1982-02-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, Canada's deficit in auto parts trade with the United States is approaching $4.5 billion, a 16!6 per cent increase over 1980, which in itself was a previous record year. Already unemployment in the auto parts industry is running at a staggering 34 per cent, with every indication that this rate will become worse. Time is running out for Canada's auto parts industry. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce do now recognize the serious inequitable imbalance inflicted upon the auto parts industry and that he take immediate action to implement Canadian content quotas on all motor vehicles sold in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. The desperate farmers of Canada should quit whatever type of farming they are engaged in and take up poultry farming. The Right Hon. Prime Minister weighs about 160 pounds. Canadians pay him $105,000 per annum. That is $656.25 per pound per year to rent this turkey. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this House cancel this rental contract immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I also rise under Standing Order 43. Last night the program "Fifth Estate" revealed that some Crown corporations, including Air Canada, are grossly exploiting hundreds of thousands of women workers who are doing piecework in their homes. In one example, a woman who had to weave a drawstring through a plastic bag was paid $4 for every 1,000 bags. She said she usually could complete only 100 bags a day. This is a decadent labour practice which exploits women who are poor, particularly immigrant women. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse):
That the Minister of Labour ensure that these women and all workers in the home receive the same minimum wage as every other Canadian worker who comes under federal jurisdiction.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, it has been reported to me that all too often complete mail bags of Canada Pension Plan cheques go missing. When this happens, it takes Supply and Services 90 days to replace missing cheques, thus working a real hardship on pensioners. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare meet with the Minister of Supply and Services in order to investigate this serious matter and find a more dependable way of preventing the hardship of those pensioners missing their cheques.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Earlier this week the minister responsible for the status of women commented in a speech that the federal government is not going to help women who won't help themselves. In view of this callous attitude, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper):
That the minister contact the 600,000 elderly women who cannot afford the basic necessities of life due to an inadequate pension system, and personally give them her message.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR LEGISLATION TO GUARANTEE MATERNITY LEAVE-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the recent comments by the minister responsible for the status of women that fully paid maternity leave "is not expensive" and that maternity leave should not be limited to women with the protection of a negotiated contract, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House instruct the government to table legislation that will guarantee to women workers fully paid maternity leave, totally funded under the Unemployment Insurance Act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, the Soviet Union, having failed to live up to its commitments under the Helsinki Accord to respect the rights of all persons, including those of its national minorities, has recently imprisoned without just cause and deprived of his rights, Vasyl Ovsiyenko, who is one of the Ukrainian Helsinki Observer Group. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That this House condemn the Soviet Union for failing to live up to the terms of the Helsinki Accord respecting the rights of individuals and national minori-
February 3, 1982
ties and urge the Soviet Union to cease all proceedings against Mr. Vasyl Ovsiyenko and grant his request for permission to emigrate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the government promised affirmative action legislation in the throne speech given in April of 1980, and given the fact that we have yet to see any concrete action toward affirmative action, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That the government immediately table legislation calling for affirmative action in both the private and public sectors.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the suggested change in statutory Crow rates opens the door to change in other economic related acts, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse):
That along with any proposed legislation attempting to change the Crow rate should also be included a clause which removes the mineral rights bestowed on the CPR in 1881.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 3, 1982


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the government forthwith end the fiction of maintaining secrecy about salaries paid to the senior officers of Crown corporations and that the government adopt the philosophy that, if they are paid with public moneys, the public has a right to know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, the delays encountered by the veterans of Canada in having their claims for benefit processed by the Department of Veterans Affairs are intolerable. There can be no justification at all for veterans having to wait years while the bureaucracy, which may well be overworked, attempts to struggle with their heavy load. I therefore move on behalf of my absent colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That the Minister of Veterans Affairs immediately take whatever steps are necessary to reduce the waiting period for veterans' claims and to review veterans legislation now to ensure that it adequately responds to the needs of today's society in all of its ramifications.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SCIENCE
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. A free and independent research community is absolutely essential to Canada's growth. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
Oral Questions
That the recent announcement of the government's five-year plan for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which for the first time introduces the concept of government directed strategic themes into the area of funding of research, in other words, under the guise of Canadianization, forces that council to begin to study only those matters which are important to the Liberal Party, that this manipulation of Canadian independent thought be soundly condemned by this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that both the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Federal Business Development Bank have stated that a lack of skilled labour is a number one problem facing many members of the small business community, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That the federal government encourage more co-operation among business, government, unions and educational institutions by establishing industrial training advisory boards in order to achieve more on-the-job training.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue who said in this House the other day, in reference to the province of Newfoundland, that the budget he is defending is "better for Newfoundland than any other part of the country." He went on to say, "By far the majority of the people of Newfoundland will see their incomes improve as a result of the budget."
My question to the Minister of National Revenue is quite precise. I want to ask him whether he includes among those citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador whose position will be

February 3, 1982
Oral Questions
improved the nearly 4,000 miners in his own constituency around Labrador City and Wabush who face tax increases on average of $600 in 1982, more than $2,000 in 1983 and nearly $3,000 in 1984. Does he believe these constituents of his are helped by this budget, which will increase their tax bills by those amounts?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the miners in Labrador City and Wabush and other miners north of sixty know exactly what this budget has done for them. The budget continues the remission order which remits taxes on northern benefits. The north is the only part of Canada for which this was done. It was done particularly for the north because this government recognizes the special needs of people who live and work in the north. This is what this budget did for people who live in the north.
Let me put a few other facts on the record for the right hon. member. I told him before that there are about 250,000 people in Newfoundland who will benefit, and that is accurate. There is a total of 19,000 families of four.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Bill Rompkey: Of these families, 12,000 will save-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Bill Rompkey: Hon. members opposite do not want to hear the figures. They do not want to hear the truth. Twelve thousand families will save $2 million, or $164 each. Of those families earning $15,000, 4,600 will not have to pay any tax at all. That is the effect of this budget in Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROJECTION OF TAX PAYMENTS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, hidden away behind all that obfuscation is the fact the minister well knows that his colleague, the Minister of Finance, has described the remission order dealing with northern employees, and I quote the budget papers, "hard to justify", and has indicated that he will be ending that remission order by January of next year. I will ask the minister specific questions having to do with figures provided by two major employers employing some 4,000 miners in Labrador City and Wabush in his constituency. Does he accept that the net impact on an average tax-paying miner in Labrador City or Wabush in 1982 with the remission order will be a $603 increase? Does he accept that after the remission order is removed in 1983, there will be a tax increase of $2,043 for each miner there?


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Does he agree and does he accept that it will cost in the neighbourhood of $2,991 per employee in Wabush and in Labrador City after the government carries through its intention to end this remission order and after it brings
through its budget? If he does not believe that, perhaps he will speak to the brother of his colleague, the hon. member for Manicouagan, who is the public relations director for one of the companies whose figures we are quoting here, and perhaps he will report to his constituents and then come back to the House of Commons and tell us just how badly his constituents will be hurt by the budget which he is bringing down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, I hope the right hon. member is not getting his figures from another candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party, because I can tell the right hon. member that that particular man, who is a very major employer in Labrador City, feels very good about this remission order and, indeed, lobbied for it very strongly. The fact is that the remission order is in place. This government has kept faith with people in the north, and that cannot be denied.
As far as obfuscation is concerned, I do not accept the figures cited by the right hon. member today any more than 1 accepted the way he put forward his figures last week. He told us that there are 200,000 taxpayers in Newfoundland, and that is true. What he neglected to tell the people was the difference between taxpayers and tax filers. The fact is there are more tax filers than there are taxpayers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nielsen:: You are making our point.


Bill Rompkey: The majority of people will benefit. These are the facts, Madam Speaker, and the obfuscation is on that side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT TAX REMISSION ORDER BE CONTINUED
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, may I thank the Minister of National Revenue.


Mr. Chenier:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am coming to Timmins next. Because the Liberal member elected for Timmins refuses to speak for the people of Timmins-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: You don't speak for anybody!


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister has confirmed-


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Stay with it, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: -that the statement made by the Minister of Finance in the House proposing to cut taxes by adding to the number of taxpayers some six million Canadians who do not now pay tax, was a misleading statement.
February 3, 1982

Let me say to the minister, by the way, that if he has better figures, let him present them to the House.
In relation to the interdepartmental committee that has been established to look at the question of the north and whether this government is going to end the remission order, will the Minister of National Revenue or his colleague, the Minister of State for Mines, tell the House whether the government is-


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: A good speech, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member for Timmins interrupts again, Madam Speaker. Perhaps he would like to speak for his constituents instead of blindly defending-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order. This is going to turn into a shouting match if I do not stop it. I would appreciate it if the hon. Leader of the Opposition would ask his question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the Minister of National Revenue. First, will he give us a guarantee now that there will not be an end to the remission order in January 1983 and, second, will he tell us whether the interdepartmental committee looking at impacts in northern Canada is considering substituting the payment of a $500 cheque that will be taxable, to the miners affected, while at the same time they have an increase in their taxes ranging from $2,000 to $3,000 per year? Will the minister tell us whether the government is considering slapping a $3,000 tax increase on miners in his constituency and then compensating for that with a $500 cheque that will itself be taxable?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, as far as obfuscation of figures is concerned, Madam Speaker, last week the Leader of the Opposition told us that the taxation of health and dental plans would have heavy impact on veterans. That is clearly false; there is no impact on veterans who receive a disability allowance or the war veterans allowance. There is no effect at all.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true.


Bill Rompkey: The figures and positions that the Leader of the Opposition brought forward last week were clearly not credible. 1 submit that the figures brought forward this week are equally not credible.
The fact of the matter is-and people in the north know it- that this government has kept faith with them. We continued the remission order and they are money in pocket. The average person in my riding picked up between $1,000 and $1,500 extra this year as a result of the remission order. We have said that we will continue to keep faith with people in the north and that we will put a program in place that will see that they get their due. We intend to do that, Madam Speaker.
Oral Questions


TAXATION OF NORTHERN RESIDENTS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to continue with a question directed to the Minister of National Revenue. He knows full well that it is the policy of the Liberal government to discontinue the remission order. That was said by the Minister of Finance-


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Joe told us that!


Dave Nickerson: The people of Labrador City will lose $1,000 to $1,500. 1 submit that this is frightening and will have a horrendous impact on the taxpayers of northern Canada. Will the Minister of National Revenue guarantee to us today that the remission order will not be taken off at the end of this year or, alternatively, will permanent changes to the Income Tax Act be made to take into consideration the fact that people in the north are paying, in proportion, more taxes than those in the south?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, the government has nothing to be ashamed of in terms of its approach to people in the north.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: If they want to take examples from my riding, the first thing that their government did when it assumed power was that it immediately froze capital projects, including two capital projects in Labrador City, denying the people up there jobs. That is the record of that particular government, in Labrador City. I would say to the hon. member that he knows very well my own personal feeling about the remission order and what should be done for people in the north.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: I simply say to him again that the government has kept faith with the people of the north, and it will continue to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT POLICY
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, for the second time the Minister of National Revenue has refused to answer that very simple question put to him. In reviewing the budget I saw that there would be more money put into the pockets of deputy ministers and of chairmen of Crown corporations. These people will be receiving an additional $6,000, $8,000 or $10,000 to spend per year-


Erik Nielsen: After taxes.


Dave Nickerson: -but the guy who drives an ore truck in Labrador City, Schefferville, Pine Point or Faro will be paying an extra $2,000 or $3,000 per year-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.

February 3, 1982
Oral Questions


Dave Nickerson: Is that the policy of the Liberal government?


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.


Erik Nielsen: Answer the question.


Walter David Baker: Rompkey sits in his seat.


Erik Nielsen: No answer!


Mr. Epp:: No answer!


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. In view of the fact that the auto parts industry in Canada is in very bad shape and once again has suffered a $4.35 billion staggering deficit for 1981, which was even higher than the record for 1980, what immediate steps will the minister take to protect the Canadian auto parts industry, not only in Ontario but in Quebec and, indeed, in British Columbia?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, while recognizing the importance of the question the hon. member posed, I thought he might have given recognition today to the trade figures which were announced for 1981 in which Canada had its second largest trade surplus in history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: Also I would have thought that the hon. member would have congratulated Canadian manufacturers because one half of that export increase was in end products, which is the labour intensive side of the trade figures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: With respect to his specific question concerning auto parts, as I said to his leader in reply to a question in the House on Friday, we are very conscious of the fact that the auto parts industry and the automobile industry in general are in serious trouble. We are working together with the United States of America to improve the North American share of the world market.


UNITED STATES EXAMPLE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the minister's answer had to do with the auto parts industry. He did not even refer to it until the last sentence. In view of the fact that there are 50,000 Canadians out of work in the auto industry in general, and that half those lay-offs are permanent, does the minister not anticipate or contemplate
doing exactly what the United States is doing, in that it is retrenching its auto parts industry around major auto manufacturers to protect its auto parts industry? When will the minister do the same thing for the Canadian auto parts industry?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is conscious of the fact that the United States auto industry is in the same depressed state as the Canadian industry. As I said to his leader on Friday, one of the major moves we made last year, for example, was to obtain major export markets for the Canadian automobile industry, which includes Canadian parts. We obtained one contract in Iraq for over $100 million for
13,000	cars. The second phase of that order was a 12,000 order option, with the 12,000 cars still sitting on a Halifax dock.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What does that do for the auto pact?


Edward C. Lumley: I hear the hon. member ask what does that have to do with the auto pact. It increases jobs in the auto industry for Canadians and Americans, which the hon. member should know.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Why the deficit?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edward C. Lumley: Hon. members are very conscious of the fact that the North American share of the world market is down substantially, and the auto industry obviously has a responsibility to work with the governments to increase our share.


INCREASE IN JAPANESE EXPORTS TO CANADA
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, is for the Minister of State for International Trade. Undoubtedly the minister noted the figures released by Statistics Canada today revealing the Japanese exports to this country are up 72 per cent in 1981 compared to 1980. Would the minister explain to the House why this situation has occurred when his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, assured the House there would be no such increase? Was the minister simply duped by the Japanese?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I do not recall my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, making that statement. I am sure that he did not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 3, 1982


Edward C. Lumley: I think what the hon. member is referring to is my colleague talking about the Japanese exports of automobiles.
Yes, Madam Speaker, we are concerned that our surplus with Japan has fallen from $2.1 billion in 1979 to approximately $400 million in 1981. I think the hon. member knows that we operate a very free market in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edward C. Lumley: Exports of consumer products to Canada from Japan have increased substantially. Obviously that creates an opportunity for import substitution for Canadian manufacturers, and we are doing our best to encourage Canadian manufacturers to take advantage of that opportunity.


IMPORTATION OF JAPANESE MANUFACTURED AUTOMOBILES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of State for International Trade. I would refer the minister to Hansard for November 26, 1981, when his colleague assured this House that the Japanese auto quota was right on target and that there was nothing to fear.
Given the fact that the deficit on automotive products has risen over 70 per cent in the period to which I referred earlier, and given the fact that whatever the arrangement was-it runs out at the end of next month-what can the minister tell us has been done to ensure that there will be a continuing quota, or some more satisfactory arrangement, to halt this spiralling increase of Japanese cars coming into this country?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as I said on Friday, we are initiating discussions with the Japanese in Tokyo this week. Our officials will be telling the Japanese that we want to enter into an agreement with them prior to March 31 when our present agreement runs out. We first want to find out what the state of the agreement is between the United States and Japan, as to whether the Japanese will honour the commitments made under the two-year agreement with the Americans. Once we know that position we will be able to negotiate our own.


IMPORTATION OF LIGHT TRUCKS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for International Trade. Our officials will be having negotiations with the Japanese regarding the importation of automobiles and light trucks. The Americans place a duty of 25 per cent on all light trucks that are imported into the United States. Canada levies a duty of 12.8 per cent, an amount that will be reduced to 9.8 per cent. The Americans, however, will retain their rate of duty at 12 per cent. These light trucks were not part of the quota agreement. Can the minister tell us whether these light trucks will be negotiated into a new quota agreement? Can he also tell us what basis will be used? Last year, there was an
Oral Questions
increase, that is 1980 over 1981, of 122 per cent in light trucks coming into this market.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, since the negotiations will not be initiated until Thursday of this week in Tokyo, it is very difficult for me to tell the hon. member what the final outcome will be.
The possibility of adding a tariff on the trucks will depend on what other things we can negotiate with the Japanese.
As the hon. member for Brant mentioned, and his leader suggested on Friday, one of the things that we will try to encourage the Japanese to do is to source more parts in Canada for the automobiles which the Japanese will be shipping into Canada. There are many component parts to that negotiation of which the hon. member is aware. It would be presumptuous of me to assume what the final result will be.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE ACTION
William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of State for International Trade. Automotive parts and components that were shipped to Japan are down 20 per cent, according to Statistics Canada figures that were released this morning. The reality is that unless we do something about the light trucks then the new generation of light trucks being manufactured by Ford, Chrysler and General Motors will never get off the ground.
The Big Three are now manufacturing new, light, downsized trucks, and unless we have some firm commitment that there will be light trucks included in the quota and the quota depressed downward, we will never be able to get these light trucks off the ground and out into the marketplace. 1 am concerned about the guy next door to me working at Ford Motor company who has been laid off indefinitely, and those others working in component parts plants who have been laid off indefinitely. Thirty-eight per cent of them have been laid off. That is what I am concerned about, and I want to hear something more specific from the minister.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, we have the same concerns as the hon. member. We are interested in the people who work in the whole automobile industry, not only those who work with light trucks, or those on assembly lines, or those who work in parts plants, but those who work on big trucks and other things. Consequently, all those elements will be brought into the discussions with the Japanese.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare for whom I have been patiently waiting. I understand

February 3, 1982
Oral Questions
that she is in the lobby. I told her parliamentary secretary that 1 wanted to ask a question, but he disappeared.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: 1 would like to know just what is going on. Perhaps someone could bring the minister in from the lobby so I could ask my question on the state of medicare.


