1982-12-16

METRIC CONVERSION

[Stage Direction]
CANADA POST CORPORATION	APPLICATION TO FARM MACHINERY
REQUEST FOR STAMP TO COMMEMORATE UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS' BICENTENNIAL	Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher): Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the Minister of
['No.']
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of Canada Post and the Minister responsible for Canada Post refusing to issue a bicentennial stamp to commemorate the bicentennial celebration of the United Empire Loyalists settlement in Lower Canada in 1783 and Upper Canada in 1784, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan):	Consumer and Corporate Affairs' (Mr. Ouellet) threats to prosecute users of imperial measurement, and in view of the fact that many hydraulic parts for farm purposes are of SAE standards, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart): That the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs not engage in threats to prosecute distributors and users of agricultural parts which conform to SAE standards.
That this House ask Canada Post to issue a bicentennial stamp to recognize the significant contribution this migration has made to Canada's heritage.	Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



[Stage Direction]
December 16, 1982

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The economy of the Yukon is on the verge of total collapse. In September of this year the Government of the Yukon issued a series of detailed proposals for recovery which were presented to the Western Committee of Cabinet on September 10. Since then no response has been forthcoming from the federal Government. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone):
That the federal Government move immediately to support the imaginative initiatives proposed by the Yukon Government before the Territory is reduced to a complete economic disaster area.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, because legislation to enact a bill entitled Canagrex is before the House of Commons with the vice/vise of closure, and since the Bill would create yet another Crown corporation when the Auditor General has just stated that 480 Crown corporations are a subgovernment without accountability, and because Clause 14 of the Canagrex legislation gives the Government extraordinary powers of control over farm management, production, and sales, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Wetaski-win (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this Parliament warn the Government that whenever it introduces closure simultaneously, on two stages of debate, and before any debate on the said stages has taken place, and does so while debate on another issue is taking place, it should continue to understand that there will be a parliamentary price to pay.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR YUKON
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, today marks a quarter century of service by a parliamentary pugilist who is loved by the Tories, feared by the Speaker, barely tolerated by the Liberals, and ignored by the NDP. This gentleman is nevertheless universally admired for his knowledge of procedure and his ability to use it to frustrate his opponents. Many the hapless MP has had his verbal breakaway stopped short by our parliamentary Eddie Shack.
Given this auspicious occasion, I would like to take this opportunity to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Members of this House extend their unanimous congratulations to the Hon. Member for Yukon on 25 years of distinguished service to his Party and to our nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: With this reservation, that the Speaker is not afraid of him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nielsen:: Thank you for that.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Banks across the country are cutting back services to their communities while maintaining the spread between interest rates and loans. Several branches in one-back towns in my constituency have closed. The others have restricted their hours of operation. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson):
That the Government instruct the federally chartered banks to cease their current practice of cutting services to rural communities by closing or restricting branch operations.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
December 16, 1982


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, since Canada's new Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines freedom of association under Section 2(d), I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House agree that the right of free association for the purpose of discussing terms and conditions of employment applies to all people in Canada, including employees of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Air Canada is offering management personnel a golden handshake of up to two years' salary for voluntary separation, but refuses to make an offer on similar terms to its other employees, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House instruct the minister of Transport and the President of Air Canada to remove their discrimination against Air Canada employees who made Air Canada successful.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the enactment by the U.S. Congress through an abuse of procedure, adding to a commercial fisheries bill enforcing the Pacific Fisheries Agreement by the U.S. with Japan, certain provisions affecting Canadians and other non-U.S. personnel who work on U.S.-owned oil drilling rigs engaged to drill in offshore areas outside the U.S., which provisions remove the right of non-Americans or their survivors to seek compensation in U.S. courts for injury or death caused while working on U.S. rigs outside U.S. waters when there is compensation available by law in the country of the victim, legislative
Oral Questions
provisions already objected to by Canada and other countries but enacted under lobbying pressure from U.S. oil rig and insurance companies, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Government of Canada protest in most vigorous terms to the President of the U.S. and to the U.S. Congress with respect to the enactment of the said legislation and that the Government request President Reagan to veto the legislation, and that if such a Canadian protest is ineffective and the legislation becomes law, that Canada take the necessary steps to refuse permission for U.S.-owned oil drilling rigs to operate within Canadian territorial waters and the Canadian 200-mile economic zone until such time as the legislation is revoked.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question was for the Minister of External Affairs. In his absence, I would like to address it to the Acting Prime Minister. It has to do with the proposed imposition of countervailing duties by the United States on our lumber exports, to the tune of 65 per cent of current market prices. These initiatives by the United States are a clear reflection of this Government's policies of economic nationalism and anti-Americanism.
Has this crucial problem, in light of the importance of our lumber industry in Canada, been discussed in Cabinet? Understanding that the Ministry of Trade is giving every possible assistance to the industry defending itself before the tribunal that has been established in the United States and the International Joint Commission, what other steps is the Government taking directly to protect our industries from this crippling imposition of countervailing duty on our lumber?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Minister responsible for International Trade and myself both made public statements on this when we were in British Columbia about ten days ago. In sum, what we are doing is co-operating with the industry and the Province in presenting our case to the United States tribunal to indicate that this is not a question of hidden subsidy or of dumping, and that the complaints by the United States lumber industry, are unjustified in this particular case.

December 16, 1982
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POSITION


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, recognizing that the administration in the United States does not have direct jurisdiction over the Commerce Committee that has been studying this question and will make its recommendations on March 7, and in light of the importance of the industry, a 65 per cent imposition of countervailing duty would spell the demise of the lumber industry in Canada, an industry on which, not just in British Columbia, but throughout Canada, we rely very heavily in terms of our exchange rate, our foreign earnings, has the hypothesis been considered, in the event that such a duty would be imposed, of the steps the Government could take in terms of taking a shot in what would obviously be a trade war? Has the Government considered any reciprocal action in the event that this duty would be imposed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, not is only the Hon. Member's question hypothetical, since he asked what would we do if such and so happened, but it seems to me he is taking a very pessimistic view of the rights of the Canadian industry and workers on this particular occasion.
We know that the difficulties in the United States arise from the fact that stumpagc fees or payments have been put rather high by the authorities down there at a time when they thought there was going to be a boom in industry. They are stuck now with these high stumpage rates, whereas Canada has lower stumpage rates.
We think that the sound reasoning of this will prevail, as indeed, thanks to Government representations, it has prevailed recently in the case of the trucking industry, in the case of the uranimum limitation of imports to the United States and so on. These are all areas where the Government has been making representations and where the results have been encouraging from the reaction of the United States. We hope it will be the same in the case of the lumber problem.


APPROACH TO UNITED STATES OFFICIALS-REQUEST THAT GATT CONSIDER ISSUE
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I will direct my final question to the Prime Minister. Have any direct approaches been made to the administration of the United States with regard to this matter, and has any approach been made to GATT? May I ask the Minister of External Affairs has this matter been discussed at the recent GATT talks? Could we ask GATT to consider this matter concurrently with U.S. commerce committees and the International Trade Commission?
Two questions: has an official approach been made to the administration in the United States, and has GATT been asked to concern itself with this question?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, yes, indeed, we have discussed this question with the American authorities. Secretary of State Shultz is fully informed about the Canadian views. The matter was discussed with him when he was in Ottawa, and last week we discussed the matter further in Brussels. Therefore the United States is fully apprised of our views and fully aware that we do not accept the notion that there is any subsidy involved in the system of stumpage that exists in Canada. If there was a process under way now in the United States and, of course, at a certain point there was a determination that a subsidy did exist which we found unjustified, we would then consider taking the matter to the GATT.
V *	*


CITIZENSHIP COURTS
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, now that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism has seen the light and withdrawn that ill-conceived manual, I want to clear up the other matter that I raised yesterday in the House of Commons. Therefore I direct my question to the Secretary of State.
It was revealed yesterday that the Minister of Labour made some very serious allegations about the Court of Canadian Citizenship and its judges. According to a letter written by Judge Alice McKeown, then national co-ordinator of Citizenship Judges, to the then Secretary of State, Toronto judges met on January 8 of this year to discuss the "very serious allegations" made by the Minister of Labour and they unanimously passed four resolutions refuting the Labour Minister's allegations, and stated that the court's credibility had been seriously undermined, especially in view of the widespread circulation of the Minister's letter. Has the Secretary of State followed up on the accusations made by the Minister of Labour? If so, were the findings of the investigation relayed to the Minister, and was Judge McKeown's letter, with the Toronto judges' resolutions attached, as requested by Her Honour, distributed to the METPAC group, the Liberal organization in Toronto, that received the Minister of Labour's original allegations?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I am aware of the contents of the letter that was sent to my predecessor at the Department of the Secretary of State. It is correct that the Toronto judges met, that they were advised of the points raised by the Minister of Labour in his letter, that the issues raised by the National Co-ordinator were brought to the attention of the then Secretary of State, and consequently, it did not seem to serve any purpose to pursue the questions
December 16, 1982

raised, since the judges had answered satisfactorily the questions raised by the Minister of Labour in his letter.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the Minister has not answered the question. He did not answer whether the findings relayed to the Minister of Labour, and the resolutions from Her Honour, as requested by Her Honour.
1 will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Labour, who was quoted as saying he did not know what happened to his recommendations, that he just let them hang there and did not follow them up, and in view of the answer just received from the Secretary of State, it is obvious that the Minister of Labour has misled us, has seriously undermined the credibility of the Citizenship Courts and has destroyed the morale of the Citizenship Court judges. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he will do the honourable thing for a change and demand the resignation of the Minister of Labour.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES DISCUSSIONS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Because many Members on both sides of the House have invested much time in negotiations with our counterparts in the United States Congress, and especially since farm income is projected to drop by 17 per cent this year from last year, is the Minister prepared to help set up a meeting with our U.S. counterparts, on grain sales, giving special attention to the fact that neither of us should sell below our farmers' cost of production as we are now doing, especially since we control about 70 per cent of the world's export grains?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: I have looked back at the history of these relationships and I found that, traditionally, separation has existed in negotiations on subjects of this nature between parliamentarians or Congressmen and representatives of Governments. Therefore, what goes on between parliamentarians is their own business. I can only say that continuing that tradition would be a wise thing to do. Discussions of this kind can always be useful, but it has been found wise, I repeat, in the past not to mix the governmental and parliamentary or Congressional representatives.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTER FACILITATE PARLIAMENTARY DISCUSSIONS
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. That is an interesting suggestion, but the Minister knows that Members of this House have a very difficult time arranging for those types of meetings because we simply do not have the tools with which to do that, particularly the financial tools. I wonder if the Minister would at least give us the ability to organize such a meeting through the offices of his Department, or the Department responsible for the Wheat Board, in order that we can have the financial tools to set up such a meeting, which is most important at this time because Government officials are failing to come up with this type of agreement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not want to be rude, but meetings of that kind have been held in the past; consequently, ways and means were found, obviously, in the past to hold them. I can only refer to the past as indicating how it can be done, but I will take the question into further consideration.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
TELEVISING OF CHRISTMAS MESSAGES BY QUEBEC LIBERAL MPs
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications, if I could get the Minister's attention. We have learned that in the past 24 hours the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has made both broadcasting and producting time available to Liberal Members of Parliament in the Province of Quebec for the dissemination of television messages over the Christmas period. 1 have subsequently checked and confirmed that this has not happened for Members of the Opposition in Winnipeg, Edmonton, or in any other part of Canada. I see the Liberal Member from the Province of Quebec sees this as a joking matter. He is laughing. I assure him the people of Canada do not like this abuse of the CBC.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I have not finished. Considering that the television producer has said that this kind of partisan decision is not normal for the CBC, or at least until recently, my two questions to the Minister are this: Who made this decision and, second, will the Minister take immediate steps to ensure that this partisan Liberal practice at the CBC stops?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for his question, which once again shows he has no idea of what the situation is in that particular part of the Province of Quebec. The station in Matane was formerly a private station which traditionally-

December 16, 1982
Oral Questions
and this is done by many other private stations throughout Canada, including the Western provinces mentioned by the Hon. Member-offered air time to Members of Parliament so they could broadcast Christmas and New Year's messages and thus reach their constituents in remote areas, as the Hon. Member may have understood. In any case, this year again, the stations in question decided to invite Members of Parliament to broadcast their messages for the holiday season. The President of the CBC discussed the matter with me this morning, and after this review of the situation, it seems that the President of the CBC will either have to offer the same services to all Members of this House or otherwise give orders to drop a tradition that started in one area of the Province of Quebec.


REQUEST THAT LIBERAL PARTY PAY FOR PROGRAMS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the President of the CBC reconsidered the policy as soon as he read newspaper reports and realized that what was going on was revealed to the public. That is what happened. But considering that the decision the Minister talked about is no longer a private decision, considering that other Liberal Members of Parliament-I repeat, other Liberal Members- have used a number of hours of production time, or requested production time already from the CBC, I would like to ask the Minister, in addition to correcting bad judgments in the past, since production of some programs for Liberal Members has already been done, will the Liberal Party, just for once, show a little integrity and pay back the CBC the money that went for those programs.
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the CBC would be delighted to offer the same services to Members of the New Democratic Party, elected in the Province of Quebec. Although it is unfortunate for the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party, the people of Quebec are far too intelligent to elect his members. I may add that the service is not only offered to local Liberal members but also, and it is the same service to which the Leader of the New Democratic Party is objecting, to bishops, parish priests and other locally known people. If I understand correctly, he objects to the fact that in this particular area of the Province of Quebec, mayors, bishops and other moral, religious and civil authorities are able to offer their best wishes to their fellow citizens.


Mr. Andre:: You would not know right from wrong if it hit you over the head.


Mr. Clark:: Go forge an order.


RAILWAYS
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I am sorry you have had so much difficulty with those noisy Liberals.
The Minister of Transport will know that the railway line from Ferrlow Junction to Dinosaur, a distance of 103 miles, has been scheduled for abandonment on August 31, 1983. Is the Minister aware that, in the middle of that 103 miles of line, Gulf Oil has made a large oil strike which some claim is the equivalent of the Pembina Field, and other reports are that it is probably one of the largest oil strikes in western Canada? Would the Minister have his office alerted to that because it may be necessary for the Minister involve himself personally in the saving of that railway line for the moving of equipment to the oil field?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will get myself further informed on that subject. But it is a traditional event that, when a branch line is about to be abandoned, suddenly there are boundless resources found around it which would seem to justify not abandoning the line. It is a customary pattern in Canadian economic life.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I am quite aware of the alternative courses of action which are available for defending that railway line, and those actions are already underway. I want the Minister to be ready himself.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER HOLD DISCUSSIONS WITH GULF OIL
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, with that in mind I am wondering if the Minister would investigate this matter and, having done so, whether he would consider calling to an in-camera discussion representatives of Gulf Oil with respect to the size of that field and its development potential, with a view to having the Commission recommend to the Minister whether or not that rail line ought to be preserved?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will make sure that this particular circumstance was taken into consideration by the Canadian Transport Commission when the decision was made. There is an appeal procedure to the Minister, and I will do everything I can to make absolutely sure that fairness and justice are carried out in this particular matter.


December 16, 1982


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who has been very diligent recently in saying that he is going to prosecute those who do not use the metric system. Is he indeed going to prosecute government Departments which do not use the metric system, particularly those Departments that are his responsibility and which are not using the metric system?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is aware that legislation was passed, and regulations were approved following its passage to govern certain aspects of the metric system as it applies to the sale of gas, the sale of furniture and the sale of food that is weighed and sold in retail stores. These are the three areas where the legislation is in force, and these are the only areas with respect to which warnings were issued.


WEIGHING OF MAIL IN POST OFFICES
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, does the Minister intend to use the same diligence with post offices which are not using metric scales in the weighing of mail, since they also come under his responsability, and post offices in Ontario do not have metric scales?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Hang them!

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I am going to check the allegation made by the Hon. Member, and if the law is not being complied with, steps will certainly be taken to ensure compliance by all those concerned, including the Post Office.


STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS ON EUROPEAN AIRBUS PROJECT
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for International Trade. Will the Minister give us the status of negotiations with Airbus and the Government's proposal to build a factory in Quebec? Secondly, has he considered the effect of such an enterprise on other airplane manufacturers in Canada and their Canadian parts suppliers?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will be aware of the fact that negotiations for the location of industries in Canada is a subject matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It would be
Oral Questions
better that the question be directed to him in relation to the negotiations for the establishment of a plant in this country.


REASONS FOR SELECTION OF AIRBUS PROJECT
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, as the Minister responsible for International Trade, would the Minister tell the House why the Government decided to go with Airbus instead of giving encouragement to manufacturers in North America, such as McDonnell-Douglas, Lockheed and Boeing, to the plants of which Canadian suppliers have already been supplying parts?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: The Hon. Member asks a question which again might be better directed to the Minister of Industry. Let me, in a general and brief manner, indicate to him that in any such negotiations involving either the Department of Industry or, in a smaller manner, the Department of Trade, we are concerned with what is the best commercial advantage to Canada in maximizing job opportunities for Canadians. He can be well assured that the Minister of Industry has that goal very much in mind in negotiations on this matter.


PRICE OF NATURAL GAS EXPORTS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy. I have before me the text of a letter from the Reagan White House, specifically from the assistant to the President, to 75 Congressmen, revealing plans to intensify pressure on Canada to reduce the price of natural gas which we export to the United States. As well, 1 have a quote from the Minister to the Energy Committee last week where he said, "So should we have a more flexible approach for prices? I say no for the time being because I want to make sure the Canadian producers get the maximum possible price, maximum possible income".
Would the Minister confirm there are United States-Canada energy talks planned for early 1983, and would he give this House his iron-clad assurance that he will take the same position he advanced in committee and not cave in to American pressure to lower our natural gas prices?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, 1 do not know of any specific plans for meetings with officials in the United States about this problem at this time. Of course we are willing to talk with them, but the statement I made in committee remains, that is, we will try to get the maximum return for producers in Canada. Of course, if some Congressman can make noises in the United States it is his privilege, but the policy will be one that will benefit Canadians first.

December 16, 1982
Oral Questions


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, this is not some Congressman speaking; it is the text of a letter from the office of the President of the United States.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER HOLD DISCUSSIONS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA INDUSTRY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Minister is confused in this. Yesterday a Bill was introduced by U.S. Congressman Thomas Corcoran to cut off Canadian gas exports if a new, lower price could not be negotiated. In view of what was said in the letter from the President about negotiations, and in view of what has been said about pending negotiations, would the Minister be prepared to discuss the matter with representatives of the British Columbia industry before any such negotiations take place? In British Columbia, for instance, $200 million is at stake. Would the Minister be prepared to discuss the matter with the industry, which will tell him that if he lowers the price we will not sell any more gas and therefore will not get any more money. In the event of discussions coming up, would the Minister commit himself to discussing this with the industry, especially in British Columbia?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, that is what we are doing all the time. We talk with the industry. I have been meeting with the Association of Producers in Canada and 1 have received papers from some producers in western Canada. I talked with the Minister from B.C., and on Monday I will meet with the new Minister of Energy for Alberta. There is a lot of consultation.
Of course, Madam Speaker, I do not get scared because a Bill is introduced in the House of Representatives in the United States. I have been around for 20 years and know that many of these Bills never become law in the United States.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I would remind the Minister that there is a Bill plus a letter from the President of the United States.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL OIL PRICING AGREEMENT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, let me put this question to the Minister apropos of his discussions with the Provinces. The Minister is aware that our gas prices are tied to our oil prices and that the National Energy Program, which he must administer, was premised on oil prices going up. In fact, under the control of OPEC, world oil prices are going down.
Will the Minister guarantee to the Canadian consumer that in his discussions with the producing Provinces he will not change the provision that the Canadian consumer will not have to pay any more than 75 per cent of world oil price at the pump, no matter what the world oil price goes to?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, that is the policy as voted by the
House of Commons, and I will respect the House of Commons. We do not have to introduce a Bill on that subject at this time.
I think the policy is quite clear. We have a Canadian price for old oil, we have the international price for new oil, and we have a blended price for Canadian oil. For the old oil it is 75 per cent of the international price. The policy remains the case.


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. The Minister will have received a telex from the three prairie Ministers of Agriculture urging him to rescind the very exorbitant 40 per cent increase in the minimum compensatory freight rate as it applies to canola products. They have asked him to use his good offices to rescind this increase until such time as a review of the costing order is conducted, as recommended by the CTC, and until such time as the CTC could hold a full hearing on the whole issue of minimum compensatory rates as they apply to canola products. Is the Minister actively considering taking action as requested by the provincial Ministers of Agriculture?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, as former Minister of Transport, my hon. friend will know that, under an order of Cabinet of 1976, canola crushers are given a rate which is the minimum compensatory rate. He also knows that under the Railway Act, Section 276, the minimum compensatory rate cannot be less than the variable cost incurred by the railways in transporting such goods. I have a legal opinion on the subject. Consequently, there was no way the CTC could prevent the increase of the rate by 40 per cent for a period of two years. There was no way anything other than that could be done under the law.
The reference to a review by the CTC is, I understand, only on procedural matters and will not have a direct effect on the final rate.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE ACTION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Since the CTC recognized that there were serious reservations about the costing order and the procedure under which the cost was arrived at, it has included in its decision the recommendation that this review should take place. All the Ministers are asking for, and all that we are asking for, is that the Minister of Transport take cognizance of that fact and use his good offices to ensure that a proper costing order is put in place and that the producers and the Provinces have a fair hearing on this matter.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I can only repeat what I said earlier. The information
December 16, 1982

I have is that this review on the procedural matter is not of importance in the establishment of the rate itself. I think my hon. friend will have to wait for an announcement, which will come one day, on our own western initiative. It might provide possibilities for making savings on the transportation system as a whole that would be of importance to the crushing industry.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. This week, when he met members of the Brandt Commission in Ottawa, did he give support or a commitment by the Government concerning the principal proposal emanating from the Ottawa meeting of the Commission, namely, that a world conference on international financial institutions should be held with a view to enlarging the facilities thereof, in order to meet the mounting world crisis of debt?
Did the Prime Minister consider a commitment to the publication of a strategy for international economic cooperation, bearing in mind that the last such strategy of the Canadian Government for 1975-80 has expired and we are left with no published sense of direction of where Canada is going on this issue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the meetings that 1 had with members of the Brandt Commission and several of its special advisers, as well as other guests. I want to tell him that no specific representations were made to me on behalf of the Commission at that luncheon, which was at a very large round table. We had discussions on many subjects relating to North-South but I was not asked to provide, on behalf of the Government, any answers to any specific recommendations which they would presumably be making in a statement some time next week, perhaps, which would eventually be published in six or eight weeks.
At the time I met with them they had not finished drafting their position paper and therefore did not ask me anything specific such as the Hon. Member has mentioned.


