been budgeted to make improvements to the Mersey River fishways and, if so, what amount (b) are there plans for improvements in the number of fish provided to stock the Mersey River and, if so, what are they?
6.	Are studies being set up to monitor the Ph levels of rivers, brooks and other tributaries in Queens County?
7.	Is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans considering plans to place limestone in any water on the Mersey system other than the Lower Great Brook and, if so, what are the plans?
8.	(a) Is the Department planning an expansion to the Mersey Fish Culture Station (b) is trout-rearing to be re-established at the Station?
Return tabled.


David P. Smith: I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. MacKay:: Very briefly, Madam Speaker, I should like to inquire through you of the parliamentary secretary the
reason for the long delay in answering my question which was put on the Order Paper on November 23. It is question No. 3,461 with respect to Canadair. I am informed and have reason to believe it is correct that these answers have, in effect, been prepared but are being held back because of the situation at Canadair, which is rather embarrassing to the government.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will make inquiries into that matter.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan that Bill C-85, to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in this debate on a bill to establish a corporation called Canagrex which is aimed at promoting, facilitating and engaging in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada, because it does give us an opportunity to discuss agriculture and the direction in which this industry is heading, the importance of agriculture, and particularly the approach of this minister and government with respect to addressing the various important issues that affect agriculture at this point in time.
Let me say at the outset that I have read the minister's opening remarks and 1 agree with him when he says that food and agriculture will be increasingly important in the 1980s. He also made reference to the fact that the opportunity and the objective to increase production by two thirds in Canada is clearly within our grasp. That challenge and the desire to meet it is something shared by all Canadians, particularly those within the agricultural industry.
February 5, 1982

We have looked at the minister's document, which has been distributed, entitled "Challenge for Growth: An Agri-food Strategy for Canada". It does contain some very lofty challenges and proposals. We have considered the potential of annual farm cash receipts growing to $35 billion in today's dollars by the year 2000 from the current level of $15 billion. The minister talks about the thousands of jobs, not only directly related to agriculture but, indeed, in relation to the processing, distribution and transportation of agricultural products, which can be created, and the importance of the agricultural industry to Canada's balance of payments position.
I think we all agree that we have the potential and clearly the desire, as well as the people who are engaged in this industry who can put their shoulders to the wheel to produce, providing we have the right climate the right set of fiscal and monetary policies and the kind of incentives and markets necessary to ensure a continuity of supply.
I agree with the minister when he stresses the importance of trade in agricultural products, and to the extent that the creation of this organization will assist in promoting agricultural trade, to the extent it will strengthen the welfare of the production segment of agriculture, to the extent that this organization can strengthen our penetration abroad, we are naturally encouraged and will support the concept. To the extent it will provide greater opportunities for our farmers and to the extent it will provide greater equity, strength, stability and a better return for our farmers, we will support the objective.
We know at this particular time that the outlook for the agricultural industry is not very promising. Commodity prices have levelled off, in fact have decreased, while input costs are continuing to rise. We note that in the recent reviews of the agricultural industry it is predicted that net agricultural farm incomes will fall by 15 per cent in the next year. That is not a very healthy prospect. I note that the minister does not argue with that figure. I am sure and know he is concerned about this, but one has to change the agricultural policy in relation to that backdrop.
Many question the need for the creation of another Crown corporation, particularly when we already have a myriad of Crown corporations, government agencies and departments. If any criticism can be levelled at the export of agricultural products, it is the fact that they have not utilized these various agencies in an effective and co-ordinated fashion. Many Canadian farmers are becoming increasingly concerned about the creation of Crown corporations, government boards, task forces and advisory boards in order to create vacancies which can be filled by political appointments.
In last week's edition of Agriweek, notice was given to the effect that provincial marketing directors criticized the creation of Canagrex. They claimed that the food export agency will duplicate what private firms and federal departments are already doing. A critique said that the agency is bitterly
Canagrex Act
opposed by many private exporters and not supported by most Canadians. I am not sure whether the case has been made for the need. Certainly we are not arguing about the desired objective with respect to agricultural exporting, but we should seriously question whether the mechanisms are in place now and whether we lack leadership and co-ordination.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has voiced some fears about the creation of this Crown corporation. It has commenced a campaign extolling the virtues of the work the department has done and is able to do to facilitate the export of food and agricultural products. While the objectives may be lofty and desirable, we really wonder whether the creation of another bureaucratic monster will serve the ultimate purpose for which it is intended.
A very distinguished Canadian who has spent his lifetime in agriculture had something to say about the continual encroachment of government within the production, marketing, distribution and transportation of agricultural products. I suppose these comments could apply to all industry in Canada, but Mr. Mac Runciman who led the United Grain Growers for many years spoke bluntly and openly. He suggested that the continual encroachment upon the lives of farmers, and indeed upon the lives of all people in the agricultural industry, will have grave and serious consequences with regard to their economic freedom in the future. He has signalled a warning which I think we should all heed.
The government seems committed to downplaying the worth and need of the private sector. I detected in the minister's remarks that in many respects the government is giving up on the private sector and that its major thrust is directed toward centralized government control. This was clearly evident in the opening remarks of the minister when he said, as reported on page 14288 of Hansard:
-I am convinced we will not be able to open up the necessary markets for food which Canada is ideally situated to supply unless we have a Crown corporation such as Canagrex to represent Canada in the world marketplace.
This statement is somewhat strong. He is really saying that we have been an absolute failure in the past and that without this bureaucratic monster we will never be able to achieve our place in the sun. I think that statement can be challenged, particularly when one looks at the remarks to which I referred wherein provincial marketing directors take issue with this corporation and make reference to the fact that many private exporters are bitterly opposed to it. This is a clear indication that they will be very seriously and directly affected by the role of the organization in the export of agricultural products.
We almost heard the same when the government brought in the bill to establish Petro-Canada. Members of the government said that we could never achieve oil self-sufficiency in Canada without Petro-Canada. This creature has cost Canadians approximately $4 billion, and today we are more reliant upon imported oil than we were last year. Last year we were more reliant upon imported oil than we were the year before, and next year we will be even more reliant. Now we find that Petro-Canada is increasing its imports by 25,000 barrels per

February 5, 1982
Canagrex Act
day and paying $41 Canadian per barrel when it could purchase oil from Alberta for $23.50.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: But it is Alberta oil.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I suppose that has something to do with it, but probably it has something to do with mismanagement of a bureacratic monster. Petro-Canada has not acquired one additional barrel of oil which we would not have otherwise had. What is Petro-Canada doing? I checked with representatives of the corporation yesterday and asked about their international operations. They said: "We are looking at feasibility studies to become engaged in international operations". I asked: "What countries?" They said; "We cannot tell you". I said: "Is it Tanzania?" They said: "Yes". I asked: "Is it Senegal?" They said: "Yes". I said; "What other countries?" They replied: "Countries such as Kenya, Jamaica, Bangladesh, Pakistan and many others".


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What about Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, what about Canada? The Crown corporation was established to be the answer to Canada's energy needs-self-sufficiency, reasonable prices, security of supply, ensuring that everything would be run in a smooth fashion. What do we have? The National Energy Program, Petro-Canada and the government's economic policy have resulted in the destruction of one of the most dynamic growth sectors of the oil industry in the history of the country, and that is the drilling and servicing industry. We are all aware of the rigs which were forced to move to the United States, as well as the exodus of capital, men, equipment, machines and expertise. What benefit has this massive federal government intervention provided? It has caused dislocation of Canadian workers. It is interesting to note that this sector of the oil industry is almost totally Canadian-owned. Canadian workers have been driven south of the border, 235 rigs are now drilling in the United States and over 100 service rigs are now operating there. Certainly it has caused disruption and dislocation. Families have been uprooted and, most of all, investor confidence in the country has been destroyed and megaprojects delayed. Alsands is now delayed further, two companies have now pulled out and perhaps another one will do so in the not too distant future. It has had a negative ripple effect upon businesses associated with and dependent upon the oil industry. It has caused fuel prices to rise beyond reason and created a massive government rip-off, resulting in fuel prices being the major component of the massive increase in the cost of farm inputs, about which I will have more to say later.
Let us look at the government policy paper entitled, "Economic Development for Canada in the 1980s". Its major pivot is the concept of massive government intervention. Obviously the major thrust of the document is to de-emphasize incentives to the private sector, de-emphasize profits, and de-emphasize the worth and necessity of the private sector. These are substituted by the philosophy of massive revenue grab; in other words, more revenue in the form of taxation flowing into the central coffers of the federal government, so that it can
increase regulations and provide selective grants and subsidies to industries located in certain areas. All of these programs and gimmicks will be authored by the government and administered by the bureaucrats.
If we look at the $350 million three-year program that has been announced, we see that this money will be spent on designated industries, such as auto parts and others. That is a clear example of what is going to happen. There is the creation of more government task forces, advisory boards, councils and Crown corporations. We are going to have a massive proliferation of governmental, bureaucratic mechanisms that will not all be centred in Ottawa; that is the difference. They will be situated throughout the whole country.
By looking at that document I can see at least six new little government bodies that will be created. For instance, the industrial opportunities program, the office of industrial and regional benefits, the Canadian industrial renewal board which will comprise 16 members and the export trade development board. We have trade and export development boards, but here we are creating another one. The Canadian industrial renewal board has 16 members. They are to look at a program to adjust the textile industry. There is only one person appointed to that board who has any experience in the textile industry.
Canagrex will have 11 directors and a support staff. We do not know how many salesmen will be hired. We really do not know what its sales strategy will be. It will be very interesting to know that. There is mention of a national trading corporation. A committee toured the country. This committee heard many people's views. The majority report of that committee recommended the establishment of a national trading corporation. How many trading corporations do we need in this country?


An hon. Member:: None.


Jean-Luc Pepin: One good one.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) say one good one. Perhaps he has the right answer; that is a very thoughtful interjection. I said earlier that if there is a problem, as I see it, it is a lack of co-ordination and leadership. We have many bodies and mechanisms which can be harnessed to do this job. But there has been a sad lack of co-ordination and leadership.
The Canagrex organization will have a committee of 26 members. It will be filled by loyal Grits. I do not know how many people will be selected from western Canada because the Liberals have some difficulty out there. But if they cannot find one, they will buy one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This whole approach seems to be aimed at nothing more than a massive bureaucracy-building program to reward friends of the Liberal Party of Canada, to create more obstacles, more interference and more frustration. What
February 5, 1982

is disappointing, if you stop and think about it, is that for more than a decade now government intervention has been increasing in the production and marketing sectors of the Canadian economy. It has been increasing in the name of equity and in the name of efficiency, but without any noticeable success. The direction which this government has taken has not helped things, it has made things worse. We are heading further and further in the wrong direction.
What troubles many Canadians is the fact that the government will be deciding who will be the winners and who will be the losers. If you are in an industry friendly with the government and situated in an area which is friends with the government, you might be all right. But if you are not, it is just tough luck.
I submit that this approach will clearly suppress the spirit of creativity. It will suppress innovation and will damage productivity. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this philosophy is a recipe for further economic stagnation. It will discourage initiative. It will penalize thrift and it will smother the entrepreneurial spirit of Canadians, which is still alive and well but requires a hospitable environment within which it can function.
My submission to you, Sir, is that the route that we are on will clearly accelerate the demise of the private sector in this country, the major engine and thrust of job-creation activity in this country, particularly the small enterprisers. I am told studies reveal that in North America more than two thirds of all jobs created over the last ten years have been created by small business. It is also interesting to note that 80 per cent of those jobs have been created by small businesses that have been in business for less than five years.
This budget and this approach is killing the incentive for new business and for new small business to start up.


Mr. Fennell:: They are all starting up in the United States, not here.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What is happening is that we are replacing the private enterprise economy with a controlled economy which will be steered by an army of bureaucrats and political manipulators.
It was interesting to note that Mr. Blakeney and the new socialist Premier of Manitoba liked the document very much because it conforms to their belief that the more government intervention the better, the more control the better. It really is a product of a government that has some very deep socialistic convictions.
It is within this context that we do have some very legitimate concerns about this piece of legislation. It provides for a number of things that we will have to examine very closely when we get into committee. It raises the point of who will be in and who will be out, who will be a winner and who will be a loser.
If you take a look at the food sector in the communist countries and their centrally controlled economies, their dictates are run by the bureaucracy in the capital cities of their
Canagrex Act
countries. But that system does not work. There is only one country that produces more food than it consumes domestically, and that is Hungary because it has moved away from that centrally controlled approach. Hungary seems to be attempting to move away from a centrally controlled thrust, but Canada is moving toward it.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has travelled a great deal. I am sure he has seen what has happened in those countries. But he must be on the same road as these socialistic tendencies that are not working in other countries, and I find that very sad.


Eugene Whelan: It is wrong.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He says it is very wrong. But look at the powers. Look at the bill.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Tighten up the powers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The bill permits Canagrex to make contracts, enter into joint ventures, provide grants and contributions, give loans, make loan guarantees, charge for services; also to hold property, purchase, package, process, store, insure, import and export agricultural products.
The bill in Clause 14(c) allows Canagrex to enter into contracts with Canadian individuals, with firms and marketing boards. It permits Canagrex again to enter into joint ventures. Here is the clincher. With respect to grants and contributions, the bill states again in Clause 14:
-subject to conditions of general application prescribed by the governor in council-
In other words, grants and contributions will be provided at the political whim of the cabinet. That is how grants and contributions will be handed out. Canagrex will be able to buy and lease property, warehouses and containers. We had a briefing yesterday. The minister's officials were very keen on building warehouses under joint ventures in Third World countries. That is certainly very interesting.
Now we come to loans and guarantees. Here again, subject to conditions of general application Canagrex will make loans and guarantees. Here is another one. This bill gives the governor in council directive powers over Canagrex and will ensure that the operations of Canagrex will be consistent with Canada's over-all trade and foreign policy objectives. My God, here again is a very fundamental point: Canagrex can be directed specifically at the political whim of the cabinet. Given this government's foreign policy, and especially with the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) toward Poland, you really wonder just where that might lead us.
There are some serious questions, Mr. Speaker, about this particular piece of legislation. Rather than standing alone, it has to be viewed in the context of the government's over-all approach to manipulating and managing the economy. There is no question that we need to export more. Agriculture accounts for, I believe, roughly 13 per cent of our total exports.