An hon. Member:: Your question isn't very important.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must address his question to a minister. I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare coming into the House now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is looking more and more every day like Emperor Nero who stood passively by and fiddled while Rome burned before his eyes. The minister seems content to blather on intermittently while our national health care system goes to pieces before our very eyes.
It has been one and a half years since the Hall report was tabled, three years since the medicare crisis first began, and six months since the all-party parliamentary task force tabled its report. The minister is up to her ears in recommendations. We have seen no action but we have had plenty of excuses. Will the minister please tell the House what arrangements she has made with her provincial counterparts to sit down and establish some concrete national standards for Canada's medicare system?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, 1 could, for example, answer the hon. member by asking him whether he knows where the newly elected minister of health for Manitoba stands on medicare. That answer would be very practical for all of us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: It would tell us how much extra billing he thinks will have to take place to erode the system. Is the minister going to take a stand? He is one of the key players. He is a minister of the same party to which the hon. member belongs. Has the hon. member contacted him? I would be very interested, as would many Canadians, to know if there is a change in group dynamics between health ministers as to policy. We have decided to strengthen medicare. That would be one good step he could take.


REMUNERATION OF DOCTORS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON EXTRA BILLING
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the position of the Saskatchewan government and the position of the Manitoba government are well known with regard to extra billing. If the minister would show some leadership, we would have some action right away. I do not know how long she thinks she can go on with this cute stuff about Manitoba
and Saskatchewan, because it does not wash with anybody but herself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The minister is on record as favouring a revision of the Medical Care Act to state clearly that extra billing by physicians is against the intention and spirit of medicare. We have doctors extra billing in Alberta. We have doctors asking for a 35 per cent increase in Manitoba. The remuneration of physicians is at the heart of the problem of medicare.
How does the minister plan to address this issue? Never mind what the position is of the minister of health in Manitoba; what is her position? How does she plan to create a national consensus against extra billing and a mechanism to provide adequate compensation for doctors as Dr. Hall recommended? Does the minister have any specific proposals?


Erik Nielsen: On all four sides of the issue.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I think that the position and the stand taken by the other ministers who are key players in the medicare system matter a great deal. There are ten of them. There is one national government speaking on behalf of Canadians and putting up approximately half of the total amount of money involved. It would be nice to have a few allies when I start the federal-provincial conference I am planning with my counterparts, so the question I raised with the hon. member is very relevant, I would like to underline that.
Other than that, the member should know, because I think I stated it a few times in answers to him, that we are planning the first of a series of conferences on renewing medicare, at which time I will put to my provincial colleagues the new rules of the game to strengthen medicare. He knows this is not a simple black and white matter where we can suddenly withhold payment and slow down services. I do not see how that would help people who have health problems.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You said that; I did not. Get on with your job.


Monique Bégin: It is true that we are manoeuvring around these various roadblocks in order to strengthen medicare, and I believe in the last two years we have strengthened medicare in Canada.


FEDERAL FUNDING
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that at this very moment her colleague, the Minister of Finance, is trying to negotiate massive reductions in federal funding to the provinces which will have an incredible effect on health care, not to mention post-secondary education. I ask the minister does she intend to sit idly by and let the Minister of Finance carelessly gamble with the future
February 3, 1982

of medicare, or is she trying to persuade him to drop these foolish cutbacks which will be used by provinces like Ontario and Alberta-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: British Columbia.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -as an excuse for the further privatization of medicare?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is wrong in his description. Payments from my department to the provinces for medicare will increase yearly on average in the coming five years by 13.4 per cent.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Not as much as they would if you left them alone.


Monique Bégin: This is more than the rate of inflation. That is the money calculated according to the three programs which are the elements of the EPF agreements: hospitalization, extended health care, and visits to doctors. This is fully protected. The payments are going to increase annually and the provinces know that. They can decide to punish medicare because they, like us, have to-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You know that is not true.


Monique Bégin: -reorder their priorities according to the economic situation. 1 hope they do not put that on the back of medicare, because our payments for medicare are increasing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Surveillance of Russian Bear aircraft, which have been flying through a portion of the Atlantic coastal Canadian identification zone en route to Cuba in increasing numbers during the past eight months, surely must have vital strategic implications, yet the government has announced the closure of the air base best situated to monitor these instrusions, CFB Chatham in New Brunswick.
Besides the military implications the closure will have, one half of the town's work force will be put out of work. The minister has set up an interdepartmental committee to study alternative uses for the air base-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Madam Speaker:: Order. The questions today have all been exceptionally long.


Erik Nielsen: So have the answers.
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: We are coming to the end of question period. I wish to recognize as many questioners as possible, and I would really appreciate members shortening their questions.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. 1 trust the answers will be short and explicit as well.
The study was to be completed and the report made by the end of January. Will the minister now tell the House what recommendations that committee has made?


An hon. Member:: Close the base.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the answer is yes. 1 think security on the east coast is adequate, and all measures have been taken to make sure that it is adequate, and we are protecting the Canadian people very well on the east coast.


An hon. Member:: Provided there is no attack, we are okay.


MINISTER'S RECOMMENDATIONS
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I asked for the committee's recommendations and I did not get them, but in view of the fact that over one half of the town's work force is going to become unemployed, and over $33 million in wages and local purchasing will be lost to the town, will the minister tell the House what recommendations he is going to make to his caucus colleagues about what happens to the town of Chatham and those unemployed? If he cannot be specific, will he assure the people of Chatham that something will be done to ensure that these jobs and revenues will be replaced within a reasonable period of time?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I thought the hon. member would have read the most recent speech I made in Chatham stating that we care a lot for the people in this area.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is why you are closing the base.


Mr. Lamontagne:: Well, maybe because of economic and strategic factors we have to phase out that base and try to compensate in the best way we can for the loss of jobs and to the effect on the local economy. However, it is much better to do this than to do what the former minister of national defence said in Chatham last week when he told them that they should stick to their demands that the F-18 be stationed at Chatham, and close Bagotville. That is very good for Quebecers-his suggestion to close Bagotville instead of Chatham.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Maurice Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, we have an interdepartmental committee working very hard on the future of Chatham. We have been in communication with the premier of the province, with responsible people in the Miramichi area, and with our Member of Parliament for that area, and everyone is

February 3, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
working together to see that Chatham is not left without any compensation or any alternatives as they are at the moment.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue who will perhaps be aware that this week Neil Fraser, an employee of his department in Kingston, was suspended from work for three days because he publicly spoke out against the policy of metric conversion. In fact he was told that if his protests were repeated he would be dismissed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The minister will know there is no conflict of interest here because it had nothing to do with the Department of National Revenue. I ask the minister if it is his policy, indeed the policy of the government, that if a civil servant speaks out against any aspect of government policy, he will be dismissed?


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, it is true that an auditor from the Kingston district office was involved in a public demonstration against the metric system. I gather he also wrote to the newspapers about it. He was called in and given a three-day suspension, according to departmental guidelines. He has since appeared on television criticizing the metric system, the Constitution, and bilingualism.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: In similar cases, Madam Speaker, the right of the employer to discipline the employee for public statements critical of government programs has been upheld by the courts, as I am sure it will be in this case.


Mr. Mazankowski:: So much for the charter of rights.


CIVIL RIGHTS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the issue here is freedom of speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is a question of the civil rights a public servant should enjoy, and I would like to direct my supplementary to the President of the Treasury Board, the minister responsible for the public service. I would ask him to give us an assurance that those public service employees who dare speak out against any aspect of government policy, who choose to follow that route, will not be subjected to punitive action by the government, particularly when they speak on a matter not in conflict with their responsibilities in their own departments?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the facts in this particular case which the hon. member raised initially with my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, but in my responsibilities as President of the Treasury Board I will discuss the matter with my officials and my colleague.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: My question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. Last December the minister was crowing quite proudly about the benefits of a $250 million loan at 11 per cent to the government of Peru for a copper mining venture. Since that time about 1,500 Canadian copper mining workers have been laid off. In Stewart, British Columbia, about one fifth of the workers at Granduc will be laid off, as well. Since the Canadian sector is paying roughly double the foreign Liberal rate for capital, does the minister believe that this kind of loan to foreign competitors is in the best interest of the Canadian copper mining industry?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, the loan to which the hon. member refers affects a copper mine which will not come into production until roughly four or five years down the road, by which time we hope the copper situation will have improved and that the prices will have risen considerably. The fact is that that loan produces jobs in Canada immediately, within the next year, and that is what is important, given the current economic situation.


CREATION OF JOBS IN CANADA
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I find it passing strange that if the mine will not go into operation for four or five years, it will immediately create jobs in Canada. I contacted the minister's office which informed me that it is opposed to this deal. I wonder whether the minister would comment on that.
Since roughly 4,000 jobs have been lost in the copper industry and supply sector since this December announcement,
I	wonder if the minister will be making any money available at
II	per cent to the Canadian copper industry. Despite repeated inquiries directed to her office, to the EDC, and to the company S & C in Montreal, I have not been able to find evidence of one job which will be created in Canada. I challenge the minister to stand up in this House to tell us just one job which will be created as a result of the loan of $250 million at 11 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 3, 1982


Judith A. Erola: 1 will be very happy to provide the hon. member with all of the facts of this contract the minute the tenders are made public. The confidentiality of the situation insists, of course, that this contract not be made public until it is signed. I will be very happy to provide him with the figures when they come. The fact is that hon. members opposite have been criticizing us for the lack of jobs in the automotive industry, and this particular contract will have a very direct effect on the automotive industry, as trucks will be part of the package.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. In view of the fact that it is very important to maintain a strong domestic capability in the construction and repairing of ships in Canada and to maintain those 45,000 trucks off the ground and out into the marketplace. I am consideration, besides the 9 per cent subsidy, to offset foreign government subsidies, particularly in the area of financing, which give offshore shipbuilders a considerable advantage in contract bidding over our own industry? As well, could the minister explain why, under the multimillion dollar federal Shipbuilding Industry Assistance Program, very little, if any, of these funds will indeed benefit our shipbuilding industry in the Great Lakes?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his question and for his continuing interest in the shipbuilding industry in Canada. I can inform the hon. member, and this has already been pointed out to him in the House, that eleven or twelve months ago, a comprehensive study of our shipbuilding assistance policy was initiated in consultation with the industry, the provincial governments and the unions involved in this sector. The study is just about finished, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is expecting to receive a report within a few days. Once the report has been read and considered by his cabinet colleagues, we shall then be able to either publish the report or announce a new policy in the coming months.
As for the millions of dollars, I can inform the hon. member that $75 million are spent each year on subsidies to the shipbuilding industry at all shipyards throughout Canada, and the hon. member knows perfectly well that the shipyard in his riding has received-and why not-a generous share of this subsidy.
Oral Questions


PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Madam Speaker, I have a short supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. At the present time, as the minister knows, ships built by offshore countries which are plying their services completely in Canadian waters are subject to a 25 per cent duty. However, this duty does not apply to ships built in Commonwealth countries. Will the minister take a serious look at this provision in the act, and take the necessary steps to change the Canada Shipping Act and remove this preferential treatment which has proven to be a hardship to our own industry and has been an anachronism for many years?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Madam Speaker, such a step will be taken in the fall, in the legislation which we hope to introduce at that time. However, to put matters into context, hon. members should know that at the present time 50 per cent to 60 per cent of the coasting trade in Canadian waters is done by Canadian-built ships.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications, and involves radio broadcasting by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which has been a matter of concern for northern New Brunswickers for some time. We have had improvements in signal for television programs, but I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can indicate the present status and action which will be taken to bring daily radio broadcast service by the CBC to northern New Brunswick.


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member's interest in this particular problem, as he has discussed it with the minister and myself on a number of occasions, and it has been a long-outstanding item. I can only say that it is the policy of the CBC to expand as quickly as possible. 1 can be encouraging in the sense that an announcement by the minister should be made in the very near future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, and it concerns the secrecy surrounding salaries paid to heads of

February 3, 1982
Oral Questions
Crown corporations. As the minister knows, there have been announcements that some public servants will receive salary increases of some considerable magnitude. Some of these public servants have refused to discuss their salaries publicly and the government has consistently refused to indicate their level of salaries. Would the Acting Prime Minister please indicate to the House the justification in public policy for refusing even to reveal the ranges of salaries for heads of Crown corporations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have seen that such a practice exists in Canada, and it is not a practice exclusive to chairmen or presidents of Crown corporations. Such a practice exists in the private sector, also.


Erik Nielsen: That's not right.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I presume, inasmuch as Crown corporations in Canada are somewhat mid-way between public corporations and private ones, that this is the main reason for the existence of the practice. However, this being a prime ministerial prerogative, I will bring the question to the attention of the Prime Minister, and I am sure that he will want to give a more detailed answer to the question raised, in due course.


QUERY RESPECTING THE RANGES OF SALARIES
Walter David Baker: When the Acting Prime Minister brings the matter to the head of the government, would he please remind him that the development of this new fiction is of recent vintage and that, in fact, the salary ranges of former heads of Crown corporations were at least announced? At the same time, would the Acting Prime Minister argue the case before the Prime Minister that, since the public is involved, it is inappropriate that at least the ranges of salaries paid to those senior officials have not been made public?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will bring that to the attention of the Prime Minister. But, needless to say, most of the salaries of most of these gentlemen are now commonly known.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Jean-Luc Pepin: The salary of the president of CN is pretty well known.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Jean-Luc Pepin: The salary of the president of Air Canada is pretty well known.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Jean-Luc Pepin: We all know that they are higher than the salary of the Prime Minister.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to address a question to the Minister of State for External Relations and congratulate him on his new appointment. I ask him this question as a member of the cabinet committee on economic and regional development. Would he advise the House whether he soon expects to be able to announce the entry of the county of Northumberland into the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement, a matter on which he has been working for the past 18 months?


An hon. Member:: Come on, somebody!


Mr. Crombie:: There he is!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: All three together!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You're not quite sure, are you, yet?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of State (External Relations)):: Madam Speaker, I think the question should be put to-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Somebody else.


Pierre De Bané: -to the minister responsible for DREE, but I am very happy to remind the hon. member that one of my last acts as minister responsible for DREE was to deliver a letter to his office by hand, stating that the draft of that agreement would be ready very soon. I also remind him that at my first meeting with the provincial government of Ontario, with his support, I stated my initiative to do something for the county of Northumberland. I hope that in the very near future that initiative will reach its final conclusion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. I wonder how the minister can justify a reported $637 million in subsidized financing to Russia which will cost the Canadian taxpayers a reported $198 million. All we will receive in return is $275 million in Canadian equipment and services.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, first, the negotiations for this contract were initiated in 1977. If Canada is successful in obtaining a contract, it will involve 16,500 man-years of work in Quebec, Ontario and western Canada. The figures which the hon. member read in one of the local papers, unfortunately, are
February 3, 1982

erroneous. The EDC does not have a financial offer outstanding at the present time. It expired as of December 31. Consequently I cannot verify the figures to which the hon. member alludes.


TIMING OF CONTRACT
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the minister think it appropriate to lend subsidized dollars at a 10 per cent interest rate to Russia at a time when our allies are implementing sanctions against Russia as a result of the Russian atrocities in Poland and Afghanistan?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, there is no question of our lending money to the Soviet Union. I think what the hon. member is mistakenly trying to express is a loan by the EDC to a Canadian corporation which, if successful, would create 16,500 jobs in Ontario Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia. We regard this as being in keeping with the policy of NATO at this time. If the NATO policy changes, our policy will change as well.


Madam Speaker:: I see the Leader of the Opposition is rising, but question period is over. I have to recognize the hon. member for Victoria on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from some of the remarks made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) a few minutes ago. He said that I had recommended to the good people of Chatham that the Canadian Forces base at Bagotville should be closed. It is correct that I advised the people of Chatham that they should put all the pressure they possibly can on the government to retain their base, which is absolutely vital to their economy. I suggested that the decision that possibly the minister has made to close Chatham and keep Bagotville open must have been made for reasons other than strategic reasons. I pointed out to the people of Chatham that the Chatham base is much closer to the east coast and the flight of the Russian Bear bombers down to the east coast than is the base at Bagotville. There are really two questions involved in this. The first is whether either base should be closed.