APPOINTMENT OF CIDA PRESIDENT
Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister could turn to the second part of my question on the need for a published strategy on international development co-operation. The lead agency, namely CIDA, has been without a president for some seven weeks, Mr. Marcel Masse having been moved from that position. Can the Prime Minister indicate the reason for such a lengthy delay? What criteria is he employing in looking for a new president of CIDA, bearing in mind that it is passing through the most crucial period in its entire history, at a time when the human
Oral Questions
need is greater than ever before, and the resources of Canada are more constrained than ever before?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the criteria would be to find the person best able to deal with the problems which the Hon. Member refers to, although he seems to have put into his question some allegation about Canada's role and participation which are unfounded.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, since it concerns Government priorities. As he will be aware by now, welfare rolls in the country have mushroomed. In British Columbia one in every 13 people will be on welfare before the end of the winter. In Quebec welfare cases are growing at twice the rate of the rest of the country. In cities across Canada welfare cases are increasing. In Winnipeg, there has been an increase in cases of 131 per cent above last year. We now have soup kitchens. The Government's programs to date have had about the impact of a wet noodle.
When will the Prime Minister be prepared to take some action that will put people back to work instead of forcing them onto welfare, in light of the Prime Minister's own acknowledgement at the Liberal Convention of November 5 of the need for a public works program right across the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member's concern with the question is other than purely rhetorical, he will know that the Minister of Finance is meeting this day with the Ministers of Finance of the Provinces to discuss the very serious unemployment problem that we have.


PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM
Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I am very much aware that the Minister of Finance is meeting with his counterparts from the provinces. What I want to know is where the federal Government stands. Going into these federal-provincial meetings, top federal officials have acknowledged that the economy can now afford a full scheme of public works. Why will the Prime Minister not implement his promise to the Liberal Convention of a public works program to rebuild the infrastructure in communities right across the country so that people can work rather than live off welfare?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, since the statement made by the Minister of Finance in late October, our Ministers have been meeting with provincial counterparts precisely to discuss ways in which we could

December 16, 1982
Oral Questions
assist job creation in areas which are partly under provincial jurisdiction. These meetings are ongoing; and some successes have already been achieved. 1 repeat that the Ministers of Finance are meeting today to discuss that very type of subject.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. A well known non-profit national organization, respected for many years for its work among young people with severe social problems, has historically been given tax advantages to help its cash flow problems. This organization is known as Youth for Christ. The Tax Department has now decided to reassess the taxes of the workers of this organization as far back as two years and if necessary will garnishee up to 50 per cent of their wages for outstanding taxes. Why has there been this change in policy within the Tax Department concerning these youth workers?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I am not aware of the particular case referred to by the Hon. Member. Once I have looked at the facts and obtained further information, I shall be able to give him a more satisfactory answer.


ATTITUDE OF TAX OFFICIALS
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister would he also give these faceless officers, who telephone these workers, a few lessons in human decency, and tell them not to laugh at these people who are hard-pressed when it comes to their income. They are trying to negotiate their position. Is it a policy of his Department to go after individual workers who have very few resources with which to defend themselves rather than contacting national headquarters? Is it because they fear that national headquarters might have some corporate lawyers who could defend the workers?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, in my previous answer, I indicated to the Hon. Member that I was not aware of the facts of the specific case to which he was referring. The Hon. Member will understand that since I am not aware of what happened, I can hardly make any kind of judgment, either with respect to the
conduct of departmental officials or the circumstances mentioned by the Hon. Member.


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. A difference of opinion exists between the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Auditor General's Department on the legality of the levy that is taken from milk producers. The Auditor General has sought the advice of two legal firms which claim the procedure is illegal. The Canadian Dairy Commission has the advice of the Department of Justice which thinks the procedure is legal. On whose side is the Minister of Agriculture?


An Hon. Member:: All sides.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am on the legal side.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Gordon Towers: That is a really intelligent comment from a stupid Minister of Agriculture, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


RCMP INVESTIGATION
Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, with regard to the investigation that is taking place in the Dairy Commission concerning $30 million misappropriation, in view of the fact that the RCMP are now investigating this matter, can the Minister of Agriculture tell us when the RCMP are going to report?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I will not refer to the kind of a Member 1 think the Hon. Member is. He made mention of the kind of Minister he thought I was, and that is his right, I guess.
Justice lawyers have advised us properly in many, many instances. 1 can think of only one or two instances when they have advised us improperly-maybe what they thought was properly but it turned out not to be the right advice. When the Hon. Member talks about what the RCMP are doing, I answered that same question in the House some time ago. It is not my duty to put pressure on the RCMP. They do not come under my Department. They are under a different Department and they report to a different Minister. They do not report to me.


John Horton McDermid: Thank heavens for small mercies.

*

December 16, 1982


INDUSTRY
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Small Business in the absence of the Minister responsible for Regional Development. Canada Packers in Charlottetown has recently announced that it plans to close its plant next September. The plant is Prince Edward Island's largest private sector employer. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government of Canada has received any kind of overture from Canada Packers Incorporated for Government assistance with the building or expansion of any facility, similar to the one in Charlottetown, elsewhere in Canada? In the event it has, will the Minister agree that it is utterly senseless for the Government of Canada to be assisting industry, in effect, to transfer jobs from one part of the country to another, rather than creating new employment?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the situation. I am not aware that any representation has been made, but I will certainly consult with my colleague and report to the Hon. Member.


QUERY RESPECTING NEGOTIATIONS TO KEEP PLANT OPEN
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for Regional Development I will direct my supplementary question to an Acting Minister, probably the Minister of Veterans Affairs who has special Cabinet responsibility for this particular area. Is the Government of Canada pursuing with the Government of Prince Edward Island, and with Canada Packers, options for keeping open Canada Packers' plant in Charlottetown instead of having it close in September as scheduled?


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry; I was a little distracted by documents being presented to me. I have the impression that the Hon. Member was asking a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs because he comes from Charlottetown. It is not his ministerial responsibility. That question should be addressed to another Minister.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, in the event, may I address the same question to the Minister responsible for Small Business, although the Minister for Veterans Affairs has particular responsibilities for negotiations concerning Canada Packers on Prince Edward Island.

Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional
Royal Assent
Economic Expansion): Madam Speaker, the Department knows about the problem of Canada Packers in Prince Edward Island, and as I already pointed out to the Hon. Member two weeks ago, contacts have been made and there are ongoing programs that can help both the company and its employees. Discussions are being held at the present time, and as these evolve, it will be possible to inform the Hon. Member further. The Department is aware of the situation and is taking all possible action to help the people concerned.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister has challenged the fishermen in British Columbia to come up with recommendations that are alternatives to Doctor Pearse's commission of inquiry recommendations, particularly those concerning a reduction in the fleet. Would the Minister now be prepared to release to the public the Pacific fleet rationalization plan which might help in that attempt to meet some alternatives? He has had this report for one month now.


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I shall take the question as notice.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['-and indeed, it is the longest. There is legislation waiting; for example, legislation flowing from two budgets introduced in the House. I know that all Hon. Members are probably anxious to deal with the matter so that when they return to their constituents during the break over the\nDecember 16, 1982', 'Christmas period they will have some answers to give those people who are asking for refunds under the income tax provisions.']
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
December 16, 1982
Madam:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Brian Dickson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 16th day of December, 1982, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Jacques Noiseux Deputy Secretary to the Governor General

December 16, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen



Madam Speaker:: At this time I would like to rule on the two points of order which were raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) yesterday concerning events which occurred in the House on Tuesday evening last. In order to proceed in a logical manner, I propose to review and reply to the events in a chronological sequence.
On Tuesday, December 14, 1982, after the motion concerning Standing Order 75C was moved, the Hon. Member for Yukon moved. "That the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre be now heard". Following the taking of the yeas and nays on the recorded division, the Clerk rose, bowed to the Speaker and declared the votes in both official languages, as is the custom, after which I declared that the motion was lost.
Many Members have argued that, because they did not hear the announcement of the tally, they were confused as to whether or not the division was properly concluded. The important aspect here is the declaration by the Speaker concerning the fate of a motion and not really whether or not the announcement of the tally by the Clerk is heard by all Hon. Members. It might be that for technical reasons the announcement is not audible to all.
In the case before us, I can state to the House that the Clerk did announce the result, that I did hear the announcement and that I acted accordingly by declaring that the motion was lost. It was at that time that an Hon. Member could have risen to challenge the procedure. However, no one did so.
As a consequence of the decision of the House I stated, as found at page 21587 of Hansard, that:
The Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has the floor-
As I do on other occasions, such as when a Bill is referred to a Committee of the Whole, I then say "Pursuant to Standing Order 54, I do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole", announcing the consequences of a motion that had just been put to the House. I was not, at that time, recognizing the Minister for the purpose of making a speech. In any event, I continued my statement by declaring:
-and it now being ten o'clock, the House is adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
I refer Hon. Members to a very similar incident which occurred on March 24, 1981, as reported at page 8568 of Hansard.
After I had announced the adjournment of the House, the Hon. Member for Yukon brought to my attention that he had been attempting to rise on a point of order. As I indicated yesterday, I had not seen him rise. I accept the procedural argument that a point of order should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. However, the fact remains that the House was adjourned before I became aware of the Hon. Member's attempt to raise a point of order. Nevertheless, I asked the House to allow me to recognize the Hon. Member
but it refused, and therefore there was nothing more that the Chair could do.
In summary, after a careful review of the events, I am satisfied that all procedures were followed according to our established rules and practices. The question of the validity of a division is of fundamental essence in our proceedings. By bringing this point forward, the Hon. Member has given me the opportunity to elaborate upon it. This, I appreciate. Therefore, I must rule that the Hon. Member has no point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on the usual Thursday point of order which concerns House business. May I ask the Government House Leader what we will be doing this afternoon and this evening, and what the business will be for Friday and the remaining three days of next week. May I ask him at the same time to inform us whether he intends to bring forward a motion for the purpose of changing the composition of the striking committee of the House so that it might commence discussions before Christmas as to the committee numbers and composition prior to our departure on December 22, and in anticipation of those committees commencing work under the new experimental rules immediately upon our return in January.
I would also like to say to the Minister that should we divide on the Standing Order 75C process that is now before the House this afternoon in sufficient time, we would be prepared to deal with Bill C-98, the Agricultural Products Standards legislation, and to pass it before the hour of adjournment this evening.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, with respect to the striking committee, I will take the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Yukon under serious consideration. As a matter of fact, he knows that we have begun discussions. I intend to continue these discussions during the remainder of the day, if possible, and if not, as soon as possible.
Concerning the Business of the House for today, we will call the motion under Standing Order 75C in the name of the Minister of Agriculture. That will be followed by the third reading stage of Bill C-98. I understand that we were supposed to deal with Bill C-136 but an agreement could not be reached between the Minister and his critics. Therefore, we might call Bill C-136, which is to rebate interest for small business, later this week. Therefore, we will deal with Standing Order 75C on Bill C-85 today, followed by Bill C-98, and I understand that this Bill will go through before the end of the day. I have the same commitment from the NDP as well. Tomorrow we will deal with Bill C-132, which is the capping bill relating to Family Allowances.
December 16, 1982



Next week we will continue the study of Bill C-132. 1 understand that Bill C-131 is expected to be reported to the House within the next few hours. In that case, and if we can do so, we will continue the study of Bill C-132 and Bill C-131, which concerns Old Age Security. Assuming that those two bills could be referred to committee before the end of the day on Tuesday or Wednesday, we would then consider Bill C-136, if we can reach agreement. Otherwise we will go on with Bill C-139 relating to income tax. All that is, of course, subject to changes, in which case I will give reasonable notice. There is a possibility that Bill C-85 could be called for debate before Christmas, but in light of what I have just said, it is highly unlikely if the debates go on smoothly and if we do get practical results with the other bills.


POINT OF ORDER
Madam Speaker:: I have a notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I gave you the required letter and 1 will be very brief. 1 have checked yesterday's Hansard. As Your Honour knows and can see from page 21596, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in reply to one of my questions, said:
I suspect the Hon. Member has made those quotations up as he makes up a lot of his questions.
It submit that it is clear from that reply that the Prime Minister was certainly inferring that I fabricated quotes that I read to him in the question. 1 believe that under the rules of Beauchesne, that is certainly most unparliamentary. I also gave the Prime Minister a letter earlier this morning indicating that I was going to try to catch your eye and raise this matter today. He may have other business and perhaps that is why he is not here.
However, I do believe that this goes a little too far. If the Prime Minister wants to disown the authorship of the article written by Pierre Elliot Trudeau in April, 1963-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I do have to interrupt the Hon. Member because I thought he was rising on a question of privilege, but he gave me notice of a point of order and a question of privilege. He raised the point of order.
On the point of order, I am afraid I must tell him that "made up" are not considered to be unparliamentary words and that if he is assimilating them to "fabricate" or to other words which are considered to be non-parliamentary, that he cannot do. That is stretching it a bit. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) used the words "made up", which is acceptable, and
Privilege-Mr. Nowlan
therefore the Hon. Member does not have a point of order. However, 1 will hear his question of privilege now.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I will not trespass any further on a point of order because, quite frankly, there are larger things to do in the House today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I come to my question of privilege in a very serious way. I gave Your Honour a fairly lengthy written explanation and I will try to be almost as short in my verbal explanation of what I consider to be a collective question of privilege from all Hon. Members in this House in view of what happened in the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee when the appearance of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) was terminated, as far as being a member of that Committee was concerned, having been a Member of that Committee, I understand, almost from the day of his election. Obviously, the Hon. Member himself is perhaps the one who should have raised such a question of privilege. 1 also understand the narrow definition of "privilege". Privilege can only be raised here in a responsible way if a matter affects the discharge of a Member's duty, or the carrying out of his duties.
I was in the House when the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier made one of the most considered, constructive speeches on Bill C-133. Frankly, I think it was one of the best speeches which have been made in this Parliament since we began the session almost two and half years ago. As a result of that speech, my duty to my constituents was affected in a very positive way, frankly, because instead of quoting many times from the article which I used as the basis for a question yesterday, showing how the then writer and philosopher, Mr. Pierre Elliot Trudeau, now the practising politician as the Prime Minister of this land, castigated, in the most penetrating way-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -the docile sheep of-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I'm almost-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I want to continue.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's question of privilege concerns the fact that a Member has been removed by a Committee. The Hon. Member, 1 think, gave me some clue as to what the answer to his question of privilege might be

December 16, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Nowlan
when he said that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier did not raise it himself, probably because he realizes that the matter of appointing members to committees falls under Standing Order 65(4)(b), which 1 will read to the Hon. Member so he will know that this question does not fall within the purview of a question of privilege. It states:
Changes in the membership of any standing, joint or special committee may be effected by a notification thereof, signed by the Member acting as the Chief Government Whip, being filed with the Clerk of the House who shall cause the same to be printed-
Therefore, the changes do not concern the Speaker. The changes do not fall under the purview of a question of privilege.
The Hon. Member is capable of performing his duties, at any rate. It would have to be the Hon. Member himself who has been affected by the matter raised in his question of privilege. He just told me that he has been affected positively by a speech, which means that he has been able to perform even better than before because of that particular speech. Therefore, I must unfortunately rule that the Hon. Member- no, the Hon. Member may not reply.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member explained to me his question of privilege. It concerned a Member having been struck out of a committee. That is of no concern to the Chair and certainly is not a question of privilege.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, with respect, I have not even mentioned the Standing Order which you referred to because I do not think it is relevant. That is not my point; and as Your Honour well knows from the three-page letter I submitted-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -I am talking about implied threats. I am talking about implied threats, which matter is not covered in any Standing Order. That is why I want to be heard for two minutes.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I do not care about the Standing Order that you read. That is not relevant. 1 agree with you, it is not relevant.


Madam Speaker:: Well, the Hon. Member should care, because those are the Standing Orders which have been determined by the Members themselves, and it is quite clear to me that the matter of appointing members to a committee does not concern the Chair. There has been reference to it this afternoon. There is a striking committee which deals with that, and it does not concern the Chair. The Hon. Member might not like what is going on in this committee, but it is not a question of privilege.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Well, can I ask the Chair-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There is such a thing in this House as judicial notice of the affairs and activities of this House.


Madam Speaker:: Order. 1 must say to the Hon. Member that he is in the habit of constantly standing up every time-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Because you cut me off before I start.


Madam Speaker:: -I make some kind of remark to him.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I was almost finished.


Madam Speaker:: The Chair cannot function if every occasion will be seized upon as an opportunity to go into debate with the Chair concerning matters that Hon. Members raise. I do my best and 1 do study the questions beforehand. I am quite sure that in this case the Hon. Member does not have a question of privilege, and I ask him to abide by that ruling.


POINT OF ORDER
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I rise on a small point of order, to place it on the record. This is now the longest session of Parliament in history, and one of the consequences is that Private Members' Hours on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays are no longer in place.


Erik Nielsen: Since March of 1981.


Harvie Andre: Since March of 1981. The only time left for Private Members' Hour is on Thursday and Friday afternoons. That, I think, impinges on the rights of Private Members.
It strikes me as being non-conducive to harmonious relationships in this Chamber for the Government to choose part of the remaining Private Members' Hours for use in Royal Assent. 1 would simply like to state for the record that it would show far more sympathy for the backbenchers and would be much more conducive to a harmonious atmosphere if that sensitivity were borne in mind the next time His Excellency is asked to give Royal Assent to a Bill.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, concerning the point of order raised by the Hon. Member, 1 share, in some small measure, the frustration of the Hon. Member, but probably as a Member who is charged with the specific responsibility of dealing with such legislation as the Income Tax Act. The Hon. Member has indicated that this is the longest sitting of this Parliament-


An Hon. Member:: Whose fault is that?


Paul James Cosgrove: -and indeed, it is the longest. There is legislation waiting; for example, legislation flowing from two budgets introduced in the House. I know that all Hon. Members are probably anxious to deal with the matter so that when they return to their constituents during the break over the
December 16, 1982

Christmas period they will have some answers to give those people who are asking for refunds under the income tax provisions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. A1 MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the eighteenth report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada entitled, "Obtaining Reasons Before Applying for Judicial Scrutiny-Immigration Appeal Board".


METRIC COMMISSION
André Ouellet: Madame Speaker, in reply to the motion the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) moved on December 14 under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I wish to table a copy of the Order in Council No. 1979-3093 dated November 15, as well as copies of pages 4315 and 4316 of the Canada Gazette, Part II, dated November 28, 1979.


TABLING OF ANNUAL REPORT
André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the annual report of Metric Commission Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1982.


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-667, to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act in respect of computer crime.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to address those issues related to computer use and abuse which
Order Paper Questions
have traditionally prevented the courts from adequately coming to grips with the growing problem of computer crime.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Benno Friesen: for leave to introduce Bill C-668, to amend the Bank Act (power of Inspector).
He said: Madam Speaker, for many years I know Members have been concerned about the fact that the Inspector General of Banks has no real power to initiate a prosecution if there is internal fraud within a bank. That is, the consumer is not protected against internal fraud. The passage of this Bill would empower the Inspector General of Banks to inspect within the banks for fraud so that the consumer would be protected.


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. 4,178 as amended; 4,488; 4,501 and 4,548.
[ Text]
RCMP-PAYMENT TO WITNESSES Question No. 4,178 (amended)-Mr. MacKay:
1.	Is there a general RCMP policy concerning payments to witnesses in criminal trials and, if so (a) what are the details (b) does the policy involve payments beyond expenses incurred in connection with court appearances?
2.	Is there a general RCMP policy concerning payments to informers and, if so, what are the details?
3.	Is it the policy of the RCMP to withhold from the criminal courts the fact that the accused persons are paid informers of the RCMP?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: 1. (a)
Witnesses called by the Crown in criminal cases are entitled to fees and expenses in accordance with the tariffs set by provincial laws or regulations. See also payments to informers in part 2 below. RCMP policy provides for compliance with the schedules and tariffs including Section 772 of the Criminal Code to facilitate these payments.
(b) No, the general policy does not involve payments beyond expenses incurred in connection with court appearances. There is, however, additional policy which deals specifically with the Force's Witness Protection Program and is separate from those


Mr. Siddon: 1.	What amount did the Canadian National Railways spend for advertising in the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82?
2.	What amount did CNR budget for advertising in the fiscal year 1982-83?
3.	What percentage of CNR's fiscal year 1982-83 advertising will be devoted to (a) newspapers and magazines (b) radio (c) television (d) trade show or convention exhibits (e) any other?
4.	Did CNR declare a deficit in the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 and, if so, what was the extent of that deficit?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: As Canadian National's fiscal year coincides with the calendar year, references to years 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83 have been altered in the relies to read 1980, 1981, and 1982 respectively.
1.	(a) $9,601,000, (b) $11,351,000.
2.	$10,170,000.
3.	(a) 36 per cent, (b) 10 per cent, (c) 37 per cent, (d) 2.3 per cent, (e) 14.7 per cent.
4.	(a) No, (b) no.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	On what date was the tender let to improve the restaurant facilities at the Victoria International Airport?
2.	How many entered bids and which company was the successful bidder?
3.	(a) What dates were given in the tender for the beginning and the completion of the work (b) was this undertaking honoured?
4.	(a) For what amount was the contract (b) what provisions were made for cost or time over-runs (c) were there cost or time over-runs?
5.	On what date will the restaurant be completed and fully operational?