February 5, 1982
Canagrex Act
However, we also need to import less, particularly in the area of fruit and vegetables. It is inexcusable that we spend as much on imported food as we do, something like $5.8 billion or $6 billion, I believe. It has been suggested that we have the potential for producing probably $3 billion of that right here, and I would be much happier if the Minister of Agriculture came before this House with a program to encourage Canadian producers to produce more of that food right here in Canada.


Eugene Whelan: We have got it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, bring it on. It would strengthen the total agricultural sector and help our balance of payments situation.


Eugene Whelan: If trade was doing such a good job, why do we have to export-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If it were not for the sale of grain and oilseed, our agricultural trade picture would be very dismal. As a matter of fact, it has been worsening since this minister came in.


Eugene Whelan: Not at all.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Not at all? Well, facts and figures will bear me out.


Eugene Whelan: Horticultural products exports are up 32 per cent in two years.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have read many of the minister's speeches where he was crying about the fact that we were spending 25 cents of our food dollar on imported food, and it is probably up to 30 cents now. That is really a sad commentary on a country like Canada which has such a tremendous and significant agricultural potential. I reiterate that we need to export more, yes, but we also have to address this situation by importing less. To the extent this bill helps in that regard, I would certainly support it; but I must tell you, Sir, in all sincerity, that I am not sold on the fact it will do that.
As I said, this bill will require full committee consideration. I mentioned the joint ventures and the potential of integrating them into the production sector. While it may not be intended, I submit they can be included. The minister has great faith in this corporation. He suggests it will be the major catalyst in establishing Canada as a major trading nation. I hope he is right. He says it will expand food production and processing. He said it will mean increased income for farmers. In short, he says it will be a major shot in the arm for the economy. Well, I hope that is true because, as I said earlier, this industry is in serious trouble.
This measure may help us in the long term, but I will have to withhold judgment on that until we have further committee study. If it does help, it will be simply in the long term. What we need is some short-term assistance.
I hate to repeat this again, Mr. Speaker, but it is true and the minister knows it; the budget was a cop-out. Farmers are
hurting. They are caught in a squeeze of high interest rates, high inflation, high input costs and low commodity returns. We know farmers cannot pass on the effect of these increased costs to the consumer because a good portion of agricultural production is exported and we have to compete in international markets.
I have a letter that was sent to the minister from Peter Brown and family of Tofield. Now, the minister may not have seen it but I think it pretty well crystallizes the difficulties facing farmers in my riding. It reads as follows:
Perhaps the government could investigate the feasibility of providing long term financing for farmers at a more reasonable rate than banks, who seem to care little for the fact that farmers are the backbone of this country and that our loans are more than secured by the land and sweat that goes into it.
Surely the time has come to pay attention to the industry responsible for feeding this country but as time progresses we become more and more aware that government has put the agricultural industry on the back burner. Indeed farming in all its meaning has taken a back seat to urban development. Far too much prime land is being buried under a sea of concrete, a sea that can never be harvested again for anything productive.
Year after year farmers lose money and as in any business how long can it continue to be a losing proposition before everyone bales out and if you have no farmers you have no sustenance.
We think that Liberal government taxing policies create more and more jobs and positions for Liberals with high wages and benefits, adding new meaning to the old adage, "the rich get richer and the poor, poorer". Surely this has contributed to the poor and tarnished image of the Liberal Party.
This person recognizes what will happen with Canagrex. It will just mean more jobs for Liberals. He goes on:
We would prefer no government intervention in the beef industry. The government's track record indicates that their meddling breeds disaster with cost and inefficiency hitting all time hazard levels.


Eugene Whelan: I would think this man is a Liberal. He wrote me a letter that he wanted to be appointed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He goes on:
We fail to comprehend the Liberal views of high interest, high fuel costs, high fertilizer costs and high taxation and their apparent blindness to the chaos it is causing the average Canadian. These policies have brought the country to her knees. How can you expect us to believe that you fully comprehend a situation when it is obvious that politicians, in their salary range, have never had to worry about financial stability. If they don't know how we live how do they hope to understand and correct it?
Agriculture is a prime industry in this country and here is a farmer's view of 1981. Our beef prices dropped from $84 per hundredweight to $64 per hundred, our grain prices have varied little in almost ten years, our expenses have changed dramatically. Fuel used to cost us $400 to $500 to fill our tanks, now the same tanks cost $1600 to $2000 to fill. Our fertilizer and spray bills are now close to $25,000 to $30,000 or more in some cases. Our land taxes have doubled, repairs on machinery or the cost of replacing machinery will soon put us in the poor house. New tractors used to cost $8,000 to $12,000, now it is common to have to pay $40,000 to $120,000. Interest at the bank for operating costs have risen from 8 per cent or 10 per cent to 17 per cent and 23 per cent.
He then goes on to the Minister of Agriculture's questionnaire where he says:
In your questionnaire you ask if we'd like reduced imports of beef and beef animals and we answer that with a firm no, but when you consider that beef is imported from Australia, New Zealand and Argentina at very reduced prices compared to ours, how can we compete. Their beef is raised primarily on cheap grass with cheaper labour and when our beef is forced to compete with theirs it is chaotic and unfair. This must be changed. The farmer of Canada must receive at least as much consideration as a foreigner.
February 5, 1982

Agriculture is my life, the life and breath of my family, it is our passion. If you eat you should be concerned about our future, because our future determines the very existence of yours.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that really summarizes the plight of the agricultural industry.


Eugene Whelan: A lot of inaccuracies, too.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, the minister says there are many inaccuracies. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) says there are many inaccuracies. However, he has not proven that his position is correct. The minister suggests there are many inaccuracies; 1 say prove it. The fact of the matter is that farmers are not accustomed to writing letters. They write only when they are in difficult circumstances and dire straits.
You and I know, Mr. Speaker, what has happened to grain prices over the last year. 1 just picked out one grain and oilseed price. On January 19, 1981, export wheat was $270 per ton. In December it went down to $218 per ton.


Mr. Evans:: That is the government's fault?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, I simply point that out. 1 am not suggesting it is the government's fault. The government has some control over input costs; it does not have control over the international marketplace. But I will get to some specifics and offer some suggestions, if the parliamentary secretary will simply wait.
I am simply trying to put this matter into perspective. Barley sold for $187 a ton in January of 1981, and $120 a ton in December. I could go on. The same thing is true with pork prices.
While we are discussing the beef industry, a beef producer in my riding has been losing an average of $80 per head on the raising and feeding of his animals. He lost $80 per head in 1981, with a loss of about $67 per head in 1980. In 1969 he showed a profit of about $68 per head. It is very difficult for producers to face those types of consequences.
We know there are bankruptcies. There have been over 260 registered bankruptcies. The formula is that for every one who goes bankrupt, there are probably ten who voluntarily liquidate or go out of business.
This budget has been a complete cop-out as far as agriculture is concerned. The government has gutted the Small Business Development Bond. It is of absolutely no value to the small businessman and the farmer. I do not know of one individual who has applied for a Small Business Development Bond who is not in dire straits, who is not in financial difficulty. If the government cannot make it effective, it should withdraw the darn thing, because it has raised false expectations. It is a measure which this party, when we were in government, brought in to provide some relief to the farmers and the small business sector of this country.
Capital cost allowance is another concern. It is rather ironic, and I am saddened by the fact, that the Minister of Agricul-
Canagrex Act
ture allowed a measure like that to go through, because the capital cost allowance has a direct reflection upon the industrial heartland of Ontario, the automobile and machinery manufacturing industry. Walter Tilden, the president of Tilden Rent-A-Car Co., says that it will cost some 40,000 car sales in the car rental companies.
This government has not provided any assistance for the farmer. It has pulled out any modicum of relief which was contained in the last budget. As suggested by my colleague, the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), the Farm Credit Corporation is simply an illusion of action. There is no immediate relief contained in that measure.


Eugene Whelan: Don't you want the private sector?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, we do. The farmers-


Eugene Whelan: They have certainly looked after the banks.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The farmers need help now.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Which government controls the banks?


Eugene Whelan: Pardon?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Which government controls the banks?


Eugene Whelan: They loaned the money, and they loaned it in a phoney way.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This minister talks about the high interest rates of the banks. What about the Farm Credit Corporation? Its rate is around 16.75 per cent, which is pretty high. Why does the minister not bring it down to a reasonable and tolerable level? The minister has some control over it.


Eugene Whelan: Six per cent below the regular lending rate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Fine. But that is still too high for the farmers who are in need.


Eugene Whelan: You want government intervention.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I want to bring in the Small Business Development Bond.


Eugene Whelan: You want government intervention.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 want the government to bring in the Small Business Development Bond to help the farmers.


Eugene Whelan: That is the job of the Farm Credit Corporation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The government set the interest rate. The herd maintenance assistance program is another program which raised false expectations. The Small Business Development Bond would provide the kind of relief which is necessary to bring farmers out of their current financial difficulties. Three hundred and fifty million dollars is being allocated for industries in certain selected areas. What is wrong with the agricultural industry?

February 5, 1982
Canagrex Act


Eugene Whelan: It is healthy.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister has no clout in the cabinet.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It's healthy?


Thomas Scott Fennell: He is a pussycat in cabinet.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A pussycat in cabinet, that is right. The minister could do something, if he had any clout and if he were concerned about the agriculture industry, but he is almost talking the same line as the Minister of Finance.
Fuel prices to the farmer have risen by 41.8 per cent from 1980 to 1981, and 21.6 per cent-


John Leslie Evans: How much did they rise to everyone else?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Oh, that buffoon over there says that ours would have been more. We provided relief for the farmers.


John Leslie Evans: I said: "How much did you provide for everyone else?"


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We provided relief to the farmers. We provided an energy tax credit to the home owners. During the last two years, fuel prices have increased by 63 per cent.


Erik Nielsen: Economic Vietnam!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The bulk of that is in the form of federal government tax of about 57 cents. If the minister wants to bring some relief to the producers of Canada, he can petition the Minister of Finance to reduce the level of that federal government tax, which is nothing more than a massive rip-off at the expense of the producers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. de Jong:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can call it one o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, five minutes!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).


Simon Leendert de Jong: I am prepared to speak, Mr. Speaker. Unlike the hon. member who previously spoke, I wish to state that our party supports this bill.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Of course! You are socialists!


Mr. Ittinuar:: I am glad you noticed!


Simon Leendert de Jong: It is indeed ironic-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Regina East has the floor.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Indeed it is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the Conservative Party, on the one hand, ask for increased government assistance and involvement in the field of agriculture, yet, on the other hand, when things do not work out, they always blame the government. In part, I agree with them when they blame things on this particular government. If anything, what the Liberal Party does is to give government a bad name.
I appreciate some of the concerns of my colleagues in the House. However, it is irresponsible for them to draw the conclusion that there is no role for a public body in the field of agriculture in this country. I think it is very naive for them to suggest that the free enterprise system alone will ensure that sufficient food is on the table of the Canadian consumer at a proper price and that Canadian farmers will be able to get a decent return for their labour and investment. There must be some government involvement.
I do not know of one country in the world, including the United States, which does not have active government involvement in its agricultural sector. Agriculture is simply too important to be placed in the hands of increasingly fewer and larger corporations. Indeed, over the past number of years we have seen this trend toward fewer farms and larger corporations, such as food producers and distributors. It is a trend which we in this party quite honestly view with great alarm. Any country, including our own, puts itself in a bad position if it allows a small group of multinational corporations to form a monopoly over such a necessity as food, so that it can control payments to farmers and the price to consumers.
A cliche, but one which bears repeating, is that this country is a truly gifted nation. We have the gifts and the resources which God has given us, such as vast tracts of land, very fertile fields and a very experienced farming population. Our farmers have a desire to produce good food at reasonable prices. Surely these are things we have going for us. Yet as, I will mention in my continuing remarks-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When the House rose at one o'clock, the hon. member for Regina East had the floor.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, before the luncheon adjournment I was discussing the role that governments can and should play in the agricultural sector, something my Conservative friends to my right at times have difficulty accepting. Agriculture in this country has always been a mix of public, private and co-operative involvement.