Madam Speaker:: Order. It seems the hon. member is entering into debate. I will let him continue for another little while, but I ask him to tell me what his question of privilege is. From his note it seemed that he wanted to correct a statement made by the minister. That might be a point of order rather than a question of privilege.
Point of Order-Mr. Clark


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I will not require more than another moment or so. The other question is whether he has decided to close the right base, if indeed they must close one base. For reasons of the mileage that is involved, the minister and the government have to make a decision as to whether the main threat is manned bombers coming over the North Pole or whether they want to do surveillance of the Russian planes flying up and down the east coast.
If it is the first one, which is a rather unlikely scenario, that is uppermost in the minister's mind, he has a reason for closing that base, I suppose. However, if it is the second one, which seems more likely, he has no reason and he has misled the people.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is debating the question. This is not a question of privilege.


POINTS OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is still within range of my voice and will perhaps resume her seat. I rise on a point of order that would allow her to confirm or clarify a remark I believe I heard her make during the question period. 1 believe I heard the minister indicate that her estimates in the blue book for payments to the provinces will increase next year by 13.5 per cent. If the minister did not say that, I would like to have the record set straight. If she did, I would like to have it confirmed.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) will recognize that that is distinctly a question further to some of the questions asked in the House. If the minister wants to correct a statement she has made, she is perfectly free to do that using the means at her disposal, either by stating it in the House or, if it is not substantial, she can make some corrections to the "blues". If there is an error in the figure, she can make a statement in the House to correct that. It is up to the minister to determine whether she wants to make a correction to her statement.


Charles Joseph Clark: Exactly, Madam Speaker. The only reason I raised the point of order was that the minister was out of the House and may well have not understood what she said when she said it. Indeed, she may have intended that. I wanted to extend to her the opportunity to correct the record.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that one member cannot force another member to correct a statement which that member has made in the House. It is up to the member to do that. The right hon. member has made his point. The minister is free to do what she wants.

February 3, 1982
Order Paper Questions


MR. PINARD-TYPE OF QUESTIONS TO BE AVOIDED DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to draw your attention to the fact that during Oral Question Period, a question was directed to a minister which did not involve his departmental responsibilities but those he has as a member of a cabinet committee. With due respect, that is against the procedures of this House, and I should not like to see this practice continue in the future. Today we did not interrupt Oral Question Period to raise a point of order, so as to allow the opposition to continue with their questions, but in future, I should appreciate it if members were not allowed to direct questions to a minister in his capacity as a member of a cabinet committee. According to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Chapter 359(b), Fifth edition, a minister may only be questioned on his responsibilities in his present portfolio.


Madam Speaker:: I have taken note of the minister's point of order. I apologize for what happened, but in listening to the question, I thought part of it concerned international trade, and I noticed the minister replied with some hesitation, without realizing why. In any case, the President of the Privy Council is absolutely right.


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. 2,714, 3,020, 3,446, 3,457, 3,492, 3,525, and 3,538.


Mr. Beatty: Since March 1, 1980, were requests made to American authorities by the government for the interception of mail in the United States and, if so, how many and, in each case (a) what was the reason (b) by whom was it made (c) what was the response?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Yes, on one occasion. A request was made by the Drug Enforcement Branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on August 31, 1981. The request arose from a joint investigation with the United States Drug Enforcement Agency concerning the importation of illicit drugs into the United States and Canada. The interception involved a parcel being sent through the mail to the United States which was believed to contain heroin. The American agency has assumed responsibility for that aspect of the investigation and is pursuing the matter under their law. The investigation is still under way.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	What was the total amount of cargo tonnage moved by Newfoundland Steamships Ltd. between the port of Montreal and (a) Corner Brook (b) St. John's in (i) 1978 (ii) 1979 (iii) 1980?
2.	What was the amount of direct water subsidy applied to the tonnage in part I in (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?
3.	What commodities, by tonnage and unit value and classified by Statistics Canada SIC codes, were shipped by the company between Montreal and (a) Corner Brook (b) St. John's in (i) 1978 (ii) 1979 (iii) 1980?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The total amount of general freight moved by Newfoundland Steamships Ltd. between the port of Montreal and Newfoundland was:
(a)	1978-246,535 tons
(b)	1979-257,657 tons
(c)	1980-260,560 tons
Owing to competitive reasons, the amount of cargo shipped by Newfoundland Steamships Ltd. to St. John's and Corner Brook is considered confidential company information.
2.	The amount of subsidy payable to Newfoundland Steamships was:
(a)	1978-$3,855,809.12
(b)	1979-$4,029,749.68
(c)	1980-$4,075,163.23
3.	Commodities, by tonnage, unit value and classified by SIC numbers is considered confidential company information. In any event, this form of information is unavailable from departmental files.


Mr. Roy: 1.	Since the Assisted Home Ownership Program (AHOP) was established, how many houses were bought under the program in (a) the city of Laval (b) Quebec (c) Ontario and what was the total cost in each case?
2.	For the same period (a) how many houses were taken back by the government (b) how many home owners (i) signed waiver documents (ii) gave up their housing unit to the mortgage holder (iii) abandoned their investment and what was the total value in each case?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	(a), (b) and (c) See table below.
2.	(a) Between 1975 and December 31, 1981, the total number of AHOP units acquired under the Mortgage Insurance Fund in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario was, 1,836 units and 8,581 units, respectively.
February 3, 1982

(b) (i), (ii) and (iii) See table below.
Number of units sold and total sale price of dwellings		
under the Assisted Home Ownership Program		
Location	1973-1981 No. of Dwelling Units	Total Sale Price
City of Laval		
New housing	1,849	$ 56,379,827Existing housing	196	3,709,270Total	2,045	S 60,089,097Province of Quebec	New housing	37,931	SI,107,682,408Existing housing	1,949	41,022,430Total	39,880	$1,148,704,838Province of Ontario	New housing	38,621	$1,550,458,834Existing housing	2,891	77,958,527Total	41,512	$1,628,417,361
Breakdown of actions taken on AHOP units in the city of Laval and in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario
City of Laval	No. of Units	Value of Claims
Type of Action		
Sheriff sale	6	$228,125.31Voluntary giving in payment	5	195,288.44Giving in payment action	2	68,901.85Judgment	24	865,472.31Province of Quebec	Type of Action	Sheriff sale	153	4,440,000Voluntary giving in payment	114	3,260,000Giving in payment action	564	15,620,000Judgment	1,005	29,460,000Province of Ontario	Type of Action	Foreclosure	1,140	41,790,000Sheriff sale	1	30.000Power of sale	3,445	135,330,000Quit claim	3,318	118,250,000Voluntary transfer	130	3,950.000Judgment	92	2,750,000Others	455	15.540,000


Miss Carney: 1.	Does the (a) chairman (b) president of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation receive a special car allowance and/or reduced mortgage allowances?
2.	Do (a) the board of directors (b) all vice-presidents at CMHC receive the allowances indicated in part 1 ?
3.	Do the officials receive other special benefits by virtue of their employment with CMHC and, if so, what are the benefits and what is their cost?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	(a) and (b) No.
2.	(a) One member only of the board of directors has a corporation owned automobile at his disposal, (b) The vicepresidents do not receive a special car allowance but those who request it are provided with a corporation leased automobile. This is a benefit taxable to the employee under the terms and conditions of the income tax law and the Revenue Canada
Order Paper Questions
regulations. One vice-president received preferred rate second mortgage financing on his home when transferred.
3.	The corporation provides life insurance coverage for all the members of its board of directors at an annual cost of less than $400. This policy is only in effect when the members are on corporation business. Vice-presidents, as well as the chairman and president may request to have their business club memberships paid by the corporation. Five officials are in receipt of this benefit for a total cost of $3,300 in 1981. Senior officials who are employees of the corporation can voluntarily participate in a deferred compensation plan. This is more of a service at the disposal of the officials than a benefit per se. The corporation does not contribute to this plan and, except for a minimal amount of bookkeeping, no costs are incurred.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Did the Matsqui Prison apply for accreditation with the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections?
2.	Did an auditing team visit the prison before a riot took place to determine whether standards, as expressed in the Manual of Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions, were being met by prison authorities and, if not, what was the purpose of the visit and on what date did it take place?
3.	Was a report prepared by the auditing team as to whether the standards expressed in a manual distributed by the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections were being met and, if so (a) was it made available to the Correctional Service of Canada (b) is it the policy of the Solicitor General to make it public?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. A three-member consultant auditing team from the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections made a three-day visit to Matsqui Institution from April 6-8, 1981, to determine whether standards, as expressed in the Manual of Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions, were being met by Matsqui Institution.
3.	(a) Yes, a draft report was prepared by the consultant auditing team expressing their opinion of the levels of compliance, non-compliance and non-applicability of the Matsqui Institution with the Manual of Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions. The draft report was received by the Correctional Service of Canada on April 29, 1981. Matsqui Institution met compliance levels necessary to achieve accreditation and would probably have appeared before a panel hearing for this purpose in late August, 1981.
At that hearing the draft report would have been reviewed and appeals made by the Correctional Service of Canada in certain cases judged to be in non-compliance by the consultant auditors. Commission panel rulings are final and a final level of compliance/non-compliance/non-applicability is then rendered. Because the riot occurred on June 2, the entire accreditation process has been suspended until the institution is returned to normal operation, at which time the situation will be reassessed.
(b) No. It is neither the practice nor the policy of the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections or its client to

February 3, 1982
Order Paper Questions
release details of reports as they deal with all procedural aspects including security and crisis response.


Mr. Cossitt: Were the marketing activities of the Royal Canadian Mint and of Mr. Robert Huot, vice-president of the Mint, under any form of investigation and, if so (a) what were all the details (b) was the investigation ordered by the Minister of Supply and Services and, if so, for what purpose?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by the Royal Canadian Mint as follows: No.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 3,142 which states in part that the government spent $26,325,000 in 1980-81 in long distance telephone charges for calls made on other than government leased telephone circuits, what is a breakdown of this figure in so far as amounts spent by individual departments, offices, etc?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
With reference to the answer to question No. 3,142 which stated the total amount billed directly to the departments by the carriers, the individual amounts reported by those departments are as follows:
1980/81
(S000)
Employment & Immigration	3172
Revenue Canada-Taxation	3157
R.C.M.P.	2954
Transport Canada	2935
Environment Canada	1853
Health & Welfare	1715
National Defence	1453
Indian & Northern Affairs	1359
Post Office	1031
External Affairs	976
Public Works	756
Correctional Services	565
Agriculture Canada	493
Regional Economic Expansion	484
Revenue Canada-Customs & Excise	316
Chief Electoral Officer	273
Supply & Services Canada	229
Industry, Trade & Commerce	224
National Film Board	185
Canadian Transport Commission	171
Department of Communications	132
Public Service Commission	107
National Research Council	81
Secretary of State	68
Comm, for Federal Judicial Affairs	64
Department of Justice	58
Consumer & Corporate Affairs	58
Ministry of State for Economic Development	54
Atomic Energy	52
Canadian International Development Agency	50
Comm, of Official Languages	46
Northern Pipeline Agency	46
Veterans Affairs	34
Supreme Court of Canada	28
National Museums	27
Department of Labour	26
Finance	25
Privy Council	25
Statistics Canada	23
Canadian Human Rights Commission	13
Auditor General	7
Science and Technology	5
National Parole Board	4
Labour Relations Board	3
Treasury Board Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications	3
Commission	3
National Energy Board	2
Science Council of Canada	2
Public Service Staff Relations Board	2 1
Immigration Appeal Board	
Department of Insurance	1
Status of Women	I
National Library	1
Public Archives	1
Intergovernment Conference Secretariat	
Economic Council of Canada	
Others	971
Total	$26,325
Includes the Senate, the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament and departments and agencies whose total telecommunications expenditures do not exceed $20,000 per annum.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 3,327 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Herbert: Since the preparation of the answer to question No. 723 of the third session of the Thirtieth Parliament, what amount was contributed by the Ministry of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport to each sport-governing body and sport and recreation association?
Return tabled.


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


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


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would not want to be hasty about this and 1 do not want to appear impatient given that I only put the question on the Order Paper recently, however,
February 3, 1982

question No. 3,698 that I placed on the order paper has some extreme importance attached to it.
It has no political value to me or anyone else, but it is of significant value to the business community of Canada to have the answer to that question.
I think it is a simple question and there should be a ready answer. I wonder if I might stress to the parliamentary secretary the absolute urgency of obtaining the answer to that question now, before the consequences which may well flow from the actions by the government and its representatives begin.
I am extremely concerned that we find out, if we can, what the legal authority is for the actions taken by the government with regard to the imposition of the recently-announced but not yet approved changes to the Income Tax Act and other acts.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I have taken due note of that representation and I will discuss it with the appropriate minister.


Mr. Paproski:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary exactly what is happening with my question, No. 2,214. Is there any progress on it?


David P. Smith: I believe so, Madam Speaker, but I will make inquiries.


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary when we can expect answers to my questions Nos. 3,380 through to 3,438 to be tabled. I recently noticed that some ministers have been circulating answers to those questions to members of the House and have not been answering those questions on the Order Paper, in spite of assurances by the parliamentary secretary that he would try to expedite answers to those significant questions in response to the obstacles report. Could the parliamentary secretary tell me when we can expect to have those answers properly tabled in the House rather than simply having them circulated to members of the House?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will be pursuing that matter on behalf of the hon. member.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 71 in the name of the hon. member for Skeena?


Madam Speaker:: The member is not in the House at the present time. I did call him.
Canagrex Act


David P. Smith: I would ask all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, January 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan that Bill C-85, an act 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.
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate this opportunity to continue my representations on Bill C-85. My previous comments on this bill lead me back to the issue of corporations versus department, and whether this dream of the minister should be realized through a new Crown corporation of the government or whether it should be a wing of the Department of Agriculture.
It also leads me to the question of the utilization of embassies and their staffs and whether the goals can even be achieved with the present number of staff members allotted to the corporation and with the funding that has been promised to that corporation.
I have great respect for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I honestly believe that he is hard-working, sincere and concerned about agriculture in Canada. However, I am worried about how effective he is with that bunch over on that side of the House. The minister has undoubtedly been trying for a considerable length of time to get cabinet approval of this bill. Earlier in his announcement about Canagrex he stated that he would need a budget of $62.3 million and a staff of approximately 150 people. It is obvious that he had problems with the cabinet and difficulty in convincing them to meet these standards which he established because cabinet did not approve the $62.3 million or the staff of approximately 150. Instead, they approved an amount of $12.3 million and a staff of 12. That starts Canagrex out of the blocks with $50 million less than the minister thought was necessary and some 138 people short of the number he thought should be able to do the job. This puts a tremendous problem in front of Canagrex in terms of effectiveness.
Another concern which deeply disturbs me is why we are not using the embassies and the consulates around the world to enhance sales of our agricultural products. I thought that the