Jesse Philip Flis: 1. Tender advertising commenced January 22, 1982 with tender close on February 10, 1982.
2.	Six companies entered bids and the contract was awarded to the low bidder, Wakefield Construction Ltd. of Victoria on February 17, 1982.
3.	(a) The tender documents stipulated the work was to commence within seven days of award of contract (i.e., by February 24, 1982) and that work was to be completed within 130 calendar days from award of contract (i.e., by June 29, 1982). (b) Contractor was on site February 22, 1982 but work was not completed by June 29, 1982 because of delays in delivery of material and rescheduling of construction work to minimize interference with ongoing restaurant operations. This delay was compounded by the construction industry lockout during the month of August.
4.	(a) $215,500. (b) No special provisions other than the principles contained in the General Conditions of Contract were applied to this project. The General Conditions of Contract provided for and outlined procedures for assessing, granting and penalizing cost and time over-runs on contract work, (c) There was an over-run of $21,200 on the cost of the contract resulting from designer/site supervisor requested design changes required to rectify conditions encountered during the excavation and construction phases. There was a time over-run because the contractor incurred delays in excess of contract expectations while accommodating the smooth ongoing operation of the restaurant facility during the construction period.
5.	Except for minor deficiencies, the above-referenced contract work on the Victoria Restaurant Facilities is complete and the restaurant is and always has been in full operation. The outstanding work still to be done to complete the contract is related to the installation of an electrical transformer. Manufacture and delivery of this transformer is taking longer than anticipated and the completion of the outstanding work is now expected by mid-December, 1982.
PERCENTAGE ANGLOPHONE/FRANCOPHONE MILITARY PERSONNEL


Mr. McKinnon: At present, what proportion in each rank of (a) the Canadian Armed Forces (b) Maritime Command (c) Mobile Command (d) Air Command (e) personnel not allocated to Maritime Command, Mobile Command or Air Command is (i) Anglophone (ii) Francophone?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Order Paper Questions
Rank
General
Lieutenant General Major General Brigadier General Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Major
Captain
Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Officer Cadet
Chief Warrant Officer
Master Warrant Officer
Warrant Officer
Sergeant
Master Corporal
Corporal
Private Trained
Private Basic
Private Recruit
Percentage Anglophone/Francophone by Select Groups
Maritime	Mobile	AirCommand	Command	CommandAnglo	Franco	AngloPer cent	Per cent	Per cent100.0	100.0	100.0100.0	50.097.2	2.8	50.097.0	3.0	62.592.7	7.3	70.089.7	10.3	72.786.4	13.6	64.985.9	14.1	68.570.1	29.9	36.393.4	6.6	59.592.2	7.8	67.191.3	8.7	65.388.0	12.0	65.286.3	13.7	67.084.5	15.5	57.184.1	15.9	62.476.3	23.7	65.4100.0	95.9Franco	Anglo	FrancoPer cent	Per cent	Per cent100.0	100.0	100.0	50.0	100.0	50.0	97.3	2.737.5	87.0	13.030.0	87.6	12.427.3	85.6	14.835.1	76.0	14.031.5	80.7	19.363.7	74.2	25.840.5	86.4	13.632.9	84.6	13.434.7	83.7	16.334.8	83.8	16.233.0	78.6	21.442.9	71.2	28.837.6	70.5	29.534.7	71.2	28.84.1	60.0	40.0
All Other Personnel
Anglo	Franco
Per cent	Per cent
100.0	
60.0	40.0
88.0	12.0
84.8	15.2
85.3	14.7
86.0	14.0
85.7	14.3
78.7	21.2
69.0	31.0
69.4	30.6
64.4	35.6
79.8	20.2
79.7	20.3
78.6	21.4
75.4	24.6
72.0	28.0
68.5	31.5
67.2	32.8
57.5	42.5
61.6	38.4
Canadian Armed Forces Total Strength
Anglo	Franco
Per cent	Per cent
100.0	
60.0	40.0
90.0	10.0
84.3	15.7
84.4	15.6
85.4	14.6
85.2	14.8
81.1	18.9
74.0	26.0
75.6	24.4
64.3	35.7
80.8	19.2
81.4	18.6
79.4	20.6
77.5	22.5
74.8	25.2
68.8	31.2
69.4	30.6
66.1	33.9
66.9	38.1


David P. Smith: 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that I have had a question on the Order Paper since December 2, 1981. It is a long question but a very simple one to answer. It has to do with the number of employees working in the Solicitor General's Department across Canada. I do not know why it has not been answered. It might be the fact that the Solicitor General does not want us to know that there are possibly more employees in the Department than there are guarding the inmates. At any rate, it has not been answered, it is important for me to know and I hope that the fact that my daughter did not attend school with the Parliamentary Secretary will not inhibit his desire to answer the question.
Secondly, on December 14 I placed a question that relates to a dish being bought by the Department and installed at Elbow Lake Detention Centre. As Members know, the Minister of Communications is somewhat in the glue over his policy regarding satellite dishes, one has been purchased for a minimum security facility. I would like to have that particular question answered.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to look into this matter on behalf of my hon. friend, who is a co-Member of the Parliamentary Prayer Group with myself. I might say to him that we are not afraid to answer a comprehensive
question on that matter, as we answered one for the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West which must have weighed ten pounds when it was tabled.


Mr. Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, while the Parliamentary Secretary is still with us I would like to refer a question to him, No. 4,502. While this has been on the Order Paper for a much less period of time than that of my colleague's, it is one that relates to a Bill which is before us for consideration now, Bill C-95, and to the amount of moneys received by the federal Government under a 1979 federal-provincial agreement with respect to lotteries.
I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would give attention to that item and have it answered so that it can be part of our deliberations now. There is a related question, No. 4,531, and we would appreciate the answer to that one as well.


David P. Smith: I would be happy to look into both of these matters.


Mr. Greenaway:: Madam Speaker, I thought the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council used the term "ten pounds", and 1 was worried that he might find himself in serious trouble with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs! I wonder if he could correct that statement and put it in metric measurement for us, so we can understand what he was talking about.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, it should read 4.37120 kilos!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Madam Speaker, being a recipient of this package, 1 weighed it and the Parliamentary Secretary is wrong on all counts.


Madam Speaker:: The remaining questions will stand.

December 16, 1982
Time Allocation



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan:
That, in relation 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, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, up until this time 1 have witnessed the clear intent on the other side-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Where are your friends? Have you no friends? There is nobody sitting near you.


Eugene Whelan: -that they have no intention of letting Bill C-85 move through a speedy reading.


An Hon. Member:: You threatened to resign. That really frightened us.


Eugene Whelan: It has been said publicly in some quarters of this House that they will even present, if at all possible, a vote on third reading. For this reason, Madam Speaker, and because this legislation is so vital to the continued growth of agricultural export development in Canada, I neither apologize nor regret moving time allocation. I repeat Madam Speaker, time allocation. So many people have used the terminoloy "closure"-


An Hon. Member:: It is the same thing.


Eugene Whelan: This is not closure. Time allocation in the Mother of Parliament is automatic with practically all Bills. There is an order put through in this form if they cannot agree, but 99 per cent of the time they agree on time allocation for second reading, committee stage, and so on, and then for bringing the legislation back into the House. It is all agreed before a Bill even moves into the House for second reading. One would think that the Government was creating something different, some kind of a monster, but time limitation is used in the Mother of Parliament practically all the time.
In Canada, one would almost think when we suggest moving into the twentieth century with parliamentary procedure that we are doing something that is undemocratic. It would be hard to convince anyone in the Mother of Parliament at Westminster that that was undemocratic.


Harvie Andre: Their Ministers resign when they transgress.


Eugene Whelan: They do this, as a matter of fact, every day, and when we suggest doing something like that here, it is looked upon as being something so different. Time allocation
functions in Britain and they have used the rule that they abide by about 99 times. What is regrettable is the frustration caused by the attempt to pass this important legislation which will assist agriculture export extension.
In recent weeks we have seen the Conservative Government of Ontario set time allocation on legislation vital to the public good. As I have said, in the British parliamentary system time allocation is a correct and needed mechanism, and we should use it here more often.
Someone accused me the other day-I heard the things they were saying while I was sitting here-of knowing nothing about democracy. I have been elected ever since I was 21 years of age. I used to run an election campaign every year. For someone to tell me that I know nothing about democracy is a little bit much; in fact, it is more than much. I have served on different boards. 1 have been re-elected to this House several times since 1962, in fact in every election up until 1980. To say that I know nothing of democracy, after seeing some of the things which are done in this House which leave something to be desired, is unjust.
I wonder if some Members understand how democracy works when we see what is attempted here. With regard to Canagrex, efforts to get agreement on this Bill have been stymied, mainly by the Official Opposition who made statements concerning the legislation that in most instances were completely unfounded. I am utterly appalled with regard to what they have said about Canagrex and what it is intended to do.
Some provincial Ministers of Agriculture have been quoted as to what they believe Canagrex is going to do. I suggest that they check the laws, rules and regulations in their provincial legislative assemblies governing their Crown corporations. Over half of them have the power to buy and sell. That is true in every Province in Canada.
In the letter which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), he quoted the Auditor General. However, he did not quote him as far as he should have. The Auditor General is quite happy with what we are going to do about Canagrex. The Members of the Committee are aware of that. In fact, it was said several times in Committee.
In Committee, there were 14 amendments made to the 41 Clauses of the Bill. It has been said that this Minister of Agriculture is uncompromising, that he will not bend, he is inflexible, he is stubborn, he is bull-headed. How often have those kinds of concessions been made? If Hon. Members want to quote the Auditor General, let us hear what he had to say about the Department. Talking about the Department of Agriculture he said:
We found no serious deficiencies in the Department's planning and management activities.
December 16, 1982

That is what the Auditor General told Parliament in his Annual Report tabled in the Commons last Tuesday. Also, at a press conference he had praise for Canagrex because it is the first time the Government is willing to allow the Auditor General to conduct a full audit of a Crown corporation when he considers it necessary.
I talked to the Auditor General about that. That amendment was brought in by an Opposition Member on the agricultural Committee, the NDP member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo). It was accepted by myself as something that would put aside any suspicion of the administration of the Crown corporation Canagrex.
I do not understand why members opposite do not say that the Auditor General has approved it. The Auditor General told me that not only will it be the first time in Canada for any federal or provincial Crown corporation, but the first time for any Crown corporation in the free world that that will be allowed in legislation.
We hear a lot of talk about how badly run the Crown corporations are. One would think that we thought up all the Crown corporations. It was the Conservatives who thought up Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and many others. They are not suggesting that these be abolished.
The Tory opposition to the amended legislation really counfounds me-


Mr. Lewis:: Everything does.


Eugene Whelan: -particularly when the Conservative agriculture critic, the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), indicated to the Committee that he felt the amendments we had made were reasonable. At that time the former Minister of Agriculture endorsed the proposal which included the buy-and-sell philosophy which has recently been at the centre of controversy surrounding Bill C-85. After four gruelling months before the Standing Committee and after the Government accepted the 14 amendments to the original 42 Clauses, the Hon. Member for Elgin said:
Madam Chairperson, obviously these amendments appear to be quite acceptable to us ... Hopefully, 1 am extremely optimistic that we can make considerable progress and that we can accept the very reasonable option that I think you have put forth. I am going to ask you to understand my position at the moment, and perhaps we might have some further discussion.
I think really we have dealt with the contentious issues of the Bill and that is a very reasonable offer that you have put forth, but one that I would like to move forward on at the moment and accept and move forward with the clause-byclause study. I am telling you that once we get a decision from caucus and if that is a positive decision, then 1 do not think we have to worry about the time frame.
Lo and behold, the Hon. Member for Elgin was not successful when he want to caucus. He may have been more successful yesterday. All that changed quite dramatically when some of his colleagues, who unfortunately seem to lack faith in the current agriculture critic of the Official Opposition, kicked and screamed against the amended legislation, adding to what Mr. Kirk referred to as "paranoia" about the Bill.
Time Allocation


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What did he say?


Eugene Whelan: Kirk, David Kirk-


Erik Nielsen: What did he say?


Eugene Whelan: The secretary manager of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. All remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


Eugene Whelan: This is a sound piece of legislation, legislation that has been asked for by the farm organizations-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Twenty-five farm organizations oppose it.


Eugene Whelan: What the Hon. Member is scoffing at is the Canadian Federation of Agriculture-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They are split on it.


Eugene Whelan: There may be some disagreement within the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: There may be some disagreement in the Opposition Party. There may not be unanimous consent on our side. In a democracy you cannot always expect unanimous consent.


Mr. Taylor:: Half of the nation is opposed to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the Minister but the time allotted to him has expired.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) began his remarks by talking about the Mother of Parliament and how we should learn from procedures in the Mother of Parliament. Oh, how I wish that could happen! Oh, how I wish in this country we had a Government of Ministers with the same sense of responsibility as exists in the Mother of Parliament! There there is ministerial responsibility in a real way. When a Minister gets caught misinforming, mismanaging or somehow failing to fulfil his responsibilities, he resigns, as Lord Carrington most recently demonstrated. When have we seen any such behaviour from this sleazy crew? For him to stand up and suggest that the Mother of Parliament is a lesson for us only to the extent of the use of closure shows abysmal ignorance of what Parliaments are supposed to be about.
A respect for conventions and practices is very much at the root of what parliamentary democracy is all about. From that Minister, his Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard), you have respect for no traditions or practices. The letter of the law in its precision is the only thing that counts, and that is not always followed. Reliance on that does not create the kind of atmosphere that allows the proper conduct of a parliamentary democracy.
How can the Minister have such gall, after the way he introduced the motion under 75C in the middle of an income tax debate, a debate on a subject having nothing to do with

December 16, 1982
Time Allocation
this Bill, and after his House Leader had informed our House Leader and the House Leader of the NDP that their legislative priorities consisted of a whole string of legislation and C-85 was not on any of the lists, except well, well down? After clear indications from the Government that Bill C-85 was not something they hoped to get through before Christmas, the Minister of Agriculture in the middle of an income tax debate stands up and gives notice under Standing Order 75C, in our opinion, totally wrongfully.
Admittedly, the Chair has made judgment on that and said it can be done, but I humbly suggest that it should be examined by the Procedure and Organization Committee of this House. Because if this, what only can be described as "sneaky behaviour" is allowed to become the practice and the norm and is accepted in this House, then the kind of day we had yesterday and the day before are going to become part of the norm as well. I am sure no one wants that.
What was especially sleazy about that notice was that it came within days of the Government House Leader indicating that the Government was certainly interested in parliamentary reform. They were going to co-operate with the spirit of reform, with the spirit of working together to make this institution more meaningful, efficient and effective. But within days of what we thought was a sincere statement of Government policy, we have the behaviour I have referred to from the Minister of Agriculture.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared at this point to suggest that the Government House Leader was misinforming the House. 1 strongly suspect the Minister of Agriculture was freelancing and for that reason we have not seen the Government House Leader in the House during any of these last few days of rather interesting procedural discussions, which one would think the House Leader of the Government would be very much a part of. I suspect that the Minister of Agriculture, having crawled out of that limb all by himself, was left there on the limb all by himself, and at this moment 1 do not see a single Minister in the House except for the Minister of Agriculture, which indicates that the rest of his cabinet colleagues do not really want a whole lot to do with him.
This issue of closure which we are debating now on this particular Bill is an affront to the House in the manner in which it was introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. It is an affront to the spirit of parliamentary reform which had been so enthusiastically endorsed a few days earlier by Members on all sides. It is an affront to very, very significant sectors of the agricultural community of this country who find this Bill, in its present form, offensive. It is an affront, Mr. Speaker, to listen to Members of the Government speak about the need for us to be unified, for Canada to work together, to co-operate to overcome the economic problems of this country on the one hand, and on the other hand for the Minister of Agriculture basically to thumb his nose at the major portion of the agricultural industry and say: "1 do not care what you think. I want this Crown corporation and I am going to force it through even though I have to trick my own House Leader. I want this Crown corporation."
One wonders if he wants it for the benefit of a little red star on his report card, or for the prospect of there being another high-priced position within a Crown corporation which can perhaps be occupied by himself or his friends at some future date, beyond, as we know, the reach of any parliamentary scrutiny, as evidenced by the Auditor General.
And it is also an affront, Mr. Speaker, to do this just one week after the introduction of the Auditor General's Report on just how out of controls things are in regard to Crown corporations. The Auditor General described it as a hole in the taxpayers' pockets. Money is being spilled to the tune of who knows how much-we are not allowed to find out. No one can find out, not even the Auditor General. But within one week after that condemnation of the way in which Crown corporations are managed in this country, we have this Minister coming forward with closure to force through yet another Crown corporation, and who knows how many more subsidiaries of that Crown corporation are going to be created.
The socialists say a Crown corporation is a good thing and Parliament has no right to know what the Crown corporations are doing, how much they are going to be paid, that we have no right to say whether they can create subsidiaries or how many subsidiaries could be created. The socialists love Crown corporations. The more the merrier. And heaven forbid that the people of Canada should ever be allowed to find out how much these corporations are spending, how much the senior executives are getting, whether they are doing a proper job in fulfilling their mandate. Heaven forbid that Parliament should ever be allowed to investigate and find out. That is what the New Democratic Party are agreeing with. They agree wholeheartedly with that philosophy.
Well, we do not, Mr. Speaker. We accept and believe, and, indeed, have demonstrated that the Auditor General is exactly right, as his predecessor six years ago was exactly right, when he said there is a need for parliamentary oversight. There is a need for the public to know, through their elected representatives, just what Crown corporations are doing, because they are now, in terms of staff, larger than the Government, larger than the official Civil Service. They spend $30 billion-plus per year. For the Minister of Agriculture to say we should respect parliamentary democracy and look to the Mother of Parliament, for example, and on the other hand continue to turn a blind eye, or, indeed, condone the kind of abuse which the Auditor General talks about, is an affront to this House and to this country.
These last two days, Mr. Speaker, were not the way in which I, or my colleagues, would in fact like to see this place operate. We would like to have Parliament be a Parliament in the traditional, classic sense, with some ability to find out what Government is doing, with the authority to control Government spending and to oversee Government operations in a real sense. We have been successfully denied that for years and years and years. The introduction of Standing Order 75C is an affront to this House which we simply cannot tolerate. If The
December 16, 1982

Government tries it again, it is going to have a lot more days like the last few days. 1 see you are standing, Mr. Speaker; thank you.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise and speak today on this attempt by the Government to limit the debate on Canagrex. I want to begin by saying that it is true that we favour Canagrex. We favour it because we believe it will better serve the vast majority of farmers in this country who have been unable up to now to gain access to markets outside the country for their produce. We believe that Canagrex will serve that kind of purpose.
It was for that reason that I thought the Conservatives were supporting Canagrex when the Bill was first brought forward, because they also spoke on much the same lines-the value of trying to increase the opportunity for Canadian farmers to find markets for their produce outside the country. In fact, if I recall correctly, there was even the hint of a suggestion that this was indeed a Tory Bill reincarnated, that the Conservatives had been intending to bring forth just such a Bill had they lasted longer than the nine months they were in office in 1979.
That is my recollection of what was said and I stand by it. I believe it to be true. I want, however, to deal with one aspect of what was said by the Member who preceded me. One of my colleagues asked me how you call someone a liar in the House of Commons. I told him you cannot. I then tried to think of a way of explaining what was said that was wrong, and I want to put it this way. We have steadfastly demanded accountability from Crown corporations. We in this Party, recognizing the key and crucial role which Crown corporations can and must play in the future development of Canada, on every single occasion where we have been present and voting, on every single occasion where debate has taken place, have insisted that there be measures of accountability included in the legislation which set up the Crown corporation. We did not always have control, but on this particular Bill the Auditor General has said in his own Report, the Annual Report just tabled, that in singling out Canagrex he did so as a model of accountability.
He pointed out that there were two particular aspects of it that he found most acceptable. One was that there is a sunset Clause calling for a full review of Canagrex by Parliament in five years' time, and I think the majority of people believe that is not a bad thing to have happen. More importantly, there is a Clause in the amended Bill, which we will be dealing with in the next few days when it comes from the Committee, requiring a mandatory audit by the Auditor General whenever he deems it necessary. Do you know where that amendment came from, Mr. Speaker? It was moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo). That amendment was accepted by the Government because it believed that accountability was important. That amendment came from the NDP, and for any Tory to stand in his place in the House and attempt to leave a false impression that somehow or other we
Time Allocation
are responsible for the non-accountability of Crown corporations is absolute nonsense.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that my concern with this Bill is not with its substance. I believe the Bill will provide an opportunity for Canadian farmers who are currently unable to reach world markets. They will be able to improve their productivity, their sales and cash flow, and thereby improve their standard of living. That is what we favour in this country.
I want to say, however, to the Minister with regard to 75C, that I sincerely regret it has been brought in. I believe that if there are Conservative Members in this House who still believe that there are important things to be said about Canagrex, that there are still important points to be made, that we could have and should have negotiated a sufficient amount of time to allow those points to be made. My position has always been that where there are Members of Parliament who feel strongly enough about a topic, who feel that there is need for further discussion, who think that the public's view has not yet been adequately expressed, then it behooves the House of Commons to try and find that time. For that reason and that reason alone, I find myself unable to support the move by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to close off the debate.
I say that we will indeed support the Bill. We will do so because it is a good Bill and it is supported by any number of farm organizations from coast to coast. It will indeed provide all the things 1 have said. It is so accountable as to be a model in the eyes of the Auditor General, and I believe that with another two or three, perhaps four, days of debate, passage of the Bill could have been achieved without the use of 75C. If that could have been accomplished, then we could have had a House much more supportive of the measure, we could have had a community much more supportive of the measure, and with that we would have had a measure which undoubtedly would have had much more success in the future. That is what my worry is and for that reason alone we will not support 75C. But we say to the Minister that the Bill will provide a very necessary vehicle and one that we are happy to see in place.