February 5, 1982

In my part of the country, the Regina plains, there has always been an important role for co-operation, from the early days when settlers came and helped each other build their farms to the present day of marketing their produce through the largest producer co-op in the world, the wheat pool.
The government has always played an important role. It helped settlers establish themselves on the prairies, guaranteeing transportation and marketing systems, all the way through to developing better strains of wheat and other crops. Of course, there is the private initiative of the farmers, taking the risks, adapting different crops to varying soil conditions and so forth. In short, the individual farmer makes the types of individual decisions that no large organization, whether it be a large, central state-planning bureau or the boardroom of a multinational firm, can ever make.
For my Conservative friends to suggest, as they often seem to do, that we can get along without the involvement of the public sector is sheer madness. Surely we cannot do without public support and involvement, orderly marketing, co-operative and collective action by our farmers. To suggest that we can is foolishness and madness.
The whole trend towards privatization and what I feel is overplaying the importance of the private sector was driven home to me last week when I had the opportunity of looking at the American space program. In the present atmosphere in Washington, there is a strong desire to have the data collected from the remote-sensing satellites turned over to the private sector. The data available from the pictures taken by the satellites tells what crop conditions will be like, the maturing process of the crops and how much crop can be expected at harvest time. For this type of information to be turned over to the private sector for its exclusive use is a frightening indication that the public sector is no longer considered to be important. I am sure an outfit like Cargill Corporation woulds love to have monopoly control over such data so that it can corner and control the commodity market. This I mention as an indication of the inappropriateness of having the entire agricultural sector turned over to private industry.
In my view, Bill C-85 is a way for government to make an important contribution in supporting our agricultural community. Of course, it has to be done in a co-operative manner. For the government to set something up and attempt to jam it down the throats of individual farmers is unacceptable to those in this party, as it would be unacceptable to members of the Conservative party and the farmers of this country. The key, of course, is co-operation. We need co-operation between the public sector, the private sector and the operators, in mutual assistance with each other. Whatever role the three sectors play, only through co-operation with each other can agriculture remain a healthy industry in our economy. Only through that co-operation can our farmers be assured that what they produce will be sold at decent prices.
There are a number of fears which we have about this bill. One of those fears has to do with the composition of the board.
Canagrex Act
I suggest to the government that this co-operative principle is essential if this new organization which will be created by Bill C-85 is to flourish and do the proper job for which it was envisioned. Canagrex must co-operate with the farmers, those growing the crops, along with the workers in the industry. Therefore, we suggest strongly that the producers, farmers and workers should have an input as to who sits on the board.
We are concerned about the fact that the budget for Canagrex is only $12.3 million and not the $60 million which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) earlier promised. Is this an indication that what is really before us is a window-dressing attempt by the government to make it appear that it is actively trying to export our farm produce? Is a budget of $12.3 million adequate for this new corporation to do its job properly? These are some of our doubts. In time, I am sure that the track record of this new corporation will show whether it is just window dressing or whether it is the real intention of the government to become active in this area.
We are also concerned about the capabilities of Canagrex. We believe that Canagrex should become a promotional body and a source of specialized information about the trading of agricultural products. In this way it can be of assistance to the farmers. All too often, farmers cannot wade through the various regulations, departments and agencies which exist. If Canagrex is able to offer these various services to farmers in a simplified manner, it will be performing a useful function.
Another disturbing factor about government involvement in programs such as these is the fact that time and again public money is used to develop new markets or new products, and when profits are finally realized the government turns around and offers them to the private sector. Very often this is the larger component of the private sector. If Canagrex becomes profitable in the future, we suggest that those profits be returned to the farmers and not turned over to some multinational corporation. This is something which we will be watching very closely in the years to come. If Canagrex in fact turns out to be a handmaiden for the large food distributors in the agri-business that has been created, the government will hear more criticism from us about Canagrex.
It is our hope that Canagrex will provide service and assistance to farmers for their benefit. At this point I would like to point out the importance of developing new markets within Canada. Other members have mentioned the eroding state of food self-sufficiency in which Canada finds itself. Indeed, we are importing more produce every year. For example, in 1970, 83 per cent of all the vegetables consumed in Canada were produced here. By 1977 it had dropped to 74 per cent. That is a decline of 9 per cent.
This same fact is true for fruit. In the period 1967 to 1971, 32 per cent of the fruit consumed in Canada was grown here. In 1977, that had dropped to 24 per cent. An example of this is canned peaches. Only 18 per cent of the canned peaches which are consumed in Canada are produced here. I think that the ideal of Canadian self-sufficiency in food is important. It is an ideal that I hope Canagrex will address itself to.

February 5, 1982
Canagrex Act
I would like to expand further on the subject of imports. Up to the end of October, 1981, we imported approximately $77 million worth of fresh tomatoes as well as $43 million in tomato products. This represents a very big loss in foreign exchange to our country as well as a loss of many jobs.
The same is true for many other products. As of the end of October, 1981, we imported $42 million worth of potatoes, $2.6 million worth of frozen broccoli, $21 million worth of onions and $9.5 million worth of green onions. We had a surplus of onions last year in Canada yet we imported $9.5 million worth of them. We imported $14 million in carrots, $23 million in green peppers, $12.5 million in cauliflower. The list goes on, Mr. Speaker.
The government should be encouraging the Canadian consumer to purchase frozen vegetables which were grown in Canada. The Department of Agriculture should be involved in consumer education, perhaps through displaying special labels and posters. DREE, or whatever the program is now, should be working with the Department of Agriculture in the establishment of processing plants in Canada. The Department of Agriculture should be twisting the arms of the food chains to promote the sale of Canadian produce.
In Moose Jaw, not far from my riding, there is a very successful little greenhouse. It started out by employing people who were on social assistance. In its own little way, it has been able to provide employment for these 12 people who were previously on social assistance. They made use of their waste heaps. It has helped to make the city of Moose Jaw and the surrounding area self-sufficient in food. This greenhouse is an example of the great possibilities which exist for Canadian agriculture. I would encourage the government to consider further research and development in this area so that the fresh produce which we need can be grown in Canada.
As a result of new discoveries from investment in research and technology, many more of these greenhouses could be established in rural areas to enable self-sufficiency in green produce, even during winter. The trap that agriculture in Canada is now in-although it is a cliche-is that producers' costs of fuel, fertilizer, land, machinery and the cost of borrowing money are going up while the return on their investment and labour is reversing. As a result of these increased costs, the farmers' actual return on their investment has declined during the last number of years. The small producers in particular are being squeezed out. We are becoming more dependent on the large multinationals and foreign producers and farmers.
We must explore new directions for self-sufficiency in food if we are to cease being totally hooked into the international agricultural network which makes us dependent on those over whom we have no control.
It is my hope that this corporation which we are helping to establish today will play a role in exploring new ways to grow agricultural products in Canada. I hope Canagrex will play a role in making Canada self-sufficient in the food products we need for Canadians to survive.
At some stage we truly must begin to see how absurd our situation is. For example, we are buying tomatoes which are grown in Mexico and shipped up to Canada in huge semitransports. They are then stored in huge warehouses with large cooler and freezer compartments. They are sold in huge supermarkets on some of the most expensive real estate that exists. It is a wasteful way of getting tomatoes on our table. It is not energy efficient. It is not capital efficient, and it does not provide employment to Canadian producers.
Surely the capital which is now put into buying that semitrailer and buying huge warehouses and huge shopping centres, if redirected to such operations as local greenhouses, could provide employment for Canadians and make us more energy and food self-sufficient. I suggest it would also produce more nutritious food. That is a new direction which must be explored.
I hope the government, and particularly Canagrex, can play an important role in developing this alternative system of agriculture, turn away from huge multinationals and from highly capital intensive forms of agriculture and toward a form of agriculture which is based on local conditions and needs. Such a form of agriculture would not be so energy and capital intensive and would produce the food that is immediately needed in and about communities. Such a system, as I mentioned before, could make small towns in Saskatchewan selfsufficient in produce during the winter.
I and other members of my party will say more about this line of thinking in various other debates to come. On the whole, we welcome the legislation before us. We hope it will do what it is hoped it will do. We will, however, be paying attention to make certain it will indeed be of benefit to the farmers and consumers of Canada and not just to some multinational corporation.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased I am able to speak in the debate on this bill brought forward by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). 1 have been reading about this in his speeches for about a year and a half now. The minister was even so kind as to come to the great constituency of Wetaskiwin and tell the good people there about some of his plans. I think he even mentioned Canagrex there.


Eugene Whelan: I missed you. You didn't show up.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I thought I would leave the good citizens of Wetaskiwin to deal with the minister in such a way as not to need my help.
The speaker who just sat down mentioned that it is sheer madness-I think that is the term he used-to turn over much of the marketing and other operations which are now run by government to the private sector. I think many farmers on the prairies would question that term. They also would question whether we should be heading in the direction we are now with much of the legislation being proposed and some of the
February 5, 1982

propositions the Minister of Agriculture is constantly making as a solution. I refer to supply management marketing boards, Canagrex and so forth which the minister thinks are solutions to farm problems. These methods are not dealing adequately with the very serious problems farmers and small businesses are facing today. They are not a panacea. We are saying to farmers, "Boy, are we ever acting here in the House of Commons to solve your problems"; but their problems are more economic than anything else, and they need some real help.
What we are talking about here today is a philosophy. Farmers have been traders for centuries. They have traded the produce they have grown on the land for other items they have needed. However, as they became more efficient, they found they could grow more than they could trade and, as a result, we have had to send envoys into other parts of the world to try to move their produce. Today farmers, particularly in this nation, are again attempting to trade their produce for some of the things they need. This is being done because of high costs. Farmers trade grain or concentrate. They trade beef for electrical work and so forth. Part of the reason for this is the tax system under which they are living. However, external trade becomes a very important factor when we take into account the capacity and the capability of the farms of this nation.
Farmers have two options. They can simply produce for the Canadian market or produce more than the market of this nation needs and get into export markets. For as long as I have known this minister, he has felt that because much of our export trade is failing, supply management marketing boards are what are needed. The minister goes to Alberta and the prairies and talks about the beef industry being in difficulty, and his solution is control of the market. But he always forgets to talk about protein substitution. It is very easy to control the supply of milk because there is no substitute for it. It is easy to control the production of eggs. People like eggs in the morning, and there is no substitute. When it comes to protein, if we control the supply of beef in an attempt to increase the price, the consumer will buy pork. If we control the supply of pork, the consumer might buy poultry, which is already controlled. There is also fish. In addition, we are now capable of producing protein from soybeans and other plants of that nature. That is another substitute, and many people in restaurants cannot tell the difference. The solution offered by the minister to the difficulties our red meat industry on the prairies is facing is much too simplistic, and producers on the prairies ought to be questioning the minister about this type of solution.
The other and more interesting solution, as far as the farmers of western and eastern Canada are concerned, is the export solution. Farmers are accustomed to using technology and their own initiative and abilities to produce more and more off the land year after year, and they want us and both private and public corporations to go out into the world markets where people are hungry and sell their produce-at a profit, wherever possible. I have said before that as our world population
Canagrex Act
increases by 1.8 per cent per year, some 80 million people, there is a growing need for food. There are markets for what we can produce, and there are very few nations in the world which have the capacity to produce more than their own needs.
Agricultural exports have proved to be very good for Canada. Some 40 per cent of our farm cash receipts come from exports. That is one of the highest ratios in the world, and this industry needs encouragement. We in the cereal production areas of Canada find that we have the capacity to produce a tremendous crop, but we have not the rail capacity or the necessary capacity at ports to satisfy the demand there is in the world. In 1980 we exported $4.9 billion worth of grain, and the value of our total agricultural produce exported was $7.8 billion. That represented some 10 per cent of our total exports, our second largest single export. We exported some 120 million pounds of dressed beef-mainly to the United States-and $140 million worth of live cattle. We exported some 282 million pounds of pork to the United States and Japan. I could go on and tell of the many crops and livestock we are presently exporting. We need to expand the markets we have. The minister says that is the purpose of this bill.


Eugene Whelan: But at a fair price, Stan.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: At a fair price, and there are many countries which can afford to pay more, and would, if we had co-operation between exporting nations.
As hon. members who have spoken before me have said, we also have a food trade deficit. If we discount our grain sales we have a very large trade deficit. Members here are saying to the Minister of Agriculture that there is room for improvement in that picture. Members have described the possibility of expanding our greenhouse operations and our frozen food capacity. We have a capacity in this nation that is unbelievable because of our cold climate, in that there is a lot of waste heat being blown off into the cold air which does not even help to warm up this country. If you had lived in Alberta for the past four weeks you would hope that we had some capacity to use this waste because it has been 40 degrees below.
We need the direction and the encouragement of this government because of the cost factors involved in researching the ability to use waste heat from nuclear power plants, coalgenerated electrical plants and pumps which move natural gas and oil across this country. There is a tremendous capacity there and it is also a very labour intensive industry. If we were putting some of the funds we are proposing for this purpose into that sort of thing, we might in the long run find this more beneficial to the nation.
This brings me to the Canagrex budget. The minister wanted to create a large corporation. He was asking for some $60 million and a staff of 175. What he got was $4.1 million and a staff of 12.

February 5, 1982
Canagrex Act


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He lost another battle in cabinet.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Is this small amount of money to be used in setting up Canagrex going to be well spent? The director will probably need two or three secretaries and he will only have a staff of 12. If we consider the 115 world trading missions we have, we will find that in those missions we only have ten agricultural specialists, and we only have one in the Third World where a quarter of our food and grain exports are presently going.


Eugene Whelan: We do not have one in Russia yet and that is our biggest buyer.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: The world trade missions Canada had around the world in the 1950s and 1960s were the envy of the world. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) is in his seat and I would ask him what has happened to this envy of the world we enjoyed in the 1950s.


Mr. MacGuigan:: It is still there.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: No, it is not, and part of the reason is that the Department of External Affairs has been reorganized and reorganized and we do not have specialists in trade missions around the world with the capacity to sell the produce of this nation.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Indeed we do, and we are selling more.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: The Secretary of State for External Affairs should be asking the Minister of Agriculture to give up this budget of $4 million in order to place some agricultural specialists in those trade missions with the capacity to sell our products. Then that money might be better spent. That is the way to spend money in a manner which will help the farmers of this nation.


Eugene Whelan: That is not what the United States is doing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You do not follow the States in other policies; why are you suggesting it here?


Eugene Whelan: They followed us on this one. We suggested this one and Bergland put it into practice.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: The Minister of Agriculture constantly makes speeches, even though he does not rise in his place to defend his department as often as he ought to.
If we look around the world at many of our competitors, we see that they are moving more and more to the use of private export traders in attempting to sell the surplus products their farmers are producing. The same is the case in Australia, which used automatically to purchase all its grain through the Autralian Wheat Board. They are now putting into place commission sellers, and if you look at their record you will find they are taking over more and more of what used to be the traditional Canadian market for export sales.
I think we ought to look at this very seriously in committee. We are setting aside only this amount of money to set up a corporation which will attempt to sell the surplus products of this nation. Perhaps we would be far better off to put that
money into the better operation of our trade missions around the world with more expertise to in fact sell our products.
I believe the Minister of Agriculture is losing his grip.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: Come on over here.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: It is not just from age either, Mr. Speaker. He wants to have control of the export markets, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has set up this new triumvirate or troika under the control of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister for international trade has been given some responsibility, and I think also the minister for external relations, although none of us really knows what his responsibility involves, is within this triumvirate. I wonder just how long the Minister of Agriculture can hold on to Canagrex before the minister for international trade states that it should really be under his control. Many of us in this House would possibly recommend that, because if he had responsibility for international trading around the world, perhaps he should also have control of whoever Canagrex will be able to hire with its small budget.
I have a little article by Richard Gibbons from The Manitoba Co-operator which states in part:
-with a lean budget, Canagrex will be forced to use existing government personnel both in Canada and abroad whenever possible to promote Canadian farm goods.
It is becoming obvious already that it will be impossible to set up any decent kind of trading corporation with this size of budget. All the minister is really doing is setting up a corporation that will be reaching into the department of international trade for personnel. It would make more sense, to repeat myself, to hire personnel directly under the auspices of the minister for international trade in the agriculture field and place them in those nations where we have the greatest potential for export markets. It would make a lot more sense to spend that money in that manner.
The article continues by stating that the minister's job will be:
-to shake up external affairs to ensure Canadian embassies and diplomatic personnel give top priority to seeking out possible new markets for Canadian goods in future. That's good news for Canadian farmers who are depending on new foreign markets to sell their agricultural produce.
It seems to me if that is the case perhaps we will have a conflict of interest here. The Minister of Agriculture wants his little trading group under his auspices and control. The minister for international trade will have a little group under his control. Perhaps he will lend a few people to the Minister of Agriculture. If we consider the Department of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, (Mr. Gray) we might find there are people in that area who are running around the world attempting to sell some of our products. Perhaps there is a need, as this gentleman mentions in his article, to put this all under one minister and give him a decent budget so he can get out and do the job, rather than creating a new Crown corporation which is to be controlled by different ministers.
February 5, 1982

We have a need to promote Canadian agricultural knowledge, expertise and food production. If we send the proper people into the markets of the world, many more markets could probably be found for various Canadian products than is presently the case. The department of agriculture of the United States sent some experts to the Middle East who found there a tremendous potential market for food products, and by creating the proper industrial capacity for processing they were able to open up a tremendous market for the farmers. They provided loans in order that these countries could purchase these food products on a long-term basis.
Until we begin to follow the example of some countries in the world, as we did in the 1950s when we were leaders in finding new markets, we may find that once Canagrex is operating it will not be able to compete with those countries who are now doing the job properly and competing with us.
There are very many capable farm commodity groups and agricultural exporters in the nation which are operating under very restrictive budgets at the present time. For example, the Alberta pork marketing board has had some success under a very restrictive budget.