February 3, 1982
Canagrex Act
government would have jumped at the ideas put forward by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) pertaining to the export sales of agricultural goods. One of his proposals was to make use of the embassies, trade offices or consulates throughout the world for the promotion of sales of agricultural products. There are approximately 115 of these offices throughout the world and we only have agricultural representation on the staff of about 10 per cent of them. Even those are not in the areas where agricultural exports have the greatest potential, in my estimation. 1 believe that there is only one agricultural representative stationed at one of our embassies or consulates in the Third World where approximately 23 per cent of our agricultural products go.
I would like to repeat my concern about the possible conflict of this new corporation with the Department of Agriculture and national marketing boards, along with other exporting firms. I am concerned that one board, with which I am closely related, the Tobacco Marketing Board, a board which the minister knows could teach his staff a great deal, could come into conflict with Canagrex.
It will take considerable time in committee and considerable debate in the House in order to convince us that a Crown corporation is the best route to take and that its operations are best for agriculture in Canada. Nevertheless, I wish the minister well and I assure him that we on this side of the House will do everything we can to assist him and the government to help agriculture in Canada.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, l appreciate the opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-85, an act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada.
1 congratulate the minister and the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ostiguy), the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) and all members from all three parties who have lent their support to this bill.
I am pleased I am following the hon. member for Haldi-mand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley). I know he speaks with wisdom because he does represent quite a large rural agricultural area there. You may wonder, Mr. Speaker, what interest a member from an urban riding like Parkdale-High Park has in legislation on agriculture. Well, Mr. Speaker, the production of food should interest every member in the House. It should be of interest to every Canadian, to every person in the world, because if we have no food there will be no world. If we have no food, there will be no Canadians. If we have no food, there will be no members in the House. Canada is the breadbasket of the world and I think we have an obligation to feed people in other parts of the world. There are areas on this globe where people are starving, dying of malnutrition. When we have the land mass that we do, the technology that we possess and the educated population that we have, we should be the leaders in food production and should be able to increase our exports in this sector of our economy.
The hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) made an irresponsible statement in the House yesterday when he said that the Canagrex bill:
-deceives Canadians .. . because the implication is left that Canada is an exporter of food. In actual fact. . . Canada is a massive importer of food of all categories.
He went on to say:
The point is whether Canadians will have enough food to eat.
It is that kind of fixation on one's navel and that kind of inwardness which has caused Canada to lose a fair share of world trade.
My interest in this legislation stems from two sources. My background is farming. I spent 18 years on a family farm in Saskatchewan which produced milk, meat and grain. When I moved to Ontario, I worked on many Ontario farms and still keep in touch with farmers in the west and in the east. Therefore, I believe I have some appreciation of the problems, concerns and aspirations of farmers in Canada.
My second interest stems from my role as chairman of the all-party Special Committee on the National Trading Corporation, the report of which, "Canada's Trade Challenge", was tabled in the House just seven months ago. Through this committee I learned that world competition for exports has indeed become a battle for economic survival.
The committee made a close examination of Canada's export performance over the last ten years. Our findings revealed that while world trading activity has accelerated, Canada has not kept pace. The specific concerns of the committee included, first, Canada's declining share of world trade; second, a continuing dependence on trade with the United States; and third, our underdeveloped presence in the growth areas of the world economy.
The establishment of Canagrex as a Crown corporation could be a milestone in the development of the food and agricultural industry of this nation. Canada's economic future is in trade and now is the time to take the necessary steps, such as the formation of Canagrex, to ensure a rosy future ahead.
Canagrex will not be working on its own. Its working relationships and links with private firms, co-operatives, marketing boards, farmers and small producers and other private agencies in Canada will determine its success.
I would like now to outline for hon. members some of the proposed links which may be expected to exist between Canagrex and other federal and provincial departments and agencies, farm organizations and business and trade associations.
Canagrex will have a close relationship with Agriculture Canada. It will report directly to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), and the department will have senior representatives on the board of directors and the policy advisory committee. Canagrex will rely on Agriculture Canada for assistance in identifying markets, opportunities and constraints for Canadian exporters. Many of the most accessible markets for Canadian agricultural products have been found. Canagrex
February 3, 1982

will be expected to work closely with our agricultural research and other institutions to identify and develop food and agricultural products which can be used as a catalyst to gain new markets-and I emphasize "new markets".
Those agencies reporting to the Minister of Agriculture which are involved in some way with agricultural exports, such as the Agricultural Products Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission, will work closely with Canagrex. Canagrex will not duplicate the export marketing activities of the Canadian Dairy Commission, but the two could, where feasible, join in joint marketing efforts and share market information.
Other federal departments and agencies are involved closely in international trade and will necessarily have to establish close links with Canagrex. The new Ministry of State for International Trade of the Department of External Affairs will be a close working partner with Canagrex. The details of the cabinet reorganization are being worked out at departmental levels; nevertheless, there will be a close exchange of information and advice.
Canagrex will be able to draw on the services and market intelligence of Canadian trade commissioners to identify trade opportunities for agricultural products and pass these back to Canagrex for support and follow-up work with Canadian producers to meet the demands.
Just as an aside let me say that when our Committee on the National Trading Corporation heard testimony from coast to coast, we heard high praise for our trade commissioners in foreign posts around the world, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate them for the excellent work they are doing.
Canagrex could co-operate with the Canadian Wheat Board on market development but will not work in areas already serviced by the board.
The Export Development Corporation has expertise in providing insurance and loans. Canagrex will use the insurance services of the EDC and draw on the EDC's depth of expertise in Financial matters.
The Canadian International Development Agency could use Canagrex assistance in evaluating proposals for international agricultural projects.
There is a number of other federal agencies which would benefit from the assistance of Canagrex and the sharing of expertise.
The provincial governments and Canagrex should also develop a close working relationship. It is important for both to encourage sustained domestic agricultural production. Such a relationship will co-ordinate existing and potential national and provincial export market activities. Each province will be represented on the Canagrex policy advisory committee. I think the provinces have been waiting for the federal government to show leadership in forming such a corporation, and the federal government has done just that.
Canagrex will have strong links with the farm sector. This is a vital requirement, as it is necessary for the farm community
Canagrex Act
to support the activities of the new corporation, if it is to be a success. There will be active farmers on the board of directors and the policy advisory committe. When Canagrex is Firmly established, producer co-operatives and marketing boards should respond positively to the new market opportunities presented.
Business and trade associations in Canada will also beneFit from links with Canagrex. Many Canadian companies are already dealing in agricultural products with other countries. Canagrex will in no way interfere with or hinder existing or future contracts reached by Canadian businesses. This was a concern of some hon. members opposite.
Canadian processors will be able to come to Canagrex to use its grants, loans and joint venture mandate. This will enable them to transform further Canadian agricultural products for foreign markets.
Most Canagrex activities will be in market development and high risk areas rather than in established markets. This will make its activities very compatible with those of trading corporations already operating in foreign markets. Canagrex will be in a position to counsel small firms which wish to enter export markets. These small food processors do not have the human resources or financial resources to do their own market intelligence. Canagrex personnel could do this for them.
Canadian banks and Canagrex should be in a position to assist each other. Canagrex could make loan guarantees to help banks expand their lending activities. The banks would be encouraged to expand their services for Canadian agricultural exports.
These are only the most obvious agencies and organizations which would have close dealings with Canagrex. As I have pointed out, the advantages are innumerable. The effects Canagrex will have on the entire Canadian economy will many times repay the efforts and money needed to establish it.
I was interested in the comment made about this bill by the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff) as recorded in Hansard for January 29 at page 14482. He said:
There cannot be any significant objection in Canada, and certainly not among food producers, to the goal of increasing our agricultural products.
I wish more hon. members on his side of the House had that same kind of vision for the future of Canada. On the next page he is recorded as saying:
On the face of it I believe there are grounds for hoping that Canagrex can work to the advantage of Canada's trade performance over all and to the benefit of the food-producing sector, which should be the primary beneficiary.
Yet the hon. member for Huron-Bruce, together with the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), sat on the Special Committee on the National Trading Corporation, the mandate of which was to explore how such a corporation could help small and medium-sized businesses enter the export market. Seventy-five per cent of the witnesses representing small and medium-sized businesses stated that a national trading corporation funded by the government and the private sector would help them to get into the export business, and they all gave the same reasons why, this should be so. They

February 3, 1982
Canagrex Act
just do not have the human resources and the financial resources to go out and conduct market intelligence in various parts of the world.
The two Conservative members turned down the recommendation to form a Canada trading corporation which would promote general trade, increase employment, reduce the national deficit and thus help fight high inflation. The sad things is that they had no alternatives to present to the committee. Five of the seven members, who were from the NDP and the Liberal side, agreed to major recommendations, but two Conservative members disagreed. That is how interested they are in helping farmers and small business and indeed in helping to build Canada. They would rather listen to the multinationals who say there is no need for this corporation. They will not listen to people who operate small or medium-sized businesses.
How can the Conservatives reconcile the fact that they support Canagrex which will promote the export of agricultural products in which we already have a good track record, and oppose a Canada trading corporation which would promote exports of manufactured products, a sector of trade in which there is a deficit of about $17 billion annually? I wish the Conservatives would get their act together and let Canadians know exactly what they stand for.


Mr. Lewis:: As you have on Poland.


Jesse Philip Flis: I should like to share with hon. members the views of some farmers on this bill. I will quote from a letter 1 received from a Mr. E. W. B. Evans which reads in part as follows:
I am indeed grateful to you to have raised the matter of Canagrex in the House of Commons and I and other members of our agricultural committee and. indeed, the farm organization in Canada, would appreciate it if you could continue to apply pressure in the right quarters to hasten the implementation of Canagrex.
Certainly it is well known that the Canadian farmers, given the necessary incentives, can easily produce enough food to feed 55 million people. The export markets, on a long-term contractual basis, would not only raise the economic level of Canada agriculture, but also the other 30 per cent of the work force that are directly or indirectly tied in to the primary producer.
At a time when financial restraints in the community are affecting especially farmers and small business, and increasing the number of bankruptcies, it seems a shortsighted policy to not have already implemented Canagrex and the benefits that this would entail to our communities, and I believe, in some measure help to eliminate a lot of antagonism that exists between East and West. The problems of agriculture are common across the country and if agriculture prospers, so do the majority of Canadians in direct proportion.
Food producers have been requesting a corporation such as Canagrex for some time. If they believe that such a corporation will help export more of their products and bring greater stability to the food-producing industry, then let us put aside our partisan politics and let us all support this bill with one united voice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure this afternoon to speak to Bill C-85, an act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to
promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada.
I certainly welcome any opportunity to speak out on behalf of Canada's food producers and to play my part on behalf of the NDP in encouraging the government to take whatever action is necessary to develop a sound agricultural sector in Canada.
Some hon. members may inquire how my background qualifies me to speak on this particular topic. Mr. Speaker, as a youngster I grew up in southern Alberta and spent a great deal of time working on large dairy operations and on some of the largest cattle spreads in western Canada. Members of my extended family farm today in southern and central Saskatchewan and northern Alberta. The constituency that I represent in central British Columbia is the home of the largest cattle operations in Canada and indeed, according to some people, in the Commonwealth. There is a very diversified and important agricultural base with strong and innovative leadership coming from both the federal and provincial departments of agriculture which are represented in the constituency.
Statistics for 1980 indicate that Canada exported approximately $8 billion worth of agricultural products and imported approximately $5 billion worth. In positive terms, this provided us with an agricultural surplus for that year. While that is good news, generally speaking when one considers the commodities involved, it will be seen that by and large they were exports of bulk commodities such as grains and that the imports tended to be the more specialized products that are used for immediate consumption. Therein lies the difficulty and one of the major challenges that face us. Of the $5 billion worth of foodstuffs that were imported, experts say that $3 billion worth could be grown here. Apples and fresh fruits could be produced in at least three areas of the country, as could soybeans, oats and a variety of vegetables if the proper support systems were in place.
If one reads the agricultural history books it will be seen that not many years ago in the constituency of Kamloops-Shuswap large acreages were planted in tomatoes, watermelons, cucumbers, hops, corn, potatoes, asparagus and apples, yet today virtually none of these food crops are under cultivation. A great deal of agricultural potential obviously exists in this country and it should be put to good use.
Many livestock producers in my riding ask why Canada is such a major beef and lamb importer when beef and lamb producers find themselves in difficulty. We have an opportunity now to create jobs not only for Canadian farmers but for Canadian processors.
I recently had an opportunity to co-chair a task force on the economy that toured Canada, Mr. Speaker. Time after time, when food producers appeared before that task force, they said that the productive capacity of their farms was in the range of 40, 50 or 60 per cent and that if new markets were available they could easily expand that by working in new varieties of crops and livestock into their operation.
February 3, 1982

It is with some hesitancy, Mr. Speaker, that I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for finally bringing this bill before the House. I note with interest that since our return from the Christmas recess the first two bills presented are agriculturally oriented-the Farm Credit Corporation bill and the Canagrex bill. While I recognize that the minister often works hard on behalf of the agricultural community, I think he lacks the support of his caucus and of his party.
When one looks at the state of agriculture today, one finds an atmosphere in which encouragement and support is wanting, Mr. Speaker. At some hearings on the subject of job creation which were held in Kamloops recently, a young farmer said, "If you plant a seed today where the climatic and soil conditions are right, it will grow naturally with little if any support at all." But he went on to say that in Canada today, in terms of the agriculture and business community, the climate and conditions are not right and that it is very difficult to become an enthusiastic food producer under these conditions. Why did it take the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) ten months to bring the bill before us? It was introduced last February. Presumably it took ten months to draft it. Or did it take that long for him finally to talk his cabinet colleagues into letting him bring it forth?
As we have seen with the first ministers' conference on the economy, the government intends to hold tough with the high interest rate policies which it has had in place for a number of months. Surely this is a clear signal to the agricultural community that the members of the Liberal Party of Canada are not particularly interested in the plight they face. Yes, we might say that changes were made to the Farm Credit Corporation, but when we look at the $50 million in the budget of November 12, we realize that it will provide very little, if any, relief to farmers in financial difficulty. When we look at the interest rates the Farm Credit Corporation charges on its loans, again the signal is sent out very clearly to Canadian food producers that they are not a high priority in the government's mind. The government is prepared to lend money at half the rate of the Farm Credit Corporation to firms doing business overseas. This is the type of confusing information the farm community receives.
What is the agricultural strategy for Canada? What is the government trying to do to assist the agricultural community to expand and develop? I suspect, if we asked farmers anywhere in Canada that question, the response would be one of confusion, and certainly it would be varied from area to area because there is no over-all industrial or agricultural strategy for Canada.
As previous speakers have indicated, when we consider the 115 Canadian embassies, trade offices and consulates around the country, only ten have agricultural specialists on staff. What does that tell people who represent Canada overseas? What does it tell people who live in those countries about our commitment to agriculture and food production?
Canagrex Act
We appreciate the fact that the Minister of Agriculture used his influence to have the Small Business Development Bond open to the farm community. However, his cabinet colleagues pulled the rug out from under him. They changed the terms of reference of the Small Business Development Bond, called it the small business bond and made it available to only those people going bankrupt. This was not the type of encouragement the farm community was seeking in the November 12 budget. We notice that farm bankruptcies are up 18 per cent over last year, an especially high year for farm and business failures. Also we notice that with the energy pricing agreement, the cost of agricultural fuel, fertilizers and sprays will increase dramatically. Is the government offering any relief in these particular areas? Again the answer is no.
When the minister introduced the concept of Canagrex back in February, 1981, he said that it was an opportunity for Canada and for the farm community which had never been witnessed before. He was to set up a staff for Canagrex of between 100 and 175 people, with a budget of $62 million. It looked quite attractive. We in the New Democratic Party thought that finally a major step was being taken in an area where discussion had occurred for years and years. Indeed, it was looking very positive. However, when we saw the fine print in the bill before us, we noticed that the staff would be closer to 12 persons and that the budget would be closer to $4 million annually. Obviously the Minister of Agriculture failed to obtain the support of his cabinet colleagues for the concept of Canagrex.
I read with interest the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture the other day when he spoke in southern Ontario. He said that because of the fact that Canada was a food exporter and, as the previous speaker indicated, because we are one of the world's breadbaskets, Canada will be a world power in the very near future. I agree in part with those comments, but I suspect that it will not make us a particular power in terms of the traditional meaning of the word. When we consider that there are only half a dozen countries in the world with significant food to export, we realize that we will be placed in a very strategic position in terms of to whom we are able to sell our food and which countries we decide will be fed from the Canadian food basket.
I support in theory the concept of Canagrex, but before continuing my remarks I should like to refer to a clause in the bill which outlines what Canagrex is? Clause 14(1) reads in part:
Canagrex is established for the purposes of promoting, facilitating and engaging in the export of agricultural products and services and food products and services from Canada to other countries by means of the financial and other powers provided in this act, and for such purposes 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;
undertake and assist in promotion of the use of Canadian agricultural products and food products, in improvement of the quality and variety thereof and in publication of information in relation to those activities; enter into contracts with Canadian companies, co-operatives, marketing boards, associations or other Canadian enterprises or with individuals carrying on business in Canada to act as their marketing representative in marketing