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in this short debate on time allocation for Bill C-85. Mr. Speaker, it is very important for the House to realize how vital Bill C-85 is to an entire sector of our agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, I hear Members saying that this is closure, that we want to prevent people from having their say, and agricultural groups from pressuring the Government and discussing the alternatives proposed in this bill.
The fact of the matter is that we have worked in committee for at least eighty six hours during which thirty groups were heard and had an opportunity to express their views, and no one prevented them from doing so. Mr. Speaker, you will agree that after eighty-six hours and after hearing thirty different

December 16, 1982
Time Allocation
groups, everything has been said about this bill that had to be said, I think it is high time we all realized that this legislation is so important that it should be passed as quickly as possible. Time allocation will, in fact, help all Members to reach agreement on certain terms.
There is a lot of talk about provincial legislation. Here again, there is a tendency to ignore what is happening elsewhere, except for the Federal Government, and in time, this will create a serious imbalance in our country unless the Federal Government takes appropriate action.
I listened earlier to the Member for Calgary who said that the Auditor General tended to criticize all corporations because they were ineffective, and so on. However, the Auditor General happens to have congratulated the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who had the courage to ask for a full audit of the future Canagrex Corporation. The Auditor General congratulated the Minister for having done so and invited other Departments to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, as far as this legislation is concerned, I think we should realize that in this country we have an agro-food sector that is extremely effective and is exporting more and more. Now, if we want to compensate for the deficit on our trade balance, we are going to ask our farmers to increase their exports even more. Today, however, farmers lack the necessary tools to break into new export markets. When we see what is happening in the United States, Mr. Speaker, I, for one, am worried. I am worried that soon we will no longer be able to compete on world markets, because the United States is being very agressive. It is taking an increasingly large share of the market and is trying to sell its agricultural products all over the world, not without a great deal of difficulty, however.
Hon. Members are aware, Mr. Speaker, that Eastern Canada has a number of farming operations for which marketing is a real problem. It is a fact that in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes, we could be more agressive in seeking out these markets. We could then ask farmers to produce more, which would reduce production costs. By producing more, we can keep average production costs down. Some Hon. Members were saying: This is one more corporation that is going to cost the Canadian people $13 million. Mr. Speaker, if we ask our farmers to export several billion dollars worth more than they are exporting at the present time, the entire agricultural sector is going to benefit. The private sector seems to be afraid that it will now have to compete with a Crown corporation for its markets.
If we take a careful look at the objectives of the Canagrex corporation, it is clear that the purpose is not to eliminate but to co-operate with the private sector. Personally, if I were in the private sector, I would use the corporation to get rid of some of the problems we have to cope with in the export sector, because procedures are very complicated and it is a very difficult area to deal with. That is my perspective on the matter. It is therefore to be hoped that the private sector will
take a closer look at this legislation and use it for its own benefit and that of Canadian agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, of course this legislation is not totally unopposed. But when we consider those who met with us those who made representations, it is obvious that a great majority of the people who deal with farmers who defend the rights of farmers, namely the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Quebec UPA, and both the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia Federations of Agriculture, have all received this bill enthusiastically and want the government and the other legislators to come to an agreement on this legislation to give it further study and speedy passage. Everyone will certainly agree that the farming community, as with the case of the potato growers, is having serious problems. The same situation prevails throughout the country this year and we could perhaps be more competitive on the export market. However, many producers are left to cope for themselves and have neither the capacity, the resources nor the knowledge to tackle the export market. Once again, we have to realize that Canagrex is not just another bureaucracy. It will not be useless. It will not harm our dealings with other countries. The United States, France and Mexico have now come up with a legislation of this type because many governments are trying increasingly to deal with each other, as governments.
Once more, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate all the members of the Committee on Agriculture on both sides of the House who for months worked on this legislation. We are satisfied with many clauses of this bill, and we hope that further consideration will be given to those contentious clauses and that to the satisfaction of our farm producers all concerned will agree to give passage to this legislation which will put their productivity once more to the test. Eater on, we could also ask Agriculture Canada to do a bit more research on this because of the increased productivity of our farmers with a view to developing more profitable varieties, better suited to the climate of our various regions, and I believe that when this legislation has been implemented, we shall realize that all our fears were perhaps not as well-founded as we thought.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) extolled the merits of the Mother of Parliament at the same time as he proceeded to treat the standards of the Mother of Parliament, and any other Parliament, with contempt. Had he been a Member of the Mother of Parliament, by this time he might have been asked to vacate his portfolio and perhaps even his seat.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: Just a moment, my good friend from New Brunswick. As I understood it, he stated that the agriculture
December 16, 1982

critic of the Opposition Party had agreed that all the amendments that were necessary had been introduced and that the buy-and-sell provision was correct as it stood. Let me quote from the proceedings of the agriculture Committee on June 29, 1982 when our agricultural critic stated as follows:
However, we are adamantly opposed to the buy-and-sell provisions of the legislation contained in Bill C-85. These powers are too broad and too ill defined. They could be used to supersede or usurp the powers of our agricultural marketing boards.
He went on to say unequivocally that we do not support the breadth of this Act as it applies to marketing.
I was interested to listen to the remarks of the Member who spoke for the NDP. While supporting all those instruments which would put us in a totally regulated society, 1 suppose he or one of his colleagues will speak in this House in support of Lech Walesa who is suffering a total loss of personal freedom by virtue of Government control.
This Bill represents incorrigible Government control of agriculture.


Mr. Blaikie:: Why don't you tell the truth for a change?


Fred Alward McCain: When this Bill was introduced, no one was in any hurry. It was introduced on December 8, 1981 but did not come before the House until January 25, 1982 and second reading was completed by February 5. The meetings to which Members of the Government have referred were held and were necessary because of the outpouring of objection to the legislative fashion in which proper principles were being put in place.
The Federation of Agriculture supported the Bill but it qualified its support and no attention was paid to that qualification. The Horticultural Council supported it and I challenge Hon. Members to read its report and the qualification that is mentioned. The amendments it proposed are not reflected in the Bill. The Bill was dreamed up and presented as if it were the wish of agriculture as a whole in Canada when in fact it is not.
The last Member who spoke for the Government mentioned the potato industry. It has terrible troubles, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps this is only a sympton of the troubles it would have if the Government were to manage its affairs, as it could under this Bill.
All the time that was spent considering the Bill in Committee was necessary because of the outpouring of agricultural opinion from organizations all across the country. All of them asked for qualifications and amendments to the Bill, which are not now included.
When the Bill was introduced we agreed to it on division. It contained three principles at that time. First, that there should be export credit for agricultural exports; second, that there should be better consular representation in the foreign markets to stimulate better sales; and third, that the Government of Canada should, through the Department of Agriculture, have the authority to intercede and become the agent of Canadian business in the foreign market, where necessary.
We support these three principles and have supported them from the first. Our position of support for the Bill should not
Time Allocation
be confused with the stipulations our critic made about how it could be made to work better.
We never agreed that there should be joint ventures. This would permit the Government to put up 99.99 per cent of all the money required to establish a processing plant, to buy land, to grow or rear agricultural products, or to participate in the production, processing and marketing of products. That capability is in the Bill at present and we object to it.
We agreed that there should be an agency but we never agreed to a Crown corporation with broad powers. The fact that it will be audited, as the NDP has boasted, is not particularly relevant. An audit is not conducted until after the fact; it is the management before the audit takes place that is important. If it is to be managed as the CDC has been managed, then we do not want any part of it under this or any other Minister.
The CDC was the subject of comment in the Auditor General's report in 1976. It was also the subject of an extensive report of the Public Accounts Committee which made recommendations. None of these was fully implemented under the direction of the Minister. In 1981 the Auditor General found exactly the same faults with CDC as he had found in 1976.
In the Public Accounts Committee we have found that we cannot get information from the Minister that would enable us to issue a report this year. More than six years have passed since the CDC came under criticism by the Auditor General. What possible use are his reports to the farmers of the country if there is a six-year delay in the implementation of his recommendations? I support the amendment, Mr. Speaker. However, it is ridiculous to think that it will give Canagrex the management which Agriculture Canada deserves, desires and needs.
The Minister of Agriculture misled this House in his statement with respect to what our critic has said. I prove that by a quotation. If the Minister respects the Mother of Parliament, upon his return to this House he will apologize and retract an unmitigated error in his statement to this House. The Minister has tried to mislead this House, which knows better; but if he is quoted abroad or if he makes that statement on the hustings, he certainly does not respect the Mother of Parliament, any other Parliament, or the methods under which Parliament conducts itself.
There is a second misleading statement. Farmers think, as the Hon. Member from Quebec just said, that this is the end of their difficulties. Do not forget that this Bill stipulates that Canagrex must not and cannot lose money. Let me repeat that: Canagrex must not and cannot lose money. Canagrex has a budget of some uncertain terms, but somewhere between $5 million and $10 million, and it is to engage in all the business of the world on that budget. It can scarcely manage its own affairs, let alone salvage the farmers in this situation. And Canagrex cannot lose money?

December 16, 1982
Time Allocation
May 1 ask the Member from New Brunswick who just chirped up a few moments ago, how can Canagrex pay to the farmers of New Brunswick under the terms of this Bill a profitable price for potatoes which are selling at a horrible loss? Yes, Canagrex might help siphon potatoes out of this country and into another market, but not at a profit, Mr. Speaker. I say do not mislead the potato farmers either of New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island into thinking that this is the crutch of profitability for them or for any other aspect of agriculture. That is a deceptive part of the Minister's statements as he has talked to farmers and of the propaganda of the Government as a whole.
I charge that this Minister has, by virtue of the power of the purse and the authority of the Ministry, frightened many people into outward support for this program. The PEI Potato Marketing Board unequivocally opposed the buy-sell clause in this structure when its representatives came to Ottawa. When they were questioned on their way out of Ottawa after having had meetings with departmental officials, they left very timidly and had no further comment. Why does the Minister exercise such power over agriculture in such a deceptive way?
[ Translation]


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I deeply regret that a bill as important as this, which the House should have adopted a long time ago, must be dealt with under such difficult circumstances, and that the special procedure of time allocation should be used so that Hon. Members will take a stand on this particular bill.
Mr. Speaker, Canada must give itself this export mechanism if it is to compete successfully with other world countries that are taking positive measures to develop their export markets for farm produce. In this respect, 1 should like to refer to part of a statement made last year by Mr. William Tenkins, a former dean of the Nova Scotia College of Agriculture, last year:
In the Atlantic provinces, the export of farm produce is like a war. It is every man for himself, a most elementary and almost chaotic marketing approach.
Mr. Speaker, 1 was amazed to hear an Hon. Member from the Maritimes speak the way he did following 86 hours of debate both in the House and in committee, after the Committee on Agriculture that I have the honour to chair sat for nearly four months, heard over thirty witnesses on this issue, including some noted representatives of the farming community. 1 could not believe my ears when I heard the Hon. Member question the credibility of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Also as recently as November 1982 the Canadian Federation of Agriculture submitted to us a document from which I quote:
The Canagrex issue is of serious concern to CFA. In our view, such an export corporation should have all the flexibility needed to promote Canadian exports, take the risks of joint partnership, provide specialized advice when required, carry out desirable or essential interstate negotiations, share in the risks and support of long-term expansion work, meet advertizing needs, give guarantees and allow its employees to assume the responsability, when need be, of actively exploring marketing prospects.
Mr. Speaker, looking back on what we have been going through here over the last three days, today everything is fine, we can at last deal with the issue at hand but yesterday and the day before every attempt was made to hinder discussion on the Canagrex legislation now before us. We wasted time, it is outrageous to have to admit that $2 million were squandered that way. And 1 ask you in all honesty, Mr. Speaker, is it not your contention that Canadian farm producers would have preferred that the Canadian government spend those $2 million on crop diversification, advertising promotion, as proposed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, support to research and international trade missions to sell our Canadian farm products? As I see it, our image would have been better had we made better use of those tax dollars, instead of wasting two afternoons on questions of privilege on other matters totally irrelevant to the sad economic situation we are now facing. Life may be somewhat less difficult in Canada than elsewhere in this world.
We enjoy freedom here, thank God, and I hope this endures. But if we go on trampling freedom as we did for two days, preventing members of Parliament from speaking to the subject of interest to them and to our Canadian constituents, we are making a mockery of the democratic work of Parliament as accepted in a responsible society. I wonder how our people will judge us today. Freedom has been abused, and abusing freedom leads to anarchy. I have a feeling that for some time we have been going through a situation verging on anarchy, Mr. Speaker. 1 would like to refer again to the submission of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and I quote:
There is increasing co-operation and help between industry and governments throughout the world, as they strive for a larger share of the international market. Canada must follow suit.
Mr. Speaker, when the Federation makes such important statements, I have a feeling it is blaming us for lagging behind international realities. It is true that in Canada some groups with government assistance are better organized than others. Of course, big export corporations get all the services they need, but there is a group of agro-food products that are not sold or are undersold because perhaps they are not as well advertised or potential buyers are not as well informed of what we could offer them. The legislation we are now trying to discuss sensibly, and logically, will in no way hinder the work of organized export groups but would provide other groups with the opportunity to organize themselves better, and receive such services they are entitled to and which have been available to the others for quite some time. I see no reason why there should be a kind of emergency debate situation now, considering there has been such filibustering and not much rationality or Christmas spirit in our approach to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that farmers have always worked the land, long before the advent of radio, television and electronics. Have we reached a point where we must support
December 16, 1982

agriculture despite the opposition? Because the Government may very well be more enlightened than the opposition and because good decisions ought to be taken, we have to put up with a filibuster which is tantamount to an abuse of power on the part of members opposite. That is why I am upset because, if we look at cold facts, the export of food products does represent one of the most important markets for Canada. If we examine the economic situation of some other countries where the social and economic climate is worsening, we find that the first link which breaks up is the badly or insufficiently exploited agricultural sector.
So I am wondering why we are debating this emergency motion designed to limit debate on this vital and essential sector of agriculture which feeds the world. We should keep that in mind. As we are having this irrational debate when the situation is so urgent, I am wondering where we are going. Here is a piece of legislation to promote the sale of agricultural products throughout the world, therefore a measure from which, individually and collectively, Canadians stand to benefit, so 1 wonder why there should be any question about it. A parallel can be drawn between this bill to establish a corporation called Canagrex and the criticism levelled at other existing Crown corporations.
I find it almost mean that the Opposition should not at least have had the courage to experiment with a Crown corporation which would be all set to promote Canada's agricultural products on international markets, to help our farmers grow a wider variety of better quality products, and to sell on international markets the products which are already of very good quality and which we can make even better still. Mr. Speaker,
I thank you and 1 hope that Hon. Members will show less partisanship and less aggressiveness in a debate on such an important issue as agriculture.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, l do not know where to begin. Parliament has been affronted by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who stood in his place to speak on an income tax Bill which is of such importance to the farmers of this nation who are having extreme difficulties making ends meet this year. We came to the House to hear what the Minister was going to do for farmers who are in an industry which is on the brink of destruction. But what did we see? The Minister snuck in a motion of closure in a speech which I would be embarrassed to send out to the farmers in my constituency. He has moved closure on a Bill called Canagrex. The introduction of closure should only be used in exceptional circumstances.


Eugene Whelan: It is time allocation. That is different from closure. Use the right terminology.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: It should only be invoked when it is of grave importance for the Government to have a Bill that will assist in its program to aid farmers and the agricultural industry. Instead, the Minister has moved closure because he
Time Allocation
could not negotiate not only with the parties in this House but with farmers in all parts of the country to get approval for his Bill.
The Conservative Party has been consistent in its views on this Bill from the outset. We have stated consistently that we are in favour of export credits and of facilitating and promoting agricultural products. We in this Party, as well as some 23 agricultural organizations across the country, are opposed to the Minister forcing his will upon the nation by means of closure without the opportunity for debate on second reading or the chance to dicuss the many amendments to remove "buy-and-sell" from this Bill. One of those agricultural organizations is the Canadian Cattlemen's Association which represents farmers in every region of this country. It has demanded to be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. I wonder if the Hon. Member who just spoke, who is the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, understands what she heard in that Committee from the many groups who appeared to say they wanted those changes.
The Minister has been unable to get agreement. If we review his record over the past ten years, we see that he has passed ten Bills in the House, only one of which is different from what has been previously passed in Parliament. The remainder have only been changes to Bills that have been brought in by previous Ministers. The only substantive Bill introduced by the Minister was the beef import law which he was forced to introduce by the cattlemen across this nation.
We have seen a Minister who has been unable to deal with the significant problems faced by agriculture in this country. His function has been to cross the country putting out fires for the Government because he is incapable of bringing forward consistent legislation that farmers agree with. The Minister has brought forward his pet peeve. While the Minister talks about obsessions, he has an obsession regarding Canagrex.
Let us talk about the agreement which the Minister is unable to achieve. On July 13 and 14, 1982, there was a federal-provincial conference at which all Ministers of Agriculture in the country were present. As a result of that conference, eight out of the ten provincial Ministers indicated their opposition to the majority of this legislation.


Eugene Whelan: That is not true.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: The other two Ministers said there were certain parts of the Bill which they did not approve of. The Minister is running roughshod over the provincial Ministers of Agriculture in Canada because he cannot get an agreement. As well, he is running roughshod over 23 agricultural organizations who want changes to this legislation. He is using his big club of closure.


Eugene Whelan: Time allocation.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Closure. That is what it is.
When it came time for the Standing Committee, which spent a considerable length of time on this legislation, to discuss it with provincial Ministers, Members of the Liberal

December 16, 1982
Time Allocation
Party opposite said no and voted down my motion to hear from the Ministers of Agriculture from Saskatchewan, Alberta and other Provinces who wanted to appear. When the Saskatchewan Stock Growers wanted to appear, the Liberal Members said no again and they were supported by the NDP Member from Saskatchewan who was there. Once again, the NDP has tied itself to the Liberals on this question. It is poor treatment for their farmers as well as for our farmers.
Let us consider what is happening in the agricultural industry in the rest of the world. If we consider which countries are successful in trading their goods, we will see that it is always those countries which have private trading corporations which are successful. The most successful country is Japan, which has private trading houses consisting of some 80,000 people who are in different parts of the world selling their products. In our country we are lucky if we have ten people doing this job. If the Minister wishes to spend money in a more beneficial way, he could send people around the world selling our agricultural products and get importers and exporters together so as to get contracts for our farmers to sell their goods. Instead, we see a Bill called Canagrex, which is an organization similar to what exists in two other parts of the world. Canagrex is similar to what exists in the Communist countries and to Agrexco in Israel, which is a totally socialist country that produces most of its agricultural products on collective farms.
Farmers of many groups, particularly on the Prairies, are saying that the Minister of Agriculture, who is supposed to represent all Provinces in all regions of this country, should allow this motion to be debated. It was only debated for one and a half hours on report stage. He should seriously consider the amendments which were put forward by this Party to eliminate the "buy and sell" provisions. We will not have adequate time under closure fully to debate those.
We are receiving telephone calls in our offices, and the phones are literally ringing off the hooks, from people saying; "Stop this Minister until we have time to get to him and try to drill some sense into his head with regard to the Bill". That is what people in the regions are saying and they have had tremendous patience with this Minister. Many agricultural commodity groups and farm groups in this nation have had tremendous patience with this Minister. They really felt that he would do something for them. As 1 have pointed out, in the last ten years he has done very little other than go out and speak to them in an attempt to put out the fires instead of bringing forward constructive legislation to deal with the very serious problems facing the agricultural industry.
A Government is judged not only by the things that it does, but also by the way in which it uses its power. Agricultural groups and farmers across this nation will judge this Minister of Agriculture and the Government by their actions. It will be judged on its actions on a substantive agricultural Bill which will have tremendous implications if closure is used to push it through.
We in western Canada know about a Bill which has substantial powers. The Minister has said: "We will never use all of the powers in Section 14; no, no, we will not use them". Let us consider what happened to a very aggressive industry in western Canada as a result of a Bill which had much power which was never to be used. The former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), got control of that Bill and destroyed a very excellent energy industry in western Canada. Many farmers and exporters in this nation now look at this Bill and they see the same kinds of powers in it, whereby a Minister can run rampant over the many organizations, small exporters and the private sector in this nation if he wants to. The powers are there. We are asking this Minister to remove those powers. If he can prove to us and to the farmers of this nation that they are necessary, then he can have them back. That is a reasonable request.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion today because the time has come to bring the debate to a close. I must refer to the meeting with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in the month of November when it said: "We are informed that estimates totalling $500 million worth of export opportunities, to be effectively exploited, require the kind of facility and capability that Canagrex provides on concrete information and industry assessment". I suggest to Your Honour that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the major farm organization in Canada, is making a very serious request of Parliament to get on with the business and, as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture said not long ago to the Official Opposition, pass the Bill and stop passing the buck.
I must take issue with the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and also the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) when they stated that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) had destroyed the oil industry in Canada. I am sorry if they have not been kept abreast of what is happening in the oil industry in Canada because in 1982 the number of oil wells drilled and completed amounted to the second highest on record in the last six years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, what he is saying does not appear to be relevant to the motion that is before us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am simply correcting an impression left by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin.
I would also like to point out that the requests of the Opposition Parties in Committee, as indicated by the first Hon. Member to speak for the NDP, for amendments with regard to accountability to the Auditor General had been met. As a matter of fact, the Auditor General points out in his Report involving the Canadian Dairy Commission that "a comprehensive audit was conducted at the request of the responsible Minister". Here was a Minister who acted responsibly when he sensed that there could be a possibility that something was wrong. He immediately requested a comprehensive audit. We
December 16, 1982

accepted the amendment proposed by the NDP to ensure that Canagrex would be operated as a businesslike organization and that it would be held accountable not only to the public, but also to Parliament itself. The Auditor General went on to commend us for including that amendment so that we could be assured that the operation would function well.
One thing has disturbed me from the time this Bill passed second reading stage. I believe the Hon. Member who raised this matter yesterday under the provisions of Standing Order 43 was quite correct when he said; ''All of a sudden, there is a change of heart in the Official Opposition". In order to meet those fears, we amended the Bill so that Canagrex could not in any way enter into agricultural production except in the case of a joint venture or at the request of Governments, Canadian companies, co-operatives, marketing boards or associations of other Canadian enterprises. We met that request to ensure that this could not possibly happen.
Another story which is being circulated is that Canagrex will take over land through the provision to own property. We have plugged that loophole. There is no possibility of that happening.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ralph Ferguson: The only way it can possibly own property is for its headquarters or warehouses.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Macdonald said you'd never buy a service station, either.


Ralph Ferguson: We have met the objections of the various Members of the Opposition but they still want to stall because they realize the potential of this Bill. It could provide more markets for our export products and bring back our previous level of prosperity.
The "Food Market Commentary" for September, 1981, stated:
In fruit and vegetable canning and flour and breakfast cereals, foreign-owned plants control over 60 per cent of the shipments. That extent of foreign ownership raises the concern that such firms might not compete aggressively against their parent firms in third markets.
Another reason that we must proceed with this Bill and get it into effect is that our own producers, in the downturn of the economies of countries of the western world, may be left out in the cold by some of these foreign-owned parent companies.
1 would also like to take issue with some of the points raised by some people with regard to what has been happening in the area of trade. The Annual Report of the Canadian Export Development Corporation, just tabled a few weeks ago, stated:
Those who lost market share. This applies to Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy and Sweden.
Canada appears to have undergone the largest relative decline; and this happened at a time when the world market for these products had grown approximately five-fold.
If the existing system was doing so well and the market had increased by approximately five-fold, why did Canada's exports decline?
Time Allocation


Philip Derek Lewis: Because of the Minister.


Ralph Ferguson: A statement released by the executive director of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association states:
-our export performance as an industry is impressive and, if not fully satisfactory, would not be improved by Canagrex.
However, 1 cannot understand for the life of me why the Association would make such a statement, because we are in a deficit position as far as the production of dressed beef is concerned. We imported $178 million worth of dressed beef while we exported $142 million worth in 1981. We are also in a deficit position concerning our exports of live beef. We imported $133 million worth and exported $110 million worth. However, in comparison, consider what the horse meat people have done. They have a net export figure in the amount of $41 million. What in the world is wrong with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association which would allow this to happen?
Consider the hog producers. We have exports of dressed pork amounting to $349 million and imports amounting to $42 million. There is something desperately wrong when this type of thing can go on.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The Liberal Government is wrong.


Ralph Ferguson: The Liberal Government has nothing to do with it. We must go on and consider what is happening. People are waiting for this legislation. The Minister has been criticized for bringing in time allocation with regard to this particular Bill, not by closure but, rather, by Standing Order 75C.