Eugene Whelan: A pork marketing board in Alberta?


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: It is a true marketing board, not a supply management board. It has been able to obtain contracts with Japan for the sale of hogs. It has sent a representative to New Zealand who found a market for a shipload of pork. We have been importing substantial amounts of lamb from New Zealand for years, but there has been no quid pro quo in terms of Canadian products such as pork going into that market.


Eugene Whelan: We have always sold pork to New Zealand.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: If we funnelled some funds into the management of these boards that have experienced some success under the direction of our better private exporters, they could expand their operations and assist Canada's trade embassies around the world in Finding additional markets for our products.
We ought to question very thoroughly the amount of funds which are being set aside under this bill, as to whether they can be better spent for the benefit of farmers. I am somewhat concerned when I read Clause 14, which sets out the various purposes and powers of Canada. They seem far more than what is necessary for a trading corporation. If Canagrex does not like the produce of farmers, under these regulations it could become involved in the business. For example, Saskatchewan now has 165,000 quarters in the land bank. If Canagrex felt that the products of farmers of that province could not be sold, under the bill presumably it could take over the land and farm it. Clause 14(1) provides that Canagrex may:
(a) purchase agricultural products and food products and package, process, store, ship, insure, import, export or sell or otherwise dispose of products purchased by it;
Canagrex Act
Under the philosophy that centrally controlled is best Canagrex could become competitive with private co-operatives, crushers, processors and packers. I do not know whether we as a government should allow it such latitude. The clause continues by providing that Canagrex may:
(g) purchase, lease or otherwise acquire and hold real and personal property for actual use by Canagrex in the operation and management of its business-
"Otherwise acquire" obviously means expropriate. Approximately 20 opportunities have been provided in the bill for Canagrex. They have included everything but the kitchen sink, so that the corporation can do almost anything if, in its wisdom, it feels it will better operate as an export agency. All parties should take a close look at the various latitudes being offered this corporation.
In conclusion, we require some long-term leadership in the direction of our agricultural industry. There are serious difficulties facing farmers in being able to balance their budgets at present. Farmers are required to produce more and their costs are rising faster then their receipts. If we do not have the leadership faster than their receipts. If we do not have the leadership we require in transportation, even if farmers are capable of producing they will not be able to ship their products to port. We are importing more and more food into Canada, but we have the capacity and research capability to produce most of it in the nation. We require leadership, but we are not obtaining it from the Minister of Agriculture or the government. I hope a viable industry will be in place when we take over and provide leadership in the next few years.
Farmers realize the need for export capacity. They know it is in their best interests to increase exports, but as has been the case over the last number of years, if we allow our capacity to decrease to only eight or nine representatives in the world, undoubtedly farm groups will say that we should give Canagrex a try. This is why the minister has been able to raise some support for the bill. We in this party will study this piece of legislation very thoroughly in committee and attempt to amend it where necessary.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address two particular aspects of Bill C-85 to establish a corporation called Canagrex, in particular, the role of Canagrex, its wide powers, its impact on the entire Canadian food producing industry and its relationship to consumers.
We in this party have never opposed Crown corporations just for the sake of opposing them. On many occasions in the past we have supported the incorporation of Crown corporations and in fact were instrumental in the creation of the Bank of Canada, the CBC, CNR and so on. It is essential that there be a very clear role for a Crown corporation before being subjected to the expense and potential disruption which can be caused by its creation.
Within that context I should like to look at the role of Canagrex, particularly in relation to existing export mechanisms and facilities. What can Canagrex do that the private sector is not doing or cannot do, if the correct policy environment is in place? Carrying it a step further, how can Canagrex

February 5, 1982
Canagrex Act
complement and build upon the successful operations of the private sector in the export of food products at the present time?
I do not think there is any question in anyone's mind that Canada should export more Food. When we look at Canada with its vast geography and compare it with other countries in the world, we see that we should produce and export more food and back-out more imports. But the question we must ask ourselves is whether the creation of a Crown corporation like Canagrex is the correct way in which to address this problem, or whether there are better ways of doing it without the disruption of introducing a new and possibly very powerful entity that would be competitive with existing mechanisms.
I have to question whether the right way of building the export business in this country is through the supply management method of which the minister has been very much in support over the years, or whether we should not be looking at what a marketing board is. We should look at the words "marketing board" and ask ourselves whether we should be emphasizing the marketing element as opposed to the supply management element of a marketing board. In many instances we have seen that if industry has the capacity to produce the products at the other end, that markets will open up, not only within our own country but within other countries, provided the wherewithal and the incentives are there for them to expand.
Obviously, if the industry is capable and is encouraged to produce to a greater extent than is the case today, all Canadians will benefit-not just the producers, not just the exporters, but the consumers as well. We will be spreading those costs over a much broader volume of production and, therefore, lowering the cost of food to Canadian consumers.
But the minister has not justified the reasons for creating this new organization. The minister has said that there are deals being missed. I am sure there are deals being missed. Deals are always being missed. I think even the minister would have to say that Canagrex will miss a few deals even if it is the best organization in the world. Nevertheless, taking that into account, the minister has not made a case for stating that there is a significant amount of business being lost that could be won by an organization like Canagrex.
I ask him whether the type of deal he thinks has been missed is the deal which the Canadian Dairy Commission had with Mexico in which it lost $2.1 million. Is that the sort of deal which Canagrex would not miss? Is that the sort of deal Canagrex would win and win regularly? If that is the case, who would pay for it? Would it be a different arrangement than under CDC at the present time? Would that loss be borne by all taxpayers in this country?
If a private sector exporter lost $2.1 million on a deal, that exporter would not be there now. He would be out of business. That kind of loss cannot be handled by the private sector. What concerns me as a taxpayer and speaking on behalf of my constituents is whether a number of those sorts of deals will be
made by Canagrex under the guise of expanding exports, but in effect making mistakes that should not be made and passing on the cost to the taxpayer.
Where has the private sector fallen down in the course of the last five, ten or twenty years in the development of food exports in Canada? The minister has spoken about the success of expanding our export sales in this country. Where has the private sector fallen down? What markets are we missing? What countries are we not selling to as effectively as we could be?
It is sometimes argued that the private sector is unwilling to accept the upfront market costs in developing these export markets. I wonder whether that statement is entirely accurate. I know of a number of companies in this business that have spent a lot of money developing the markets which they enjoy right now. These same companies are concerned about losing those markets through unfair competition from an organization such as Canagrex and they will lose the benefit of their investment. Whether these companies will just back out of the marketplace and leave a much greater proportion of the export business to be handled by Canagrex, by one company, one major vehicle in the industry, is a concern. It will have monopolistic tendencies and as a result the cost to the consumer will be greater.
The minister would have to agree that the development of export trade does not happen from matching an existing product in Canada with the demand for products in another country, whether Brazil, Taiwan, Hong Kong, or whatever. The market has to be developed and developed very carefully over time. It is nurtured carefully by individual relationships that sometimes take five or ten years to develop. These longstanding relationships that depend on personal friendships are sometimes a lot harder to develop when there is not the rapport from two organizations working and understanding the importance of developing markets or understanding the importance of profits, as well as the necessity of having profit to develop further already existing markets.
These are the things that concern me. I wonder what the government has been doing. A constituent of mine in this business told me that he gets 20 leads from the U.S. department of agriculture for every one lead that he gets from the minister's own department, from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) or from the embassies. This occurrence was related to me directly. I would be happy to have the person get in touch with the minister if the minister would like to discuss it further. I am sure the individual will wish to present his views to the committee.
There are other areas which government can support in the development of the export business. Some of this type of thing has already begun. For example, the expansion of export insurance for food. I believe that could be expanded even further. But the importance of creating an environment for increased food production cannot be denied. This past year this particular aspect of the export business has been severely damaged, because of the very high interest rates that people have had to endure in the agricultural production community,
February 5, 1982

and, to top it off, by the total inadequacies and disincentives introduced by the budget brought down on November 12, 1981.
1 have to be a little cynical when I see the minister under pressure from the agricultural community. The minister has been unable to convince his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to do anything of substance for the agricultural community, either in the budget or with interest rates. I have to ask myself whether the minister is introducing this bill today so that he can be seen to be doing something when, in fact, he is doing nothing. Is that the reason this bill is here today? Is that the reason we are debating this bill now, to take the heat off the minister for his other shortcomings?
Both the minister and his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce have said that Canagrex will work with the private sector. It is clear that neither he nor his colleague has been able to give any assurance that the Crown corporation will not duplicate existing services, and activities in areas of business that have already been developed and are being provided to the industry today. I ask him whether he cannot confine Canagrex's powers in order to protect existing businesses so that there is not a large Crown corporation, with the vast amounts of money that are available to it, which can smother those very effective businesses already in place. I ask him whether he can restrict this corporation from squeezing out the private sector because, while I am not an expert on this, I think he will acknowledge that the Canadian Dairy Commission in some areas has squeezed out private entrepreneurs who had developed a market in certain countries. Because of its power and its willingness to take a $2.1 million loss, it has squeezed out existing viable businesses. That is the concern.
I asked the minister during the luncheon break why it was that, while the bill does provide for joint ventures, the whole organization could not be established as a joint venture with the private sector. I draw to his attention "Canada's Trade Challenge"; the work of the Special Committee on the National Trading Corporation: which was completed last June. The committee concluded that the Canadian trading corporation should take the form of a shared enterprise, drawing financial strength and support from the public sector and a commitment to sound financial practices from the private sector. They went on to say that the Canadian trading corporation would be up to 50 per cent owned by the federal government, with the other half of the equity held perhaps by ten private sector investors.
Now I ask why that sort of approach could not be considered for Canagrex to ensure that it would be governed by the same private sector discipline as is any other organization. That, 1 believe, is the way Crown corporations should be established if possible.
1 would draw your attention to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Canadians are very well aware of the problems there, that this year we will take the final loss on the Argentine contract which was commenced about eight years ago and
Canagrex Act
which will amount to a loss in excess of $250 million. I feel a company like AECL should sell off the international project marketing and management elements of its business to a joint public and private sector organization so that the public sector can draw on the expertise of the private sector in those areas.
I do not know where Canagrex is going to draw its expertise from. Where is it going to get its staff? Will it be able to get the right people, because, again drawing from this trading corporation report, they made the very critical observation that performance and expertise are essential to the success of any venture in international markets because it is tough business out there. It is very competitive because we are competing with the best in the world, and you need the best people. Can the corporation attract the right people in order to compete head-on without losing the taxpayers' or producers' money as was the case with the Canadian Dairy Commission?
In looking further at the role of Canagrex in relation to the private sector, I asked myself about its powers and the abilities of the Crown corporation to do certain things. The minister has argued that these will be carefully controlled, but I ask myself why that cannot be done now rather than by future management. I hate to remind the minister of this, but ministers do come and go and he might not be around to control the operations of Canagrex in the way he now envisages. Bureaucrats in the future may have a minister whom they can influence into doing things in a way that would increase the power of the bureaucracy in what should be a very important private sector element of the economy. So I believe we should constrain the powers of Canagrex to a greater extent than we are because those powers are wide open, and I will come back to that in a minute.
Canagrex must also operate using private sector facilities to the maximum extent, and I am thinking here of the ancillary organizations such as shipping, banking, trading houses, consultants, distributors and others. However, with the broad powers that Canagrex has, I wonder whether in time all of these facilities will be drawn into that organization to make it the bureaucratic monster that the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) referred to before lunch. That is the concern anyone must have in watching what happens to the development of government in any country.
Coming back to the Canadian Dairy Commission, I believe that last year it lost $5.4 million on its marketing operations. We have not yet seen the 1981 results. How can the minister come before this House and introduce an operation like Canagrex in the face of that sort of loss in an organization which has existed for about ten years? At a time when we are seeing tax revenues increase by 31 per cent as a result of the current budget, how can he propose this organization when he cannot prove to his shareholders, the taxpayers, that he can manage the operations already in place? In this case its operations are paid for by the producer, but this could well be changed and, I believe, with Canagrex the loss would be borne by the taxpayer? A loss similar to that of the Dairy Commission in 1980 could occur in Canagrex as well, and I believe the minister owes us an explanation on that.

February 5, 1982
Canagrex Act
Let me move now to the powers of this corporation, which I believe are very broad. Canagrex is established:
-for the purpose of promoting, facilitating and engaging in the export of agricultural products and services-
However, let us go to some of the other powers of Canagrex. The bill says Canagrex may:
-purchase agricultural products and food products and package, process, store, ship, insure, import, export or sell or otherwise dispose of products purchased by it;
I do not know what that "otherwise dispose of products" means. We have had good examples of eggs and milk powder being disposed of. I hope the operations of Canagrex do not extend that far.
What does the bill mean by "process"? This is an exporting organization, why does it need the ability to process products? Why does it need the ability to store products? What does the minister have in mind when he says "store"? Will we see this as a complement to the supply management so that when that supply management fails, this will be a means whereby we can hive off some of that excess product into storage facilities in other countries so that we do not have eggs and milk powder all over the streets?