February 3, 1982
Canagrex Act
agricultural products and food products or to provide managerial technological, marketing or other counselling and consulting services to them; enter into contracts with foreign governments to provide agricultural products and food products and services related to agriculture and food- purchase, lease or otherwise acquire and hold real and personal property for actual use by Canagrex in the operation and management of its business-
When we look at the terms of reference provided for the Canagrex Crown corporation in Bill C-85 we see that indeed the possibilities are endless, but they raise some concerns. I think it is important to say from the outset that Canagrex as proposed, and taken alone, will be of little help. When we look at the Canadian agricultural community, it is somewhat like an orchestra. It is comprised of a number of very important components, but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. To improve only one part of the orchestra will do little for the over-all symphony. While the Minister of Agriculture appears to be taking some major and important steps with the formation of Canagrex, it must be seen within the over-all context of an agricultural strategy.
For example, alongside Canagrex it will be important to identify key sectors of the agricultural economic community. For example, what are the possibilities with fruits and berries, high-grade beef cuts, soya beans, grass seed, seed potatoes, maple syrup, select, frozen, dried or canned vegetables? It is important to target key areas of the agricultural sector of our economy to develop. What about transportation and storage facilities which must complement a sound and productive agricultural sector?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What about market gardens and greenhouse operations?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, the whole matter of market gardening and greenhouse operations. What about research and development into new strains of crop and new approaches to production? What about providing low interest, long-term capital loans for food producers, rather than leaving them at the mercy of a weekly change in interest rates which they presently face? What about the provision of techniques to provide price stabilization in order that those in the food production industry can make some long-term plans? What about land preservation policies where the federal government, provincial and municipal governments must work in co-operation to ensure that the best agricultural land in Canada remains for agriculture? What about the possibility of improved domestic processing? Surely these are all components of an agricultural strategy that must be brought into place to complement such a corporation as Canagrex?
I have concerns about the 11-member board of directors. Surely when we look at the creation and formation of Crown corporations today we see that some work exceptionally well and some do not work that well at all. As a matter of fact, I do not suppose it would be difficult for many of us to identify a Crown corporation about which we are less than enthusiastic in terms of its productivity and in terms of its service level.
One of the reasons for the best or better Crown corporations is the kind of board of directors assigned to it. I hope that Canagrex does not have a board of political hacks appointed to it primarily from the Liberal Party. I hope too that Canagrex will not be staffed with a group of burnt-out civil servants, people who have lost their enthusiasm, their drive and their commitment to the Crown corporation.
We in the New Democratic Party are also concerned about the level of funding which this new Crown corporation will receive. The amount is $4 million. But by the time you set up your main office, pay your directors and set up the chief executive officers, there will not be much of a budget left to make a significant dint into providing the valuable service that is promised.
I support what the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) said a few days ago when speaking about the board of directors of Canagrex. He suggested we ought to amend Clause 3 in order to guarantee that people on the board of directors are people with practical experience in the field of agriculture, that they are people with expertise, with commitment and creative energy that will ensure the success of this Crown corporation.
One of the elements that will be required if Canagrex is to be successful is that it must promote a co-operative model between a variety of groups and levels of governments. That type of thing has not been witnessed for many years. It is imperative that Canagrex encourage co-operation between private firms, provincial governments, local governments and indeed, the federal government.
If we look at the track record of this particular government when it comes to co-operation, we are reminded of the lack of co-operation that existed when the Constitution was being discussed for months and months on end; and the element of confrontation that existed between levels of government. We are reminded of the way the VIA Rail cutbacks were introduced, how the community service financing was financed, and now the federal-provincial fiscal agreements discussions that are going on, and we see anything but an element of co-operation in those relationships. But when you consider what Canagrex will have to do to succeed and the incredible job it will have pulling together so many individual groups in a harmonious way, you realize it will be nothing short of amazing. It will require a change of mood and heart from those opposite. For example, here are a number of groups who will have to be active participants alongside Canagrex: the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Dairy Commission; CIDA; the Federal Business Development Bank; the Farm Credit Corporation; EDC; External Affairs; Agriculture Canada; the chartered banks; other financial institutions; credit unions; co-operatives; the various trade offices; commercial advisers and embassies; and various government marketing agencies and private marketing agencies. The list could go on and on.
We hear from the B.C. Tree Fruit Marketing Board that it has a concern that Canagrex will not serve it well. The B.C. Tree Fruit Marketing Board has successfully developed export markets around the world. That board wonders what Cana-
February 3, 1982

grex will do for it. As a matter of fact, when you talk to individual farmers or food producers generally, they ask "What will Canagrex do for me?" I think the assumption we are making is that it will do a great deal for the individual food producer. The challenge the government will have will be to indicate clearly how Canagrex will benefit the individual food producers of Canada. What is in it for them? What is in it for the average farmer? The advantage must be made very clear if we are to get their support and encouragement with this particular project.
The Crown corporation of Canagrex must be made accountable. Too often we see Crown corporations designed to serve the people of Canada yet become parasitic monsters within themselves. In my own province, I think the best example is a Crown corporation called B.C. Hydro. It has lost touch with reality. It has lost touch with the people of British Columbia. It has become a corporate monster. While we can also identify Crown corporations that are indeed sensitive to serving Canadians, we must ensure that Canagrex, because of its requirement to serve hundreds of thousands of Canadians and because essentially it will be indirectly linked with millions of Canadians, be accountable. Therefore, I suggest, along with others who have spoken before me, that some consideration be given to making Canagrex accountable to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, or perhaps to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, but certainly in some way better than the existing procedure which at best I think is rather weak. During discussions in various committees, particularly during time spent on estimates, when the head of a particular Crown corporation appears for an hour or two, that is hardly the accountability that Canagrex will require.
I like the concept and the idea of Canagrex. I think it is a good example of an investment which the government can make in the future of Canada. If not, what some would like to term government spending therefore must be curtailed and must not be supported. We in this particular corner of the House feel that this is an example of good government investment. With proper investment, the returns will flow back to the people of Canada, both the food producers and Canadians generally. What is lacking, however, is detail at this point. While we enthusiastically support the corporation on the one hand, we have a number of concerns on the other that must be dealt with in committee.
I have a word of caution, Mr. Speaker. As Canagrex looks for new opportunities, perhaps in the Pacific Rim areas the eastern bloc countries of Europe or the Arab nations, we must be particularly sensitive to our operations in the developing countries. With 23 per cent of our exports going into Third World countries, we must be particularly sensitive because we have made some disastrous errors in the past. I recall two incidents. The first happened when we sent powdered milk into New Guinea. We were dropping powdered milk from aircraft into the jungles of New Guinea only to have the people there think it was some new kind of whitewash to be used for painting their homes, fences and courtyards. The second was when we attempted to introduce skim milk and milk powder
Canagrex Act
into some of the Third World countries whose populations were not milk drinkers. After being weaned, in childhood, the people never drank milk. Their stomach enzymes, therefore, were unable to digest that type of food.
It is imperative, Mr. Speaker, that our policies complement the food-producing activities of the Third World, that they be developed in co-operation and harmony with their needs and abilities. While we sometimes look at Canadian agriculture as being extremely efficient, indeed in one respect it is, I suppose, where we are able to produce food better and better each year, but we must recognize that the production methods in developing countries are much more energy efficient than our own. Their return in calories of food versus calories of energy is much better than ours. As energy prices here increase, the cost of foodstuffs will increase and our ability to market them will become more problematical. Therefore, I think our enthusiasm for introducing our methods into the Third World must be developed with that point in mind.
Canada certainly has a role to play, Mr. Speaker, in feeding the people of the world, particularly those experiencing shortfalls. We also must be concerned with the fact that the family farm is being threatened. Many, many times in our task force hearings we heard family farm operators saying it was getting more difficult for them all the time, more difficult for their sons and daughters to take over the operation.
When you looked at it, the average age of farmers on the prairies was going up and up, and the corporate farm was becoming more and more of a reality. When you look at the size of farming operations in Canada over the last 30 years you will notice the size of farms has increased and the number of farms has been halved. Again, we are looking at a new kind of farming and food production.
I would caution the Minister of Agriculture that we have now heard from the agriculture marketing officials from eight provinces who say that they oppose Canagrex, they have some concerns. I look forward to hearing these various representatives in committee voice their concerns.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that one third of our food processing is done by foreigners. The fact that one third of that very strategic industry is controlled by foreigners is something that we as Canadians ought to be sensitive to. The cost of food will inevitably skyrocket and the serious loss of agricultural land is something we must not overlook.
I read with interest the point made by a previous speaker that 36 acres of good agricultural land is disappearing every day in Ontario. I am not certain of the accuracy of that figure, but it certainly indicates a trend that all of us are very concerned about.
The minister wants speedy passage of this legislation. While I agree that we ought to move with as much speed as possible, we must also take our time because this is too important to rush through the House. It certainly needs fine tuning. There are many questions to be raised and answered before we

February 3, 1982
Canagrex Act
enthusiastically support this bill. I am looking forward to its getting to committee where we can call on special witnesses to clarify some of the questions raised over the last number of days during this debate.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, we are poised at a very opportune time. We can set the stage for Canadian agriculture to take off and to move into a period of sustained growth. This might be just the kind of catalyst that Canadians and Canadian food producers have been waiting for for some time. Mr. Speaker, this could be Canada's finest hour when it comes to food production.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that I am very glad to enter this debate today because Bill C-85 is of particular importance to the farming industry, given the severe economic problems which exist in some sections of the economy. I know our farmers and producers will be looking closely at this, and for that reason we should look very carefully at the bill and its provisions for relief in a depressed industry. Coming from a riding which predominantly raises beef and hogs, two very depressed industries, Mr. Speaker, anything that would help them would be very welcome indeed.
I am sure all members of the House support the general principle of this bill which establishes a corporation called Canagrex to promote and develop export markets for our agricultural products. It is a long overdue proposal because anything that helps the production and marketing of the industry's products is more than welcome. However, Mr. Speaker, although there are several positive aspects of Bill C-85, and 1 will go into those in a moment, I believe, as many of my colleagues have said before me, that this bill should be more closely examined in committee. This is necessary because there are a few points which need clarification and there are others which, quite simply, could be changed to better serve our farming industry and its needs.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, one area which needs further scrutiny is the limited size of the budget and staff of the corporation. To put it quite simply, with funds and manpower down to roughly one tenth of the original projections, we have to ask ourselves how or if the corporation will be able to perform the tasks as set out in the bill. The budget was originally set at $62.3 million, with a staff of anywhere from 125 to 175. Now, after the final stamp of cabinet approval, we are faced with a mere skeleton of the original corporation: A budget of $4.1 million with a staff of 12. We have to ask ourselves just how effective this drastically scaled down corporation will be, given the tasks it is expected to undertake.
A brief look at what Canagrex is expected to do will illustrate my point, because it says in the bill that Canagrex can:
(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;
(b)	undertake and assist in promotion of the use of Canadian agricultural products and food products, in improvement of the quality and variety thereof and in publication of information in relation to those activities;
(c)	enter into contracts with Canadian companies, co-operatives, marketing boards, associations or other Canadian enterprises or with individuals carrying on business in Canada to act as their marketing representative in marketing agricultural products and food products or to provide managerial, technological, marketing or other counselling and consulting services to them;
(d)	enter into contracts with foreign governments to provide agricultural products and food products and services related to agriculture and food and into subcontracts with Canadian enterprises or individuals referred to in paragraph (c) for the provision to foreign governments of any of the products and services that Canagrex has itself contracted to provide;
(e)	enter into joint ventures with governments, individuals, corporations or enterprises other than corporations;
(/) make, on the recommendation of the minister and subject to conditions of general application, grants and contributions for the purposes for which it is established;
(g) purchase, lease or otherwise acquire and hold real and personal properly-
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think members will agree these are very wide-ranging powers and we have to wonder how a corporation, like the one proposed, could realistically perform all these activities on an annual budget of $4 million while being administered by only a dozen people. How could a company so small be reasonably expected to compete for international markets?
At a time of so-called economic restraint, we should not be paying lip service to such an important proposal as the one before us today. By slicing the budget and personnel of the proposed corporation, all in the name of austerity, we may not be doing a valued service to the agricultural industry. In its proposed form, Canagrex may simply be too weak and ineffective to stand on its own. By possibly integrating the agency into the Department of Agriculture, perhaps the idea of promoting our exports will be better served. I think it is fair to say that this aspect of the bill needs further attention in committee.
Another question concerning Bill C-85 which needs to be answered is whether this proposed Crown corporation will aid and assist existing Canadian agricultural exporting corporations, or whether it will compete directly with them for foreign markets. How Canagrex fits into the market in this respect is not clear from its terms of reference.
Further problems pop up when we look at how negotiated contracts are supposedly filled by Canadian suppliers. How will it be decided what farmer or group of farmers will supply the needed agricultural products? In times of surplus, will Canagrex buy the excess and then arrange for its export? Can all of this be done with only a $4 million budget?
There are other questions to be answered concerning how Canagrex fits into the new rearrangement of the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The reporting relationship with these departments, along with Agriculture Canada, is not clear and could cause problems of inefficiency and overlapping authority.
February 3, 1982

There were also questions raised earlier as to whether there should be a separate Crown corporation at all to oversee and handle exports of our agricultural products, or whether this agency may do a better job if, as I just mentioned, it were a division of the Department of Agriculture. I believe this approach has merit, given the fact that Canagrex will be a much smaller body than was first anticipated. By being an agency of Agriculture Canada, Canagrex could have direct access to the resources, expertise and personnel of the department. A Crown corporation may not be necessary or be the best way to export our agricultural products.
Regardless of the form Canagrex takes, there is no question in my mind-and I know the minister is well aware of the fact-that we have some top men with the Department of Agriculture who have the drive and ability to give guidance and leadership to this new agency. If they are given the opportunity by the minister, I personally would have no difficulty in stating that this new body would have no real problems in overcoming those first difficult hurdles.
Other areas of concern centre around how this new proposed corporation, Canagrex, will be kept responsible to Parliament. This is an important concern. We know that a report will be submitted to Parliament each year through the Minister of Agriculture; and this is fine, but is this link strong enough to ensure adequate accountability? Perhaps it is, but if we create another Crown corporation, we must ensure it does not run away on us.
Perhaps one way to keep strict tabs on Canagrex would be to submit its yearly report to committee. We might also provide a sunset clause, which would mean that after five years its mandate would have to be renewed and its progress justified. To have its books open to the Auditor General each year would be another way of keeping control over the corporation.
As I have said before, the concept or principle of Bill C-85 is acceptable to most members. There is no problem with this aspect. Beyond accepting the general principle of promoting our exports, there are a number of provisions within the bill that deserve a passing note. As I said before, any bill that intends to help our agriculture industry and our farmers is always welcome. I believe it is time we entered the international market in a systematic and aggressive way. Recognizing that many of our small farms and farm industries lack any real expertise, knowledge and the financial resources to become effective exporters, the creation of Canagrex is a positive step in the right direction. Canagrex supposedly would enter into joint ventures with agricultural exporters by providing guarantees and loans. Co-ordination of the agriculture industry's exports is highly desirable and long overdue.
This umbrella corporation would also offer another service to our farmers. It would seek out and secure export contracts, long-term contracts, which hopefully would bring about stability of prices, increased production, and a ready-made and expanded market, all of which would hopefully do wonders to bring the industry out of its severe economic recession.
This aspect would be especially helpful to beef producers, given the fact that the prices in this industry are way down, as
Canagrex Act
is the demand for beef itself. Hopefully, with access to new international markets, beef prices would rise to better reflect the cost of production, yet remain competitive internationally. This aspect of C-85 is welcome, as long as the corporation ends up doing efficiently what it is designed to do.
Also, whether we care to admit it or not, the idea of state-to-state negotiated contracts is becoming the fashion these days. More and more countries prefer to handle trade through central agencies because of growing suspicion toward private organizations. Therefore, if we want to be competitive and aggressive in the marketing of our agricultural products abroad, then we must recognize the importance of this new form of marketing.
The idea of going for long-term contracts also warrants support, especially because of the clear benefits of stability of price for our producers as well as a secure market for our products. Also, it is clear that prospective customers are looking for long-term contracts as well so that their problem of supply will be minimized. Thus, a recognition of this aspect of exporting is important and positive.
I have briefly outlined some of the strengths and weaknesses of Bill C-85. I can only say that clause by clause examination in committee will hopefully make a good bill in principle and a better bill in detail.
In this respect, there is no question but that I find myself in agreement with the remarks of my hon. friend and colleague, the hon. member from Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) when he said earlier in this debate that the top priority of Canagrex should be, above everything else, concerned with the promotion and sale of our agricultural products to foreign countries and to fill a gap to make those sales which otherwise would not be made.
The committee stage and the clause by clause study will be most important to the passage of this bill, given some of the very worth-while proposals that have been mentioned during the course of this debate. During the committee hearings, it is very important that we have input, not only from Members of Parliament, but also input from industry, provincial representatives, people from other facets of agriculture, agriculture-related businesses, and other individuals or interested groups. I believe that this kind of input is most important and indeed imperative to make this a truly good bill. It would only remain then for the minister to be prepared to accept constructive changes and amendments, completely setting aside partisan politics. Political biases and decisions made for the sake of politics, and politics alone, would do a great disservice to our farmers who have enough on their minds trying to break even and stay solvent without having to put up with the added frustrations of self-serving politicians. Hopefully, this indeed will be the case during the committee meetings on this important bill, and I look forward to being in attendance at these meetings.
As I have said before, on many occasions, and I will say again, as one who made his living for many years serving the farmers and producers in my profession as a rural veterinarian, and knowing their problems first hand, if we want farmers to keep producing food for us we must ensure they make a buck.

February 3, 1982
Canagrex Act
They have to have a profit to survive. Increased export sales of their products would be one way of accomplishing this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to congratulate the member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) on his speech. Indeed, the main objective of this legislation is to promote exports of our agricultural products. It is therefore clear that we are not going to discuss other priorities until we have dealt with the main purpose of the bill. Second, the hon. member referred to the matter of the Crown corporation. I agree that a study is essential. I do not see why he is against the principle of Crown corporations, because in the agricultural sector, the most effective tool we have at the present time is the Canadian Wheat Board. [English]
The Canadian Wheat Board, as the hon. gentleman knows, is one of the most efficient operations in the international marketplace in terms of marketing grain. I commend to the hon. gentleman a book which was published last year entitled, if I recall correctly, "The Merchants of Grain", which does a pretty good job of describing the international grain market. The only institution not in the private sector which is mentioned as being an efficacious one and a very profitable one is the Canadian Wheat Board. In effect, Canagrex is coming in with a good Canadian history of the use of Crown corporations in terms of marketing effort.


Mr. Thacker:: Do you believe that? If you do, you believe in Santa Claus.