Philip Derek Lewis: They snuck it in.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It was snuck in.


Ralph Ferguson: They call it sneaking it in. I don't. 1 have a telegram from the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board. It reads:
-an 11 million pound export sale ... hinges on the passage of this Bill plus the possibility of a further ten million pounds export sale.
Surely when we see opportunities like this in front of us, we should be taking action as the Parliament of Canada to make sure that we exploit the potential we have as Canadians. We should work together to improve not only the economic position of the Canadian farmer but the spin-off effects which are going to resound through our whole economy. The increased sale of agricultural equipment will put workers back to work in the farm machinery industry, and help the farm machinery dealers in the tight squeeze they find themselves in at the present time. I believe we have the potential here in Canada. We are respected as an exporting nation.
Producers from western Canada have the Canadian Wheat Board. In his book "The Merchants of Grain", the author, Dan Morgan, describes the Canadian Wheat Board as "the most sophisticated marketing system of any country in the world". We do not have the advantage of that in eastern

December 16, 1982
Time Allocation
Canada so we need a mechanism that we can use, as eastern Canadians, to gain our share of world markets for the products we produce. Surely the Members of the Opposition would not begrudge us that opportunity.
I want to point out again that under this legislation there is no way Canagrex can get involved with any product that comes under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian Dairy Commission. I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. Let us get on, pass the motion, debate the Bill and finally pass it.


Benno Friesen: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, 1 would just like to point out that if it was not for the attendance of the Opposition, we could call for a quorum.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That shows how much interest they have.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Emergency Measures-Government plans, (b) Role of Provinces; the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Energy-Cost compensation requested for home owners in Nova Scotia, (b) Equalization of Energy Costs; the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor-National Parks- Banff land exchange-role of Chamber of Commerce, (b) Reason for requesting delay in development project, (c) Request that bulldozers be removed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan that:
That, in relation 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, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary
in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate this privilege of being able to speak on this Bill which was brought in by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to move closure on one of the most important issues-


Eugene Whelan: Time Allocation.


Leonard J. Gustafson: -ever facing this House of Commons. That is because now a move to control the food industry in Canada follows the precedent set in this House during the national energy policy debate.
The urgency of bringing in closure, and the methods that have been used by the Minister of Agriculture, I am sure he will live to regret some day.
If you follow closely the parallel that has been used, first under the national energy policy where the Minister of Energy moved to control energy, not only in Canada but particularly in western Canada, which is so important to the farmers-


Eugene Whelan: He is talking about oil.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again I must call the attention of the Hon. Member to the subject matter.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to show the relevance of the closure that was used in this case to the methods used under the national energy policy. As we all know, energy and food are of the utmost importance, and closure used in this case will assist in the control of a very, very important industry in the farming community.
The Minister knows that many of the farm groups are opposed to this. I have a list of some 25 groups that 1 would like to put on record as opposing this move of the Minister on Canagrex. They are the Consumers' Association of Canada; the Alberta-Canada All Breeds Association; Alberta Cattle Commission; British Columbia Cattlemen's Association; Canadian Cattlemen's Association; Canadian Export Association; Canadian Meat Council; Canadian Seed Trade Association; Flax Growers Western Canada; Manitoba Canola Growers Association; Manitoba Cattle Producers' Association; Palliser Wheat Growers Association; Saskatchewan Canola Growers' Association; Saskatchewan Stockgrowers' Association; Western Barley Growers' Association; Western Stock-growers' Association; The Shipper and Exporters Association. This list points out:
The latter group includes the three Prairie wheat pools and United Grain Growers who, combined, represent hundreds of thousands of Canadian producers.
And the Minister of Agriculture rises in the House and brings in closure to force upon the farmers of Canada and the groups of people represented here, in a non-democratic way, control of food products in Canada.


Eugene Whelan: Time allocation.


December 16, 1982


Leonard J. Gustafson: Probably nothing has ever happened in this House that could have more impact on the control of food in Canada. This is a country where we have taken food for granted because it has been abundant, and we should be thankful for it. But one way to assure that we will not have that abundance is to give the Government control of our food industry in Canada, a state-controlled Crown corporation-


Eugene Whelan: You are talking about Alberta now.


Leonard J. Gustafson: This is what the Auditor General of Canada warns against; more Crown corporations that will bring in Government control and lose control for the producers of this country.
1 want to go on record as being a Member of Parliament who stood in this House and said to this House and the Members on the other side, the Liberal Members, and to the people of Canada, that 1 am a Member who stands up for producer control, not Government control, not state control.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: I have numbers of letters whose names are not mentioned in this previous list. Here I have the letter from Landis Seed Canada Limited. The letter was addressed to myself, "Mr. Gustafson, Member of Parliament, House of
Commons":
We are writing to you to express our serious concern with Government's intention to form Canagrex. We see this as an unwarranted intrusion upon the private sector by Government.
Another letter is protesting this direction. 1 also have an article from the Toronto Sun:
-Bill C-85. This Bill is a monstrous equivalent to the National Energy Program-which gave us higher gasoline prices, more taxes and a bigger national debt-only this time it is the nation's food resources that Trudeau
wishes to nationalize.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Leonard J. Gustafson: 1 hear the NDP groaning. It was very interesting to note, as with the national energy policy, that the NDP were the first to rise and support this Government-state Crown corporation that will be invented here to take control of the food industry. The Canadian people should note this carefully. In the Province of Saskatchewan there is a great deal of concern about Crown corporations and the effect they are having upon that Province.
I can see why the NDP are so concerned. They like Crown corporations control. They like state control, Government takeovers and these types of moves. The Conservative Party wants to go on record as opposing the direction being taken by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and his tactic of using closure to accomplish this.
In yet another letter condemning the type of action being taken, the Canadian Seed Association at its meeting in Pointe au Pic, Quebec, on July 7, 1982 passed the following resolution:
Time Allocation
That the general assembly of Canadian Seed Association express its opposition to the creation of yet another state trading corporation.
They expressed their indignation. They are opposed to the Minister of Agriculture forming, under closure in this House, another state trading corporation or Crown corporation.
The more important factor to be addressed is food. The farmers of Canada have a good record of production. That record of production is recognized world-wide. However, the minute a Government moves to take control of the production with directions that come from the Government halls, there is a decline. The Minister knows of other areas in the world that are equivalent to North America, but they cannot even feed themselves.
The record shows that as Governments get involved in the affairs of producers, the producers lose control; the production is moved to the point where they cannot produce the requirements for their own country. That has been proven time and again. The Minister sits and shakes his head, after bringing in closure on the Canagrex Bill that will harness the producers of Canada, making them non-productive.
I see that my time is up. I am sorry because much more could be said on this subject. I again warn the Minister of Agriculture against this move of bringing in closure on a Bill that the farmers of Canada do not accept and I put that on the record here today.


Mr. Maurice Bossy (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address this motion. I want to mention a few justifications for bringing in closure-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Finally the truth comes out.


Maurice Louis Bossy: -or time allocation. The Opposition call it closure. 1 must say that it is actually time allocation. I will clear that up.
The final passage of this important piece of legislation is long overdue. Long overdue is the creation of an organization to assist and expand the Canadian agri-food market. Long overdue is the passage of Bill C-84 through this House and into the other House. Long overdue is Canagrex becoming a reality.
I remember first hearing of a federal corporation such as Canagrex in the early 1970s. I was a cash crop farmer at that time. I wish to bring to the attention of the House a few words of the former Minister of Agriculture for whom I have tremendous respect. When he first became Minister of Agriculture in 1979, one of his first statements to the press was:
The Progressive Conservative Party campaigned on a pledge to concentrate on expanding markets for Canadian agricultural products.
The Hon. Member said that he, and I quote:
-wants to act quickly to complete efforts started by former minister Eugene Whelan to establish an export marketing body for agriculture.

December 16, 1982
Time Allocation
He further made the statement that he will, and 1 quote:
-implement, with possible changes, the Agricultural Export Corporation announced by the Liberal Cabinet during the election campaign as a tool to sell Canadian food abroad.
Underline the word "sell". He further stated concerning the agriculture export corporation, which would have powers similar to the Canadian Wheat Board, that he would refer it to that part of his ministry, but after talking with ministry officials, he thinks that may be impossible. He said that, because of the business nature of that structure, it may be necessary to have a Crown corporation. He further said:
I won't quibble over that.
On November 9 we were again briefed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which I respect as a very strong spokesgroup for the farmers of Canada. They were very emphatic about their support for the establishment of a Canadian agriculture corporation known as Canagrex. We have had representations from another national body, the National Farmers' Union, in which they very much supported the establishment of that corporation.
Another very strong body of representatives for the Quebec agriculture group, the UPA, very much supports this Crown corporation being formed. The Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Association, which represents the entire tobacco area, totally supports the establishment of a Crown corporation, as does the White Bean Growers Association. 1 could go on and on listing such respected organizations who speak on behalf of the farmers.
I question very much what has happened in this House to deprive us as Members of being able to speak on a very important subject which the farmers want, and that is the formation of their own Canadian agriculture export corporation. The Conservative Party has now questioned the credibility of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They are questioning the credibility of these people in speaking for the farmers, but it seems strange that the only time we hear about agriculture in this House is on behalf of those people who are not farmers themselves.
Time is very limited to speak on this, but I hope that on final reading I would have a chance to bring forward further proof that the Canadian farmer wants this corporation. It is time now to speak for the farmer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry to have put some pressure on the Hon. Member, but it is past five o'clock and we should be entering into Private Member's Hour.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Member's business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, Private Bills, Notices of Motions and Public Bills.
There being no items on the Order Paper under the heading of Private Bills, the House will now proceed to Notices of Motions, Papers.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
All items preceding No. 88 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all agreements, correspondence, notes and other communications relating to the requirement by the Foreign Investment Review Agency that Tate and Lyall Limited reduce its shareholdings in Redpath Sugar Limited.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I rise on what will probably be the last opportunity to discuss a motion for the production of papers, I do not discern any noticeable period of mourning for the end of this antiquated procedure. And I would hasten to say that when I call it an antiquated procedure it is because of its ineffectiveness and not because of its intent. The intent when originally conceived was that it would be a means by which a Member would be able to pressure the Government to produce documents, and the reason for the production of documents is to give information. The Member, in effect, is seeking information.
As a Member of the Committee which has introduced the new regulations which come into effect after the New Year, and which will see all Private Members' business discussed on Wednesday afternon, it is abundantly apparent to me that the probability is that the Members will choose as their subject their Bills and motions, and it is unlikely that motions for the production of papers will be discussed in the coming year.
I should at this point distinguish or record the essential difference between the Bills or motions of Members and motions for the production of documents. A Bill or a motion is a representation. The Bill is an attempt either to introduce legislation or to change legislation; the motion itself is an attempt to put pressure on the Government to take some course of action. The motion for the production of papers, of course, is a desire of Members to obtain information.
As 1 have said in committee discussions, we can then proceed via a question on the Order Paper to obtain the information which we seek. However, I am sure that the Members of the Opposition particularly will immediately say it is sometimes not as productive as it should be, that questions are not answered, information is not forthcoming, and I cannot help but agree, because reviewing the Order Paper I see that I have questions going back over a year. These questions are important to me particularly, and I believe probably to other Members.
I have complained many times that one of our problems at the present time with the Public Service is that we have been unable to introduce Public Service legislation. Over a year ago I did ask for information pertaining to the Public Service Employment Act and that question still remains on the Order



December 16, 1982

Paper unanswered. And 1 am repeating, 1 suppose, some of the complaints of the Opposition, almost on a daily basis now, concerning questions. But may 1 emphasize that whenever I rise at this time on Thursday afternoon, it is to seek information, and as such 1 do not believe that it is putting too much pressure on the Government. Thus it is disappointing to me sometimes that we do not get a more positive reaction.
As I look over some of the subjects we have had an opportunity to discuss in this period, I find that the range of subjects has been quite considerable and, of course, I am referring only to my own motions. 1 will let others speak about their own motions, but just on motions for the production of papers 1 note, for example, we discussed at some length the Department of Public Works and its restructuring. That is something which has been discussed, to my knowledge, for the last 15 years or so and many of us feel that it is time to come to some conclusion on that particular issue.
We discussed the Automotive Agreement in a motion for production of papers. We were looking for information for the parts dealers. They were complaining they did not have ready access to information which should be in the public domain. We sought papers in connection with trade, tourism and cultural exchanges between Canada and the Caribbean area. On my part, because of my interest in trade with the Caribbean area, I felt we should have a lot more information on what we were doing, the moneys we were spending, and the efforts we were making to encourage trade and tourism in that area. On another occasion we discussed construction and health standards for day-care centres, particularly as applied to provincial responsibilities. Once again, we were seeking information from the Government on what they considered to be their federal involvement, their federal responsibility.


An Hon. Member:: Is that the Confederation Building?


Harold Thomas Herbert: No. 1 will come to the Confederation Building a little later. On another occasion, Mr. Speaker, we discussed the Canada Assistance Plan at some length. We were looking for the standards for the programs and the conditions for federal participation in a revised Canada Assistance Plan. On yet another occasion, one of my motions dealt with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, residential mortgages and home foreclosures, a subject of common interest, and again we were seeking information.
We discussed day-care centres in the Public Service-and we can now bring in the Confederation Building day-care centre, if you wish. We mentioned it on this particular occasion. But here we were looking for information on Treasury Board involvement, the number of day-care centres which were being proposed and the kind of money which was likely to be spent. There was no question we were opposing the principle; we were just looking for information on how far the Government intended to go and what kinds of moneys they were likely to spend.
We discussed on one Thursday afternoon the popular subject in Quebec of the Dorval and Mirabel Airports. I do suggest here that although some of the information we were
Foreign Investment Review Agency
seeking might not have been forthcoming, that particular discussion had some bearing on the eventual decision not to destroy Dorval Airport which, Mr. Speaker, is of particular interest to you in your constituency. As a result of this, I felt there was some success achieved on that occasion.
Another one of particular interest in my own riding which we discussed one Thursday afternoon is that of generic drugs. This is of particular interest today in light of the fact that Ayerst is leaving Quebec, going south of the border. We know that Hoffmann-La Roche is closing its doors in Quebec and giving up its pharmaceutical operation. Therefore, the subject of generic drug production is very much an issue today, and once again we ask the Government for information in order to be better aware of the Government's position and also to have more information for our own use.
Going back to the Canada Assistance Plan, on another occasion we discussed the benefits to the Province of Quebec where, as everyone knows, the federal Government pays 50 per cent of the benefits paid under that Plan.
On another occasion we discussed post office regulations and delivery to residences. We know that the post office is always a topical subject for discussion.
Another occasion on which we discussed the Canada Assistance Plan in a motion for the production of papers dealt with New Brunswick. We used that Province as an example of one of the less wealthy Provinces where there is difficulty in providing even the 50 per cent of the costs of this Plan. It was on that occasion that I continued my representation that we think sincerely about dividing that Plan that is two-thirds social assistance portion and one-third social service portion, and give greater emphasis to social assistance since the federal Government has a considerable impact on the cost of social assistance.
Another topical subject for discussion was the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation where we were requesting information because we were dissatisfied with what were getting from the CBC. This was brought to the fore recently by a little anger which 1 expressed over the fact that the President of the CBC would come before the Committee asking for an additional $7 million in Supplementary Estimates and presented neither a written nor a verbal explanation to the Committee as to why he needed the additional money. 1 will use this particular moment to express my disappointment at the attitude of the Crown corporations referred to in the Auditor General's report towards providing information willingly to Members of Parliament. It is my belief that we should not have to ask; the information should be provided.
I was looking at the Supplementary Estimates to which I just referred, and if one looks at the page under "Privy Council'' we see four items; and if you read the details given under "Explanation of Requirements", one can judge that the Members are getting something of a con job. 1 do not mind if that is all that is left in the Supplementary Estimates, but I
21660

December 16, 1982
Foreign Investment Review Agency
feel that subsequently we should be given more detailed information.
More recently we discussed the Enterprise Development Board. That is topical at this time because of our particular need to improve and support the industrial sector and the export drive.
Today we are discussing the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Why do I bring this up again when I have discussed it over many years? In fact, the same motion has appeared in previous Parliaments. Once again, it is because I am seeking information I am unable to get from the Government.
Now, I will be fair and put on the record, in case the Parliamentary Secretary does not have the time, that this information is not disclosed under the provisions of the Act. Now, Mr. Speaker, what worries me is that an agreement has been signed between Tate and Lyle and FIRA. The intent was that Tate and Lyle would divest itself on its interest in Redpath Sugar. It so happens that the conditions of that agreement have not yet been triggered. That is a perfectly logical explanation, but it brings into question the way FIRA operates and whether agreements such as this should be put in the public domain so we can have a better knowledge of the original intent. I suggest, as I have previously, that it certainly brings into question whether the original intent was not to ensure that the share price would be such that the parent company would get back a certain sum of money with the end result that whoever buys those shares will have to pay a higher price. But the point is, Mr. Speaker, that in all these representations, in looking for papers we are looking for information.
I do not want to be unreasonable. If the Government was to say it cannot answer this question because it is far too costly or because it will mean releasing secret information or something of that sort, I would not mind. But too often it is just a silent approach. We are not told, yet I do not believe we should even have to ask. I suggest that it would be a lot easier, particularly for Government backbenchers, to support Government policy if we were provided with the information which makes it easier for us to support Government policy.
In the Committee of which I am a member presently discussing Bill C-133, changes to the Superannuation Act, it would have been a lot easier for many of us on that Committee as Government Members to have produced arguments if we had all the information at the start which we now have finally obtained.
So in conclusion, on this last occasion to discuss documents,
I plead with the Government, whether it be the present Government or succeeding governments, to try to help Members by producing information freely rather than making it necessary for us to point out the difficulties under which we operate when so little information is made readily available to us. I regret that this procedure will be terminated and I am using this last opportunity to plead with the Government to help the Members to do their job.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilgour):: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is not here. Is the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) speaking in his place?


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Thank you very much, Mr. Acting Speaker. I might congratulate you on your elevation to the Chair. Since you are such a non-partisan member I am sure the decorum of the House will be very much improved, as the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) says.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Tongue in cheek.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to support motion No. 88 proposed by the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). It is a motion to produce papers regarding a transaction undertaken by the Foreign Investment Review Agency. I do so in the spirit of trying to encourage the Government to make available more information on what goes on in this country. I believe this Government is far too secretive about the transactions of its departments, agencies and many of its Crown corporations.
I cannot help but agree with the Liberal backbencher who has just spoken when he says there is no reason for this kind of secrecy. All too often we see memos stamped "strictly confidential", and it is information that is not that sensitive, information which could be very useful, not just for Members of this House but for many citizens in many organizations in our country.
I also want to say a word or two at this time as to why it is important to have information about FIRA made public.

That is also important, Mr. Speaker, because we now have very high levels of unemployment in Canada. About one and one-half million Canadians are out of work. Our rate of inflation is also very high, and we may be one of the industrialized countries most severy affected by the recession. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that many problems are the same the world over, and that all European countries, and even Japan and the United States and other countries, are having a great many problems, but here in Canada, the recession is more severe because our situation is quite different. In fact, it is unique.
Of all the industrialized countries, we are the only one that has such a high incidence of foreign investment and foreign ownership.
I have read about the debates that took place at the end of the Second World War when Japan, France and Germany were virtually destroyed. The people in those countries decided that they were going to rebuild so that their own people would control the economy and make the important decisions. They are all strong countries today. They control the principal parts of their economy, they do a great deal of processing and manufacturing and they control their financial institutions. We
December 16, 1982

do not accomplish all those things in Canada. There is a higher incidence of foreign investment in resource manufacturing and other sectors of our economy than there is in any other industrialized country.
I think that was one of the problems, Mr. Speaker. Many studies show that because we have so much foreign investment we do not have as much control as we should have and we have more unemployment than we should have.
Just a year ago Statistics Canada published a report which showed that foreign firms import about four times as much as Canadian firms. In other words, a foreign firm has more of a tendency to import from its parent company in Japan, the United States or elsewhere, than has a Canadian company. If we had Canadianized our industry as other countries have done in the last 50 or 100 years, we would not import as many manufactured goods today.
Research and development is another problem, Mr. Speaker. We spend less on this than almost any other industrialized country because so much research is done by parent companies. We spend about the same proportion of our GNP on R and D as does India, Egypt or Ireland. We spend a lot less than the European countries, Japan and the United States. It can easily be seen that those countries are making greater strides in modernizing their industries and in being competitive than we are. We must Canadianize if we are to have more R and D in this country.
A good example is the case in Montreal of the Ayerst Laboratories which moved to the United States because that is where their parent company is located. The Montreal facility is being closed although it is the major pharmaceutical research facility and laboratory in Canada. Unless the Government acts, it will be lost.
That is why it is so important that motions such as the one before us today are approved by the House. We must have more information about what FIRA does and does not do. I maintain that it does not have as many teeth as it should have. It is not as strong as similar agencies in other parts of the world. If we had more information about it, perhaps it would be easier for us to stand up for Canada, as other countries stand up for themselves.
Another example is the Bowater plant in Newfoundland. In the last couple of years Bowater made about $40 million-odd profit in this country and sent over $30 million of it to the parent firm in Britain. Canadian workers are efficient and productive so the company made a good profit, but because it is owned by foreigners the profits are invested elsewhere. Then, all of a sudden the plant in Corner Brook is closed down through no fault of the people there.
Another example that has been used by many Conservatives is the Iron Company of Canada in Schefferville, Quebec. They have spoken of Brian Mulroney as the man who closed down a town. Despite the fact that the company has made a lot of money in^-Canada, it decided to close down the Schefferville operation and invest its money elsewhere.
There are many other examples that show why we must become more Canadianized, Mr. Speaker. The United States firm of Price-Waterhouse conducted a study of 73 countries
Foreign Investment Review Agency
which concluded that Canada has fewer barriers to international investment and fewer regulations governing international investment than almost any other country that was studied. We should take notice of that, Mr. Speaker, and be as nationalist in a positive sense as other countries are.
In the United States there are all kinds of regulations and rules that screen foreign investment. A foreigner cannot buy a radio or television station in the United States because of the regulations. There are many other areas in which Canadians cannot invest in the United States.
These are some of the areas that should concern Members of all political stripes, Mr. Speaker, in Japan, France and Germany, governments of different stripes have decided that their own nationals will control their economies.
The motion asks that certain papers concerning FIRA be made available for a particular case study. I should like to remind the House of a promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1980 when he was Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Liberal Party. Just before the election campaign he said: "We want to expand and strengthen FIRA, not weaken it". In April of the same year in the Speech from the Throne he said:
My ministers believe that the stake of Canadians in their own economic destiny must be strenghened ... the Foreign Investment Review Act will be amended to provide for performance reviews of how large foreign firms are meeting the test of bringing substantial benefits to Canada.
The Prime Minister made two other promises about FIRA, but when I questioned him in the House ten days ago, he admitted that he had not kept them. I would encourage Members of the Liberal Party to put pressure on their Leader, who was elected in part because of the promises he made, to keep those promises and to do in this country what has been done in most other countries.
I fear that we are backing down on FIRA because of threats made by the Reagan administration. The matter has been taken up at meetings of GATT in Geneva. The United States claims that FIRA is too restrictive and instead of standing up and fighting for it, trying to explain and strengthen it, the Government has crumbled to the pressure and has started to pull the teeth from FIRA.
Canadians want more control over their economy and over their destiny. I think many people wish that we had Canadianized a lot sooner and a lot faster-that we had done what the United States, Japan or western Europe has been doing for the last 20 or 30 years, and that is control our own destiny. Canadians have the ability and the confidence to do this. They have a vision of what Canada can be like.
I encourage the Government to produce these papers and make more and more information available. I encourage them to end some of the cynicism that exists in Canadian politics by making sure that election promises are implemented. In February, 1980 the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Liberal Party of the day, said that he would strengthen FIRA by doing three specific things. Two weeks ago in this House he admitted that he had not kept that promise. I call on Hon. Members opposite to be men and women of their word and for the

December 16, 1982
Foreign Investment Review Agency
Liberal Party to be a Party of its word and to implement its election promises. 1 think that would improve the attitude of Canadians toward politicians in all three Parties.