Eugene Whelan: So we can assist the entrepreneur, Michael.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: 1 think that the minister is saying one thing, but is opening up a broad range of things on which he has not come clean with us today.
Let us look at another one of the powers under this bill. It provides for entering into contracts with foreign governments. I wonder whether the minister has considered why foreign governments like to operate directly with other foreign governments in this country to country trade. I think there is a very good reason. It is because the people who are buying know that if they have only one place to go, they can deal in one place, that there is no competition and that the government will come to them with the total story of the supply available from that country. They learn much more about the marketplace when they have only one organization with which to deal. I think that that is a shortcoming that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and, I believe, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) have not sufficiently considered in the development of the powers of Canagrex.
Finally, what scares me is Clause 14(f), which states:
-make ... grants and contributions for the purposes for which it is established;
Does that mean grants and contributions to build a silo in Brazil, and grants and contributions to help export? Does that mean subsidies? I know that in parts of the bill, on the surface, it states that there will be no subsidies. However, are there other ways of making subsidies which are not called subsidies and which can, again, cost the taxpayers money?
There is one other major omission in this bill which I think the minister should very carefully consider, that is, the question of profitability. Nowhere in this bill is there any mention that Canagrex should operate at a profit and that this is an
objective of the company. There are some good reasons I believe for which that objective should be in the bill. The first is that the taxpayer, the producer, or whoever is to foot the bill in the event of losses, should be protected in that employees of the organization should start off by thinking that they are in business to make a profit. This is also of importance to the private sector businesses already in place which will be competing with Canagrex. If this corporation is set up without any intention of making a profit and if it only comes into existence for the purpose of trading, it will obviously be very unfair competition for those companies which have spent considerable amounts of money in building up trade which is already in place today. That must be a part of the objectives of this bill, and I hope that it will be put in at the committee stage.
While I am making this wide range of comments, 1 would ask the minister to reflect. When these measures are proposed in committee, will he be prepared to put his own money on the line in Canagrex? Will he have enough confidence in the corporation, considering the way the bill is established? I would ask him to consider whether the corporation will have sufficient potential to attract the right people and to exist in the marketplace in competition with other organizations so that he would be prepared to put his own money on the line. I think that is the bottom line question he must ask himself.
I may be wrong, and if the minister feels that I am wrong perhaps he can correct me, but, as I understand it, this corporation is not meant to subsidize. It is not meant to do business at a loss. I therefore ask why that should not be an objective. It should not be a bail-out place for the inadequate management and performance of the people working in that organization.
Another aspect of the bill on which 1 would like to comment is the part relating to the corporate plan. In Clause 31 of the bill, there is provision for placing the capital budget before the House after it is approved by the board of directors. I believe that the corporate plan should also be placed before the House because it will be a very significant element with regard to the impact that this organization will have on other participants in the business today. If there are ways in which the private sector can work with Canagrex, that is all well and good. However, in the event that Canagrex desires to do things which are contrary to the objectives which the minister has set out verbally, and not only those objectives contained in the bill, then I think that should be known prior to Canagrex moving in that direction. In addition, I would like to say to the minister that these powers under clause 14 of the bill are very broad and will probably continue to be broad in spite of amendments which I hope will be introduced and accepted in the committee stage. However, what is necessary, not only for Canagrex but also for a broad array of Crown corporations in this country, is that the operating objectives of the Crown corporations be in the mind of the government in place and in power today. Governments change and ministers change. Therefore, the operating objectives will change as those governments and ministers change, all within the operating powers of those
February 5, 1982

corporations. However, each change will have some impact, or a significant impact on peole who are affected by the industry.
I ask the minister if he might consider taking a positive step which will lay to rest the concerns of a number of people in the private sector who see the Canagrex Corporation as a threat to businesses which are already in place. Will he allow them the opportunity to comment on the objectives of the government in power today? I think that that would be open government. It would give them the ability to respond in the event that the corporation damages their businesses.
A broader consideration here is the entire question of intrusion of government into the private sector, doing things that private enterprise cannot do. I would like to stand back for a minute and consider what is happening, not only in the agricultural area but also in a number of areas in government. I would like to consider whether, in view of the financial strains placed on governments across Canada and in many of the countries of the world today, it is right for governments to continue to move into the private sector. 1 do not think there is any question but that, in the broad range of matters, the government cannot do as good a job. I am saying that in a pragmatic way. I firmly believe it in a philosophical way. However, in a pragmatic way, governments cannot respond as quickly to changing market circumstances as those in the private sector who have their money on the line and will be hurt if they make a mistake. We have seen many such instances. I guess the CDC is a partial example of someone being hurt by a $2.1 million loss. One hundred and twenty-four million dollars were lost resulting from the ineptness of a series of ministers and bureaucrats who were following this corporation for ten years, I believe. The government finally wrote the corporation off this year at a cost to the taxpayers of $125 million. I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Gray), who was responsible for that loss. I asked him about four or five times, in different ways. Each time he said he would not tell me. I said that that was fine, and that I would not ask him to name the names. But I did ask him whether he had asked who was responsible. Did the minister find out the names of the individuals who were responsible so that he could take action? I asked that question four times. Each time I got a waffling answer. Each time it became clearer and clearer that the minister had not asked who was responsible. That is why I say it is important in a broader sense that we avoid this intrusion of government into things the private sector should be doing.
Politicians, like the minister of industry and regional development and others, including myself, do not know enough about what is going on in the market in a particular area of activity as do those who earn their livelihood in that area.
I guess what is most important is the response when money is lost. The response of the minister of industry and regional development was the best example. He did not care about the money being lost. The only thing to go through his mind was how to sweep this one under the carpet without a lot of
Canagrex Act
publicity and press activity. That was the main concern of that minister. That is the concern that I, not as a member of Parliament but as a taxpayer, have about my tax payments being spent in that way.
This bill must go to committee. There is no question that a lot of work must be done in committee to constrain the activities of that corporation.
My final point is on the impact of an organization like Canagrex on the consumer. Every consumer in this country is concerned about the high cost of food, the large bite that the cost of food takes from his or her budget compared to five or ten years ago.
I had the fortunate or unfortunate experience this past summer of doing some shopping for my wife. I bought some staples such as ketchup, margarine, and other such items which we were going to take with us on a family trip to the west. I did not buy anything substantial, but by the end of that shopping expedition I had spent $162.50. I was floored. For years my wife had been telling me "I need more money for food. I need more money for food". I kept saying, "No, no, no". Now I understand. It is important that members of Parliament consider the impact on the housewife or the husband learning more of what housewives do.


Walter David Baker: Learning the trade.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As my colleague says, learning the trade. What concerns me about this bill is the broad power to store food, to export and import it, as well as the control of the government over the whole food process, production, sale and marketing.
The minister is dedicated to extending supply management through a broad range of production in this country. When I look at the connection between that and this bill, I say to myself, the government can control supply. If it makes a mistake, it can put that supply, as I said earlier, in a silo in Brazil. We can import, we can export. The net result of this is a loss of competition in the whole food processing mechanism. While the immediate impact of that may be higher costs for the consumer, it will result in damage done to the production side of the industry as well.
If we lose the discipline of competition on the production side, we have a less effective, less productive sector in that part of our economy. For that reason if for no other, we should provide a very careful delineation between what Canagrex can do and what the private sector can do so that there is ample opportunity for competition in the food industry.
In conclusion, I do not think there is any question that this bill requires a lot of work in committee. We need exports of food and fewer imports of food into this country. The objective of this bill is very clear. I do not think anyone in this House could quarrel with that. However, we must be careful to ensure that the concerns I have expressed today are not embodied and fixed in the legislation in a way that they cannot be changed.
I again stress the importance of being careful to ensure the minister is not doing this just to be seen to be doing something

February 5, 1982

Canagrex Act
in order to take the limelight away from the shortcomings of the government in the budget and the interest rate policy, which has done such tremendous damage to the agricultural community. Let us try to make this a good bill. When doing that, let us protect the consumer, because the consumer is very important.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comments regarding the bill to form a Crown corporation known as Canagrex. The minister will recall a speech 1 made earlier on the Farm Credit Corporation. I made the statement at that time that one of the components of agriculture that has to be stressed and modernized is the question of selling.
I believe I made the statement at that time that I wanted to see some hard-nose selling. To put it another way, that is also what I am going to say in part today about the Canagrex bill. We need hard-nosed selling, not only in the domestic market but in the export market, which 1 understand Canagrex will deal with.
I will not be lengthy. I want to cover some of the reasons the minister gave in the cabinet documents as to why he wanted Canagrex established. 1 think the minister was being straightforward in what he said. The up-front reason was that he wanted to create a Crown corporation in order that it could be a trading corporation, and an export corporation for the sale and export of food.
He said that Canadians were losing markets, and Canagrex could fill a need in that area. 1 believe that accurately portrays what the minister said he had in mind with regard to the Canagrex Crown corporation.
I have some questions about that. They will have to be discussed in committee. My colleague who just spoke, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), put forward some of the problems Canagrex could face in terms of organizational make-up. When one looks at the reasons the minister used to sell the Canagrex idea to his skeptical cabinet colleagues, it is important to understand what arguments the minister was using to try to convince his colleagues as to the establishment of Canagrex.
In their speeches, my colleagues, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) mentioned that if one takes out the grain component of our exports, the food picture is not as bright as one might be led to believe when looking at the figures. I was looking at the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and every time that was mentioned he appeared to chuckle. He remarked, "Look, fellows, that is not fair, putting it that way."
Let us use the minister's own arguments. What he is supposed to have said in cabinet is that in the late 1970s, for instance, food exports fell to less than 10 per cent of total Canadian exports, even though the 1979 food trade surplus of $1.4 billion was a record. If one takes that further, one finds,
by the minister's own figures, that if grain sales were taken out-and I am not for one minute saying that grain sales should not be considered-by Agriculture Canada calculations, Canada's deficit in other food trades is in fact rising. It is rising from an average of $549 million between 1970 and 1972 to a deficit of $1,889 billion in 1979.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What a sad indictment.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That was for the general period of time that this minister was the Minister of Agriculture.
What we are seeing, and I think this is the minister's own admission, is that our export record could be much better than it is. I think we agree on that.
Although this matter is not before us today, when a member gets up in the House and states that there are changes needed in the Canadian Wheat Board, there is an immediate knee-jerk reaction from some parts of the House. The question is asked, "Why is that member saying this? Does he want to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board?" That is not the point. Many farmers are saying that they want to preserve the Canadian Wheat Board but they want it to become a better selling agency and they want to have more influence on its decisions. This reaction by the government is happening time after time, and I think it will happen with Canagrex as well. If we are not careful, it will become a corporation which is an entity unto itself and a corporation in which farmers will have very little input.
For example, I noted that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture endorses the concept of Canagrex as a general principle. However, when you read their statement, you Find that while they do support it, they are deeply concerned about the amount of influence the producer will have in its operations.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister agrees with that.


Walter David Baker: He is nodding his head.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I think he would agree with the position I have stated. Therefore, the one point was that we want a Canagrex corporation for exports. Second, we know that the minister had to admit to his cabinet colleagues that our food exports were falling behind. I think the minister would admit, as would those of us who come from rural communities, that we can improve our own production to give Canadian consumers a wide variety of foodstuffs which can be produced in Canada.
One example is the greenhouse trade. Those of us who have travelled through Europe would have noticed that in almost every European country greenhouses could be seen for miles. The hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) would agree that at one time we had agricultural products in the Arctic. One does not have to travel far to see some of the products in the Northwest Territories, which at this time can only be grown during the long summer days. There is far more production possible in the Arctic, but what have we done? We have discouraged it. People cannot buy land and therefore will not invest money and labour in land which they can only rent.
February 5, 1982


An hon. Member:: Nationalization.
Canagrex Act


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If they are diverting from American investment, to let us say, Middle Eastern investment, I do not see how this fits in with a nationalization process or a Canadianization program.
One of the arguments the minister has been using to his cabinet colleagues is that not only do we need an export corporation but that we have to reduce foreign investment in the Canadian food industry. If that is the case-and I agree with him-then why do we not allow Canadian processors to get into that food industry? Why do we not do that? Why does it have to be government?
Let me offer the hon. gentleman an example. The previous administration in Manitoba-and by previous, I must now specify that it was the administration from 1969 to 1977-set up a number of corporations. One was known as Modern Fine Foods, a small vegetable-canning operation in the Pembina valley. It lost money, lost money and lost money. Between 1977 and 1981 the former government sold that company. I am not talking about the fact that the Manitoba taxpayers gave up that company. We sold it at a loss. The person who bought that company is a friend of mine. 1 know him. He is a small business entrepreneur in a small rural community in Manitoba. Do you know what he did with that company? He turned it around. He got contracts with the local farmers, and last year the production was higher than at any other time in the history of that company. More jobs were created, more sales were made and, more important, there was viability and stability. That is the kind of process I want to see.
I will give hon. members another example. There is a federal Crown corporation now operating in the food business known as the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, or FFMC. The stories about the FFMC and its lack of efficiency are legend.


Mr. Miller:: Talk to the fishermen about it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I did. I will tell hon. members what they think about it, if I could be given half a minute. What did the government do first? It built a huge building. Where was it built? The Member of Parliament for St. Boniface at that time has now gone to his reward in the other place, but the government built that plant right in the middle of the prairies so that the fish could be hauled the longest distance possible. That was the first thing the government did. There was a surplus.


Eugene Whelan: Why did they build it there?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Let me finish.
14730

February 5, 1982
Canagrex Act


Eugene Whelan: Because the railways, highways and airports were closer.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is right. That is the only airport on the prairies-


Eugene Whelan: The only one that size.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What is happening with the FFMC today? Does the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) know what the fishermen have experienced this year? The FFMC has made money this year.


Edward Allan Miller: Good.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Does the hon. member know what was done with the money? It was withheld from the fishermen. The amount was $2.8 million. Why was it withheld? The fishermen have to get geared up for 1982. The corporation withheld $2.8 million. In the past it held back $350,000 for the next year's operation, but this time the corporation held back $2.8 million and is now telling fishermen it needs it because it does not know what the market will be. That is devastating to those fishermen.