Mr. Blais:: I believe in that. I have the proof. We can look at Canadian history in terms of the profitable use of Crown corporations in order to fill huge gaps that the private sector has ignored. If there is one gap it has ignored, it is the marketing of agricultural products for exports.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) identified this bill as being one of the major pieces of legislation to be introduced. I fully agree with him. For that I commend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). When we were dealing with the initial stages of this bill last week, one member of the opposition had the temerity to state that this Minister of Agriculture had not been very active. I asked for a review of the highlights of this minister's career. I identified 50 major policy issues and initiatives taken by this minister. This measure is one of the most important he has brought forward. It is not only important for today but will be crowned with satisfaction and glory because of the benefits it will provide to Canadian farmers.
I commend and congratulate the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) on his participation in this debate. I can understand his interest. He was chairman of the Special Committee on the National Trading Corporation. That committee recommended the establishment of a national trading
corporation. It does not yet exist. However, Canagrex is directly in accordance with the recommendations of that task force. I am pleased that Canagrex is now going to assume an aggressive role in the international marketplace in order to market Canadian products.
There is a tendency is some commercial circles to feel that because we are Canadian, somehow those who need our products will come here to place their orders because we have these wonderful products to sell. Nothing could be further from the truth. The major trading nations today are the most aggressive, most profitable and have the most viable economies.
Japan is always given as an example. The reason for its economic state today is that the Japanese go into the international marketplace and peddle very efficiently. Before introducing a product, they conduct a market analysis to see what requirement there is for the product being contemplated. Once a demand for the product is identified, they encourage its production.
Taiwan is another example. I spoke with a member of the opposition who had made a recent trip to Taiwan. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) indicated quite candidly that he was impressed with the marketing efforts of the Taiwanese. I, too, made a trip to the Middle East and southeast Asia. In Hong Kong, Taiwan and Malaysia the major activity was marketing. Without marketing, you do not liquidate your inventory. If you do not liquidate your inventory, you do not manufacture. Without manufacturing, there is no employment. Without employment there is unemployment.
This sector of the economy is essential. Canada has been an agricultural country since its very beginning. When my ancestors came here in the late seventeenth century, they did not trade furs. They began farming on Isle d'Orleans. Subsequent generations also engaged in farming. The family of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) have occupied the same farm for nine generations. Therefore, we have been an agricultural-based country since our inception, and it shows. As the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap said, we are a net exporter. In 1980 we had a $4.3 billion surplus in agricultural products. As he indicated, without grain there would be a net deficit of close to $300 million in agricultural products. We have a surplus in that area of agricultural production in our international trade stimulated by a very strong Crown agency, the Canadian Wheat Board.
We have a deficit in the other sector because we are not marketing our agricultural products in the way we should. Most international dealings with regard to agricultural products are government to government and are handled through the export supply centre acting on behalf of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. Last year I signed a contract on behalf of the CCC with Algeria for the sale of $66 million worth of canola oil. That was a marketing effort made by Industry, Trade and Commerce. They identified the market and filled the requirement.
Our record in terms of marketing agricultural products has been very aggressive. Canola oil is a typically Canadian product. It is a research and development effort of the Department
February 3, 1982

of Agriculture. Rapeseed, as hon. members know, has a very high acid content. As a result, its marketability was not superior in terms of cereals. The Canadian research and development effort was led by the Department of Agriculture. It reduced the acid content from approximately 40 per cent to about 2 per cent, making that product immensely attractive to the international community. 1 am advised that to date, in terms of our investment in canola oil research, we have a $100 return for every one dollar invested. In 1961 we received $12 million from canola. In 1981 we received $600 million gross farm cash receipts from canola. In 1943 we only had a few hundred hectares of canola. In 1980, we have over two million hectares of land under canola cultivation.
I am interested in this because I recognize that because of the pride we have in canola, we go out and peddle it. We ought to be doing that and will now do that in other areas. There will be substantial advancement toward the development of new, marketable products in Canada.
I had the good fortune of being in Lethbridge, Alberta last week.


Blaine Allen Thacker: It is a great place.


Jean-Jacques Blais: It is a lovely place. It is very similar to North Bay. It has approximately the same population, the same racial mix-not as many French-Canadians, but we might work on that. That particular community is farm-oriented, as you know, because it is in southwestern Alberta, an area most affected by the Chinook winds, making it relatively dry and very prone to the growth of winter wheat.
During my visit to Lethbridge I was briefed by the director-general of the western region, Dr. Andrews, about the research and development effort being carried on in Lethbridge. I was subsequently taken through the station by the scientists responsible for various sections. Can you believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is only one of 15 research and development stations? There is $50 million spent in western Canada on research and development every year. I do not know how much the building cost, but 1 would wager that if you had to replace the research and development station in Lethbridge, it would cost $50 million or $60 million.
At that station they are doing research on basic soil conditions. Of course, their efforts are concentrated on the particular soils found in southwestern Alberta and the conditions affecting that soil. They are studying the adaptability of that soil to new products with regard to the atmospheric conditions in that area.
Of course, they are doing basic research on cereals and the blights, spores and various weaknesses that affect those particular cereals in order to develop resistant varieties. They are doing this with specific application to southwestern Alberta.
They are also involved in a science which I had not heard of before, although I have been bugged by them a lot. The science is called parasitology, which is the study of parasites
Canagrex Act
which affect cattle. I was very interested in this with relation to northern Ontario, because the blackfly is one of the parasites which is undergoing study, especially at Lake Talon, which is infested with blackfly during the summer. It may be possible to control them. I say that lightly because the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) has a cottage on Lake Talon. It is only infested when he is there and it clears up when he leaves.


Mr. Jarvis:: Somebody has to speak for the blackflies.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The fact is, the blackfly is now being studied to see how we can effectively control it as a pest to the milk-producing cow and other cattle.
In Lethbridge they are also conducting a very serious study in genetic engineering and have had tremendous success in that particular area. Another endeavour which is already providing some profit is the study on raising bees which can pollenate alfalfa.
It was an amazing experience and I invite every member of the House to visit a research station if there is one in their vicinity, to see the kind of Canadian superiority there is in agricultural research and development. As I said, that was only one station out of 15. That one was in western Canada. Sometimes there is a tendency to neglect the federal presence in western Canada-


Donald W. Munro: No way; we cannot get over it.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I can say that there is immense progress being made in research and development.


Blaine Allen Thacker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I presume the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) will support the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) when his estimates come up and he asks for more money for research and development.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you quite candidly that the Minister of Agriculture can count on me as an ally on most issues. I can tell the hon. member that I also sit on the Treasury Board and 1 am very sensitive to agricultural issues. 1 can also tell him that I am very impressed by the government's preparation of the agricultural estimates and, of course, the ability of the Minister of Agriculture to defend his departmental estimates.
I should emphasize my own interest in this because there are many farmers in my riding who are all very productive and progressive and wish to be even more successful than they are. Since you also come from northwestern Quebec, Mr. Speaker, you will know that I have ministerial responsibility over an area which combines with your area constituting 24 million acres of arable agricultural land. That massive clay belt which covers northwestern Quebec and northeastern Ontario will provide us with foodstuffs, not only for our domestic market but for the international market, for some time to come.

February 3, 1982
Canagrex Act
I am not only interested in the international market for agricultural products, but I am concerned about all our marketing. Canada is a major trading nation but it is not exploiting what it should be exploiting with respect to international trade. The reason for this is that we have not been sufficiently aggressive or had the required interest to seek out those international markets. I say this with all sincerity and honesty.
If one looks at our competitors and the instruments made available to them, one would see how weak and ineffective we are in creating our own instruments. I decry the absence of a national trading corporation which would have the aggressive stance that Canagrex will have. As the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) candidly indicated, this will be a corporation which will be actively engaged in the marketing, promotion and sale of our products as a corporation or through joint ventures or through whatever marketing arrangements it deems fit to make. But it will be in the field of promoting agriculture. Without a stable market the producer will not be encouraged to make the enormous investments now required in agriculture.
In my view, the Minister of Agriculture is one of the best we have ever had in Canada and I know at least one other man who would believe that. 1 say to the minister that this is a bill which is essential, not only in terms of agriculture but one which is following in the tradition of the Canadian Wheat Board, and will undoubtedly be emulated by the creation of similar instruments to enable Canada to market all of its vast variety of products, goods and services that the Canadian brain has been able to develop.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Of course.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that he was interested, as a member of cabinet, in the problems that exist for farmers. Has the minister looked into the very serious situation which exists for the farmer in relation to the continuation of the family farm within the budget provisions relating to annuities and so on?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Oberle:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister entertain a further question?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Of course, if it is as easy as the last one.


Frank Oberle: I do not know if it is as easy as the last one, but the minister spoke very eloquently about the Canadian Wheat Board. He said that it is a very effective agency and an exemplary one which other nations should copy. If this agency is so effective, can the minister tell us why it is selling wheat to the European Economic Community, coarse grain, for less than half the price it is resold at, and why it is selling wheat
and other coarse grains to Japan, for instance, for less than the price of production in our own country?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased if the hon. member would provide me with the figures he has. One of the abilities of the Canadian Wheat Board is that it has knowledge of the marketplace in which it is operating, and it is able to liquidate its stock at the best possible price by being very, very secretive about the prices it obtains for its commodities from various sources. I would not want the hon. gentleman thinking that even if I had information-which I do not-concerning how much was obtained in which market by the Canadian Wheat Board for the Canadian farmer, I would let him know, because what I look at is the bottom line-how much the farmer who produces the wheat gets at the end of the year for the wheat he has entrusted to the Canadian Wheat Board.


Frank Oberle: It is below the cost of production.


Jean-Jacques Blais: It is not lower than the cost of production.


Frank Oberle: Try farming some day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tousignant):: Order, please. This is not the question period, and I am afraid we cannot entertain any more questions.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Go ahead. I am never asked any in the question period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tousignant):: 1 think the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) should now be given the floor.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is useful to remind ourselves every once in a while of the purpose of second reading debate. A number of speakers have addressed themselves to that without defining the purpose of second reading debate but, as I say, it is useful to remind ourselves of just what we are doing here at this time.
To my way of thinking we are highlighting and underlining some of the peculiarities of the bill before us, some special features it might contain, and drawing them to the attention of those upon whom this bill will have an impact so that they will know what that impact will be.
The consequence of this underlining and highlighting will render the treatment of the bill, when it reaches committee, much more effective, because at that time, because of our underlining and highlighting these features, those upon whom the bill will have an impact will be able to come to the committee and present their particular cases.
One of the first peculiarities which comes to my attention when I examine this bill is in Clause 2, which provides definitions. I will come back to the acronym "Canagrex" in a minute, but according to the definition contained in Clause 2-Canagrex is to be concerned with agricultural products- agricultural products are defined in the following manner:
February 3, 1982

-"agricultural product" includes animals and every other natural or processed product or byproduct of agriculture, but does not include any product or byproduct that is wholly or mainly a fish or forestry product or byproduct;
By my reading of that, an agricultural product could very well be wheat or flour. Therefore, the question which immediately arises in my mind is why we are to have an instrument of government to do what is already being done by the Canadian Wheat Board. I find that rather peculiar. Or is this to be an instrument by which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) can achieve the purpose he has long been known to hold, of capturing from the person presently responsible in Parliament for the Canadian Wheat Board, Senator Argue, responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board and including it within Canagrex?
If that is not the case, I am still obliged to ask myself why we should have another agricultural export sales organization. We already have the Canadian Wheat Board. People have been extolling its virtues. Those virtues speak for themselves. They are extollable, and I am glad they are being extolled. But why, if we have the Canadian Wheat Board in place and doing a good job, are we superimposing another organization? Perhaps, as I suggest, the Minister of Agriculture is anxious to get under his umbrella through this legislation something he has wanted to have within his control for a long time, namely, the Canadian Wheat Board. That is the first matter related to this legislation which I think is worthy of being brought to the attention of those who will be affected by Canagrex. I do not think there is any question but that with the majority here, either in its present form or in an amended form this bill will in due course become law.
1 note that this bill was brought forward on December 8. That is noted on the front page. This bill was read the first time on December 8, 1981. On January 12, 1982, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went to the theatre in the press building and announced a complete reorganization of the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He created within the Department of External Affairs a branch to be under the general direction of a minister of state for international trade, who previously was in another ministry as a minister of state for international trade under the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray).
Two questions come to my mind as the result of this. On December 8 this bill was brought before us. On January 12 there was a reorganization respecting international trade. Why is the minister responsible for international trade not to be responsible for the Canagrex operation? It relates to international trade. The "ex" in "Canagrex" presumably means export. It might mean exploitation; I am not sure. It might mean exploitation, or does it have some other significance? Could it be exchange? Perhaps it is exchange. There is talk of the possibility of our returning to the barter business.
There is one other niggling matter at the back of my mind. In view of the great concern of the Canadian people about the budget, inflation, unemployment and so forth, why, soon after our return from the Christmas break, are we not dealing with
Canagrex Act
those matters instead of this? Are we just treading water while the government tries to come to grips with the problems of inflation, high interest rates and so forth and until the government brings legislation to the House? I suppose when that is done this matter will be shifted, perhaps, to the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Lumley). Perhaps it will be shifted to the Canadian Wheat Board, because it is a matter of selling abroad, and we will have been debating here to no purpose. I wonder if there was consultation. There must have been. I am at a loss to understand how the minister can sit there and smile when there is the threat of someone else taking responsibility for agricultural products being sold outside the country, namely, the Minister of State for International Trade. I believe those two features deserve underlining right away.
There has been an extraordinary reorganization of the Department of External Affairs. The Minister of State for International Trade has moved to another organization and presumably will take over responsibility in Canada missions abroad for agricultural attaches. Admittedly, there are not enough of them. However, I assure the minister that there are a good many foreign service officers who, being generalists, are able to turn their hands to anything along that line.
I have personal experience having been an agent, if you like, for the sale of live beef in Central America. I had to go out to the plane on a Sunday morning in order to make sure that the cattle were offloaded. We managed to get them up to a fair in Liberia in northern Costa Rica. This is a commission that all well-trained foreign service officers are capable of carrying out if anyone were to give them the direction to do it. This was a private enterprise, if I remember correctly, and was sponsored to some extent by the province of Ontario. Ontario beef cattle were sent to Central America for breeding purposes and they were fine animals. I was proud to be able to go to the cattle fair in Costa Rica and tell the farmers that they were from Canada.
I do not believe this government has really tried to make use of the facilities that are available abroad. I hope the minister who is now in charge of international trade will do so. Perhaps he could borrow some of the specialists from the Department of Agriculture. This was one of the aspects of this great melting pot process which took place on January 12 when so much was incorporated into the Department of External Affairs.
If this organization is not going to be incorporated into the Canadian Wheat Board or absorbed by the Canadian Wheat Board, then 1 think the minister has to explain, either here when he winds up debate, or in committee, the relationship in his own mind between it and the reorganization of the Department of External Affairs. I think that is only fair, because when there are two separate entities bent on accomplishing the same purpose there is bound to be conflict. I do not think we need conflict in this matter and 1 hope the minister will be able to explain this particular aspect of the bill. Will Canagrex operate on its own abroad or through the missions abroad? Is

February 3, 1982
Canagrex Act
there an element of jealousy or a feeling that the Department of External Affairs or the trade commissioner service has not been doing its job properly? I think we deserve an explanation from the minister.
There is one other feature of this bill which deserves to be underlined and indeed I have underlined it very clearly in my copy of the bill. We must remember that Canagrex presumably means "Canadian agricultural exports".
The other suggestion I made was somewhat facetious. Export is its main purpose. That being so, 1 wonder why we should have the following provision in Clause 14(1 )(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 and
Clause 14(1 )(i) reads:
as additional security for any loan made or guarantee given under this act, take, hold and sell mortgages on real and personal property and any other security;
Is Canagrex going to take on the mortgages of farmers? Is it going to deal with real estate mortgages in the urban centres? Is it going to assume some of the mortgage lending needs of our supermarket areas? Why is it dealing in mortgages in this country when its purpose is to promote the export of agricultural products?
Clause 14(l)(j) reads:
acquire, by foreclosure or other proceedings or in any other manner, and hold any real and personal property mortgaged to Canagrex ...
What is Canagrex getting involved in, Mr. Speaker? Is it the export of agricultural products or the demolition of some of Canada's farms? I think we are entitled to ask that question about these outrageous powers. I am entitled to ask but I am not sure I am going to get an answer. I hope the minister will get around to it.


Mr. Whelan:: You will get a satisfactory answer if you give me time.


Donald W. Munro: That is one reason why I am underlining these particular features of the bill. I think they require some clarification so that those who may be affected or feel that they could be affected will present their objections or support at committee stage.
More than one speaker on this side of the House has mentioned the depressed state of our agricultural industry. I come from a rural and urban riding, Mr. Speaker. I should like to remind you that the name Saanich is an Indian name meaning rich soil. It could be related to the riding in the province of Quebec called Terrebonne or Terreriche. Saanich means rich soil, and when it was originally in the hands of the Indians it was a food-producing area. A lot of it is being black-topped now and some of it is being taken out of production, as the minister knows. From the smile on his face I think he was expecting this part of my speech.
The minister and his officials say that it has to be taken out of production because of the presence in some soil of a parasite known as the golden nematode.	[DOT]


Eugene Whelan: Out of production for certain products only.