Eva Lachance Côté: Mr. Speaker, the topic we are discussing today has already been the subject of many a debate. It seems this is the fifth time a motion of this kind is being proposed. I must admit that, initially, I would be inclined to agree that perhaps more information should be accessible to Canadians, on a wider variety of subjects-I would almost say on just about everything. 1 do not think this is feasible. With the previous speakers, I deplore this, but at the same time 1 understand there are some things that can and others that cannot be said.
When it is said that the information requested cannot be provided because of confidentiality as understood in Section 14 of the Foreign Investment Review Act, and that such information may not be disclosed without the explicit consent of the parties who provided the information to the Government, it seems to me, first of all, that the Government must observe any undertaking it has made. I also think that the confidentiality of transactions that have already been examined and submitted for approval to the Foreign investment Review Agency, must be preserved, if only to protect the companies themselves, for obvious reasons which include the existence of competitors and the possibility of plagiarism, and so on. This is not to say that in the long run, Section 14 should not be amended in some way to enable Members, and therefore all Canadians, to be better informed. Ffowever, as regards relations between private companies who are already being asked to submit very confidential information, to see whether their intended investment in Canada will benefit Canadians when the Agency has made a decision, I feel that any commitments made to these companies must be met, and that if we decide to admit them as entrepreneurs in Canada, we must realize that a commitment has been made not to disclose information they have submitted.
As for certain Crown corporations to which my colleagues referred, I think a clear distinction should be made between the private company which establishe commercial relations and Crown corporations which are subject to certain regulations that could certainly be the subject of discussion or debate. However, 1 do not want to give the impression that 1 am particularly well informed as a backbencher. On the other hand, I think that the appropriate time for discussing the matter of being better or more fully informed is certainly not when a motion is being proposed regarding commercial transactions between two private companies which submitted their applications for scrutiny by the Foreign Investment Review Agency. I would have liked to hear a far more extensive debate regarding Crown corporations which operate with funds allocated to them by the Government of Canada.
I am not as sympathetic to the motion before the House, which asks the Government to publish information submitted in good faith to a Government agency that has extensive responsibilities and which, I feel, is acting very responsibly, and towards which the Government was bound not to disclose this information. Where the Member of the New Democratic Party referred to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, saying that during the last election campaign, a commitment was made to amending the regulations in the interest of Canadians, I think it is in the interest of Canadians that not all information should be made public. If we want a company to be interested in getting established in Canada, we should by all means create conditions that are favourable to such a move. If one of those conditions is to respect commitments to these companies that submit documents for consideration, something we have a right to demand, Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that in the final instance, these companies will become new corporate citizens. The Government does not give me the right to demand what the intentions of these companies are in coming to Canada. What we want to know is whether these companies will be good corporate citizens and whether they will operate for the benefit of Canada. I think that is what FIRA is doing. Now, if we feel that the powers vested in FIRA are exaggerated or too extensive, this should be clearly indicated in a motion. It seems to me, however, that in the present case which concerns transactions between Redpath Industries Limited and the other companies mentioned in the motion, these transactions do not warrant a motion of this kind nor an amendment to Section 14. As I said before, I would have preferred to see a debate on areas or companies for which we are responsible and which we ourselves created under an Act of Parliament.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, till further notice, I shall certainly have to speak out against this motion as it is formulated, but I agree that while certain things should be said, they are not. Unfortunately, this motion is not the proper vehicle for changing this state of affairs.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, because I believe it is the fourth time I have had occasion to speak to a motion by the Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for the production of papers according to certain laws, must remain confidential. Today, production of papers is being requested in connection with the Foreign Investment Review Act, and here again, I think we must be extremely circumspect as to the approach used in dealing with such cases. The fact remains that when a corporate citizen asks a government to examine its case, the company is not particularly anxious to have its file become the subject of public debate, and for a very simple reason. At the risk of
December 16, 1982

repeating myself for the fourth time for the benefit of the Member for Vaudreuil, I would say that there are two basic aspects to this kind of discussion. First of all, there is the matter of completion between private companies. There is not a single company that is anxious to publicize its industrial, development or investment strategies. Therefore, a government cannot publish information provided by a company on the understanding that its confidentiality will be preserved. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to point out to the Member for Vaudreuil that Parliament itself passed the Foreign Investment Review Act, and that if the Government were to table such documents, it would be failing to comply with legislation passed by this Parliament. It would therefore be a glaring contradiction within our parliamentary institutions, and 1 think there is not a single industry or company or citizen who would still trust Parliament if it were to ignore the legal principle of absolute confidentiality, which is the very basis of this institution, and I think this is something that should not be taken lightly. If the element of trust were lost when papers are tabled here in the House, I have the impression that there would no longer be many people or countries that would be anxious to deal with the Parliament of Canada. A second aspect, equally fundamental, is that of competition, as I pointed out earlier.
There are various programs sponsored by Federal departments where a detailed study takes place before a decision is made. The FIRA program is one, and there are others administered by DREE, by the Department of the Secretary of State, and by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Until a decision is made, documents may not be made public. There are two more reasons for this. First of all, as I said earlier, the Act prescribes that all documents shall be kept confidential. Second, and this is perhaps the most important part, the company or corporate citizens submitting an application demand that the confidentiality of their files will be preserved. Similarly, personal income tax returns are treated confidentially by the Department of National Revenue.
The same method is applied to industries, that is, the method applied in the case of a private corporation or, as I said earlier, in the case of a private citizen. It is not a case of preferential treatment, since both private citizens and corporations are treated exactly the same. 1 would like to repeat something that has already been said here in the House by the Minister of International Trade under the Government of the Right Hon. Joe Clark, and I am referring to Mr. Michael Wilson who was the Minister at the time. He clearly indicated that the confidentiality of documents had to be preserved. I would like to quote the Hon. Member to be sure of his exact words, because I think it is important to recall what was said at that time. On November 22, 1979, to be exact, the Minister of State said that he was surprised, and 1 quote:
Foreign Investment Review Agency
-that the Hon. Member would ask that the Government ignore the specific requirements of an act passed by this Parliament.
He went on to comment, and I quote:
That provision was purposely incorporated in the Foreign Investment Review Act to safeguard the commercial interests of investors who are obliged to submit their investment proposals for review under the act.
When an investor files notice of his intentions, and in any discussions that may occur later, he usually, if not invariably, imparts to the government through the agency a good deal of highly confidential information regarding his plans and intentions relating to the investment he is proposing. Therefore, he has the right to expect that information of that sort will not become known, prematurely at least, to others, notably potential competitors.
I could quote several other passages. I think these quotes are necessary because, as 1 said earlier, this is the fifth time we are dealing with a formal request for production of papers here in the House. I think that if the Minister were to give way to such pressure or such requests, departments would be unable to properly analyze files while safeguarding the very real interests of a company, the very heart of a company, that is, its balance sheets, investment plans, markets and technology. I think that is elementary, and I hope the Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) is listening so that we will not have to deal with such motions again. After all, we would all like to make the time of the House more productive, instead of repeating the same thing over and over again. Of course, I could have read the first four speeches I made on the subject, but I decided against it, out of respect for the House and also because it is useful to discuss other aspects that are perhaps more important to Canadians, instead of always dealing with the same topics arising from motions or requests that, for all practical purposes, always amount to the same thing.
On the other hand, 1 would like to go back, if the House will allow me, to what was said earlier by the Member for Rimous-ki-Temiscouata (Mrs. Cote). I know that a great deal was said about FIRA and the Foreign Investment Review Act. Some say it is too hermetic and too confidential, and that the regulations are not sufficiently known. However, only yesterday, someone came to see me at my office in my capacity of Parliamentary Secretary, to tell me that the Act was still too permissive. Clearly, there is more than one way of looking at the matter. I believe the problem is a medium-term one. What I would suggest, along the lines of what was said earlier by the Member for Rimouski-Temiscouata, is to submit certain proposals to parliamentary commissions on industry, trade and commerce. These would concern aspects that should be improved and would be submitted by the people interested in improving them and in establishing the appropriate mechanisms.
That is a very good idea, which would enable us to review past achievements and in the light of our experience of the past few years, to make a truly objective assessment and to take the necessary corrective action. It is a fact that in any organization such as FIRA, there is room for improvement, but I am

December 16, 1982
Foreign Investment Review Agency
practically sure that Hon. Members have interesting suggestions to make in this connection and that a parliamentary committee sitting at the time when the estimates are considered and the votes discussed would probably provide an ideal forum to carry out this study and take into account the suggestions made by the Hon. Member for Rimouski-Temis-couata (Mrs. Cote). I know that F1RA has been criticized from all quarters for some time. 1 think we should go beyond criticism and try to improve existing mechanisms in order to better meet the need of Hon. Members. I know that it is very difficult to trust an organization blindly, whether it be a government, a department, a corporation, for there are cases such as the Iron Ore and the mining companies which the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party who spoke before me mentioned and to which I will return later. But it remains nevertheless that a file should be kept confidential, otherwise it would never be possible to deal seriously and responsibly with the moral or physical entity that submitted it.
I have just referred to the previous speaker from the New Democratic Party who referred to mining companies. I too wish some corporations would disclose part of their figures, and I even asked the House permission once to examine their five-year projections, in order to ascertain their intentions over a longer period of time, because it must be realized that in communities such as those in Gaspe or on the North Shore problems are created each time a corporation operates in complete secrecy, changing its structure as it sees fit, because everybody is taken by surprise. I feel that some checking is required to remedy such situations. It is incredible how those people feel insecure because no planning was provided for some developments. In as much as certain papers are asked to be tabled in the House, I would like personally to see the scope of the debate extended for the benefit of some companies which will remain unnamed because I think everyone acted in good faith but I think that the legislator should be well informed in order to make responsible decisions. There are companies which would derive some advantage in publishing their investment plans although not in every detail because what is valid for the government is also valid for companies. However, I do not think it would be wise for companies to make public the whole of their financial operations or of their investment projections, but the government needs a minimum of information to act responsibly on behalf of our citizens. And a recession such as the current one leads us to reflect on those matters.
Moreover I would like, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that in another debate on Private Members' Business, we could deal with the whole issue of confidential public papers not only when the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned but also in the case of the private sector and some other government levels. I am referring to the federal and provincial governments because especially in the Far North, Northern Quebec or Northern Ontario, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is extremely interested in their development and I think that the Department would find it advisable to meet more often with private businesses and state quite
clearly what sort of development is to be expected in those areas.
I am very much amazed at all the work which is being done in certain economic departments here in Ottawa, and in the ten provinces, and invididual private corporations, but the time might be ripe in my view for some kind of pooling, which would allow for better planning and much more responsibility to those regions and everyone across the board. This could be the subject of an interesting debate in this House, because this would enable us to describe the work everyone is doing in his own area but which should be considered in the overall context. Certainly madam Speaker would be quite happy to have a very animated debate on the subject. Certainly we would enjoy the Chair's full cooperation to discuss all that.
To come back to the motion of the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), I would appreciate his stating in writing what he would like to know from this particular company, because the phrasing of his motion is rather general. It reads, and I quote:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all agreements, correspondence, notes and other communications relating to the requirement by the Foreign Investment Review Agency that Tate and Lyall Limited reduce its share holdings in Redpath Sugar Limited.
Clearly this is a request of a general nature, but I would like written specifics that would be useful to the Hon. Member. Because such a general request amounts to asking for all the documents, and this is why the Agency has turned down his request for the sake of confidentiality as I explained earlier, or of mere competition. But if the Hon. Member requires specific answers or documents to carry out his work in a more enlightened and relevant way, the department and the Agency would be pleased to make them available to him. I would just like to mention for the benefit of all Hon. Members that, as concerns DREE, for instance, a lot of material must be submitted when a company applies for a grant including public interest information and there is no objection to that. However, and 1 want to emphasize that often the companies are requesting that no part of these papers be made public. In this case, the company might be willing to cooperate with the Member and provide some information, and this was done in the past by various Departments. However, the Hon. Member has made a general request for the tabling of all the records and it is to this that the Department and the company object.
1 would like to point out to the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil, who is listening very carefully, that it is the company which requests confidentiality. The Department looked into that because when such an answer has to be given to a Member who obviously is very interested in his motion, the Government takes the trouble to check with the company involved to make sure the answer given by the Department meets the intentions
December 16, 1982

of the company. In this case, I did what I had already done four times before concerning other motions of this type moved by the same Member and requesting the tabling of documents which are considered privileged by the Department and the company.
Mr. Speaker, since I have very little time left, I would like to take a few minutes to tell the House about the intentions of the Foreign Investment Review Agency for the next few years because recently people have been asking the Department whether the Agency really does allow foreign investment in Canada, in view of some suggstion to the contrary. Many people say that if such were the case, the Agency does nothing to promote the use of foreign capital for the development of our country.
I just want to tell the House that after looking into the matter we have found that most of the foreign companies which agree to abide by the social requirements of Canada and to reinvest in this country are then authorized to locate just about anywhere in the country. The Agency is particularly careful not to let a foreign company settling in Canada undermine existing industries. The Agency is very cautious in this regard. I believe that my time has expired, Madam Speaker.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-129, An Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and the International Development Association Act-Chapter No. 12S;
Bill C-90, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff and to repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 129;
Bill C-135, An Act to amend the National Housing Act (No. 2)-Chapter No. 130;
Bill C-134, An Act respecting rebates of interest on farm loans made under the Farm Credit Act-Chapter No. 131;
Bill C-140, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1983- Chapter No. 132.
Time Allocation
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. At 6.08 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan:
That, in relation 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, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate this evening. I want to say first that I was absolutely shocked the other night when I heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), while speaking on an income tax Bill, give notice of closure.
The Minister talked about the length of time that we had spent on this Bill. He talked about some 82 hours. However, he did not say that most of that time had been spent in Committee where we were listening to witnesses from across Canada express their views on Canagrex. He did not say that of the 30-odd organizations which appeared before the Committee, well over 20 did not agree with the legislation, either in part or in total. He attempted to give the impression that the farmers and organizations across Canada are completely supportive.
The Minister talked about democracy, the mother of parliaments, and the fact that in Britain there is a time limitation on debates. If one examines the records, one will note that at the report stage of this Bill, the stage we are now at, there has been a total of 90 minute's debate. In the report stage, there are some 14 amendments to the Bill that have to be discussed and examined, yet the Minister talks of the mother of parliaments and time allocation and democracy. Is this democracy that he is talking about?
A short time ago I received a document. It has not received general distribution. The document is entitled "Canagrex:

December 16, 1982
Time Allocation
Responding to a Need". The document was prepared at the taxpayers' expense during the summer when the Minister felt there were problems with the Bill.
This is the propaganda document that was distributed to a limited number of organizations and people to try to convince them to put pressure, I assume, on their Members of Parliament to pass the legislation. 1 do not know how many thousands of dollars this document cost, but it is pure propaganda. It even contains some news items about Canagrex.
Can you imagine a Minister of the Crown spending the taxpayers' money to try to sell a Bill that he is unable to sell, spending thousands of dollars on this document? He did not give Opposition Members the opportunity to spend taxpayers' money to tell their side of the story. He did not allow us the same privilege that he had. If a Minister of the Crown has to spend thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money on propaganda to promote a Bill that is in the process of being discussed in the House, there must be something wrong with that Bill, but that is what he has done.
After 90 minutes' debate, the Minister comes into the House and says there has been too much debate, time will have to be limited. It is interesting to note that when this Bill was in the Standing Committee on Agriculture, it was pointed out to the Minister and Members on the Governement side that there are two Departments doing exactly the same work that it is proposed Canagrex will do, Industry, Trade and Commerce and External Affairs.
We tried to find out why the Minister was trying to press Canagrex and set up a third organization to sell. In Committee I proposed that we invite representatives from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or perhaps the Minister and that we invite representatives from External Affairs and perhaps the Minister to tell us what they are doing. The Committee could then say that as there are three different organizations that will be involved in selling agricultural products, maybe we should discuss this, maybe we can end up strengthening Industry, Trade and Commerce and there will be no need for Canagrex, or maybe we can strengthen External Affairs and there will be no need for Industry, Trade and Commerce or Canagrex. What happened? Members on the Government side said we could not invite those people, they might give evidence that would indicate that Canagrex is not necessary, so let us set up a third organization at taxpayers' expense, they will all be in competition and then we will do a proper job.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Triple the cost.


Douglas Charles Neil: As my learned friend says, "triple the cost".
The Minister talks of democracy. He would not allow those witnesses. He would not allow the only two organizations from Saskatchewan that requested to be witnesses. They were turned down. He said that we have already representations from Saskatchewan. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture gave evidence and it represents many organizations in Saskatchewan. It is an umbrella organization. But, Mr. Speaker,
there were two organizations from Saskatchewan involved in agriculture which requested permission to attend, and the Minister said no. At least, Members on the Government said no, and, obviously, when they said no, they were acting on instructions from the Government.
I see my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker, so I will simply close by saying that Hon. Members on this side of the House are shocked, and I am sure the people across Canada will be shocked, to learn that the Minister of Agriculture of this country would try to force a Bill of this kind on the people of Canada without adequate debate in this House.


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the motion before us this evening and which we will be voting on in a few minutes, I am always amazed to hear Hon. Members on the other side of the House, especially those of the Official Opposition, say that they did not have enough time to debate a bill when actually they wasted hours and hours on several occasions before the Committee on Agriculture with their procedural arguments. During some of the meetings which I attended, they kept introducing motion after motion to have this or that witness heard, debating the motions and urging that a group be heard when that group had not even asked to appear before the Committee. I take it with a grain of salt when I hear them complaining that they did not have enough time to debate a bill, or that the Committee should have spent more time on one clause or another. Mr. Speaker, we did spend several hours on second reading of this bill, and so did the Committee on Agriculture. We spent hours listening to witnesses who had asked to give evidence before that Committee, and indeed they were heard. Members opposite say that they were not given the chance to hear certain organizations which wanted to give evidence, as a result of rather shady deals they wanted to make. As I just said, those organizations had not asked to be there, so the Opposition resorted to delaying tactics to bog down the Committee proceedings. They told the Committee that if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) could agree to the presence of a certain individual or group, they would refrain from introducing this or that amendment. I see on the other side of the House some Members who were at that meeting and who, one after the other, did introduce three or four motions and asked that they be debated separately. In the end, we had not made any progress. Mr. Speaker, I have not been a Member here for very long, but there is no way I can describe their approach other than to say that they used delaying tactics to prevent a Bill from being reported to the House. However, what I find interesting about the situation of agriculture, and especially as concerns the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which we met early in November, is that the Federation told us:
The Canagrex issue is of serious concern to the CFA. We believe it desirable for such an export corporation to be fully flexible to promote the development of Canadian exports, to accept the risks of joint endeavours, to provide specialized
December 16, 1982

advice as need be, to negotiate between states in the many circumstances where it is desirable or essential to do so, to share the risks and support long term development projects, to meet advertising requirements, to provide guarantees and enable its employees to accept upon request the responsibility of looking actively for market opportunities.
We have learned-
These are the words of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which asked us to give passage to Bill C-85 concerning Canagrex and which told us:
We have learned that the projections-
On pages 10 and 11 of the brief presented to us in early November 1982, the Federation said:
We have learned that the projection for an export potential of $500 million which, to be fully developed, requires facilities and services such as those Canagrex can offer are based on factual data and an assessment by the industry.
The industry and the governments work together and cooperate increasingly throughout the world as more and more emphasis is placed on attaining an adequate share of the market. Canada must follow suit.
This is what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture told us, Mr. Speaker. The Federation, which represents the farm producers of all Canadian provinces including Quebec and Ontario, recommends that the Government proceed with the Canagrex Bill. This organization says that the Canadian Government must follow the example of other countries and make it possible for Canadians to export their farm products and it believes that Canagrex would provide the means to develop our export potential and that we should proceed with this bill. Following our discussions in committee, where so many amendments were proposed by the Minister, the Official Opposition finally wanted to move another amendment which would have eliminated any possibility of the Canagrex Bill being effective. Mr. Speaker, it is because of the numerous empty speeches made by Members opposite, merely delaying tactics, that the Government must now ask the House to vote on a time allocation motion, which will make it possible for a few Hon. Members to debate the bill, because the Official Opposition is so divided on this bill that it refuses to let farm communities across Canada know how divided it is and how difficult it is for its members to stand as one behind their official critic on the Canagrex issue. That is also the reason why, under the present House procedure, we had to proceed in this manner and make it possible for Canadians involved in agriculture who clamour for Canagrex to have the bill passed as soon as possible, following the numerous discussions and meetings held by the Committee on Agriculture chaired by my colleague the Hon. Member for Rimouski-Temiscouata (Mrs. Cote), a committee which has heard witnesses as well as the representations some Hon. Members were eager to make. And whenever we meet representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, they say: Let us go ahead, we fully support Canagrex. Quebec farmers, through their Union des produc-teurs agricoles, have appeared before the Committee on Agriculture and told about their situation, and I know that the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), the only Progressive Conservative Party Member from Quebec in Ottawa was present at the committee meeting at the time and told us: We
Time Allocation
endorse the principle of Canagrex, but next to him three of his colleagues were shaking their heads. That is why they refuse to vote on this bill. If they will not debate this Canagrex bill, it is because they are divided, but a federation which represents all farm producers throughout the country is telling us to go ahead. Mr. Speaker, this is why-1 see the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is smiling. On a few occasions he came to the committee on Agriculture, and put forward a few motions, always with a smile of course, but he also wanted that such or such a group be heard. 1 know you understand French, my friend! He wanted to move that such or such a group be heard, although he had not been requested to do so.
Mr. Speaker, this is why in my view the situation could not go on, and when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) gave this notice, and 1 see another Hon. Member opposite is saying the same thing, Mr. Speaker, I think it was necessary to proceed this way. Canadian farmers represented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture wanted and still want the Canagrex legislation, and this is what the Government and Liberal Members will do to enable Canadian farmers to have a bill they have been demanding for so long.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Party does not condone in principle the use of closure or of Standing Order 75C, whatever title the Minister might want to give it. He may call it time allocation. We think there has not been adequate time to deal with this Bill. We think 90 minutes was not an adequate amount of time for a debate of this Bill.
Having said that, I think we should also make it quite clear that we do not condone some of the activities which have occurred on this side of the House on the part of the Official Opposition. Such activities as staying behind the curtain when the bell rings, or raising points of procedure for two or three days. We have wasted more time in not dealing with Canagrex than we would have spent had the House Leaders come to an agreement and handled the Bill in the way Bills are ordinarily handled. We think this House has always operated, when it is operating properly, with a spirit of confidence. That is because the House Leaders have confidence that their Parties will back them up. This has not always occurred on this particular Bill. In fact, it has not occurred very much on a lot of Bills. We see time and time again a Party open up debate, present one point of view and then switch half way through. This has been the trade mark of the Official Opposition during this past session.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That will never happen with the NDP, we can tell you that. Once they are wrong, they are always wrong.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Fine.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You never change your mind no matter how wrong you are.
Time Allocation