Edward Allan Miller: Tell us about the Nickersons and the $15 million the government had to bail them out with.


Walter David Baker: Go back to sleep.


Edward Allan Miller: 1 am telling you it failed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman wants to speak, would you arrange with his House leader that he be given time?
The point I am making is that Crown corporations can have a function, but there must be constant vigilance because they do not have the bottom line, which was mentioned earlier, of losing their own money. When they start losing their own money, that is when it starts hurting.
I have spoken to a number of provincial people about the marketing of Canada's agricultural products, and I think among the provinces there is a general feeling that we need a co-ordinating body. There has been much work done on this, but what is happening now is that we are sending mixed signals internationally. A province will market pork, for instance, in Japan at a certain price, but the buyers know what the situation is in Canada. They know that another provincial representative will come and offer another price. Pork producers are competing against each other within Canada, so co-ordination is needed. I suggest to the minister that there must be more agreement. Agriculture is a shared responsibility. There must be very close co-operation between his department and provincial agriculture departments.
When the minister announced Canagrex, a constituent of mine who is active in the cow-calf producers' association in Manitoba came to me and we talked about Canagrex. We did not know what is was. It had not been put into legislative form. He told me that contacts had already been made. Small farmers in Manitoba have joined together simply for survival.
He pointed out-this was back in May of 1981-that through his association with the cow-calf operators he had had contact with a person in Winnipeg who was in the export business. He was told there was a market for 300 metric tons of kosher beef, which the State of Israel was getting from Ireland. That is a market we could get. The product is grass fed beef. It was calculated that this amount of beef would result in the raising of approximately 240,000 head per year, which is a tremendous number. That market was not necessarily open to Canadian producers only, but we could get into that market, and that is the important thing. My constituent and his farm colleagues, local people, were trying to find some vehicle to get into that market. They wanted to know how they could move their beef and get back into a cash position. We all know what the cash flow position of beef producers is today.
I say to the minister that Canagrex should be in a position to deal with matters of this kind. Canagrex should not take over the operation because "We know what is best for you", but it should give advice and help and facilitate sales rather than take them over. I think it is important that that be considered carefully when we are setting up Canagrex.
I said I would be brief today. When the minister brings this Canagrex bill to the committee, I suggest he looks at our suggestions. If they can improve the bill and the operation of Canagrex, let him accept them rather than go through the turmoil we went through, for instance, in relation to the FFMC. We went through a lot of turmoil. Many people were disappointed until the corporation was shaken down into place. Even today there are problems, but I suggest we should learn from experience. We should learn from the expertise in the private market and also help the private market sell Canada's agricultural products, rather than look at Canagrex as the vehicle which is to do all things for all people in the agricultural field.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to wind up the debate for the official opposition-


Edward Allan Miller: And it was just getting good too.


Walter David Baker: in the hope that this matter can go to committee because there are a number of matters which must be examined.
I listened in the House when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) made his speech introducing this bill. I listened to him very carefully. Fie expressed great optimism about Canagrex and about what it would do in the market. I do not mean to be unkind to the minister.


Eugene Whelan: Not you, Walter.


Walter David Baker: The minister knows that. My mother-in-law thinks the world of the minister-but she is not a farmer!
I listened to the minister's words of optimism about Canagrex. Afterwards I went to my office, and I received a call from a constituent of mine who had also listened to the
February 5, 1982

minister's speech. This constituent is a farmer, and a good one. He is having some difficulty, but he believes he will weather the storm. That is not the case for a number of people at the producing end of agriculture. My constituent asked, "Will that boat really float?" He asked why we are doing this and taking this step. I had to say to him that I was concerned about it too. Heretofore, governments have thrown money at problems, but now this government is not throwing money at this problem. The figures my colleagues have cited have set that straight. The government is throwing another Crown corporation at a problem at a time when the government is in the course of reorganizing the external relations aspect of government to commercialize it and to develop the commercial side of it so that the government can reach out for the products of Canadians, whether farmers, business people or otherwise, and sell them to the purchasers of the world.
It has occurred to me that what is happening here is that we are following the usual practice of creating another agency, the salaries of the officers of which will never be published. Responsibility for this agency will not be with the external relations department of government. We are getting a panacea of doubtful validity. It is a bone thrown to the Minister of Agriculture. We will not be utilizing the newly reorganized external trade relations department of government. Why are we doing this? Why is it necessary to create a special agency for agriculture? Why do we dissipate our resources in the export market in the way we do?


Eugene Whelan: Are you suggesting we are just supposed to produce without selling?


Walter David Baker: Why have we established a program with one of the best deputy ministers in government, Gordon Osbaldeston, in charge of exports?


Eugene Whelan: He supports it.


Walter David Baker: He supports it because he is going to get it in his department. That is why he supports it, and that indicates the futility of the exercise we have been going through in the last little while. Of course he is going to get it in his department.


Eugene Whelan: No way.


Walter David Baker: The Minister of Agriculture
says, "No way," even if that is good for agriculture. The point is that once again, instead of dealing with the problem directly, the government is throwing a Crown corporation-not money this time-at the problem.
I have never been one to argue about the efficacy, importance and the place for Crown corporations in the economic scheme of things. I think they have a place. The St. Lawrence Seaway Corporation was a Crown corporation established to carry out and manage a project because that followed in the tradition of partnership which had developed in our history. We developed this country from a wilderness, and it is not
Canagrex Act
unusual that, as it developed with populations separated it was necessary for government to intervene. But it is a wise government that takes a look at the point of intervention.
The first question to be asked is whether such intervention is necessary, or are there devices which the government, if properly motivated, could in partnership with the private sector, use to do the job? I suspect there are, and I do not think the minister can sit at the cabinet table and approve the reshuffling of the ministry for trade purposes and at the same time argue that we need the corporation Canagrex to deal with one part of that. Think of that for a moment.
This is what my farmer constituent meant when he phoned me and asked, will this ship really float, and what is going on?
I tell the minister in the last few minutes of this debate that this constituent said to me he was selling his products for less while his inputs for agriculture, including feed grain and fertilizer, are increasing in cost. He said he was gradually but inexorably getting less each year for his family and himself. What does he need? He needs cash. He does not need Crown corporations. What else does he need? He needs sales; not domestic sales but export sales. This man pointed out to me that a week ago the Government of Canada reorganized its export sales capacity. We will debate that at some stage, I gather, from what the government House leader has said. Obviously the government thought this out. Quite frankly, I think the Government of Canada did the right thing in bringing that export sales capacity into one place. It ought to examine other areas where that can be done. The government put in charge the best sales oriented public servant in Canada, Gordon Osbaldeston. Why do we bother setting up another organization which must be absorbed under that function? That should not be done if we are really intent on concentrating our exports. What is the difference, if there is expertise in the agricultural area for selling purposes in that government department?
You cannot fool farmers. The reason the Minister of Agriculture says the federation is in favour of this is that the federation, to a large extent, represents people in agriculture who are desperate. I think the government is throwing out a crumb in response to a problem, the solution to which requires a full loaf. If the Minister of Agriculture will put his milking hand down, perhaps I could finish my speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: The solution to this problem will require the concentrated efforts of the government, if we are to salvage some parts of agriculture, and the minister knows that.
The farmers of the country like the Minister of Agriculture. They think he is a great fellow. I too think he is a great fellow, but there is no one who thinks he is a great fellow more than the Minister of Agriculture himself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 5, 1982
Canagrex Act


Walter David Baker: He has got that milking hand going again. Great fellow that he is, the farmers and those people who work in the food chain whom he is supposed to serve are wondering what has happened to the Minister of Agriculture in the cabinet. They are wondering where that great voice in agriculture is, because, in spite of all the rhetoric, sales are falling, agricultural incomes are decreasing, and the net is decreasing as well. This is what counts to the farmers.
I want to say this to the government. We are going to look at this bill from the point of view of the operation of Crown corporations. 1 do not like to see what I see happening all the time under this government. It is creating a parallel super bureaucracy of Crown agencies which is less responsible to Parliament and to the people than to present departments. It will override those separate departments. These agencies from time to time have become havens for political appointment. I hope the Minister of Agriculture does not follow the route of Jack Pickersgill with the CTC. I hope he does not do that.


An hon. Member:: I didn't think of that.


Eugene Whelan: 1 intend to stay here for a long time.


An hon. Member:: Maybe the Minister of Agriculture does have a future.


Walter David Baker: Maybe he does have a future. I hope that does not happen because I think there has to be a strong voice for agriculture in the House of Commons. But what is most important is that there has to be a strong voice for agriculture that can sway the cabinet. I am afraid that is what we do not have.
I think the government is once again establishing a corporation when there should be a direct approach to agricultural problems. The government has given us an approach. Surely to goodness the government was serious when it shuffled the sales aspect of external affairs to give us that approach. Why must we have an approach that in terms of a size of the problem can be likened to a pimple?


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on the motion in the name of the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Shall all orders preceding No. 58 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


POINT OF ORDER
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Prior to proceeding with Order No. 58, hon. members will recall that a point of order was raised by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) on December 3 last concerning those private members' bills that remain listed on the order paper with the notation "text received" in parenthesis and remain unprinted.
Hon. members will recall that earlier this session, on February 19, 1981, as a result of representations made in the House by the hon. member for Vaudreuil those hon. members who had submitted only the title of a bill in the draw were advised by the Chair that they would have to submit to the House within 30 days, or by a day to be fixed, a text of their bill, otherwise their bill, that is the order for second reading of their bill, would lose the precedence given it in the draw. As I said at the time, it was impossible to stand a bill when the bill did not exist. To put it another way, the House had been put in the position of requiring to stand many of its orders for the second reading of a bill where there was no bill to debate, only a title.
Pursuant to the decision of the Chair of February 19, the Speaker subsequently wrote to all hon. members notifying them that those who had yet to submit a text of their bill should do so by April 3, otherwise the order for second reading of their bill would lose its precedence on the Order Paper. After April 3, 1981, the Order Paper reflected the decision of the House, and accordingly the order for second reading of 164 bills, for which no instructions were given, was shown to have lost the precedence that had been accorded them in the draw.
It should be noted that the term "text" adopted by members during the discussion of this matter was required to be given a liberal interpretation because of the fact that members had, for some years, been permitted to include only a title of a bill in the draw, and also because hon. members had been accustomed to giving instructions in various forms to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel whose duty under the provisions of Standing Order 84 is to assist hon. members of the House in drafting legislation. If a text of a bill is submitted by an hon. member, this would of course also constitute the instructions to draft a bill.
February 5, 1982_____________________________COMMONS
Accordingly, the bills presently shown to have a "text received" include, as a "text", instructions ranging from a short paragraph of instructions for which a draft has yet to be prepared, to the text of a draft bill. It seems to me that this fulfils the requirements of the order of the House adopted with unanimous consent on April 3, 1981.
Hon. members will appreciate that the process of drafting a bill includes research, the extent of which varies a great deal from one bill to another, and that the bill may run through many drafts before it is approved by the member for printing and distribution. Furthermore, after all the research is completed and material is compiled, the actual drafting time will vary depending on the complexity of the subject matter. Accordingly, the stage at which these bills with the notation are in the drafting of process ranges from the research stage and, in respect of nearly one half of those bills, to the stage of a first or a second draft of the bill which has been sent to the member for his approval or further comment.
Finally, hon. members will also appreciate that many bills are also introduced after the draw, and these bills have undergone, or are going through, the process just described concurrently with the bills which were in the draw.
The point of order of the hon. member for Vaudreuil in effect directs our attention to the present practice in respect of the draw for precedence in debate for bills at the beginning of the session. Of the 392 bills in the draw this session, over 200 were not drafted and thus contravened Standing Order 69 which reads:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
While it is too late for this session to conform to Standing Order 69, members are now put on notice that in the next session only those bills which have been drafted will be permitted in the draw. For the moment, however, the hon. member may be assured that there has been compliance with the decision of the Chair of February 19 and with the order of the House of April 3, 1981, and that drafting and the printing of these bills is taking its normal course.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Gamble (York North) moved: that Bill C-258, to amend the Immigration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-258 is designed to amend the Immigration Act in a number of specific technical ways. Prior to dealing with the sections of the act sought to be amended, I wish to address in a general fashion the motives and intentions underlying the preparation of the bill. We in Canada, by the grace of God and the hard work, sacrifice and enterprise of our ancestors, are among the most fortunate people on earth. While it is true that today matters might be improved over
DEBATES	________14733
Immigration Act
what we currently feel and find in society, Canada is still a haven of freedom and liberty in a world of autocratic and dictatorial regimes where individual liberties are subjected to regular denial. Our land mass is rich in resources and, assuming they can be extracted and harvested in a manner beneficial to our population, all Canadians should prosper.
Our most precious resource, however, remains the people of Canada, numbering slightly in excess of 24 million, who have an abiding respect for law and order and are not given to violence. The vast majority of Canadians believe that they should earn their own living, should not depend upon the state for handouts, but should support their families, build their homes and communities, and attend to the needs of our senior citizens and others who through no fault of their own are unable to care for themselves.
Who are the people who are to enjoy this land and the company of Canadians? They are Canadians themselves and those whom we as Canadians choose to welcome into our midst. Canada is our home, and we will invite into our home those whom we choose and reject those whom we find objectionable for one reason or another. Those reasons are to be determined by us. In determining what those guidelines might be, I should think we would have regard to some of the remarks I made earlier.
This Parliament, as a repository of the public will, has passed the Immigration Act to codify the rules for admission, and Bill C-258 is designed to eliminate some of the abuses which we have seen recently inflicted upon Canadians by those who choose, against our will, to enter Canada. Some of the serious problems relating to entry into Canada against our wishes cannot be legislated but can only be remedied through a more alert scrutiny of visitors and immigrants by immigration officials. I find it repugnant to my sense of national pride that a member of the Baader-Meinhof gang of German terrorists should be apprehended in North America, not while entering Canada but by United States immigration officials while leaving Canada and endeavouring to gain entry into the United States. Our passports are reputed to be easily forged, and visas obtained abroad in some cases are acquired with the same difficulty that would attend the purchase of an airline ticket. I would hope that administrative practices within the immigration branch of the Department of Employment and Immigration might be improved to prevent Canadians from being confronted with international terrorists and others who fall into the category of objectionable aliens who have chosen, without our consent, to enter our country.
Finally, I should like to deal specifically with the bill itself. Its main thrust is to expedite deportation of illegal immigrants and to eliminate certain practices which have developed to circumvent the provisions of the act. Specifically, Clause 2 of the bill would amend Subsection 32(6) of the act by adding the following categories of persons to whom a deportation order might apply. In this case I point out that it is simply a matter of adding categories rather than specifically changing the meaning of Subsection 32(6). In the first instance, those persons who, if they were applying for entry into Canada,