Donald W. Munro: That is correct. Potatoes are a host crop and I believe tomatoes are also a host crop. The minister and his officials know a great deal more about the golden nematode than anyone else in Canada, I suppose. If it is as dangerous as the minister claims, perhaps he should organize a meeting of those people in the riding of Esquimalt-Saanich who are affected and explain the danger that he foresees. He could do that in a variety of ways. He could get in the jet and go out there. It is a great place to be at this time of year, particularly in view of the weather outside here tonight.
If he cannot go out there I suggest that he could use the conference call technique. This is a sample procedure and requires just a little bit of organization. There is an experimental station very near the area of the riding where the adulterated soil is. This station is very highly lauded by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais).
The minister should organize in the experimental stations in Saanich a meeting during which he could talk with farmers. This would enable farmers to raise their questions, and he could explain exactly why this particular soil was removed from potato production. Also he could explain to them that he is attempting to organize some form of compensation, not for removing that soil from production for all time, but possible compensation for some of the machinery farmers have purchased for potato production, or assistance, if they require it, to purchase machinery for other products such as the crops which are being suggested by his officials. He could also explain the dangers which he and his officials foresee.
First, how dangerous is golden nenjatode? Is it as dangerous as some people maintain? Farmers in that riding say that there is no place in the world where it has been exterminated and that there are a number of places in the world where potatoes are still being grown in nematode-infected soil for export. If these stories are not correct, the minister has an obligation to explain it to them. If it is as dangerous as he insists, could he explain some of the consequences of golden nematode spreading in the immediate area or to the mainland? These are some of the matters which the minister should take up with farmers in that area by means of a conference call.
I have heard it said that if the soil reached the mainland, the agricultural area of the Lower Fraser Valley-and heaven forbid-there would be a danger that all motor traffic through the area to the American border would be stopped at the border and would either be disinfected or sterilized by some kind of steam treatment. This would be very harmful to the tourist industry of British Columbia and to the free movement of people back and forth across the border. Will the minister give an undertaking to explain these dangers, if they exist, to the farmers of the area by one means or another? He could explain them fully on a face-to-face basis or on a telephone-to-telephone basis; he could use some of the available modern techniques to do it. What about the movement of people from the two ferry terminals within the riding, the one to Anacor-tese from Sidney and the one from Swartz Bay to Tsawwass-
February 3, 1982

en? Would those two terminals suffer from such treatment if golden nematode got out of hand?
All farmers-and the ones in my area are no exception-are reasonable people. If they are convinced that what they are doing or what they might do will be harmful to other people, they would see the reasoning behind the restrictions placed upon their planting. There is an element of urgency which I think is worth drawing to the attention of the minister. About the first of March is when the potato crop is planted. If farmers are not convinced by that time of the various dangers that have been alleged, about which they hear and should learn in a convincing manner or by the means I have suggested, the risk is that they will again be planting crops which might have harmful effects. I would not like to see harmful effects spread into other areas, if indeed they are as harmful as the minister and his officials suggest.
There is potential within that riding, by the very nature of its soil richness, for Saanich to be an exporter of small vegetables and fruits as it used to be. Not only because of the tarmacking and the blacktopping but because of the quarantine imposed in the area, it is no longer able to expand as it should. I would like to see it expand as it should. I am sure the minister would manage, with officials at his elbow, by some telephonic means of consultation and back and forth discussion, to persuade farmers, if these dangers exist. This area could become as important an exporter of small fruit and vegetables as it once was.
That area has the good fortune of a mild climate. It is not mild all through the winter, but it is mild to the extent that gas-heated greenhouses, for example, could increase the amount of vegetables in the area for export. Why should there not be some encouragement of that particular form of industry? The greenhouse industry used to be very important. One sees all over the peninsula greenhouses with just frames and broken glass because the government has not taken the lead which the Minister of Supply and Services suggested is the hallmark of this particular minister-the leader of the agricultural community of Canada. Unfortunately, some areas of Canada have not seen that leadership.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would not want to misinform the House. I have talked with representatives of the agricultural society in Saanich. I have met with this group of farmers in public meetings to discuss the golden nematode problem. I was on the telephone just about an hour ago; that is why I was smiling when the hon. member raised this subject. There is nothing on which we have spent more money. We have spent a minimum of $5 million on this one area. I made a decision last fall-and I am perfectly willing to try to explain it even further-so that farmers could plant different crops for production in that area this year.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I hardly think that was a point of order, but I am glad for the clarification. This would be a good time to question the minister. I am delighted the minister assured me that these conversations have taken place.
Canagrex Act


Eugene Whelan: The conference call has not taken place.


Donald W. Munro: Perhaps we are getting somewhere. Maybe I am getting through to the minister and perhaps by this means I am also getting through to farmers. If I could bring together those two elements, chances are the minister would find that Saanich could be restored to the traditional role it played in the south of Vancouver Island as a place of rich agricultural production.
With that message and with particular underlinings of some of the oddities in the bill, I hope I have not offended the minister, particularly by suggesting that he wanted to take the Canadian Wheat Board within his ample embrace through Canagrex or to have Canagrex attached to the Wheat Board. 1 am still puzzled, given the fact that there is a Wheat Board which deals with the export market of wheat products, why we require a new agricultural export agency in the form described here which will be buying and selling mortgages, dealing with foreclosures and various other things. I do not think that is really the role of an agricultural export agency. I do no think the Wheat Board gets involved in those things. If the Wheat Board is taken into the Canagrex agency, I hope that it does not go into the foreclosure business. The foreclosure business has no business in the export of agricultural products.


Mr. A1 MacBain (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all members who have spoken in support of Canagrex, Bill C-85, and in doing so have raised various questions and issues which I shall try to clarify.
Let me briefly recap. Canagrex will be an organization exclusively devoted to searching out and helping to achieve the realization of new agricultural and food export opportunities. As outlined in Bill C-85, it is to be an operational body providing loan and equity funds, undertaking co-ordination and facilitation functions, providing project acceleration grants, and where necessary undertaking normal trading house operations.
The whole nation benefits to the extent that Canada's balance of trade and employment is improved. Groups of farmers will benefit from its ability to assist in the assembly, transport and sale of products. As assured, food and agricultural export markets can be demonstrated to producers and processors, they will produce on a commercial basis to meet this increased demand.
Canagrex will be a highly flexible tool, rounding out the various instruments and measures which the government has put in place in recent years to achieve security of supply and incomes for farmers.
Canagrex will work with existing firms and institutions to expand exports by promoting commercially viable projects and entering into joint ventures.
As indicated, the purpose of Canagrex is to increase the volume and variety of agricultural and food exports from Canada on a sustained basis. In some instances this may mean guaranteeing a loan; providing a grant or contribution; de-
14634

February 3, 1982
Canagrex Act
veloping new facilities; providing a training program; or bringing together existing expertise in Canada. For example, Canagrex will in no way interfere in or interrupt the progress which has been accomplished in the area of pork exports by private industry and the provincial hog marketing boards. The objectives of Canagrex will be to work with the exporters to investigate the potential for Canadian pork in new markets, in developing the infrastructure necessary to enter a new market, and to provide needed follow-up and back-to-back contracts if required. There is often a need to meet increased competition from our competitors, particularly as related to credit. Canagrex could provide a long-term contract together with supporting credit arrangements.
Members have asked how independent Canagrex will be from the government. The responsibility of the board of directors is clearly noted on page 3 of the bill in Clause 6, which provides that the board-
-shall direct and manage the affairs of Canagrex.
Canagrex will, of course, be expected to operate within the framework of Canada's international agreements and policies. It will be responsible to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and provision is made for directive powers as noted on page 8, Clause 14(3), of Bill C-85. It will be accountable to Parliament and its audit by the Auditor General of Canada will also be included, together with a summary of the capital budget of Canagrex which must be tabled in Parliament as noted in Clause 36(5), on page 16.
Some members have been concerned with the size of the staff of Canagrex. It will not be a big bureaucracy. In addition to the 11 -man board of directors, there will be a small full-time staff of whom the president will be the chief executive officer, supported by two vice-presidents and the necessary professional and technical staff.
The annual corporate plan of Canagrex will be a key planning and accounting mechanism. This rolling three-year plan will be updated annually, although it is not foreseen that there should be radical changes from year to year. The annual plan will outline the cost, timing and financing of proposed projects in order to achieve commodity and country objectives of Canagrex.
To assist Canagrex in formulating its corporate plan, the minister will be able to draw upon the expert advice provided through the policy advisory committee, which is an expert committee representing all the provincial governments, the farm and food organizations and the business community.
I should note, Mr. Speaker, that in 1980 Canadian exports of agricultural products other than grains or dairy products to the Third World and countries with centrally planned economics totalled only $650 million. Canagrex, working with individual farms, boards and co-operatives, should be able to expand this trade significantly by negotiating directly with the state trading enterprises in many of these countries.
Some of my colleagues expressed concern that the initial funding of $12.3 million earmarked for Canagrex may be insufficient to allow it to play an effective role. I do not think
this is the case. Canagrex will proceed step by step and prove itself as it goes along. Once it has done so, it will be up to Parliament to provide it with the resources required to do the job.
Finally, it can be said that the Canagrex bill is innovative and visionary. It proposes a new direction for Canadian agriculture. The bill invites all sectors of Canadian agriculture into the arena of world trade. In the past, world trade in agriculture was basically in the domain of grain farmers. As a result, Canadian agriculture has not experienced its full potential. This potential is now within its reach.
In my riding of Niagara Falls, the tender fruit belt of Canada, the new bill will be welcome. I am sure that the grape growers' action committee in my area, the grape juice producers and the wine industry will take full advantage of Canagrex to expand their markets worldwide. I hope that the tender fruits and wines of the Niagara peninsula will soon be well known products around the world.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on second reading debate of Bill C-85. Yesterday I spoke on second reading of Bill C-88 concerning the Farm Credit Corporation. Today's bill concerns Canagrex.
Before I start my major address, I want to respond to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) who praised the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) so generously for over 50 major policy areas, many of which we agreed have been beneficial for agriculture and for which he has had the support of this party. But the Minister of Supply and Services left the very clear impression that the agricultural community was strong, buoyant and forging ahead in Canada because of the Minister of Agriculture.
If that is so, is the Minister of Agriculture prepared to take responsibility for the high interest rate policy of the government, for the high deficit in excess of $90 billion and for the rate of inflation? Is the Minister of Agriculture, or perhaps even the Minister of Supply and Services, prepared to take responsibility for the fact that, while inflation is affecting all of the western industrialized countries, Canada's place in the standard of living hierarchy has, since the commencement of this Liberal administration, dropped from second place to thirteenth place?
So while all countries are suffering inflation and high interest rates, Canada has suffered even more. That seems strange, Mr. Speaker, when you realize that we are a small country of some 23 million people sitting on the assets of half a continent, with resources of unlimited scope, while the 114 million people of Japan sit on a rock in the middle of the ocean and beat us on every count. Perhaps, Sir, it has something to do with the policies of this government, and not as the Minister of Supply and Services claimed.
I wonder if the minister would agree that, while the family of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. February 3, 1982

Lalonde) have been on their farm for some nine generations, they will not be there nine generations from now because of Crown corporations and the capital gains tax. I would be prepared to place a bet with the Minister of Supply and Services to put money into a trust account which would be released in as little as three generations. Because I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that with the capital gains tax that farm will not be in their family three generations from now. The Minister of Supply and Services should give some thought to that, because had there been a capital gains tax throughout the nine generations, it would not be in that family today. It is there because there was no tax on capital or the land.
Canada does not need a tax on capital, Mr. Speaker. We are a young and developing nation and we should still be charging up the hill rather than following the socialist policies of the Liberals and NDP. They have made us old before our time. We are slipping downhill to oblivion as a result of those policies, not climbing up and building so that the young people coming along can genuinely turn this country into a great nation.
Sir, the Minister of Supply and Services spoke very glowingly of the Canadian Wheat Board. That has to be the greatest hogwash I have ever heard. It is again an example of a minister-


Jean-Jacques Blais: It is a Tory creation.


Blaine Allen Thacker: -speaking fondly of something they have never experienced.
Why does he not come out and live on a farm for a while? I will take him to a number of farmers who are hurting because the Canadian Wheat Board, stressing the export of wheat, has hurt production of barley, oats, canola-his beloved canola that we have done so well on in our research and development. The very fact of the Wheat Board controlling the railways, the allocation of cars and quotas has hurt farmers who produce other crops. It has led to enourmous inequities between farmers who produce on the dry land where I come from, where we produce 20 bushels per acre every second year as compared to the irrigated farmer who can produce 75 bushels an acre every year. Yet that great Crown corporation, the Canadian Wheat Board, applies the same quota. It might be two bushels an acre, even if you are producing 75 as compared to 20.
That is a fundamental inequity which has hampered the development of agriculture in the west. Yet the minister stands in this House and waxes eloquent. It is a bit like people who have never experienced socialism, Mr. Speaker. I invite members who challenge this to come out to my riding and meet with new Canadians from Hungary, Poland, from nations that have lived under socialism, because I can tell them that people are trying to get out of even that great country the United Kingdom en masse because of the growing influence of the government and socialism.


Jean-Jacques Blais: On a point of order, does the hon. gentleman who critizes the Wheat Board recognize that for the five months ending December 31, 1981, it managed to increase exports of
Canagrex Act
grain by one million tons, so that the reading now is 10.83 million tons?


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is not a point of order.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is very true, but it could have been even better than that.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Oh, come on.


Blaine Allen Thacker: And it would have been better than that had the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) still been Minister of Transport.
The only sensible thing the Minister of Supply and Services said, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly want him to have this feather in his cap, is that the government should be spending more money on research and development. That is absolutely correct. The government's record is atrocious, and it is not because of the Minister of Agriculture.


An hon. Member:: They spend the money on advertising.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Yes. They should give up spending all this money on advertising, these plucked geese flying across the screen all the time, and put it into research.


Donald W. Munro: Remember that.


Blaine Allen Thacker: He gave an example of canola research returning some $100 per dollar invested. In fact, in other areas of agriculture the return on investment is 482 to one. That is the benefit of research on new grains and varieties. So the minister really needs to go back to school.
Well, Sir, we are discussing the principle of Canagrex, and 1 think when we do that we need to ask: why is this bill needed? By creating another Crown corporation, we create more government in our lives. In fairness and openness let us discuss it. Do we need another Crown corporation and more government in our lives?


Donald W. Munro: Altogether-no!


Blaine Allen Thacker: It is clear from this bill that the Liberals believe we do. It is also absolutely clear as a matter of ideology that the NDP believes we need more government in our lives. I suppose it is a question of balance. Where do we draw the line between the way most of our western nations were 100 years ago when there was no government control? They were all private corporations. If that is the capitalism of the seventeenth century, none of us wants to go back to that. We are not talking about that. However, on the other side, we need to realize that in places like the United Kingdom, France increasingly so, Poland and Russia, they are all, in effect, Crown corporations; there is no private enterprise. None of us would want to live in either of those extremes. So it is a question of balance.
I must say that I thought the Liberals, up to about ten or 15 years ago, were always able to strike a reasonable balance. Now, clearly, they have made a quantum leap to the left where they genuinely believe a centrally planned government can

February 3, 1982
Canagrex Act
handle everything concerned with our way of life. With that we disagree. We need to ask the question, Mr. Speaker, is Canada really better for having over 400 Crown corporations? Before we had those 400 Crown corporations, the vast bulk of which have come into existence in the last 15 years, Canada was clearly on a rising curve. We were a growing nation, one that achieved the second highest standard of living in the entire world under that system. However, in the last 15 years we notice chinks in the armour and Canada's relative position is dropping when we compare ourselves with the other western industrialized nations. Is that because of Crown corporations? Maybe it is. I think it is a factor.