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I simply want to remind the House of the enthusiasm with which the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) greeted this Bill. He is now portrayed as the man who is going to save the country from Canagrex, this horrible, horrible Bill. Here is what he thought of it when it was first introduced on December 8, 1981. At page 13834 of Hansard he said:
Madam Speaker, we on this side are delighted to give our consent to the introduction of an idea initiated by the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) when he was in office. We in this Party express our gratitude to the Minister for perpetuating the idea of the Hon. Member for Elgin in this legislation.
It was not just the Hon. Member for Yukon who set the tone. The Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) was also quite appreciative of the Bill. His main criticism was that it did not provide as much money as the plan he had proposed. He was going to spend some $60 odd million, while the current Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is doing a chintzy $14 million spread over three years. That was the chief criticism. When we heard from the spokespeople for agricultural regions from the Official Opposition, they followed the same line. They made it quite clear that they were in favour of an agency which could sell farm products. There was no hesitation about the buying and selling option which is now the cry of the Progressive Conservatives. They were talking about how the agency had to be able to buy and sell, it had to be able to complete the sales, it had to get out and do the job for Canada. How can we continue to have confidence in an Official Opposition and in the function of this House if they continually reverse their position? The only way in which this House can work is when the position of the spokesmen are borne out by the votes and backing of their Members. The Hon. Member for Elgin got jumped on by his Party, and I do not think anyone needs to have any second thoughts about that. He was badly done by, and because of that, this whole operation has gone on. We spent 80 some hours in committee, much of it not doing anything constructive at all.


Eugene Whelan: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Apologists for the Liberals.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I am not an apologist for the Liberals. One of the speakers, I believe the Hon. Member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne), pointed out today that no one prevented anyone from presenting his point of view. I would just remind that Member and Members of the Official Opposition that that was not totally true. There was the Ontario Soybean Board, Peter Epp and his people, who were invited to our Committee twice in order for the Committee to hear what they had to say, but the Official Opposition engaged in procedural debate through both of those periods and that group has yet to present their point of view. They refuse to come back because they are not going to be treated that way again.
Much has been made by some of the Conservatives in particular of this being another Crown Corporation which we are not going to be able to control. I would like to point out to those Members that this is Bill C-85 and they should read it. If
December 16, 1982
they did, they would have noticed that Clause 29(4) gives the Auditor General the ability to conduct a comprehensive audit.


An Hon. Member:: Fourteen.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It provides for a capital budget and it provides for more reporting to the House and Committee than any other Crown corporation.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 8.26 o'clock p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 75c have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
The question is on the motion of Mr. Whelan.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Madam Speaker:: The motion is carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Eugene Whelan: that Bill C-98, to amend the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Some Hon. Members:: Never.


Madam Speaker:: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) moves that the Bill be read-


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: You would like us to shut up over here, I know. Mr. Clark: Jackboot democracy, Liberal style.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, your eyes were diverted to what you were reading when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) rose to debate the first order that you read.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Yes, he rose. He was up, 1 saw him and so did we all here.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: We would like to start at that stage of the measure, with the assurance that I gave the Government House Leader today that that measure will pass by ten o'clock tonight, before the hour of normal adjournment, but we want the Minister to open the debate as usual, and for participation on this side.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it was the intention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to make a speech on

December 16, 1982
Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act
third reading. That is what he intends to do once you have put the motion, as you were about to do, we are therefore respectfully prepared to listen to you.


Erik Nielsen: She read it.


Madam Speaker:: For the benefit of the Elon. Member for Yukon, the debate is to take place only when the third reading is proposed, and I was reading the second formula in order to introduce the third reading.


Eugene Whelan: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the Elouse to adopt the motion?
Some Elon. Members: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, it is with concern for consumers-


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After two days of high-jacking by the Tories on this closure motion, 24 of their Members are missing. That is just for the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That of course is not a point of order. The Hon. Minister of Agriculture has the floor.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, when I am talking about the industry I am referring to everyone who produces, transports, trades or sells perishable fruits or vegetables. That includes in Canada-[DOT]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I wonder if the Hon. Members would want the House to revert to its usual calm, so that we could all hear the Minister of Agriculture.


Eugene Whelan: That includes something like 200,000 people across this country.
These people are responsible for providing Canadians with a wide variety of fresh fruit and vegetables year round. It is a big job when you consider that most of the produce they handle is highly perishable. Last year they imported and distributed $1.1 billion worth of fruits and nuts, and some $600 million worth of vegetables.
Their job has been made easier in recent years by advances in refrigeration and cold-storage methods, and by improvement in the transportation system. Unfortunately, the legislation that regulates the industry has not advanced as quickly as the industry itself has.
The fruit and vegetable industry is in need of tighter regulations-regulations that will help ensure that costly delays and interruptions do not occur in the delivery of fresh produce, from the producer to the consumer.
That is why we have before us for third reading, Bill C-98, a Bill to amend the Canadian Agricultural Products Standard Act, commonly known as the CAPS Act.
This Bill has received first and second reading in the past month and passed through the committee stage last week, where the Canadian Fruit Wholesalers Association and the Canadian Horticultural Council spoke in support of the Bill. The speed with which this Bill was passed, Mr. Speaker, is to be noted. It won all Party agreement in just three meetings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which speaks for the soundness and the importance of the proposed amendments.
Bill C-98 is an important Bill for the industry. It is important because it would give the CAPS Act the legal power necessary to regulate the terms and conditions under which the fruit and vegetable trade in Canada can operate efficiently for the benefit of producers and consumers.
One of the most significant amendments concerns a board of arbitration to resolve disputes between buyers and sellers of fresh produce. When one Party is unhappy with the arrival condition of a shipment, if they feel that the shipment is not in as good a condition as it should be, and when the buyer rejects the delivered goods the arbitration procedure is recognized by the industry as an effective means of handling such disputes.
The board of arbitration has continued to operate on a voluntary basis in settling disputes since the previous legislation was declared invalid in 1974. But without legal powers, the board has not been able to do its job effectively. There have, for instance, been cases of parties ignoring decisions which the board could not enforce.
You must realize that when you are dealing with highly perishable products that must travel long distances, it is necessary that an arbitration board be able to act quickly and with authority. Otherwise, the products spoil while the squabbling goes on. While they are arguing back and forth trying to negotiate, trying to deal, trying to do all kinds of things, the fresh produce deteriorates until, in some instances, it is not marketable.
The board of arbitration would give dealers an avenue of recourse. It would examine complaints about quality, packaging, storage, transportation and preservation of fruits and vegetables on the basis of standards and regulations made pursuant to the amendment of the CAPS Act. These regulations are currently being drawn up by a committee composed of both industry and Government members. Therefore, we can be sure that any new regulation will be practical enough for the industry to follow.
As you are probably aware, the United States is our major trading partner in fruits and vegetables. We are their largest customer. The United States operates an arbitration system to handle complaints where Canadian shippers arc involved. It is only reasonable that Canada should provide a similar service to settle disputes with our biggest trading partner.
Three other amendments to the CAPS Act concern the licensing and bonding of dealers in fresh fruits and vegetables.
December 16, 1982

Bill C-98 would amend the Act to provide for the licensing of such dealers and, secondly, to establish regulations setting out the terms and conditions surrounding a dealer's licence.
The third amendment to the Bill, approved last week by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, would require that all individuals and firms requiring licences would have to post a bond to cover any order or decision that might be made against them by the board. This amendment, I want to point out, was approved just last week by the Standing Committee after discussion with officials of the Fruit Wholesaler's Association and the Horticultural Council. An amount of $100,000 for the bond has been suggested, but the sum is still being discussed.
Members of the Canadian fruit and vegetable industry import hundreds of millions of dollars worth of perishable produce from all over the world each year. Thanks to them, Canadians can eat fresh spinach, bananas and melons and many other products all year round.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I understood the Minister correctly, he stated that if one were to appeal to the board of arbitration to settle a claim, a bond would have to be posted. Did I understand him correctly? If that is so, I was not aware that that would be-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I am not sure why the Hon. Member is rising. I thought he was rising on a point of order. Obviously the Hon. Member rises to put a question to the Minister. Perhaps we should inquire whether the Minister wishes to receive a question at this time. That would be in order.


Eugene Whelan: 1 was stating that if anyone wanted to be a licensed dealer, he would have to apply for a bond. The $100,000 was discussed between the traders, the Canadian Horticultural Council, that type of thing. I do not know what the Hon. Member got from what I was saying. I was talking about how the bond was being proposed, that it be $ 100,000. I suggested no such thing as the Hon. Member has mentioned.
Members of the Canadian fruit and vegetable industry import, as I said, hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of perishable produce from all over the world each year. It is an important industry. However, the Canadian horticultural industry is attempting to replace many of these imported products with fruits and vegetables grown in Canada. My Department strongly supports their efforts. If we really want to encourage import replacement, we must make sure that the domestic goods arrive at the retail store quickly and in top shape. It must be high quality or we will not be able to sell our produce.
In conclusion, I must stress again that we are talking about highly perishable products. Whether these products are grown in Canada or on the other side of the world, they must be moved quickly. Nobody, neither the producer, the dealer nor the consumer, can afford handling delays which could be avoided by tighter regulations. Tighter regulations must
Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act
guarantee that the produce arrives in a condition that is saleable and the consumer will be satisfied with it.
It is obvious that the proposed amendments regarding licensing, bonding and a board of arbitration would give members of the horticultural industry in Canada greater confidence in shipping perishable products long distances. These amendments to the CAPS Act would held reduce the element of risk involved in the marketing of fresh fruits and vegetables and for export.
I urge the Members of this House to support Bill C-98, a Bill to amend the Canadian Agricultural Products Standards Act.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I have just observed that there are 23 Members on the Government side. In the numerous times 1 have spoken, never has such a great number of Government Members stayed behind. 1 am pleased that word got out that I would be speaking tonight. Perhaps it is because you are all waiting breathlessly for the apples that you have ordered.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member should address his remarks to the Chair.


Frederick John King: 1 am sure, Mr. Speaker, they are all waiting with anticipation for their apples. Let me assure them that they do not need an appeal process against the quality of British Columbia apples.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Frederick John King: Yes, please applaud.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick John King: In his address to the House on November 26 in support of Bill C-98, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said:
It is only reasonable that we should try to reduce some of the element or risk through the provision of a good arbitration service so as to make it fair and operate in a very smooth fashion.
We agree fully and, in a display of co-operation and awareness of a situation which has needed to be corrected since 1974, we have undertaken to pass as quickly as the Government of Canada will permit Bill C-98, the amendment to the CAPS Act.
The purpose of the amendment is to give the board of arbitration established under the CAPS Act binding powers when ruling over disputes regarding the condition of a product shipped and received, a dispute between shipper and receiver of fresh fruits and vegetables in national and international trade.
The House and the nation should take note that when legitimate, worthy legislation is advanced by this Government, the Opposition responds in a thoroughly constructive and helpful manner. On the other hand, when the Government puts forward legislation unworthy of support, which goes against the grain of our Canadian experience and tradition, the

December 16, 1982
Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act
Opposition will again respond in an equally thorough, constructive and helpful manner. In this instance we will accept our responsibility to resist, and explain to the electorate the reason for that resistance.
This is why the closure motion on the Canagrex Bill, C-85, brought the response which was demonstrated today. We resent the closing off of debate, limiting the ability of those in opposition to the measure to communicate to the general public the implications of that Bill.
The amendment to the Canadian Agricultural Products Standards Act is long overdue. The original Act, passed in 1934, was called the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act. My involvement in agriculture goes back quite a way. I remember when that Act was brought in. My father was active in the fruit industry, both the politics and the practical end of fruit growing in those days. The Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act brought a degree of stability and value to the industry that had previously been missing.
1 grew up on a fruit farm in the Okanagan Valley. As I said, my father was active in the practical side of fruit growing and the politics of the fruit industry. In those days it was a struggle to market a product that we grew in British Columbia and had to ship many miles across the country and to Europe. Presently we ship across the Pacific. The type of regulation brought to bear by the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act was an absolute imperative to the progress of that industry in British Columbia.
I can remember as a boy when my father was involved in protests, when fruit was shipped out of the Okanagan on consignment with no way of knowing what the ultimate return would be. There was a battle cry in those days when trains were stopped by the farming community. The battle cry was, "A cent a pound or on the ground." One reason we have upgraded the industry is that we had an act which provided uniform standards for the commodity we grow so well in the Okanagan Valley. We have an industry there now that produces values in the area of $150 million annually, which is a boost not just to the local economy, but to the Canadian economy as well. That is my background. I am a man of the soil.


An Hon. Member:: A great Canadian.


Frederick John King: That is right, a great Canadian. These are my credentials for speaking on an amendment to an Act which has great implications for agriculture in general, but very specifically for the British Columbia tree fruits industry. The question might be asked, why has it taken so long to get this amendment to this stage? I do not know. You might have to ask the Minister. We have been willing to act judiciously and quickly on this matter, and they are demonstrating this willingness today.
I have in my possession a copy of a letter addressed to the Hon. Yvon Pinard, House Leader, House of Commons-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Again, 1 caution Hon. Members not to use proper names but to use the name of the riding of the Hon. Member or his portfolio.


Frederick John King: Thank you. It is addressed to the House Leader of the House of Commons, and 1 will not read the salutation. It is dated September 20, 1982, and is under the letterhead of B.C. Tree Fruits Limited, the Sun-Rype Products Ltd. It is over the signature of the Director of Operations, B.C. Tree Fruits Limited, and it reads:
With reference to the introduction of Bill C-98, an Act to amend the Canada-Agricultural Products Standards Act in March, 1982. It is our understanding that the House will not deal with this piece of legislation prior to adjournment and, therefore, the Bill will have to be reintroduced in the next session of Parliament.
B.C. Tree Fruits Ltd./Sun-Rype Products Ltd. would like to express their deep disappointment that this Bill has not been dealt with to date and request that you give positive consideration to dealing with this legislation as soon as possible.
I have also a letter from the Canadian Horticultural Council which expresses the same kind of concern for immediate passage. Therefore, the question can well be asked, if there has been a void in the legislation since 1974, why has the Government not moved more quickly to fill that void?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I apologize to the Hon. Member. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is rising on a point of order.


Marcel Dionne: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member allow a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Will the Hon. Member accept a question from the Parliamentary Secretary?


Frederick John King: Well, I did not know that we had brought the new ruling into vogue so quickly. I thought that was next year. Next year I will be pleased to.
British Columbia Tree Fruit Growers know from experience the advantages of having an established appeals procedure in the event of quality or condition claims against shipments. We are forced by our circumstances of living in an area remote from markets to ship our cherries, apricots, peaches, pears and apples great distances. Soft fruits are sold from Quebec to the Pacific Ocean. Apples are sold throughout Canada and the United States, and in fact the market is world-wide now, all the Pacific Rim countries and Europe. We have the advantage of a superlative product which withstands the rigors of travel well, but for various reasons claims from time to time do arise. A method of arbitration of these occurrences is a great advantage for both producer, seller and the market. The B.C. Tree Fruits industry will not necessarily make use of this provision of the amended Act because their volume of trade is sufficient so that representatives of the industry at the marketplace are able to assess and adjudicate claims. While this is true, it is deemed by officials of those industry companies that it is a
December 16, 1982

significant advantage to the stability of the Canadian fruit and vegetable marketing trade to have such a mechanism in place.
We agree with the good faith shown in providing a parallel system of adjudicating complaints to that which applies in our major trading partner, the United States, through their Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act.
While we support fully the legitimate aim to produce more of our own food within Canada, it must be recognized that trade is a two-way affair and that foreign traders in Canada must be afforded equal treatment to that which applies to Canadian producers selling in their country. For this reason, and for others, we are pleased to note that this amendment to Bill C-98 corrects an omission which was produced by a decision of the courts of Canada in 1974. It has been a long time coming and we are pleased to see that it is here at last. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to spend a few minutes reiterating the support of my Party for this Bill, which we stated in second reading stage and which carried through in Committee. I was pleased to see that the one shortcoming which had been identified in second reading stage, namely, the lack of a provision for bonding procedures, was included by an amendment in the Committee. I am also pleased with the co-operation and apparent consultation with the various affected Parties on this particular Bill. The Horticultural Council of Canada and the Fruit Wholesalers Association seem to have good contact with the people in the Department responsible for drafting the Bill, and the co-operation shows in the final result.
The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) asked a very good question. He asked, since the problem has been known since 1974, why has it taken so long to deal with it? I think Hon. Members should be aware, as all we new Hon. Members are, that things do not move very fast around here. Last year we passed a meat import Bill which had been floating around since 1971. We got that out of the way in only ten years. I should point out that this is a problem which has been around since 1974. It has taken us only eight years. We are catching up. 1 hope we make such progress in the next part of this session of Parliament. The procedure which we are putting into law is a procedure which was carried out unofficially by the trade and was tested in the courts in 1974. They did not stop carrying out those same voluntary procedures after 1974, but what we will have now when this Bill is completed will be a reinforcing of the procedures which were carried forward. It ratifies the arbitration committee and sets up another board of review for those cases which might be challenged by that committee. Also, it will leave a situation where buyers and sellers will be operating under bonds, and if one party or the other is perceived by the arbitration board or the review board to have done something wrong, the bond will cover the expenses and will ensure that the party who received the shoddy goods will be reimbursed for them.
Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act
So 1 think it is a very fair, very brief Bill, something which is just a bit of housekeeping that the House has looked after. We picked up the only shortcoming immediately visible. We think it will work and we are prepared to let it go through very quickly this evening.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's remarks tonight give rise to some concern following the good natured fellowship which was experienced in Committee meetings. There were some suggestions made there, among which was that the bond for the dealer was expected to be in proportion to the need of the dealer to protect his customer, the receiver or shipper, whichever the case may be. I think we have to recognize that a minimum $100,000 bond is going to impose some very serious hardship in the community in which you and I, Mr. Speaker, live. If that is to be the minimum, then 1 have to submit to you that we have not been dealt with in good faith in that Committee. When it was proposed that the size of the bond should be proportional to the need, and when it was pointed out that many of the big guys in the business today, both shippers and receivers, started with a small cart on a corner and the need was not for $100,000, there was absolutely no objection raised by the Minister, his Department representatives or from any member of the Committee. A $100,000 bond as a minimum is too much. Let us go back and act in good faith in this. I am very, very disappointed that, having dealt with this Bill as we have, we would be confronted with that kind of a statement at this stage of the debate.
I would love to sit down and have the Minister explain what he said. He said the bond would be $100,000, without qualification. If he would care to explain it, I would be happy to let him rise on a point of order, or in whatever way you would allow him to clear that up, without my losing my right to speak, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I suppose the Minister would be allowed to respond at this time by unanimous consent. I draw to the attention of the House that we are not following procedures under the Committee of the Whole, and it is a very unusual request. By unanimous consent, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has the floor.


Eugene Whelan: Well, Mr. Speaker, how the bonding system would work was clearly explained in Committee. There is no hardship on anyone. You have to be a licenced dealer to buy and ship produce. They are going to be bonded, and we said the maximum would be $100,000. That is what they are still looking at. I used that terminology in the Committee and I have not changed it one iota here in the House tonight.
As I have already stated, there would not be a need to have a bond posted in order to have a complaint heard by the board of arbitration. You do not have to have a bond posted to have that complaint heard. Any ordinary citizen can have a complaint heard, and he does not need to have a bond. Only as a condition of obtaining a licence would applicants be required

December 16, 1982
Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act
to post a bond. If they are going to be a licenced dealer, they would have to post a bond.


Fred Alward McCain: If I have misunderstood the Minister I apologize to him, Mr. Speaker. But may I suggest that he take a look at the "blues", because my understanding was that the size of that bond was to be a minimum of $100,000. If that is the case, my objection stands. If it is the maximum, that is a different situation altogether and I accept that.
We also suggested, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee should have the right to have a look at the regulations as submitted for the control and performance of this Act in the hands of the Government. I hope the Minister will accede to that request in view of the harmony with which this Bill has been considered in all stages.
I think once again, Mr. Speaker, we must draw to the attention of the House and the industry that this Bill has been some eight and a half years in the process of development and presentation to this House. I submit to you that that does not do anything good for the record of either the Minister or the Government in whose Cabinet he sits. However, I think it does point out one thing. There has been a great deal of complaint about the amount of time consumed on the Canagrex Bill. That Bill, unlike this one, was in conflict with public opinion. Like all other Papers and all other Bills presented by a Government which conflicts with public opinion, that public opinion must be heard, as it was heard. That was not needed in this Bill. I cite this Bill, Mr. Speaker, as an example of what a Government should do. It should not delay for eight years- that is taboo and irresponsible-but it should react to public opinion as expressed to it by letter, by wire or by personal conversation in presentation to it. None of that can be attributed to the Canagrex Bill. But this Bill, in contrast, did respond to representations made across the board by the fruit and vegetable industry. Therefore, it became very simple for this House as a whole to consider this Bill. I guess I would have to say, and I believe I would be permitted to do so in response to remarks already made on this Bill tonight-I will not deviate from the subject matter any further than those who preceded me-that on our left once again they are stating that we changed our position on Canagrex from day one.