February 5, 1982
Immigration Act
would be denied entry under the present provisions of the act. I find it very strange that while we provide a class of prohibited persons who cannot enter Canada, we reward those whom we find in our midst who have circumvented the very provisions of the Immigration Act designed to keep them out. The second category includes those persons who have been convicted of a criminal offence in Canada. Criminals are not among those who are entitled to entry. Surely they must be included among those who are available for immediate deportation.
Next are those persons who have entered Canada as visitors and continue to remain here after their visitor status has expired. In this case, immigration files are filled with cases of aliens who, in defiance of our law, have entered Canada and continue to remain here. It is general public knowledge that persons coming to Canada under an alleged visitor category intend not to be a visitor at all but come simply to gain entry to Canada and thereafter remain, contrary to the provisions of the Immigration Act.
Another category includes those persons who come to Canada with forged or fraudulent documents of entry to Canada. I cannot imagine not taking the swiftest action with respect to people who have entered Canada in that fashion. It is well known that the member of the Baader-Meinhof gang, to which I referred, did in fact obtain documents of that kind at our Paris embassy.
We welcome to Canada those people who are prepared to contribute to the welfare of Canada. I submit to you that we do not welcome those who come to Canada to draw on the welfare of Canada. There is an obligation imposed on parents legally in Canada to support their dependants. People who come to Canada and fail to accept that general principle of Canadian law while not citizens of our country ought not to enjoy the other benefits of remaining within the boundaries of our nation.
A practice has regrettably grown up for multiple adjudications by officials of the department. These numerous adjudications of cases have the effect of delaying a final determination and add immeasurably to the cost of the taxpayers of Canada of administering the Immigration Act.
Clause 3 amending Section 35 endeavours to eliminate several adjudications on the same matter after a deportation order has been issued. Further adjudications have been used for the purpose of stalling or unreasonably delaying the process intended to be established by the act, and the passage of this bill with Clause 3 intact would have the effect of eliminating that general abuse. There is no intention to destroy the basic rights of appeal which continue to exist and in respect of which there is no proposed amendment.
The third substantive amendment would eliminate a practice which has grown and expanded and is now so widespread that it has been given a name. It is called the "Buffalo shuffle." Ministerial permits have been issued to permit otherwise unauthorized persons to enter Canada so long as they follow the practice in complying with the current provisions of
Section 37 of departing from Canada and immediately reentering our country.
One of the recent best known beneficiaries of the "Buffalo shuffle" was a certain gentleman named Calamusa. His name has been mentioned in the House. We will recall that Mr. Calamusa was first deported from Canada in 1972 because of his criminal record in his own country. After re-entering Canada illegally in 1976, he was incarcerated for three months for possession of counterfeit money. He has struck out on three counts with respect to whether or not he should remain in Canada. Despite all of that, armed with a minister's permits, Mr. Calamusa was chauffeur-driven by officials of the Department of Employment and Immigration to the American border in July, 1980, permitted to re-enter Canada, and was then chauffeur-driven back to Winnipeg, all with the consent and under the instruction of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy).
Clause 4 amending Subsections 37(1) and 37(2) would end that practice. Persons outside Canada who had been deported would no longer be entitled to a minister's permit. We will recall that Mr. Calamusa was a gentleman who had in fact been deported from Canada. He is not the most outlandish example of people who have been deported and who have gained re-entry into Canada and stay here, some of whom are ultimately incarcerated for the commission of some heinous offence.
The second amendment contained in Clause 4 would relate to circumstances where persons were in Canada, and in those cases they would be entitled to a minister's permit only under very restricted circumstances. Those circumstances are set forth under Paragraph 27(2)(b). They are not the kind of offences one would find particularly reprehensible. If I might just refer to them, they include those who have engaged in continuous employment in Canada, contrary to the rules, and with respect to Paragraph (i) have not left Canada on or before a date specified in their departure.
Clause 5 provides for the execution of deportation orders within fixed periods of time changing the current provisions of the act which permit execution of deportation orders to refer specifically to the words of the act: "As soon as reasonably practicable."
This clause fixed two time periods. One as it relates to landed immigrants who were inadmissible at the time they came to Canada and should never have entered; criminals convicted of criminal offences in Canada or those who had entered using forged or fraudulent entry documents. In this case, these people would be subject to deportation within a period of five days. All others who were inadmissible under the present provisions of the act, who had engaged in subversive activities, who were convicted of criminal offences, were alleged visitors, but who, in fact, remained in Canada beyond the time permitted, would be deported within a period of 48 hours.
I am reminded of Mr. McCarthy's case, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that he was apprehended in Vancouver on a minor jaywalking offence. At the cost to the taxpayers of Canada,
February 5, 1982

the authorities endeavoured to deport him on three occasions. The total cost of that little manoeuvre was $10,490. Yet all of this was as a result of the delays in the process involved in deportations. While he was originally apprehended on a jaywalking charge, this gentleman, as hon. members may recall, was a member of the IRA and other terrorist organizations.
Clause 6 would reduce the grounds of appeal, Mr. Speaker, to errors of fact and law. Clause 7, which adds certain classes of illegal immigrants to those already listed in Section 104(2) of the act, is designed to permit law enforcement officers to apprehend additional classes of illegal immigrants, specifically those referred to in Section 27(2)(a) and Section 27(2)(k) of the act's present provisions.
This bill is designed, Mr. Speaker, to put some backbone in the Immigration Act's provisions. At the same time it is designed to eliminate a well-known abuse, which, as I have indicated, has been employed by the department itself for the purpose of circumventing the intention of Parliament. I submit that the provisions of this bill bring about a necessary remedial change to the immigration laws of Canada and I recommend them to hon. members of the House.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate and I am pleased that a number of members of the House on this side feel so strongly about this issue that I am swamped with prospective speakers. I refer to such champions of justice as the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger), the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher), and the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen). They all want to speak so I will try to be brief and, hopefully, they will all have an opportunity.
Canada's Immigration Act, Mr. Speaker, sets forth in very clear terms the objectives of Canada's immigration policy. It enshrines such fundamental principles as non-discrimination, respect for the family, concern for refugees and the promotion of our social, economic and demographic goals. The inclusion of these objectives right in the act serves one very important purpose. The intent of the law is sometimes open to interpretation. By having these objectives in the act itself, it clearly states not only the law but its intent.
The act begins with a clear statement of specific objectives from which flow all of its provisions, regulations and administration. The powers and authority it confers are precisely delineated. The procedures to which immigrants and visitors are subject are clearly set out. Both the public interest and civil rights of immigrants and visitors are protected. It retains that which was valid and useful, and provides enough flexibility to be adaptable to our changing needs. It establishes firm criteria which may be interpreted in regulations as the need arises, but it does not list rigid prohibitions which prevent the use of common sense. I know the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) is a firm believer in common sense in
Immigration Act
government, and that is what we are trying to demonstrate in this act.
The act also provides a means to determine the size and distribution of the immigration movement, which is very necessary in a land of increasing unbanization whose resources are now recognized to be more limited than we once believed.
However, at the same time, it leaves the determination of the actual size and distribution of the movement to be set after consultation, and does not establish rigid figures cast in stone. For the first time, demography and immigration are linked in a statute that provides for the views of provincial governments to be taken into consideration, establishing a system whereby the level of immigration to Canada is a matter of open decision-making by the federal government in consultation with the provinces.
We all know how anxious the hon. members opposite are for the federal government to consult with the provinces on issues of concern to them, and this is in the act. These levels, publicly announced on an annual basis, estimate the number of immigrants the government expects to admit over a specified period of time. Furthermore, it links immigration to Canada's labour market needs and population objectives. While Canadians are being trained, immigration will continue to be one of the routes used to ensure the economy is provided with the workers needed for its expansion. However, immigration is only a partial solution to alleviating the constraints on economic growth. It must go hand in hand with improved training for Canadians, careful manpower planning and the migration of workers from other parts of the country.
In the years to come, Mr. Speaker, we will probably have to increase the number of skilled and professional workers brought in from overseas. Given the length of time required to train Canadians, even if we markedly increased our training efforts it is unlikely we could meet the demands projected for 1985. Just today you will remember that a Conservative member was asking us about PetroCan seeking skilled workers from outside the country simply because enough of them were not available here. Of course, that again, I think, demonstrates the wisdom of the recent program announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) to try to meet those needs in Canada.
At the same time we have to ensure that immigration forms only a temporary bridge between labour demand and supply, nothing more. The future development of Canadian industry demands that employers and governments make commitments now which will provide skilled workers for the future. Our training systems must continue to develop and employers must live up to their responsibilities. For these reasons we have built an important safeguard into our immigration policy. Before skilled labour can be recruited from abroad, employers must demonstrate that no Canadians are available to fill vacancies and they must train Canadians to qualify for future openings. I am sure all of us are familiar with the fact that this is pretty well enforced. I am sure very few if any of us have not had employers come to our office and tell us how they had a specific person in mind, but in fact they were obliged to go

February 5, 1982
Immigration Act
through the requirements of trying to find a Canadian to fill the job.
The act also allows us to reunite people in this country with their families living abroad. That is an important thing, and this is a humanitarian government which believes in family reunification. Close relatives of Canadian residents receive processing preference as members of the family class.
The act's humanitarian aspects are also reflected in the provisions relating to refugees. They are an admissible class, based on the UN definition of a Convention refugee, and the legislation confirms in law our international obligations towards refugees within our borders. Further, the legislation is flexible enough so that, when warranted, we can admit people on compassionate grounds even when they do not precisely fit the UN refugee definition.
While this law expresses our concern for families and refugees, it also reinforces our responsibility to protect ourselves from those whose admission would pose a threat to the health or safety of Canadians, or whose purpose in entering the country is not legitimate. For example, to discourage people from coming to Canada as visitors with the intention of staying or working illegally, the act requires every visitor wishing to work or study here to obtain the required authorization from a visa officer abroad before seeking admission. And anyone who wants to come to Canada permanently must apply from outside the country and receive an immigrant visa before arriving here. 1 know the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) is familiar with that because he was talking about the "Buffalo shuffle".
Protecting Canadian society from criminal activity goes hand in hand with controlling illegal immigration. Aliens who pose a threat to public safety, order and national security are refused admission to Canada, and there are provisions to deal with the threats presented by international terrorism, kidnapping and organized crime. People who are asked to leave Canada have a guarantee of fair treatment through the inquiry process which ensures that the civil rights of those subject to immigration hearings are protected.
Anyone refused entry or asked to leave the country has the right to be heard at an impartial immigration inquiry presided over by an adjudicator. Adjudicators are officers specially trained in immigration law and the relevant parts of civil and criminal law. The adjudicator is there to render an objective decision after carefully weighing evidence presented by both the federal government and the person concerned. That is what I was referring to earlier when I talked about common sense.
If the adjudicator rules in favour of the subject of the inquiry, that person will be allowed to enter or remain in Canada. On the other hand, a ruling in favour of the government will result in the issuance of a deportation order, exclusion order or departure notice.
The act provides for two less drastic alternatives to deportation. Instead of deporting a person at the border for some minor offence like not having all the proper documentation, we can now issue an exclusion order entitling that person to
re-apply for admission at a later date. The other alternative is the departure notice, which may be issued to a visitor in Canada who has committed a minor infraction of immigration law and is required to leave. Once the terms of the departure notice have been fulfilled, the person may re-apply for entry at any time.
Despite the act's humane approach, visitors or permanent residents, that is landed immigrants, who deliberately commit serious crimes or major violations of Canadian law are, of course, deported.
The social and demographic realities of a modern world would require an immigration act which recognizes the increasing incidence of threats to our wellbeing, threats such as international terrorism.
However, immigration is a two-way street. Canada's act illustrates how immigration policy can work in the interests of both those who live here and those who wish to do so. There is a balance to be struck, a system which allows reasonable expression in the appropriate circumstances, and allows common sense to be applied. I believe we can do this with the legislation we now have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Good reading, David!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I am pleased to speak to Bill C-258 because it also gives me a chance to comment on the Immigration Act and the immigration policies of this country, many of which cause me serious concern.
The proposal to amend the Immigration Act by closing off legal manoeuvers, removing the discriminatory powers of adjudicators and enforcing immediate deportation causes me some concern, and in that respect, our party does not support this bill. We completely agree, of course, that persons who have committed serious criminal acts should not be admitted to Canada and should be immediately dealt with under the law. However, I think the very rigid changes which have been proposed by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) would have the effect of dealing in a very rigid and punitive way with people who are not criminals in that sense. I would like to say that we do not condone breaking of the law. One may feel humanitarian sympathy for persons who have broken the law, but they must still be dealt with under the law. What I am saying is that it is absolutely essential that the adjudicators exercise flexibility and discretion when dealing with individual cases.
I would like to give some specific examples from my experience as a Member of Parliament. In my riding we frequently deal with immigration cases. Often there are humanitarian considerations which must be taken into account. People must have a chance to be heard, must have a right to due process of appeal and must have a chance to have legal advice and help as well. There may be a situation where the minister might consider a departure notice rather than a deportation decision.
February 5, 1982