Mr. Anguish:: Suncor, TWA.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Is it because of other policies? We know that at least 25 per cent of new private enterprise will fail within the first year. That is a natural thinning out process caused by inefficiency or bad management. We have 400 Crown corporations, and under that rule you would think that perhaps 100 would have failed. But they never fail when they are involved with government. No matter how inefficient, they go on and on and we pour in more taxpayers' dollars. Look at the figures, Mr. Speaker. This House wrote off over $600 million in order to balance the books of Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited, and the same amount for the St. Lawrence Seaway. Over $800 million every few years for the CNR has to be written off. That is taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker. That is money taken from the hides of Canadians, from the miners who have black lung disease and have to give over 50 per cent of their income to others who decide how it is spent-that is, we here in Parliament. To my way of thinking, that is a very heavy onus. I dislike the fact that we are taking other people's money. They are shortening their lives to pay us tax dollars, and we are deciding how to spend it. I believe that the Liberal government does not apply proper judgment or exercise control and self-restraint in the expenditure of this money.
Another reason Crown corporations are so dangerous is that they really erode the tax base so that there is not a fair sharing of the tax load in this country. We have over 400 Crown corporations, the vast bulk of which have very special tax rules and do not pay any income tax. That throws an extra burden on those truly productive people in our society, such as the miners who are digging up new coal for export to bring money into the country, the grain farmers, and the grape growers in the Niagara peninsula. Those are people who are genuinely producing something new which we sell to other countries. We take their money and, as a result, we have a higher standard of living. These Crown corporations erode that tax base and we should be very concerned about that. Unfortunately, the government is aided and abetted in that lack of concern to a tremendous degree by the NDP.
I want to deal with the situation facing agriculture because the government has led the Canadian people to believe that Canagrex will really solve the farmers' problems and will somehow put more money into their pockets. We know, and I
am sure Your Honour realizes as a producer, that the only way to put more money in farmers' pockets is to give them a better price for their products. The reality is that we have been selling our western grain at less than the cost of production. I know that for a fact, as a past producer. I am sure it is true with grapes and other agricultural products.
For example, the fertility of the western great plains has dropped by 50 per cent over the last 75 years. In short, when we first turned over that sod, it had much grass in it, as the grass had been fallowing for a long period of time it was very fertile soil. We have been producing grain from that soil and exporting that grain at a price; but the export price has never given us enough money to put enough return back into the land by way of proper rotation of green crops which would keep that fertility up. As a result, our western plains are now 50 per cent less fertile than they were 75 years ago. In another 15, 20 or maybe 50 years, our plains will clearly become a great, huge dustbowl. It must be stopped, and the only way it can be stopped is by increasing export prices. The government should be stressing that idea rather than the idea of an export corporation, because to produce more grain for export will simply mean a faster depletion of our soil.
We need more money, and that is where the government should be directing its attention, but it will not do so. It will not even officially talk to the United States, to Argentina and to Australia, the other major exporters of grain, concerning the situation. It has been left to hon. members on our side, such as the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberg-er). He singlehandedly raised the concept with these grain exporting nations which at least agreed to charge a sufficient price to ensure that the land is returned to its former level of fertility. I would rather see our Minister of Agriculture directing his attention to that.
1 would also like to see him directing his attention to providing more money for research and development. We would all be prepared to help him in any way possible. The Minister of Supply and Services has noted that we have a great research facility in my riding of Lethbridge which has made a tremendous contribution to Canada. Governments of all stripes and all parliamentarians should be proud that they have allocated money for that purpose. However, there is no doubt but that the plant is becoming more obsolete, the equipment is becoming more obsolete, and we simply need more money. We have an animal disease research centre where scientists are working under conditions which are rapidly becoming intolerable. The Minister of Agriculture wants to have a new building there, I certainly do, and so do all of the scientists.


Eugene Whelan: J. J. is going to help us.


Blaine Allen Thacker: 1 suspect that "J. J.", as the Minister of Agriculture says, will help us. I will certainly write a letter to solicit his help. However, we need to allocate more money, and I am not sure that an allocation for an export corporation is a good idea at this time when I compare it to the needs of

February 3, 1982
research and development in our country. We cannot get around this fact.


Eugene Whelan: I rise on a point of order. 1 am sure, Mr. Speaker, again, that this hon. member would not want to misinform the House. However, we are very much aware that agricultural extension is a provincial responsibility, although we do get involved federally sometimes. However, if we were to use all the scientific knowledge we have right now concerning soil conservation, proper cultivation and seeds, as well as all our available technology, we could increase grain production on the presently cultivated land in western Canada by 30 per cent in two years. Some farmers are using all of that technology, but it is not getting through to every farmer. Therefore, when we speak about research, there is a tremendous potential for increasing productivity which is not being developed to its fullest because the technology and scientific knowledge is not being used by all.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Yes, that is true. This is the type of exchange of information we should have more frequently between government and opposition members. However, what the minister has not said, although 1 know he knows it to be true, is that while that technology is not being used, the main handicap in western Canada for the export of the grain is the transportation system. For years and years we have not been able to get an allocation of public moneys federally, or provincially for that matter, to expand the railway system. During past election campaigns the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has promised doubletracking, but it has never led to a doubletrack.


Mr. Huntington:: What are we going to do about the Crow rate?


Blaine Allen Thacker: The real question I wanted to address concerns the setting up of this export corporation. 1 am not at all convinced in my mind that it is necessary, because Canada is really an importer of foods. 1 am not saying this for any ulterior motive; Western grain brings in foreign exchange, but considering all the other agricultural products, Canada is not an exporter of food at all, it is an importer. There are many other things we could be doing in the nation to make ourselves self-sufficient before we even begin to discuss exporting.
For example, there are many natural gas lines going out of Alberta and within Alberta, and every few miles there is a compressor station which has as a byproduct the enormous release of energy and heat. Presently that byproduct is simply vented into the air; but at every one of those stations across this whole country, and now reaching into the Atlantic region, we could have three or four acres of tomatoes or cucumbers. That would be something the government and the department could do to recapture energy to produce food.


Eugene Whelan: Flowers.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Every tomato that we produce here rather than importing them from California or Mexico would generate money to circulate in Canada. The multiplier effect is four or five times, and we could generally get going back up the hill
Canagrex Act
again rather than down the other side, which is where we are now.
Again, rather than putting this money into an export corporation, why could we not allocate our resources to making the farm more efficient? Why have farmers abandoned the tradition of turning their land over to the next generation? I keep repeating this again and again; 1 am sure the Minister of Agriculture is as tired of hearing it as I am tired of having to say it. However, by doing away with income-averaging annuities and the capital gains reserve, government has genuinely interfered with a very traditional way for farmers to take the land from one generation and give it to the next.
A farmer always cherishes his land. He may be sitting on half a million to $1 million worth of land, but he does not see himself as being a millionaire. He genuinely sees himself as being a steward of that land. Farmers have this peculiar attitude, which is not generally held, that they want their land to go to the next generation. They get a genuine feeling for the land. I guess that feeling comes from having spent so many years on the land, having dust blown into their eyes. Oftentimes their fathers and grandfathers are lying out in the back corner of the rear forty. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources probably has nine generations buried on the land. That gives the farmer a special feeling for the land. By first of all imposing capital gains tax, and then by doing away with these traditional ways of transferring land, we are interfering with that feeling. 1 believe we will be worse off as a nation when we get down the road and there is nothing left but corporations. Many will probably be Crown corporations. We will not have the same feeling of productivity.
[DOT] (W40)
The other day when I said we should not think that we will always be a food exporter, 1 was very serious. The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) thought 1 was being facetious and extreme. I was not at all. He should know that his homeland, Poland, was once an enormous exporter of food. It had private ownership of land and the infrastructure for providing farm input, fuel and the grain delivery system.
Poland exported food until the state came in with centrally planned policies. They do not have the land. Over 90 per cent of the land in Poland is still privately owned. However, once the produce leaves the land, it gets into a centrally planned bureaucracy. Poland is now a massive food importer. I am naive enough to believe the reason for that is because of the centrally planned aspect. The bureaucrats are undoubtedly well-intentioned and intelligent. They tend to make decisions about climatic factors and problems. There are so many variables it really makes that impossible. If that were left to a million farmers, they would individually make decisions within the context of their own farms which would lead to a wiser result than the decision made by the central bureaucracy.
We see this every year in Russia. The people there are hard working. On the 2 per cent or 3 per cent of the land they are entitled to, one-acre plots, they produce more than the massive state communal farms. This is because the farms are theirs.

February 3, 1982
Canagrex Act
They can make decisions when to plant and when to harvest. The bureaucracy in Moscow decides when the state farms will do that. They decide that there will be so many million hectares of wheat and so many of barley. It does not matter if there is too much rain for wheat and the farmers cannot get it seeded until July. They do not have the capacity to switch from wheat to barley. The individual farmers can do that. That is why the state systems fail.
This is why we have such a great need in Canada. We have to defend to the last person in this House when we see governments intruding in that field. I am sure that hon. members opposite do not want to see our agricultural heritage hurt.
When I look at the situation as a relatively new member, I see too many Crown corporations and too many decisions being taken by central bureaucracies. It does not matter whether a government is Liberal, NDP or Conservative. In some provinces with Conservative governments, there is too much government interference with the efficient production of food and its distribution.
When this bill gets to committee, I will want to ask questions about that. Do we really need an export corporation in view of the fact the world population is going to increase so massively? Other countries are becoming more and more centrally planned and are losing their food production capacity.
We will not need to go into the world markets in order to export. They will be beating down our doors. We should be spending our efforts planning and organizing within our nation to become self-sufficient and to produce exports. We will not have to hit the streets to sell. Other countries will bang our doors down; there is no doubt about it.
How will this corporation operate? Will it buy outright for cash? If so, what type of mark-up will it have? Will the corporation pay tax or will another Crown corporation be established which will knock out one, two or six private corporations which presently export food? If it knocks them out, we will lose the tax revenue from those export corporations and their employees.
Will this new replacement corporation pay income tax? If so, how will it be calculated? If it does not pay tax, that will create an unfair burden on the private export corporations which pay tax as well as individual Canadians. We will all have to kick in extra money to keep the corporation going.
The remuneration for new officers will be set by the governor in council. Many on this side, and I am sure many government members, believe that publicly-paid salaries should be public information. Possibly the minister could include that in this bill. We should try that. I am sure that no one from the agricultural community working in this Crown corporation would object to their salary being disclosed, just as the salaries of members of Parliament are. Let us put that in as an amendment.
The powers under Clause 14 are wide enough to permit Canagrex to take over processing and wholesaling plants and
industries. That will take it beyond being an export corporation. That clause should be looked at very carefully. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture can tell us whether it is the intention of the government to have Canagrex expand into the producing and processing plants.
Will Canagrex go one step further, become vertically integrated, buy land and produce food? Clause 14 gives it that type of scope if future directors and future governments of whatever stripe want it to go that way. If we do not want that to happen, let us cut back on that clause so that Canagrex will be a genuine export corporation. We will leave it to future generations and future governments to debate in this House whether they want to take over the production of food.
There are many other matters I could speak about. I would like the minister to refer to an article in the January 27 Globe and Mail headlined "Public misled on Export Plan, Agriculture officials tell Ottawa." We will follow up on that in order to find out the response of the minister. In many ways it is a genuine criticism.
Maybe we should have a sunset law for this corporation so that after four or five years Parliament could take a genuine look at this corporation, rather than the existing situation where the 400 and some corporations can just go and on and on. Why not break with tradition? The agriculture committee has a special relationship that often supersedes politics. Let us be innovative in this area and see how it works. Let those who do not understand agriculture follow us. The minister nods his head yes. I hope he will follow up on that. That is all I will say at this time.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in Parliament on a bill related to agriculture. Agriculture is probably the backbone and mainstay of the economy in my constituency. I take particular pleasure in having the opportunity to talk on Bill C-85 which creates Canagrex. The purpose of the bill is to promote the export of agricultural production.
Many people would say this is a concept that is long overdue. We can agree that we are in a position and time frame where we need a more aggressive world marketing system. We need to be aggressively marketing our Canadian agriculture products. We hope this will help the ailing commodity prices Canadian farmers receive. We know that low farm produce prices do not help our farmers, they help the consumers. How long can subsidization by the farmers last?
In the past little while the beef farmers have been severely hurt. Of course, there are a number of factors. One has been the increased demand for beef in our country. This will probably continue. We have now realized that we cannot depend solely on domestic markets, but must get involved in an aggressive world farm marketing program.
Last summer I had the opportunity to visit Taiwan. It was quite an experience. This country actually comprises fewer square miles than my entire riding. In that small country they
February 3, 1982

have a population of over 65 million people, but what intrigued me was that with a population of that size, I am sure they would have great requirements for a lot of the products we produce in Canada. Yet I found, when talking to Taiwanese trade officials, that in the last decade there has not been a Canadian trade official in that country. What was equally astounding was that the Americans had just been there and had completed setting up a trade office, one that was becoming increasingly busy and promoting American agricultural products, thus creating an opportunity for American farmers to make sales. At the same time as I was there, the Australians were there. What were they doing? They were working on setting up an Australian trade office in Taiwan.
Where were the Canadians? They are not even in the picture yet. Taiwan is a country of 65 million people, a country which I am sure could generate a great demand for our products, yet we Canadians are not even there. Mr. Speaker, I think this bill does emphasize the importance of circumstances such as that and just how important it is for us to get out there and aggressively start marketing our grain products, which in turn will assist farmers in this country. That has not been happening in the past, I suggest, as much as it should have. It is my hope that this kind of legislation will spur that sort of activity, which will in turn benefit all of our farmers.
One of my concerns is that I remain unconvinced that our agricultural problems in Canada have been given the kind of priority that they need. We know that this particular aspect of the problem in agriculture has been promised for at least two elections. It was given cabinet approval, I believe, last February. That is almost a year ago. So we can see that the action on it has not come very quickly.
I have a few concerns about the bill which I would like to address. I see that the time for adjournment is running quite close, so I will get into this area quite quickly. One of my concerns relates to increasing government intervention in agriculture. My colleague from Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) discussed this and talked about some of the problems and concerns he has in this connection. I, too, share such areas of concern.
For example, I wonder why Canagrex is being set up as a Crown corporation. Something that has become apparent to me, as a new member of this House, is that a Crown corporation is not subject to the same scrutiny, to the same questioning, that a Member of Parliament can exercise with respect to a regular government department. Once you have a Crown corporation involved, you cannot ask the same kinds of questions and you cannot get the same type of information.
Another matter of concern to me is that instruments which regulate our farmers are becoming more and more pervasive in our country. What we have to recognize is that the regulations that are placed upon our farmers, or any other sector of our economy, as they become outdated are seldom revoked or replaced. They are left in place and more and more are added to them, until we end up with such a broad base of regulations governing our various agencies and farmers that the massive bureaucracy people are forced to constantly confront consti-
Canagrex Act
tutes an intrusion into their farming methods and farm planning.
Some regulations, of course, do help the farmers and provide them with a few things, such as greater bargaining power, some income security and so on. But what becomes primary and very focal, and is something we often tend to forget, is that our farmers must remain the focal point of our legislation. In other words, all of our agricultural legislation should be designed to meet the needs of the farmers rather than assist the government and the bureaucracy which are behind those regulations. Too often we have seen that happening, where the bureaucracy grows and begins to function for its own benefit and streamlines its own systems at the expense of the very people it was first designed to help.
It is my hope, of course, that Canagrex will be of benefit to our farmers, and I think that is something all of us will want to consider very closely as we go into committee stage and examine the legislation in much more detail.
My colleague from Lethbridge-Foothills also touched on a very significant area, the exporting of our agricultural products. In western Canada the fundamental concern we have to address before we can even talk about exports beyond our borders is getting our products from our farms to the port. The grain transportation system in western Canada has long been inadequate. It has long been less than satisfactory. Recently we have heard talk of $3 billion being set aside for western transportation, but as yet we have seen no evidence of it. So far we have not seen any of that money being spent to improve the western grain transportation system.
My riding is a prime example of some of the difficulties people are having in the area of grain transportation. In my constituency we have three communities in which farmers are facing hauls, to take their wheat or barley from the farm to the elevator, involving a distance of 120 kilometres. Of course, that is all done at their expense. And it is not only expense which comes with the cost of fuel, truck depreciation costs, maintenance and so on, but also expense in terms of his time. Often the farmer is in a position where he has to ship his grain at a time when he is very busy on his farm. So you see a farmer having to travel 120 kilometres and leave his farm idle while he does so. The average distance from farm to terminal in Canada is only 20 kilometres, so we can see that the transportation aspect becomes very serious to these people who are trying to get their grain out to the ports before Canagrex can even begin to consider exporting it.
There have been many studies done about this very problem. There was the Hall commission report which talked about off-line elevators and how they might be designed to assist our farmers. But again, nothing came of it. So the farmers who have this transportation problem have experienced it now for several years. They still have it and it looks as though they will continue to have it for a long period of time. In the meantime the government is saving millions of dollars by reason of not having to spend money on infrastructure in those areas; the railways are saving a lot of money because they are not required to make any capital expenditures; and the elevator

February 3, 1982
Canagrex Act
companies as well are saving money because the farmers are absorbing the full cost of travelling those distances. So the only ones that are paying are the farmers, those people in these times who can least afford it.
Those costs become extremely important, Mr. Speaker. I received a letter recently from someone in my riding which, I think, demonstrates very clearly what 1 have been saying. One of my constituents wrote to me and talked about the cost of producing his crops. His input costs per acre included fertilizer at around $26, herbicides were about $12, certified seed was around $9, fuel and oil was about $12. Added to that are machinery repairs, utilities, taxes and so on. His total costs came to $102 per acre.
That became very significant lately when there were crop failures in the area because of drought conditions. I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and asked for some assistance, but he suggested that they buy crop insurance.
Crop insurance, Mr. Speaker, would have come to about $50 an acre less than half the direct expenses those farmers face in producing those crops.
The other thing affecting the farmers badly is, of course, interest rates. As we look at these problems we can see that if we want to consider exporting our products we have to take a very close look at the domestic problems we experience in order to get our crops out.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I take it that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) is simply recognizing that it is six o'clock; he is not terminating his remarks?


Albert Glen Cooper: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, and pursuant to Standing Order 2(1), I do now leave the chair until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 4, 1982