Ian Deans: You did.


Fred Alward McCain: They cited the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), they cited the agricultural critic of this Party. The principles attributed to this Bill, Mr. Speaker, in its announcement, were totally supported by this Party.


Ian Deans: Methinks thou doth protest too much.


Fred Alward McCain: But the vehicle or the method of implementation of these principles was objected to from day one and never espoused in any way, in any direct statement by any Member on this side of the House. The principles, yes, and on those principles we still stand firm in our support. They are necessary. But when anyone from any Party can pick up the words
which were quoted this afternoon by the agricultural critic of this Party and say what was said tonight in this House-


Ian Deans: You cannot stand the truth, that is your trouble.


An Hon. Member:: Well, you do not know the truth when you see it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I have been following the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) attentively. I cannot presume, of course, to know the future course of his remarks, but as I understand it, the Hon. Member was referring to another Bill before the House previously. If I may suggest, perhaps we should return to the matter at hand.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I was responding to remarks made by the previous speaker from the NDP Party. If his remarks were tolerable, I plead with you: please let me respond.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member may feel obliged to respond to remarks which may have escaped the attention of the House earlier, but that does not legitimize any right to respond to them at this time. The Chair has brought to the attention of the Hon. Member that he should, as much as possible, relate his remarks to the Bill now before the House.


Fred Alward McCain: Well, there is a very distinct relationship. This is a Bill which in principle is totally supported, but one whose principle is implemented in an unacceptable way. No Member of this Party has said anything else with respect to Canagrex. What was stated here this afternoon absolutely and totally denies the remarks which have been made by several speakers from both your left, the NDP, and your right, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Deans: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I challenge that gentleman to read the "blues". If he reads the "blues" for today's remarks, if he reads the comments in the press release of the Hon. Member who is our agricultural critic, and if he reads the publicity which this Party has sent out, he will retract that statement tomorrow or he will live with the guilt which has to be his. Read it. Read it and then repeat it if you can.


Ian Deans: I read it and I repeat it.


Fred Alward McCain: Read today's "blues".


Ian Deans: You cannot weasel out of this one!


Fred Alward McCain: Read the "blues" of today and the comments of the agricultural critic of the Conservative Party-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please.


Fred Alward McCain: At no time-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please.
&

December 16, 1982


Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet:: Sit down and respect the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. 1 am not suggesting that the words of the Chair are pregnant with wisdom, but certainly Members should heed the caution expressed earlier by the Chair that there is some wisdom in attempting to adhere to the matter before the House so as to avoid controversy which may go beyond the scope of the Bill now before the House.


Fred Alward McCain: In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that I do want to see the regulations. I trust that the Minister will continue to act with the good faith he has used-after eight and a half years, mind you-and that the Committee will be able to see the regulations before they are made public. The Committee should have an opportunity to give this some consideration. I believe this would be in the best interests of the industry. The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) has clearly put forward the need for this. It is a need which should be considered. This should not be applied with a heavy hand.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of comments on Bill C-98. It is an important Bill. Perhaps it is not important to a large number of people but it is important to the people in the industry, as the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen has so ably pointed out.
We have here an example of how the Opposition co-operates with the Government when it brings forward good legislation. Time and time again we hear that the Opposiiton wants to obstruct matters in this House, but when the Government brings forward good legislation, we do co-operate.
The only sad thing about this legislation is that it has taken eight and a half years to come before the House. If the Government had demonstrated any wisdom we would have been happy to pass such legislation a long time ago.
We do not hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) saying that he is happy to see the Opposition co-operating on legislation, but we do it all the time. The press does not pay any attention when legislation is passed that is good for the industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. 1 apologize to the Hon. Member but the Parliamentary Secretary is rising on a point of order.


Marcel Dionne: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to point out to my friend opposite that they indicated that the Canadian Horticultural Council had strongly supported Bill C-98 as well as Bill C-85.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. In my opinion, this is surely not a point of order but a matter for discussion.
Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act [English]


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, that is an example of how the Government does not respect the Chair. That was obviously not a point of order and the Hon. Member knew that before he rose to his feet. 1 would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should be careful or he will filibuster the Minister's Bill and not see it passed by ten o'clock, if he does not watch out. That would be an example of the Government filibustering its own good legislation.
Let me close my remarks as a demonstration of good faith and common sense on this side so that the Bill may be passed before ten o'clock this evening.
We in the Opposition would have been more than happy to pass this legislation a long time ago. We feel that it is too bad there has been a loophole in the law that has had to be filled on an ad hoc and, some might say, on an illegal basis for many years.
As soon as the Bill is passed we look forward to it being used by-


Eugene Whelan: You never had a vehicle to do it with before.


Charles James Mayer: 1 hear the Minister of Agriculture blustering away there as usual, trying to filibuster. He says we never had a vehicle. That may be true. It is unfortunate that we have not had a Minister for the last ten years. That is the main vehicle that we should have had that could do something for Canadian agriculture.
We hope that the Bill will meet the needs of the people who appeared before the Committee and who spoke to us privately.
I hope the Minister will see fit to bring forward legislation in the future that is of genuine benefit to the industry. If he does, let me assure him that we on this side will certainly recognize good legislation and will be more than willing to co-operate with him to see that it is passed so that we do not have to wait another eight and a half years to put through legislation like this.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest we see the clock at ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is it agreed that we call it ten o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 16, 1982
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, for the past 15 months or so I have been asking various Government Ministers questions dealing with the emergency planning orders that were passed by order in council in May of 1981. At first the Government denied the existence of these orders. Once they were found to be there, it said, "We have to do our planning". I think all Canadians will recognize that when it comes to emergencies, an orderly Government will plan for them.
Things became a little more ominous when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) met with some of the provincial Ministers in June 1981 and told them in a speech that if the emergency plans were not completed, the Government might have to act extra-legally. That in itself was ominous enough but in the intervening 15 months we have found out, more and more, what the Government meant by acting extralegally.
Setting aside the order itself, which empowers a Solicitor General in wartime to depopulate prisons in order to make room for political hostages or political prisoners, and setting aside the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has total control of all the information agencies in the country-setting all those things aside-the President of the Privy Council only talked about acting extra-legally when it came to an emergency. We now find that the Government has made plans to act extra-legally if need be in order to design the order itself.
I want to bring to the attention of Members of the House the fact that about a month or six weeks ago a package came to my office. It contained the confidential memo sent to the President of the Privy Council from Mr. Snarr, the gentleman he appointed to head up the emergency planning agency. That memo outlined some pitfalls in federal-provincial relations that came to Mr. Snarr's attention through letters he received from some of the provincial Governments. Strategy was outlined as to how they might circumvent some of the problems. For the record I want to read some of the concerns which some of the Provinces have voiced.
First, I have a letter dated August 19 which came from an official of the Province of Alberta. It reads, in part:
The most obvious examples of such emergencies are situations of war or situations of transition from war to peace. Alberta is seriously concerned however, that the proposed federal legislation will not necessarily be confined to emergencies of an overriding national concern but that it also contemplates federal authority in what may be very localized situations.
On page 2, the letter continues:
It is my recommendation that a clear statement be made as to the temporary nature of the proposed legislation and that the legislation be confined to dealing explicitly with national emergencies that threaten the safety of Canada as a whole. Moreover, because of the extraordinary and constitutional features of the contemplated legislation, I would propose that full and complete consultation be undertaken with the provinces before the legislation is introduced to Parliament.
I have a copy of a letter sent to the President of the Privy Council, from a Minister in the former NDP Government of Saskatchewan. In part, this letter reads:
It has come to my attention that certain agencies and departments of this and other provincial Governments have been directly approached by federal officials with the intention of initiating joint planning processes. In the case of Saskatchewan and other provinces, this was done without the knowledge or consent of the Minister or officials responsible for emergency response and planning.
The letter continues:
Indeed, the discussion paper which we agreed to (No. 1-Joint Emergency Planning) specified that each province would "determine the form and nature of the planning mechanism best suited to its individual requirements", and that the "Provincial Emergency Measures Directors and the Regional Directors of Emergency Planning Canada will jointly facilitate and co-ordinate the planning of the joint emergency response arrangements."
This proposed arrangement seems to have been overlooked in the recent actions of numerous federal departments.
As you are aware, 1 and other provincial ministers attending the June 5th meeting in Ottawa had serious reservations about the form and possible scope of Planning Order PC 1305.
And the letter continues:
It now appears that federal emergency officials have seen no need to consult with their provincial counterparts, or to act in manner consistent with the agreement of Ministers, in initiating joint emergency planning processes. Numerous contacts have been made in Saskatchewan by federal emergency officials, and by line department officials, in reference to joint planning exercises or activities under P. O. 1305. In none of these instances has the provincial emergency staff been contacted by federal staffs in accordance with our understandings.
Finally, I have a letter from a Minister in the Government of Ontario in which it is stated that that Government is concerned and suggests that:
-the effect of suspending rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter of Rights ought to be brought into effect only in the clearest case of an emergency.
Further on in this letter we find:
The examples under which a state of emergency could be declared, as outlined in your statement, are far too broad and vague for Ontario to consent to federal pre-emption of its constitutional authority in such circumstances. 1 realize, of course, that further discussions could make our joint and individual interests much clearer than unilateral statements of our intent.
Mr. Snarr writes on page 3, paragraph (b) of his memo to the President of the Privy council that he proposes that the strategy regarding relations with the provinces should proceed and that they should:
-continue within the federal Government, our planning for NEAs, but in dealing with the provinces we would "soft-pedal", peacetime activation and for the time being concentrate on wartime interfaces between NEAs and provincial government facilities-
In paragraphs (d) and (e) he says they would continue the Joint Emergency Planning Program and the funding as long as the Provinces would co-operate. If they would refuse to cooperate, however, they would withdraw that funding, take it
December 16, 1982

over by the Government departments themselves and initiate those programs under the federal aegis; all that in the name of federal-provincial co-operation.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not here tonight to deny the authenticity of this particular document, or to dwell on the questionable ethics of making free use of classified material in the House. What I propose to do is to remind Hon. Members why the Access to Information Act we recently passed specifically removes such forms of privileged, communications from its general thrust.
In the intense and sometimes difficult world of federal-provincial relations, Ministers frequently receive advice from their officials in memoranda, such as the one in question, in which various options were outlined. Ministers are, of course, free to make use of this advice or to disregard it as they see fit.
In the case at hand, we are dealing with a document that is now some 14 months old. Despite what the Hon. Member has intimated, the memo has not seen the collapse of federal-provincial understanding in emergency planning. On the contrary, a number of events have taken place since October of
1981.
First, a federal-provincial conference of officials in January,
1982,	began the drafting of a intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding on Emergency Planning covering both general principles and specific tasks.
In October of 1982, the federal Government and the Province of New Brunswick signed the first such memorandum, and discussions are continuing toward this end with eight other Provinces and with the two Territories.
Third, senior federal officials have held bilateral consultations on emergency planning with both Territories and with the Provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick.
Fourth, applications for cost-shared projects under the Joint Emergency Planning Program have been received from both Territories and nine Provinces.
There have been 31 joint projects approvals under this particular program since October of 1981, including at least one from each Territory and every Province except Alberta.
Federal and Territorial officials will meet again in Winnipeg in February of 1983 to continue this important work.
I believe that these demonstrate that whatever options may have been outlined in the document under discussion, the course which has actually been followed has been one of free and open co-operation with the Provinces.
The practical reason why tactical advice prepared for Ministers is privileged in our Act is that it is all too easily misunderstood and misinterpreted. I believe that the present case is a classic example and I have to question whether the Hon. Member in raising this matter at the present hour is helping or hindering progress toward a more constructive working relationship between the federal and provincial Governments in the area of emergency planning.
Adjournment Debate


ENERGY-COST COMPENSATION REQUESTED FOR HOME OWNERS IN NOVA SCOTIA. (B) EQUALIZATION OF ENERGY COSTS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, on November 26, 1982, I addressed a question in the House of Commons to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) concerning the cost of energy in the Maritime Provinces, particularly in the Province of Nova Scotia.
My purpose in questioning the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on this point was to present to him the problem that exists in the Province of Nova Scotia, and particularly in the Province of Prince Edward Island with respect to the tremendous burden on the consumers of home heating oil and other forms of energy which are utilized to heat homes. I was attempting to make the case for federal Government assistance to people in the Maritime Provinces, particularly the Province of Nova Scotia; for special aid to assist the residents of Nova Scotia in bearing these tremendous costs which have increased dramatically over the past few years. I welcome the opportunity now to make the case for special federal assistance to residents of Nova Scotia with respect to energy costs. I can only hope-perhaps forlornly-that my colleague from Nova Scotia, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Dingwall) will carry that message back to the Minister in the hope that some action may be taken before this winter passes.
In October of 1980, when the Government introduced its National Energy Program, it was stated that the Government would involve itself in the construction of a pipeline extension so that natural gas would be available in the Maritimes, particularly in Nova Scotia, by 1983. The importance of that promise made in the National Energy Program was that that natural gas was to be made available to Nova Scotians and other residents of the Maritimes at the Toronto city price, which would have amounted to substantially less than the cost of heating a home in Nova Scotia with oil or electricity, the basic methods of home heating in that Province.
That premise was reaffirmed several times in this House of Commons. This very year, 1982, in the National Energy Program update issued by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the promise was repeated. The Government again said that it had a commitment to the extension of reasonably priced natural gas service to the Maritimes. Therefore, the Government did not forget the promise it made in 1980, even though it did nothing to implement the gas pipeline extension; it repeated the promise in 1982.
What we are concerned with now is the implementation of that promise because the Government has not succeeded in extending the gas pipeline. It can only fulfil its promise by providing financial aid to make up for the harm incurred by Nova Scotians and other Maritimers because of the failure to extend the pipeline.
In specific terms, that harm amounts to this. Home heating oil in Halifax at the present time, by way of example, is $1.46

December 16, 1982
Adjournment Debate
a gallon. It is known that the price for natural gas available in places like Toronto is approximately 67 per cent of the price of petroleum products, particularly home heating oil. Consequently, if that kind of price regime applied to consumers of home heating oil in Nova Scotia, the effective price would be 99 cents a gallon; that is to say, equating natural gas to home heating oil in relation to price, we would find that Nova Scotians would be paying a price of 99 cents instead of the current price of $1.46 a gallon for oil.
This means, in general terms, and I hope Your Honour follows my point, that instead of paying $1,168 a year over the winter months to heat the average home in Nova Scotia, a Nova Scotian family would be paying something like $792 if they had available a price equivalent to the natural gas price. That would mean a savings per family of $376 per year. If one multiplies that by the number of homes in Nova Scotia, over 200,000, one is talking about $80 million.
The point is that because the Government did not fulfil its promise to extend the natural gas pipeline to the Maritimes, particularly Nova Scotia, this very winter Nova Scotians will be paying $80 million more to heat their homes, and that is a conservative estimate because it includes only those people using home heating oil.
Therefore, what I want the Government to do is to consider this situation, consider the promise it made to Nova Scotians, consider the fact that that promise has been broken, and remedy the situation by providing equivalent financial aid.
In these days of cutbacks in Government expenditures, one might ask, where will the Government get the funds to provide this assistance? The fact is that, through the Petroleum Compensation Program, which the Government introduced, allegedly to help Nova Scotians and people on the East Coast to cushion the effects of increases in the cost of oil and home heating oil, as Your Honour knows, the Government provides a compensation program. That compensation paid in respect of oil imported to the East Coast of Canada cost over $3 billion in the last two fiscal years. Of course the price of foreign oil and the price of Canadian oil have come closer together. The price difference has now narrowed. The Government will spend substantially less this year and in the following years than it has in the past two years. This expenditure of approximately $3 billion will be reduced to something in the order of $1.5 billion.
So, Mr. Speaker, the $1.5 billion that the Government is saving in the payments it has been making through the Petroleum Compensation Board in respect of imports of oil should now be available to assist consumers with this increase in cost they are incurring, to heat their homes and for other energy purposes.
That is my request to the Minister, and I hope his Parliamentary Secretary will convey the message to him. Since the Government is saving $1.5 billion and since it has broken its
promise to deliver natural gas to Nova Scotia, causing consumers there an expenditure of over $80 million a year, some of this money should be used to offset that expenditure.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) has raised the particular question, what assistance is the federal Government giving or going to give to the consumers in the Province of Nova Scotia?
I suggest at the outset that the Hon. Member for Halifax West must be running scared to be raising issues of this nature. He knows very well the reasons the pipeline is not proceeding as quickly as we would like. He knows that the Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia has indicated, in agreement with the Government of Canada, that if there is a delay in construction of that pipeline, so be it, because they are now finding natural gas in commercial quantities off the coast of Nova Scotia. Hopefully it will be possible to bring this onstream in the construction of the pipeline, and I am surprised that a Consservative Member of Parliament from Nova Scotia would be in disagreement with the Conservative Government of that Province.
The Hon. Member referred very briefly to the Oil Import Compensation Program. I suggest to the Hon. Member that he ought to take note of the facts. It should be noted that from January 1, 1974 to December 1, 1982, the Oil Import Compensation Program made payments to Nova Scotia totalling over $2.6 billion, yet he has the audacity to ask us what the Government of Canada is doing for Nova Scotia!
1 suggest to the Hon. Member that, in addition to the Oil Import Compensation Program, we should look at the Cape Breton Development Corporation which is being subsidized by the Government of Canada. That Crown corporation and the coal miners who work for it are getting substantially less for the product, which they sell primarily to the Nova Scotia Government, thereby keeping heating costs down. So it is the coal miners in Cape Breton who are subsidizing, to a large extent with the assistance of the Government of Canada, the Nova Scotia Power Corporation.
I suggest, with all due respect, that the Hon. Member for Halifax West, who is running scared obviously because of the political boundary changes which may occur in that Province, ought to embrace his Tory Premier and look at the facts. What he ought to do is to say to the Premier of Nova Scotia that the coal miners of Cape Breton ought to receive a better price for their coal. That is what he ought to be saying. But The Hon. Member refuses to acknowledge those facts. I can only say that I will take his representations under advisement.


NATIONAL PARKS-BANFF LAND EXCHANGE-ROLE OF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. (B) REASON FOR REQUESTING DELAY IN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. (C) REQUEST THAT BULLDOZERS BE REMOVED
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, this part of the Late Show tonight depicts a tragedy. A beautiful park, developed with taxpayers' money over a period of ten years by
December 16, 1982

Parks Canada, with benches for people to rest, with bridges over the stream, with paths for quiet walks so that all could enjoy nature, the birds, the 100 year-old trees and the animals, was destroyed, desecrated by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) in charge of national parks. The Minister allowed men with chainsaws to cut down the trees, bulldozers to tear up the paths so his friend, the Hon. Judd Buchanan, could build an apartment building on the site.
The Minister, knowing he had done wrong, steadfastly refused to investigate. When the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) was asked to freeze the project until a full inquiry was held, the Minister shook his head violently when the Deputy Prime Minister looked at him before answering the question in the House of Commons. He then meekly replied that he could see no reason to investigate. The head of any responsible Government would at least have looked into the matter before condoning it.
What were the Minister's excuses? First, he alleged he had telegrams from the Chamber of Commerce supporting his decision. In fact, he received one telegram over the name of the Banff-Lake Louise Chamber of Commerce which was sent by one or two men without the knowledge of the membership of the Chamber of Commerce, and one telegram, with the knowledge of the Chamber of Commerce, rescinding the first telegram. The Minister calls that support!
Second, the Minister alleged he had the support of the Banff Community Society when in fact that society on at least two occasions told the Minister it supported affordable housing, but asked that any decision to build in the park be held back until at least there was full public disclosure. The Minister conveniently forgot to mention that.
Third, the Minister misled the House by stating that the area had been zoned for multi purposes back in 1970 and that the people knew about it. The fact is it was so zoned and Parks Canada started the development of the park, but the Minister well knows that the people were not told in 1970 that a 76-unit apartment building was going to replace the park. It was only in late 1982 when a leak was published in The Crag and Canyon that the people found out about the under-the-table deal. Yes, it is true that near the end of 1981 it was discovered what was afoot, but the Deputy Minister in a letter stated emphatically that Parks Canada and Treasury Board had not approved the project. This again is a Government misleading the people.
Fourth, the Minister did not refer the case to Treasury Board, alleging that departmental officials did not consider it necessary. The people of Canada have been led to believe that Treasury Board decides whether a project should or should not be approved, which is a check on departmental expenditures. The Minister's action in this regard is hypocrisy of the worst kind.
Adjournment Debate
Fifth, the Minister likewise deliberately avoided referring the matter to the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO). The Minister justifies his actions because affordable accommodation is needed in Banff. Everyone agrees that affordable accommodation is needed, but no one wants it in the only treed park in the townsite. No one wants it in the park. The Minister admitted in committee that he had no guarantees from the developers that the accommodation will be affordable. They said it will be as affordable as possible, but $600 and $800 per month is not affordable accommodation.
In summary, this matter was carried out without letting the people know what was going on. It was done under the table and a park was destroyed. It is a tragedy that will forever stand to the dishonour of a man who dares to continue to be the Minister of the Environment in charge of National Parks.


Mr. Denis Ethier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member well knows, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) has appeared in this House on numerous occasions to answer questions on the issue of the Banff land exchange. In addition, the Minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on the afternoon of December 2 to respond to the Hon. Member's questions. On all occasions he provided forthright, complete answers to all questions directed to him. Yet the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) continues to repeat the same questions as though he had not heard the answers at all. If the Hon. Member were truly interested in finding out the true facts of this case, he would have listened to the answers which are already part of the public record. Despite having repeatedly received full and complete answers to the very questions he poses tonight, he continues with his repetition of worn out, unsubstantiated accusations.
I can see no useful purpose in repeating once again answers to questions the Hon. Member has asked. I would therefore refer him to the pages of Hansard and the minutes of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry meeting of December 2 where he will find all the answers to his questions.
[Translation)
And as always, the Hon. Member would seem to use his parliamentary privileges to lay false charges. If he has further questions to ask or if he has any valid allegation to make, the Minister will be pleased to reply and give him all the information he requests as the Minister has always done in the past. The Hon. Member, in my opinion does not want to understand and he goes on asking the same question. Considering that he has been given all those replies, I do not feel it necessary to carry on with this discussion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock.
At 10.25 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, December 17, 1982