This is very important in a case where there has not been a deliberate criminal act but, rather, an inadvertent mistake. Some people might be allowed to return to Canada at some future date or at least to apply to bring about family unification.
I would like to refer to several cases to illustrate this point. In my riding, an east Indian woman, 22 years of age, overstayed her visit in Canada on a visitor's visa. She overstayed because she had no place else to go. Her family had applied some years ago to come to Canada, and at that time she was a minor. Because of the lack of immigration officers and the inaccessibility to an immigration office in India, there were long delays, and it took some years before the family was able to come to Canada. During this period, of course, she became an adult. She was no longer allowed to come with her family as a minor, and she was unable to come as an individual adult. In this case, it seemed important to me that there be some discretion shown and that she be allowed time to find an alternate place to go or to perhaps re-apply as a landed immigrant. There was some discretion shown in this case.
The second example I recall is the rather famous case of a Chilean, Galindo Madrid, who applied to stay as a political refugee as his life would have been endangered if he returned to Chile. In this case, the minister did extend his permit to stay in Canada. I might say that, to my knowledge, he has been steadily employed and has been a contributing citizen of our country. I might also say that there are many Chilean patriots who have serious concerns and fears with regard to the Immigration Act. This is because some of the sections define people who advocate changes or the overthrow of governments in homelands as undesirable.
Another case involves crew members of a Greek ship which came into Vancouver harbour last year. The ship's master owed back pay to these men. The master had not sent money to the families, as had been promised. The ship later went into receivership. The captain claimed that these men had deserted. The union actually proved that the men had been locked off the ship. In this case, deportation was delayed. Eventually the ship's master and owners were required to pay the return passage of these men back to Greece. However, a real injustice would have been done here if the case had not been processed.
I would like to refer to domestic workers. 1 recall one woman from Jamaica who overstayed her working visa. She had worked in Ontario, I believe, and eventually came out to British Columbia. She claimed that she did not understand some of the regulations concerning reapplication for an extension of her visa. However, it would perhaps be more valid to look at the situation from a humanitarian point of view. This woman was supporting elderly parents and several children in Jamaica. There was no chance to gain employment at home and her country was in turmoil at that time. Her skills, on the other hand, were needed here. She had many references stating that she was a very productive worker. As it turned out, she was deported; but present legislation would allow her to apply as a landed immigrant here.
Immigration Act
Another case concerns a domestic worker from the United Kingdom. She came to Ontario with confirmation of a job. This job fell through, through no fault of her own. She had relatives in Vancouver, so she came to Vancouver. In this case, it seemed much wiser to give her an extension of her visa so that she could get a job in B.C. as a domestic worker. There was no reason to deport her at that point.
I would like to mention the injustice in the history of immigration law in Canada. This was brought to my mind at a recent meeting with the Chinese community of Vancouver. We know that we have a sad history of prejudice and discrimination against Asian immigrants. This was particularly true in the early parts of the century. Indeed, Asians were not allowed to vote in Canada until 1947, I believe. During this period, many people went underground. I think the country was right to acknowledge amnesty years ago and to allow these people to be recognized and to apply for citizenship at that time. I really illustrate this to show that we must have some flexibility. Of course, we must have enforcement of the law as well.
I would like to conclude with a quick summary of some other points in our Immigration Act and the immigration policy of the Liberal government which should have been included in the revisions. I would like to ask that the government give serious consideration to changes.
The Immigration Act itself discriminates against women. The very language of this bill is "he, he, he", all the way through. Women are not treated as individuals. Many women come in family groups, but they are treated as spouses. They do not have rights in their own names. They are in danger of being deported if they happen to separate from their husbands or if they must go on welfare, for example. Domestics are solicited to come to Canada and jobs are made available, but they have no protection. Even so, changes are needed. Women from other countries, whether they are heads of families or single, do not have the same chance to come to Canada as do men, even though they may have training, education, and speak English, and really should meet the point system. If the same woman marries, she is much more likely to come under her husband's qualifications, but not in her own name.
As I mentioned, there are serious questions with regard to the Chileans and the discretionary powers of immigration agents allowing them to decide who should be allowed to come to Canada and who should not. We know how personal judgments can enter into that kind of decision. A person who is not in Canada has no right of appeal, no chance to have an objective reconsideration of his case.
We talk about people who may be judged to be involved in militant activities. Would unions organizers from another country be judged undesirable? How would FBI agents who have tried to overthrow governments of other countries be treated under this act?
Something else that is very sad in dealing with the many persons trying hard to sponsor relatives who have been separated for a long time is that they are not given any reason why

February 5, 1982
Immigration Act
the relative is refused admission. The person applying is not given any reason. Why not? Surely that is common justice. Quite frequently they are not allowed to show the documents they have, work permits and so on, when coming from Asia, and there is no chance to appeal.
There are repeated examples of people in Hong Kong and India having to pay for medicals and other services in order to ensure that they will receive proper consideration. They offer to pay so that there will not be a long delay.
I have dealt with many cases affecting Asian immigrants. There is no question but that there is still discrimination against Asian women and those from Third World countries, not in law but in fact. This happens because there is only one immigration centre in India, for example. Those in Hong Kong find it difficult to make application. The people of Tonga cannot afford to fly to a distant country to make application. Those in the Pacific region do not have fair access.
1 am proud to say that our party is on record as objecting to the visa requirements for Indian visitors. Indian people arriving at Vancouver airport are often forced to stay there for many hours until their relatives come and pay almost a head tax before they are allowed into this country as visitors. People from Europe are not treated in that way.
There are many other points I would like to make about immigration offices such as the long line-ups in order to obtain an appointment. Often people have to take two days off work just to make a routine application. Immigrants and their relatives are exploited by consultants and lawyers, often paying thousands of dollars for information that could be obtained from immigration services or Members of Parliament.
The refugee situation of the past two or three years has shown that there must be much more government planning in the settlement of people, especially when they come in large groups. It is very important that there be enough housing, especially for people who will settle where there is a shortage of housing and jobs. We do not want Canadians to suffer. We want them to welcome people from other countries, not feel tense about immigrants coming here. There should be a revision of the settlement service and the fee for that service. I have raised this a number of times in the House, but the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) refuses to deal with this in a realistic way.
There should be more services for immigrant women, such as English classes, daycare and job training. However, the minister is cutting off funds for these kinds of programs.
The public media, such as the National Film Board and the CBC should produce more constructive programs opposing racism and promoting cultural relationships. The CTV "W-5" program and the National Film Board film "Bamboo Lions and Dragons" were both a disgrace. I am glad to report that a recent CBC documentary "Golden Mountain" was much more sympathetic toward the plight of the early Chinese when settling in this country.
In conclusion, from our point of view this bill is not worth supporting. However, there are many other changes to the Immigration Act that are vitally needed.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, normally when a government member stands up with 15 minutes remaining in private members' hour, he talks out a bill. This is one bill I would like to talk out. It is not well thought out. However, in this case there are a couple of other government members who want to take this golden opportunity to tell the author of the bill what a bad job he has done. The hon. member says he wants to put some backbone into the Immigration Act. I suggest he should have used the head sitting on top of his backbone before he went to work on this.
Let me point out one or two phrases in the explanatory notes which concern me. I quote directly from the bill:
The Bill would close off certain legal manoeuvres currently available-
What legal manoeuvres? In Clause 2 the hon. member would remove the existing discretion of adjudicators. He would make a deportation order mandatory. Under Clause 3 he would prevent the reopening of an inquiry. Under Clause 4 he would prevent the issuing of ministers' permits. Under Clause 6 he would limit the grounds of appeal, and under Clause 7 he would extend the powers of peace officers and immigration officials to apprehend suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.
That is why we should not pay very much attention to this kind of legislation. It is a collection of scare tactics. I often run into these kind of scare tactics in my riding. That is why 1 asked for the opportunity to speak.
In Mississauga we get immigrants from all over the world, and we are pleased to have them. They enrich our community. We get people from India, the Philippines, the West Indies, people who have problems with the Soviet attitude to Jewry, refugees from some Middle East regimes, such as Poland, people from Latin America, as well as the boat people, refugees from Vietnam. How does this kind of legislation appeal to those people? It must terrify them. Thousands of people every year are screened very carefully by our officials. In the vast majority of cases they do a very good job.
What the hon. member has raised are the glaring exceptions, exceptions which he is trying to build up into a house of cards to play on the distorted fears of ordinary people. Let it be clear that thousands of people are handled and treated honestly by our officials, efficiently and carefully, and they are in this country properly.
The kind of fears aroused by the hon. member should not be allowed to go by unchallenged. We need to ask, to what extent do we want to distort our democratic principles for the sake of a few glaring examples. Those glaring examples themselves are entitled under our great democratic tradition to be given the due process of law.
Let me give you just one example from my own riding. In the past year, about 1500 people arrived in Toronto airport
February 5, 1982

and claimed refugee status. These people were Sikhs and they claimed that they wanted to set up their own homeland and that the government of India was politically mistreating them. Now my community was divided by that. There was one congregation, one Sikh temple, that asked the government to treat these people leniently. They were the people taking the middle ground. Then another group, the East-Asian Workers Association, strongly supported the claims of these people, the potential refugees. And many other people-the very parents of the first group-in the Malton Asian Senior Citizens Association-objected to the idea that there could even possibly be any kind of refugee from India at all. They were insulted by the claim. As I say, my community was split by this issue. If the people in the community could not figure it out, how could we ask one of our officials right at the scene at the airport to do so? There is a crush of people arriving. Many times there were 50 or 100 people on an airplane at one time. They have terrible language or cultural difficulties. They do not realize what they are being asked by our officials. And our officials cannot assess the information they are being given.
We do not want those people to be given some kind of a rubber stamp and thrown out of the country arbitrarily. We want to be sure that we treat these people fairly because we are a democratic and civilized country. We want to be absolutely sure. So some were detained because they did not have the money to prove that they would come back. They could not put up a bond. Their relatives would not put up a bond. Less than 10 per cent were detained because financially they were unable to put up a bond. But the rest, over 90 per cent, were let loose into the city of Toronto. Now, one by one, they are being brought back quite properly, quite honestly. They are coming back, facing appeal hearings and talking to our officials in a calm, deliberate, legal fashion and making their case. Some are not winning those cases but they have the right for further appeal. Why do they have that right? Because this is a civilized, democratic country and we do not throw out our proper, democratic, civilized processes in the name of some efficiency that the member from York North might invent.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that in a democracy we have to realize the importance of due process. We cannot let some guy come along and convince us that these shortcuts are worth while. We have to admit that there is room for error in our procedures, and that to be just we have to double-check the way we do things, through proper appeals. We have to allow people to state their case. We must remember, in other words, the very moving reminder that Winston Churchill gave us-and I will paraphrase it-that democracy is an inefficient form of government, but we are going to keep it because we cannot think of anything any better.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to comment on this particular bill because 1 want to say to the Canadian public that it is a bill which is put out in the name of a private member and I know that it does not have the support of the Progressive Conservative Party. 1
Immigration Act
am sure the former member from Egmont and the former member from Hamilton West, who were opposition critics for immigration when I had the honour to bring forward the bill which this one amends, would be appalled at the terms and conditions which are in this particular bill.


John Albert Gamble: Get specific.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member says "Get specific". He mentioned the name of McCarthy, the individual who was thought to be a member of the IRA and was in Vancouver where it cost something like $10,000 to handle that case. Well, he was not picked up because he was here illegally. He was picked up for some minor offence and there was a suggestion that he might be the individual that the RCMP was looking for. He denied that. Let us suppose for a moment that he had not actually been Mr. McCarthy. Let us suppose that he had been someone else. Do you not think that we would have been in a ridiculous situation if we had said, "The Mounties say that this individual is Mr. McCarthy and as far as we are concerned that is good enough for us."? It would not have looked good if we had thrown him out and said he was in here illegally. No, he had what every Canadian has the right to expect and what every person within our borders has the right to expect-due process of law. It cost $10,000, but for the sake of Canadian justice it was worth it. Imagine us picking up this individual and shipping him out of the country. We sure as hell would have done that under the terms of this particular bill. It would not have mattered that perhaps he was the wrong person. We would have had more than egg on our face, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot for the life of me understand how, into the twentieth century, when we try to bring some humanity in an immigration bill, a brand new immigration bill, something like this would be proferred some two or three years later as an improvement. It is a disgrace and thank heaven it is presented by an individual member and not by the opposition.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, l wish to thank the previous speakers for saving me at least a few minutes and giving me a chance to say that I entirely disagree with the bill presented by my colleague from the Toronto area, the member for York North (Mr. Gamble). 1 would like to draw his attention to a historical fact.

1 would like to draw his attention at this moment to February 5, 1963, when his party was defeated in the House. It was February 5, 1963. His party was defeated by a vote of 142 to 111. If there is some lesson that we should draw from that-there is a lesson that my colleague, a member on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and National Defence who, I agree, is very active, should draw from that. The lesson is that the kind of views he has expressed in the bill he is introducing today are narrow. I do not say he is narrow-minded, but he is narrow in his approach as to what Canada's

February 5, 1982
Immigration Act
immigration policies should be and as to what Canada's immigration policies should be and as to what Canada is all about.
Canada is a land for everybody. Of course, it should be under some responsible direction, there is no doubt about that. But when I hear the statement as it was expressed by the the hon. members, when I hear the other statement as expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) who has just entered the House, I wonder what kind of Canada they want. Is it a Canada for the kind of Canadians they say are best for Canada? These are the words of the hon. member: "We are the kind of people who should enjoy Canada. We should know who are the kind of people we should receive in this country, who should enjoy what we enjoy." But what kind of Canada would we have had we held those views many years ago? Would we have granted in operation "My Country" the famous amnesty which allowed over 60,000 Canadians to regularize their situation in Canada, Canadians who today are extraordinarily good Canadians, contributing to the good of this country by their taxes and by their work? If we were to accept this bill and allow it to become our law, we would not have a good country.
The hon. member knows what my approach is to him and to all hon. members. Instead of arriving and blasting the hon. member, I would only like to have more time to exchange with him some views of what is good policy for immigration. I had
the honour to be a member of the joint Senate and House of Commons committee on the green paper and, if I may say to my friends, nothing has been more scrutinized than this act. 1 was not even happy about it because I believe it is still too narrow in its approach. I wish that we had a more liberal immigration policy. This immigration policy is probably the most scrutinized piece of legislation we have ever had in four years.
There was a committee called the Joint Senate and House of Commons Special Committee on Immigration which studied the green paper. It travelled all across Canada. That was a parliamentary committee that looked into this question. There were also hours and hours of work done by all members from all parties, the hon. member's included, to see if we could not, through give and take, arrive at the kind of law we have today.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, before I am called to order because of the time, I would like to ask my hon. friend kindly to reflect and consider all the implications of what he is trying to propose. This is about the most sensitive issue we talk about, when we talk about immigration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired. It being five o'clock the House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(4).
At 5.02 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Monday, February 8, 1982